Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

What Haidt has or hasn't to say is entirely irrelevant if you're going to misrepresent him as much as I am when I merely respond based on what you have said.
"Postmodern Cultural Marxism"
"rioting at "racist language""
If he isn't going on about such things, then perhaps you shouldn't either if you're using him as your support?
If you're falling back on tired old right wing tropes mixed with hyperbole, you should start by looking at yourself if you're worried about hypersensitivity.

Huh? you're not even making sense.

"rioting at "racist language""

That's got nothing to do with Jonothan Haidt. it's from the Huffington Post article I linked in the same post as that statement. Maybe you could actually read the article and make up your own mind instead of skimming what I wrote so you could randomly attack a couple of words out of context. The article explains that people lost their shit over some innocuous statement by a professor, they're rioting to the point that they were smashing windows, threatening people with baseball bats, and armed police had to be called in to secure the campus.

i provided the relevant context in the actual post, as well as the link to where I got that information. Which is a left-wing source. How is this right wing talking points? YES, they are rioting at Evergreen university and it's over something that's a complete non-issue that was construed to be racist. The context should be completely clear, but you seem too irrationally angry to actually read and take in any information.

What specific point were you making by picking out these words?

~~~

"Postmodern Cultural Marxism"

but I never attributed this to Jonothan Haidt.  So i didn't misrepresent him.

~~~

Remember, you were the person who challenged my use of the term "sjw" so I was trying to define who i meant, and by extension, exclude those I didn't mean.

postmodern cultural marxism is in fact a very good definition of what sjws are about

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

Postmodern feminism's major departure from other branches of feminism is perhaps the argument that sex, or at least gender is itself constructed through language, a view notably propounded in Judith Butler's 1990 book, Gender Trouble.

Gender as a social construct is from postmodernism. sjws are part of the postmodern feminist current. This is just a fact and not a right-wing slur.

Maybe "cultural marxist" was the wrong term to use, I didn't realize some of the connotations / history of the term.

But the type of feminism prominent in sjw circles is definitely derived from marxist theory. That's fairly elementary in analyses of class power / treating gender as class oppression etc.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The only incidents i have seen are actually the opposite. mostly right wingers painting anti Hillary stuff on the sidewalks and passing out constitutions when they are not supposed to without permission. i should mention that Hillary literally came to my campus right before the election.

We also have a ridiculous over-the-top Young Republicans student org. They make everyone uncomfortable and end their sessions by chanting USA, USA, USA so loudly that the other orgs usually get interrupted--the administration had to tell them to cool it. That's about as far as right wing stuff goes I think.

[alway]

Also "kent state shootings" is wildly off tangent. That's not even the kind of thing what Haidt & co are even talking about. it's about policing of language, censorship, and hypersensitivity.

the rioting at Evergreen it's in the Huffington Post article that I linked in the SAME POST. Bringing up Haidt in relation to that isn't relevant.

And yet you seem to be trying to tie them together. I never mentioned Haidt.

Did you even take a second to read what Huffington Post is saying is happening? sjw students are threatening people with baseball bats, vandalizing things and carrying out vigilante justice. Their words, not mine.
 ...
Also, postmodern cultural marxism is in fact the basis of modern feminist theory, especially that popular on campuses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_feminism

Postmodern feminism's major departure from other branches of feminism is perhaps the argument that sex, or at least gender is itself constructed through language, a view notably propounded in Judith Butler's 1990 book, Gender Trouble.

^ this is exactly what sjw's think. The dominant strand of feminism on campuses is in fact the postmodern one. That's not "slur" it's just historical fact.

And Marxist analysis is in fact central to the tenets of modern feminism. Patriarchy theory stems from Marxist analysis of class, but applied to gender. It's not a slur, because that's central to the whole thing.

And this comes back to my original point about over generalizations: You're talking about how 'sjws are vandalizing and terrorizing' in one breath, then implying those who believe certain things are somehow in their camp, related, or in agreement about beliefs, tactics or actions. That's your overgeneralization right there: you're defining 'sjw' as 'people with ideology x' then painting everyone in that category as being represented by individual actions you disagree with, taken by, at best, a minority of that group so small the average person won't actually encounter one in their lifetime.

