Popular Feminist Takes 'The Red Pill' : Beds White Supremacist

[Ryika]

SJW's don't complain about random stuff, but insteat actually try to change the world for the better. They don't care and they take upon them the evils of the world if its necessary. I think that's kind of manly. When will the Anti-SWJ croud do something that is not self-serving? Do those people actually believe that we live in the best possible world, or are they just too complacent to figure out whats wrong with the world and try to make a change?

SJW is not a term used for people who try to make the world a better place, and it's not a term used to describe people who advocate for social justice either. It's a derogatory term used to describe people who advocate for things just to make themselves look better, while often not caring about whether what they're advocating for is actually true or not, as can be seen by their reactions - an SJW will continue to complain about the unadjusted wage gap ("77c per dollar for the same work!") even after being shown that it's nonsense because he needs big problems to rally against, a sincere advocate for social justice will not, and either rally against the very real adjusted wage gap of a few percentage points, or move on to a more important issue. SJWs care about looking good and feeling morally righteous, they do not care about solving problems.

Which is why I do believe pointing at SJWs and showing how they're hypocrites does make the world a better place. As long as the discourse is dominated by people who have unsound reasons for their advocacy, progress will be difficult.

 

[Akka]

SJW's don't complain about random stuff, but insteat actually try to change the world for the better. They don't care and they take upon them the evils of the world if its necessary. I think that's kind of manly. When will the Anti-SWJ croud do something that is not self-serving? Do those people actually believe that we live in the best possible world, or are they just too complacent to figure out whats wrong with the world and try to make a change?

You kinda got it backward. The SJW are the ones trying to impose thought police and censorship, being self-serving by virtue signaling so hard they end up supporting ridiculous posturing that goes completely against their claimed goals and complacent about what is actually wrong in the world in favour of focusing on lots of pseudo outrage about safe subjects.

The people disgusted at the hypocrisy of SJW ("I'm against racism, and as such I'll build my entire worldview based on race and treating people according to their race") might on the contrary be the ones interested in actual problems and fixing them instead of just grandstanding.

 

[Bill3000]

Very clear.
It could be rephrased in a much less verbose way though :

"Your tastes differ from those I assign to women and blacks. As such, your tastes influence the market in directions that aren't those that I assign to women and blacks, and as such it makes said tastes racist and sexist. Which means, you're indirectly racist and sexist. Please stop having tastes different from those I promote, thanks. Also notice you're a bigot, even if you don't realize it."

Are you a double login of Lexicus or is it contagious ?

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

 

[Akka]

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

More than SJW are familiar with the issue of honesty at the very least.

 

[Narz]

Something amusing : the most brainwashed SJW, who basically throw all the evils of the world on the Straight White Male (boooh !), tend to BE straight white males themselves. I always wonder if it's self-hate, or an attempt to lower the whole group so they can make their own self-proclaimed Tolerance shines brighter in comparison to the non-enlightened masses of their misguided brethrens.

It's called virtue signaling. A very lazy way to attempt to show virtue without actually engaging in an virtueous behavior. Basically you just "call out" others.

 

[Narz]

SJW's don't complain about random stuff, but insteat actually try to change the world for the better. They don't care and they take upon them the evils of the world if its necessary. I think that's kind of manly.

Whining about increasing abstract and nonsensical themes ("culturally appropriation" for instance) instead of taking direct action to benefit anyone is the opposite of manly.

 

[Commodore]

SJW's don't complain about random stuff, but insteat actually try to change the world for the better.

How can you even say this with a straight face?

 

[Bill3000]

More than SJW are familiar with the issue of honesty at the very least.

If you are in fact familiar with it, please explain it to me without looking it up.

 

[Hygro]

Gamergate? It's 2017, why do we care about gamergate? I never got a particularly convincing argument as to why I should have cared overmuch about it in 2014. It's 2017, and gaming is changing. It's much bigger, it's much more profitable, and when something is profitable - nobody leaves you alone to mind your own business. Did I miss the tie in from Bv?

