What is a Social Justice Warrior?

[Trausti]

Well, that explains the conservative snowflake mentality.

And BLM, too.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, that explains the conservative snowflake mentality.

And BLM, too.

Get some ice on it, snowflake.

 

[Trausti]

And BLM, too.

Get some ice on it, snowflake.

As you're the resident SJW on the board, I guess I'll take that as a complement. Thanks!

 

[Jarhyn]

TL;DR life hurts. All of it. Suck it up and learn to like it, or this train isn't for you.

So I've been trying to detangle the whole mess for months now. Years even. There is a lot of conflation here, so it makes things more difficult to address as terms collide with different groups.

I know that there are a few factions in play.

First, there is a group of children who don't wantto grow up and whose parents and society droppedthe ball. This group is marked by a lack of maturity in that they don't want their lives to hurt. They don't want to stick their heads out into society and nature where jt will get chewed on and bitten off. They don't want life to be the hell that it alwaysand only ever can be. They think k their own innocence makes them precious snowflakes rather than useless immature whiners. These people want childhood to last forever.

Then there is another group who has also failed to grow up, but in a different way. This group doesn't realize why they shouldn't always do whatever they want. They also want to have a life where they do not suffer and hurt, but they see suffering a not getting what they want when they want it.

Neither group can get the other side to take their point of view because neither group has learned how to grow the fuck up and accept that sometimes suffering is not just something to accept but something you have an obligation to teach yourself how to *enjoy*. And it's not easy tricking a brain into enjoying hell of any kind. It takes creativity and intelligence and *work* of the sort that leaves not only the body but the mind exhausted.

If SJWs could just accept that things they don't like happen to them, will continue to happen to them, and that the world and themselves are both perfectly *physically* capable of continuing to function in spite of this hell, that they have the superpower of perverting themselves to LIKE it, and that they have the additional responsibility and work of deciding when it is appropriate to use that super power, the world would be a much less hostile place.

Likewise, if MRA would just realize that you can't always get what you want, the way you want it and/or when you want it, but that they and the world will still be perfectly *physically* capable of functioning despite them being in this state of hell, that they have the super power of perverting themselves to LIKE it, and the additional responsibility of figuring out alternatives to what they want, the world will be a better place.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Like anything else, it's a world full of nuance, and everyone just LOVES providing simple, sound bite answers. People love categorizing things into their "proper" place so that they don't have to think too much.

There are SJW's who are not grown up, whiney and want to suppress free speech.

There are SJW's that value free speech, but want to make the world a better place and use social media to do so. There are even safe spaces that have legitimate and therapeutic use.

SJW is not a new phenomenon, although the term is rather new.

There are "regressive leftists" that honestly see a threat to free speech and want to maintain their freedom.

There are "regressive leftists" that label virtually anyone that doesn't agree with them as racists.

Very few people take time to find out who is actually who. But, the left has a habit of metabolizing itself sometimes. Especially of late.

 

[Trausti]

I think an identifying characteristic of SJW's is a lack of sense of humor.

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/seth-rogens-sausage-party-crashed-by-sjws-accused-of-racism/

 

[laughing dog]

Get some ice on it, snowflake.

As you're the resident SJW on the board, I guess I'll take that as a complement. Thanks!

On noes, a humorless "no u r" jab. Really, get some ice on it before you melt away, snowflake, because, as you said,
"I think an identifying characteristic of SJW's is a lack of sense of humor. "

 

[Angry Floof]

For the damaged mongrels among us:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCNS4eGmuY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Trausti]

As you're the resident SJW on the board, I guess I'll take that as a complement. Thanks!

On noes, a humorless "no u r" jab. Really, get some ice on it before you melt away, snowflake, because, as you said,
"I think an identifying characteristic of SJW's is a lack of sense of humor. "

You interpret the response as a lack of sense of humor? Poor, poor, laughing dog. Who has peed in your Cheerios?

 

[Trausti]

For the damaged mongrels among us:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCNS4eGmuY[/YOUTUBE]

And yet another characteristic of SJW's; the moral smugness of dictating what people can and cannot say. It's all about control.

 

[Angry Floof]

For the damaged mongrels among us:

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQCNS4eGmuY[/YOUTUBE]

And yet another characteristic of SJW's; the moral smugness of dictating what people can and cannot say. It's all about control.

And yet another demonstration that some people will never develop past weak insults. Pitiful. That's all you've got.