[Reelya]

And yet you seem to be trying to tie them together. I never mentioned Haidt.

Umm what bro?

What Haidt has or hasn't to say is entirely irrelevant if you're going to misrepresent him as much as I am when I merely respond based on what you have said.
"Postmodern Cultural Marxism"
"rioting at "racist language""
If he isn't going on about such things, then perhaps you shouldn't either if you're using him as your support?

No bro, you did mention him and tried to tie him into statements I made that were not related to him. That's exactly what you did and it's baffling that you can claim you never mentioned him.

Seriously bro, you bookended the quotes with mentions of Haidt. you were the person who connected them, not me. Honestly, i quoted you twice now. You were the one who linked the concepts, it's in black and white on this very page. You're not making any substantial points, you're connecting dots that I did not then lying about it, then accusing me of doing it, when you are in fact the person who brought up that particular point, and I was responding to you, the same as the "define sjws" point. That was your point, not mine. I was responding to you over it. And you're positively gloating about being ignorant about the sources provided. To be honest, at this point you're sounding more and more like a creationist.

What happened at Evergreen is relevant to what Jonothan Haidt is talking about because it's part of the same phenomena. It only represents one example of what he's talking about.

Sure you can derail into an abstract argument about "what is an sjw?" and conclude that sjw cannot be 100% defined. But that doesn't change what's happening in the real world, which Haidt, and many other commentators have been writing about for a few years now. You can derail this into semantics, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a real thing that's going on, however you want to label it.

[scriver]

How about literally anyone not involved in any of the incidents which you are somehow attributing to some nebulous social media hivemind? The whole point of the term sjw is to allow you to take a bunch of disconnected entities with varying goals and means to accomplishing those goals and pretend they are all the same organized group, so long as you can make it sound vaguely liberal/left and can make an outrage party over it. All these examples are hyperlocal politics and entirely disconnected.

This could be said about absolutely every political movement or activism made up out of people. You wouldn't be able to talk about the American Christian Right or Tea Partyers, as two very common examples.Clearly there is no moralist attempt to enforce reactionary Christian values in the US, it's all just "disconnected entities with varying goals and means to accomplishing those goals", and any attempts to call them a movement clearly must mean you think they are a "hive-mind" instead of individuals.

You can't just ignore societal and cultural context when it suits you, alway. It's especially ridiculous in the modern worlds where the internet has made physical disconnection mean less for societal and cultural disconnection than ever before.

[Sheb]

PTW

[RedKing]

PTSJW

[Ghazkull]

I am fascinated at how this entire thing has exploded in the US (or has it spread to somewhere else too?). It amazes me everytime how people almost bash each others heads in over the topic on both sides.
And each and everytime something of such a discussion catches my eye i'm sitting down with my morbid fascination of it, get out the popcorn and wallow in my "Schadenfreude".

But more seriously, i don't understand why you two are almost at eachothers throats within 5 posts, step back cool your heads and don't immediately assume your opponent is a monster or construe what he is saying in the worst possible way.

That aside, what are micro-aggressions, i never heard of that?

[itisnotlogical]

That aside, what are micro-aggressions, i never heard of that?

When it was explained to me, it basically amounted to being a dick in many small ways that add up. Things like looming over somebody in an attempt to intimidate them, breathing down their neck, messing with things on their desk, staring at them, etc. all of which are shitty on their own but are even worse as patterns of behavior.

[Reelya]

Hey I'm not at alway's throat. He was gunning for me from the start and hasn't engaged with any of the information.

which you are somehow attributing to some nebulous social media hivemind?

^ he strawmanned me here, and is using the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy. It's a fallacy when the riducule has no basis in reality. Reductio ad absurdum is the valid form: it's where you show that if you accept a belief then some absurdity must logically follow. If the absurdity does not necessarily follow from the premise, then it is a logical fallacy to use this argument form.

Saying that some ideas spread rapidly because social media exists is far from claiming a "nebulous social media hivemind" exists.

The point was that this movement spread rapidly from campus to campus because social media is thing now. That point is made not by me, but by professor Jonothan Haidt of New York University. The dates and claims are his, not mine. Alway let me know when you are a university professor and i'll weight your dismissal of the stated events equally with Mr Haidt's claims that they happened.

so long as you can make it sound vaguely liberal/left and can make an outrage party over it.