Gamergate itself not that important today, but it was the harbinger of the current youth base of reactionaries. They never cared if it was true, only that it was weaponizable.

point is, humor is a mature defense mechanism. so is art...from Picasso's Guernica to kathy griffin's "head shot" . Projection, reaction formation and intellectualization are not but they’ll do in a pinch

yeaaaah that one is the killer of our times.

I cut my teeth on rescuing princesses, stopping kidnappings, mowing down metroids, Commander Keen, Duke Nukem', and silent protagonists so badass the very act of giving them voice would diminish their badassery. Triple As aren't the same. Now the sports games are RPGs complete with mithril jersies and adamantine bats, we mow down brown people, run over pedestrians for thrills and steal our money back from the hookers we just hired, and robot suits have blue push-up qualities. Hardly any taboos left to break, but somehow still less badass. Oh yeah, and there's some cool stuff too.

GTA is pretty fun, and Breath of The Wild is one of the greatest most badass games ever played.

 

[Gigaz]

SJW is not a term used for people who try to make the world a better place, and it's not a term used to describe people who advocate for social justice either. It's a derogatory term used to describe people who advocate for things just to make themselves look better, while often not caring about whether what they're advocating for is actually true or not, as can be seen by their reactions - an SJW will continue to complain about the unadjusted wage gap ("77c per dollar for the same work!") even after being shown that it's nonsense because he needs big problems to rally against, a sincere advocate for social justice will not, and either rally against the very real adjusted wage gap of a few percentage points, or move on to a more important issue. SJWs care about looking good and feeling morally righteous, they do not care about solving problems.

Which is why I do believe pointing at SJWs and showing how they're hypocrites does make the world a better place. As long as the discourse is dominated by people who have unsound reasons for their advocacy, progress will be difficult.

Well that's apparently entirely your definition for a thing which may or may not exist. Because you cannot possibly tell if someone's being honest about his political beliefs or not. What makes you think that people are willing to listen to you, when you treat them with derogatory terms, and don't take their opinions seriously?

You kinda got it backward. The SJW are the ones trying to impose thought police and censorship, being self-serving by virtue signaling so hard they end up supporting ridiculous posturing that goes completely against their claimed goals and complacent about what is actually wrong in the world in favour of focusing on lots of pseudo outrage about safe subjects.

The people disgusted at the hypocrisy of SJW ("I'm against racism, and as such I'll build my entire worldview based on race and treating people according to their race") might on the contrary be the ones interested in actual problems and fixing them instead of just grandstanding.

Oh booh-hoo. Theres no such thing as thought police because noone can control your thoughts, and when people criticize you for something it's not censorship. I've yet to see good action against racism and related problems that does not come from the "SJW's", all I here from the Antis is Lets keep everything the way it is because whats the actual problem.

 

[Akka]

If you are in fact familiar with it, please explain it to me without looking it up.

Sure, when you actually answer the points I've made first instead of trying to redirect toward some semantic nitpicking or virtue comparison.

 

[Akka]

Oh booh-hoo. Theres no such thing as thought police because noone can control your thoughts, and when people criticize you for something it's not censorship.

You know, when you play dumb, you actually further the point of the person you contradict instead of the opposite, as you show you need to rely on dishonesty. Quite telling

I've yet to see good action against racism and related problems that does not come from the "SJW's", all I here from the Antis is Lets keep everything the way it is because whats the actual problem.

You must have very selective filtering then, because all actual great strides forward came from people who held the exact opposite view of SJW.

 

[Gigaz]

You know, when you play dumb, you actually further the point of the person you contradict instead of the opposite, as you show you need to rely on dishonesty. Quite telling

You must have very selective filtering then, because all actual great strides forward came from people who held the exact opposite view of SJW.