 

[Trausti]

And yet another characteristic of SJW's; the moral smugness of dictating what people can and cannot say. It's all about control.

And yet another demonstration that some people will never develop past weak insults. Pitiful. That's all you've got.

The problem with political correctness is it stifles debate and conversation. According to the video you posted, PC is okay because you're only calling out jerks. But attacking someone as a jerk, or otherwise, is not an argument. An argument requires a substantive response to that which you are critiquing. The PC narrative as presented in that video is that, if you believe your position to have moral superiority, it is acceptable to avoid addressing the substance of the argument by demeaning the speaker. That is anti-intellectualism.

And the notion that such rhetorical slights are not disingenuous because the opposing speaker's views are prima face invalid is spurious. Do remember that this is the same justification put forth by religious authoritarians. In medieval Europe someone who voiced a view differing from the truth of the Catholic Church was a heretic, i.e., a jerk, regardless if observation showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe. This is the same of present day Islamists, too, who do not hide their disgust of free speech. For them the jerk is the kafir, who spreads ideas which may lead Muslims astray from Allah's truth.

 

[Angry Floof]

And yet another demonstration that some people will never develop past weak insults. Pitiful. That's all you've got.

snip

I'll read this pathetic tripe when you actually listen to the video. (Hint: infantile put downs are not courageous. That's just stupidity pretending to say something, and does nothing at all but stifle debate.)

 

[Trausti]

snip

I'll read this pathetic tripe when you actually listen to the video. (Hint: infantile put downs is not courageous, it's just stupidity pretending to say something.)

Good on you, Angry Floof. Avoid substance, just demean. You've been taught well.

 

[Angry Floof]

I'll read this pathetic tripe when you actually listen to the video. (Hint: infantile put downs is not courageous, it's just stupidity pretending to say something.)

Good on you, Angry Floof. Avoid substance, just demean. You've been taught well.

And you keep demonstrating the point so well! By the way, have you ever read The Authoritarians? It's a free ebook, very easy to read. I bet you won't be able to, but it's worth the suggestion. (Another hint: the book explains a lot about the callous and stunted mentality that seems to be getting ever more popular with Trump in the election, and also explains why you won't read it.) The link is in my signature.

 

[Trausti]

Good on you, Angry Floof. Avoid substance, just demean. You've been taught well.

And you keep demonstrating the point so well! By the way, have you ever read The Authoritarians? It's a free ebook, very easy to read. I bet you won't be able to, but it's worth the suggestion. (Another hint: the book explains a lot about the callous and stunted mentality that seems to be getting ever more popular with Trump in the election, and also explains why you won't read it.) The link is in my signature.

Yeah. You go social justice warrior. You go.

Top Khmer Rouge leader tells court he fought for 'social justice'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-khmer-rouge-leader-tells-court-fought-social-135526370.html?ref=gs

 

[laughing dog]

You interpret the response as a lack of sense of humor? Poor, poor, laughing dog. Who has peed in your Cheerios?

Crank up the AC and get some ice before you completely meltdown, snowflake.

Another characteristic of conservative SJWs is the conflation of stupid with clever.

 

[Trausti]

You interpret the response as a lack of sense of humor? Poor, poor, laughing dog. Who has peed in your Cheerios?

Crank up the AC and get some ice before you completely meltdown, snowflake.

Another characteristic of conservative SJWs is the conflation of stupid with clever.

So it was me. I'm the one who pissed in your Cheerios.

 

[laughing dog]

Crank up the AC and get some ice before you completely meltdown, snowflake.

Another characteristic of conservative SJWs is the conflation of stupid with clever.

So it was me. I'm the one who pissed in your Cheerios.

Keep going, you are the ever-ready bunny for stupid.

 

[KeepTalking]

And yet another demonstration that some people will never develop past weak insults. Pitiful. That's all you've got.

The problem with political correctness is it stifles debate and conversation.

It does no such thing, rather it just points out when someone is being and asshole for the sake of being an asshole. That kind of person usually has no desire to debate or hold an actual conversation, they just want to be offensive and have their buddies pat them on the back for it.

According to the video you posted, PC is okay because you're only calling out jerks. But attacking someone as a jerk, or otherwise, is not an argument.

You are right, pointing out that someone is being a jerk is an observation. If the argument has gotten to that point, then there isn't much chance of salvaging it anyway.

An argument requires a substantive response to that which you are critiquing.

It also requires something of substance to critique. Being a jerk is not offering a substantive argument, it is just posturing.