^ labeling me a right winger, even though I specifically used the term sjw to make it clear i wasn't targeting liberals or the left. He's putting words in my mouth. When in fact I already wrote "How else can you refer to them? "liberals" "feminists" "the left" are some of the other options, and they're all FAR too wide, and they don't map very well onto this phenomena."

If we're being honest here, this sort of thing isn't something that magically appeared in 2013 with social media

Passive aggressive accusation that I am dishonest / lying. When i only cited what reputable sources are saying. Words like "magically" are also fallacious if they mischaracterize the opponents point. And how would Alway even know what Haidt said started in 2013 if he refuses to watch the videos? If we were being honest, we'd watch the videos, know what Haidt SAID started in 2013, and refrain from strawmanning "this sort of thing" which could be fucking anything.

it would be much more accurate to say you've merely not been around long enough to pay attention to it happening before.

Labeling me a noob, pure insult. And the structure "it would be much more accurate to say you are an 'xyz' " is in fact a classic passive aggressive statement.

It's also an insult to Jonothan Haidt, Sam Harris and numerous other liberal scholars from whom i sourced the information. Is alway a genius and half the college professors don't know wtf they're talking about?

conservatives can only now make careers on reactionary youtube outrage videos about it.

Misrepresenting and misunderstanding the linked source material so he can excuse himself from actually looking at the material.

What Haidt has or hasn't to say is entirely irrelevant if you're going to misrepresent him

Accuses me of misrepresenting Haidt, but also alway excuses themselves from actually engaging with Haidt's discourse here. And then acts like it's my fault that alway is ignorant of what Haidt says.

alway was the one who misrepresented Jonothan Haidt by calling him a "conservative" who makes "reactionary youtube outrage videos". So this is some sort of weird projection. i didn't attribute anything to Haidt he didn't actually say, alway smeared his name without knowing anything about who he is, then accuses me of misrepresenting him.

"rioting at "racist language""

Cherry picks these quotes and ridicules them, when the incident was described exactly like that in the Huffington Post article.

And yet you seem to be trying to tie them together. I never mentioned Haidt.

This is gaslighting and outright lying. alway accused me of misrepresenting Haidt, and linked unrelated words out of context. Then when I respond to that, pointing out the context of the quotes which was unrelated to Haidt in any way, he accuses me of trying to tie them together and denies bringing it up. How exasperating do you think it is to have someone bring up a topic in an accusatory tone, then when you point out that the accusations have no basis, the person denies having concocted the topic and grills you over why you're talking about it? This is not good faith debate.

You're talking about how 'sjws are vandalizing and terrorizing'

Straw manning. I linked exactly one article in which sjw people had vandalized some stuff, and the only mention of that was in that one post. That's not the core argument here.

And to fake quote me as saying sjws are "terrorizing" is really offensive. alway is escalating to language related to terrorism. That is fucking pathetic and offensive. It's got nothing to do with anything I said.

And so on.

I tried to debate in good faith. alway, you used every weasely debating tactic in the book, and are in fact acting like the people Haidt describes who refuse to engage with discourse they might disagree with. I would say that's ironic, but it's probably not.

[smjjames]

The whole SJW 'trigger word' and 'ableist' (which is the same as SJW?) makes me thing of the proverb "Eye for an eye makes everybody blind", basically, if you go down a ridiculous path, like would 'running' turn into 'move very fast', but then some people can't move fast, or move perhaps, which ends up cutting out half the english language. Which is kind of their aim as it's a way to attempt to shut down other people talking. edit: Okay, that's not quite the meaning of the proverb, but it seems apt.

I am fascinated at how this entire thing has exploded in the US (or has it spread to somewhere else too?). It amazes me everytime how people almost bash each others heads in over the topic on both sides.
And each and everytime something of such a discussion catches my eye i'm sitting down with my morbid fascination of it, get out the popcorn and wallow in my "Schadenfreude".

If it ever gets to this level in other countries (though the UK has shown some indications of it), I haven't heard of it, but the type of person that is SJW isn't an US monopoly.

[sluissa]

That aside, what are micro-aggressions, i never heard of that?