I'm not playing dumb, I'm just asking you to be honest. There is no such thing as thought police or censorship, you're just using some way over the top exaggeration. That's just like calling anyone a Nazi with whom you don't agree.
All great strides forward came from people who were ridiculed as "SJW's" or the sort before they ultimately succeeded. So you better pay attention to the SJWs.

 

[Akka]

I'm not playing dumb, I'm just asking you to be honest. There is no such thing as thought police or censorship, you're just using some way over the top exaggeration. That's just like calling anyone a Nazi with whom you don't agree.

Funny, the ones calling "fascist", "racist" and "sexist" anyone who disagree with them are, precisely the SJW. Pot, meet kettle ?

Funny again, there is no exagerration about censorship or thought police from the SJW, there is only (for now) a lack of power to enforce them. But it's exactly what they are trying to do :

- Censorship : silencing people disagreeing with them is what happens when they gather the clout to do so. Speakers that they disagree with who are booed out of stage, protests to prevent them to express themselves, call for resignation when someone voices an opinion which displease them, etc. That's textbook definition of censorship.

- Thought police : basically, you're always called a bigot when you don't agree. It's not about arguing for a cause, it's about attempting to cow people into obedience through shaming and always-guilty narrative (according to SJW, you're ALWAYS racist and sexist if you're a straight white male, regardless of your opinions or act ; it's like the Original Sin, by the simple fact of existing you're guilty). It's not about

All great strides forward came from people who were ridiculed as "SJW's" or the sort before they ultimately succeeded. So you better pay attention to the SJWs.

Absolutely no great stride forward was from "SJW". People who made stride forward were, on the contrary, people who adhered to larger principles of equality or dignity or humanity. And it's precisely because of this higher strive that they were great persons and managed to get support from everyone with a moral backbone.
Conversely, SJW are the OPPOSITE of said great persons. They aren't fighting for a principle that transcend race or gender, they're fighting AGAINST it and in favour of fracturing and partisan politics which AIM for discrimination.

When MLK fought to allow for a world where his children would be judged on the merit of their character, SJW fight for a world where your race and gender defines what you are and what you shall get. When progressives wanted equality, SJW want quota and special rules.

SJW are the actual racists and sexist : they define persons through their race and gender. They encourage and support discrimination. They try to silence opposition. They fight AGAINST the great principles of equality.
The only difference between the SJW and the traditionnal western racists is that they tend to promote positive discimination for the groups that the traditionnal racist applied negative discrimination against. That's about it. For the rest they're twin.

So don't make me laugh with your "great progress through SJW". SJW's ethics (racial and sexual discrimination) are the exact things actual progressive who improved society fought against all their lives.

 

[Gigaz]

Funny, the ones calling "fascist", "racist" and "sexist" anyone who disagree with them are, precisely the SJW. Pot, meet kettle ?

Funny again, there is no exagerration about censorship or thought police from the SJW, there is only (for now) a lack of power to enforce them. But it's exactly what they are trying to do :

- Censorship : silencing people disagreeing with them is what happens when they gather the clout to do so. Speakers that they disagree with who are booed out of stage, protests to prevent them to express themselves, call for resignation when someone voices an opinion which displease them, etc. That's textbook definition of censorship.

- Thought police : basically, you're always called a bigot when you don't agree. It's not about arguing for a cause, it's about attempting to cow people into obedience through shaming and always-guilty narrative (according to SJW, you're ALWAYS racist and sexist if you're a straight white male, regardless of your opinions or act ; it's like the Original Sin, by the simple fact of existing you're guilty). It's not about

You know what? Thats exactly not the textbook definition of censorship. Noone's being "silenced" when he's being booed out of a stage, protested, or called for resignation. That's just people exercising their right of free speech, which you apparently do not hold in very high regard.
Now, what is actually censorship is when the government prevents you from voicing your opinion in a public space by force, or by destroying newspapers or books that you try to publish, or by deleting your posts on the internet. By equating yourself with actual victims of actual censorship in actually existing circumstances elsewhere, like in contemporary China, you're essentially trying to claim a status both as a victim of oppression and as a brave resistance fighter. Just be aware that a lot of people can see through this.

Absolutely no great stride forward was from "SJW". People who made stride forward were, on the contrary, people who adhered to larger principles of equality or dignity or humanity. And it's precisely because of this higher strive that they were great persons and managed to get support from everyone with a moral backbone.
Conversely, SJW are the OPPOSITE of said great persons. They aren't fighting for a principle that transcend race or gender, they're fighting AGAINST it and in favour of fracturing and partisan politics which AIM for discrimination.

When MLK fought to allow for a world where his children would be judged on the merit of their character, SJW fight for a world where your race and gender defines what you are and what you shall get. When progressives wanted equality, SJW want quota and special rules.

SJW are the actual racists and sexist : they define persons through their race and gender. They encourage and support discrimination. They try to silence opposition. They fight AGAINST the great principles of equality.
The only difference between the SJW and the traditionnal western racists is that they tend to promote positive discimination for the groups that the traditionnal racist applied negative discrimination against. That's about it. For the rest they're twin.

So don't make me laugh with your "great progress through SJW". SJW's ethics (racial and sexual discrimination) are the exact things actual progressive who improved society fought against all their lives.

This discussion is totally pointless here because there's no universal definition of what equality is supposed to be. I will not argue with you about something where we will never find common ground.

 

[Akka]

You know what? Thats exactly not the textbook definition of censorship. Noone's being "silenced" when he's being booed out of a stage, protested, or called for resignation. That's just people exercising their right of free speech, which you apparently do not hold in very high regard.
Now, what is actually censorship is when the government prevents you from voicing your opinion in a public space by force, or by destroying newspapers or books that you try to publish, or by deleting your posts on the internet. By equating yourself with actual victims of actual censorship in actually existing circumstances elsewhere, like in contemporary China, you're essentially trying to claim a status both as a victim of oppression and as a brave resistance fighter. Just be aware that a lot of people can see through this.

From the very post you quote :

there is no exagerration about censorship or thought police from the SJW, there is only (for now) a lack of power to enforce them

The whole point I was making is that SJW do try to censor to the measure of their power. They haven't had the occasion to put censorship into law yet, so obviously they can't have enacted laws about it yet, but their behaviour show a desire to censor dissenting opinions.

Also I find it pretty ironical that you attempt to lecture about free speech while defending people who attempt to shut down anyone with a disagreeing opinion. Nice double standards here (which is, uncoincidentally, one of the most glaring feature of SJW).

This discussion is totally pointless here because there's no universal definition of what equality is supposed to be. I will not argue with you about something where we will never find common ground.

Wow, that's one of the most obvious and pathetic attempt to weasel out of an argument when you are confronted with your own contradictions and can't answer them.

Congrat, you perfectly live up to SJW standards here !

 

[Gigaz]

From the very post you quote :

there is no exagerration about censorship or thought police from the SJW, there is only (for now) a lack of power to enforce them

The whole point I was making is that SJW do try to censor to the measure of their power. They haven't had the occasion to put censorship into law yet, so obviously they can't have enacted laws about it yet, but their behaviour show a desire to censor dissenting opinions.

Also I find it pretty ironical that you attempt to lecture about free speech while defending people who attempt to shut down anyone with a disagreeing opinion. Nice double standards here (which is, uncoincidentally, one of the most glaring feature of SJW).

That's totally ridiculous. I can also claim that you would immediately silence me if you came to power. You seem to be pretty unhappy about people exercising their right of free speech. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Just because I'm willing to boo someone off a stage doesn't mean I would use the police to silence people if I were president. The difference should be pretty obvious.

Wow, that's one of the most obvious and pathetic attempt to weasel out of an argument when you are confronted with your own contradictions and can't answer them.

Congrat, you perfectly live up to SJW standards here !