When it was explained to me, it basically amounted to being a dick in many small ways that add up. Things like looming over somebody in an attempt to intimidate them, breathing down their neck, messing with things on their desk, staring at them, etc. all of which are shitty on their own but are even worse as patterns of behavior.

While that might be the proper term, almost anything can be labelled a micro-aggression if someone feels like it and it often gets used that way. It seems to be a word made up to go along with "You're doing these things, but they're not strictly illegal so I need an angry sounding word to call them to rile up peoples emotions." At its most useful it can be labeling individual actions which as part of a pattern of behavior lead to full on harassment. But more popularly it turns into things like "manspreading." Small individual actions which usually occur on their own because they're an interaction between strangers which may never see each other again. Actions which can't be constituted as a problem on their own but someone doesn't like anyway and thus they decide to attach a label to it which makes people feel sorry for them.

Difference between "Someone bothered me today." and "Someone harassed me today." Essentially saying the same thing, but you change the wording and the latter sounds so much worse and triggers emotions.

I am fascinated at how this entire thing has exploded in the US (or has it spread to somewhere else too?). It amazes me everytime how people almost bash each others heads in over the topic on both sides.

It's quite prevalent in Western Europe as well. Sweden, Norway and parts of the UK at the very least. Confined for the most part to the bigger cities, however, as it is in the US.

[Reelya]

The whole SJW 'trigger word' and 'ableist' (which is the same as SJW?)

Yeah, ableism is part of the core belief system. There are 6 protected groups in the social justice movement (with Muslims tentatively as a 7th, however that's more recent). Haidt talks about this 22 minutes into the 2nd video.

And i just want to reiterate that none of the sources I'm getting my information from are on the right.

The first video was from a podcast discussion between Jonothan Haidt + Sam Harris, who is a liberal atheist author.
The second video was a lecture at Harvard on the "Program on Constitutional Government at Harvard" youtube channel.
The third video was a panel discussion at NYU, and published on the "NYU School of Law" youtube channel.
For the riots at Evergreen college, I posted an article from The Huffington Post.

I mean ... when you take care to only cite reputable sources then people who refuse to look at the sources accuse you of citing conservative propaganda anyway ...

[NJW2000]

If we're being honest with ourselves, the whole "sjw" thing is vastly over-exaggerated by people on the internet who have little else to do. The majority of feminists and other social justice campaigners in US colleges and elsewhere are pretty reasonable, anecdotes aside. The obsession with the worst possible examples of social justice movements and unlikely tidings of doom in the absence of any actual social agenda is actually rather heartening for the left. It demonstrates that conservatives find it difficult to offer opposing social values and must content themselves to ridicule the other side. Alongside this, the fact that examples can so readily be found to ridicule such movements suggests that socially liberal activists have comparatively little left to do on such places as university campuses, and will, if they remain politically active, turn their attention to external injustices, economic agendas, etc.

Well, that's my two cents.


Seeing as we're doing this:

My own experience in education of the two sides clashing has been rather subdued, perhaps because I live in England, yet there are examples of both strongly left- and right-wing positions. The most disruptive thing thing the left has done was probably to put up sheets of paper on walls showing a (public) facebook comment in which a student compared Black Lives Matter to the Nazi regime. A violation of school regulations, the posters not being put up on the correct noticeboards. The most disruptive evidence of right-wing sentiments I have observed was a student pretending to throw up a little in his throat every time he read the word "feminist" in a philosophy class briefly looking at the early suffragette Mary Wollstonecraft. The teacher asked him to stop, thinking this in rather poor taste.

And they've said on camera they couldn't give a shit about actual trauma sufferers being in the room and seeing distressing material, if they don't fit into the right "oppression" label.

If anyone's confused about what I've said about selected anecdotes as evidence, this quote probably won't clear things up.

[smjjames]

I'm well aware that it's almost entirely a liberal (or left wing, if you will) phenomenon, as shown by it's prevalence in colleges, which have a highly liberal bent. There probably are some conservatives who do that kind of stuff and conservatives aren't innocent in indulging in identity politics, but the great majority are certainly left wing ideologically.

When it comes to Europe though, given that the US 'moderate or center-Left' is actually more like center-right in the European political spectrum, some might be right wing in the European sense, but I don't know enough of it in Europe.