Look, You and I are not living in the same country I guess. I am very much aware of how laws effectively promote racism, sexism or discrimination of LGBT without mentioning anything of sorts. But I know only the situation and laws in Germany. I know that the problems are pretty much the same anywhere, just the laws are different. And if I don't know the exact context about which I should argue, the discussion is totally pointless. So much about your ridiculous claim of me "Weaseling out". Also I have started the discussion to point out how pathetic the Anti-SJW croud is, because they're essentially not having any own ideas and just oppose stuff. So I'm not weaseling out for the second reason because I'm just not going into a discussion which you would like to have and which you can have with someone else if you like.

 

[Senethro]

Yah, note that SJW is a poorly defined term that functionally means "person who has issues with this status quo that suits me really well".

Once the status quo/centre gets readjusted then past SJWs get rehabilitated and claimed as being good guys all along really. Until the next time...

 

[Flying Pig]

Moderator Action: It's clear that arguing over who 'SJWs' are and want is not doing any good. Moreover, it has clearly slipped into trolling - calling each other 'SJWs' while ascribing blanket negative motivations to 'SJWs' is unacceptable. This thread currently has a short life expectancy, and any more of this discussion will see it put out of its misery.

 

[Akka]

That's totally ridiculous. I can also claim that you would immediately silence me if you came to power.

The difference being, you will have a hard time finding me advocating for censorship of differing opinions and preventing people from expressing themselves, while there is numerous cases of people being blocked from making speech, harassed for what they said, lobbied for being fired and so on.
That's the difference between a gratuitous claim, and a claim made based on factual behaviour.

You seem to be pretty unhappy about people exercising their right of free speech.

Strawman detected !
I am denouncing a behaviour of people who prevent others from free speech, and you manage to twist that into ME being against free speech ?
And you wonder from where "dishonest" and "hypocrite" accusation stem from ?

That doesn't make it a valid argument. Just because I'm willing to boo someone off a stage doesn't mean I would use the police to silence people if I were president. The difference should be pretty obvious.

The difference is that in one case you don't have the backing of the government to enforce your attempt at preventing someone to express himself. I don't really see how it means that the intent of silencing opposition would suddendly disappear if you were the president, if you have it when you weren't.

Look, You and I are not living in the same country I guess.

We're not (yet) with the obsession about race that the USA have, but it is spreading fast, sadly.
I mean, we do have our racism problems too, but for now we try to fix it through the idea that racism is bad ("you shouldn't treat people differently due to their skin colour") than through selective racism ("actually, we say racism is bad but we'll treat people differently according to their skin colour and hope nobody notice the hypocrisy").

I am very much aware of how laws effectively promote racism, sexism or discrimination of LGBT without mentioning anything of sorts. But I know only the situation and laws in Germany. I know that the problems are pretty much the same anywhere, just the laws are different.

I'm familiar with this argument, and though it has some merits sometimes, it tends to be just far too selective and biased in its approach to be blindly followed like a mantra.
It's obsessed for the consequences of laws toward a selected subgroup of population, and completely ignore and is unconcerned about the inherent fairness or unfairness of the laws themselves.

And if I don't know the exact context about which I should argue, the discussion is totally pointless. So much about your ridiculous claim of me "Weaseling out". Also I have started the discussion to point out how pathetic the Anti-SJW croud is, because they're essentially not having any own ideas and just oppose stuff. So I'm not weaseling out for the second reason because I'm just not going into a discussion which you would like to have and which you can have with someone else if you like.

I'm denouncing people who claim that racism and sexism are bad, and yet are practicing them. People who forgot WHAT is bad in racism and sexism, and think that because they reverse the flow of discrimination, suddendly it becomes okay to judge, favour or disfavour a person according to their skin colour or genitals.
I denounce the broken reasoning which works like saying "death is bad, so I'm going to kill you to prevent you to die, which show how much I care for you". Which is tangle mess of self-contradiction, hypocrisy and attempt to self-aggrandise.