|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 4, 2017 0:54:19 GMT
I think everyone on here is agreed that equality is a good thing. Everyone deserves a fair shake in life and be able to live however and whoever they want to with. No one should be judged by gender or race.
However, what has been making news for the last few years is the 'social justice warrior' i.e. internet activists who 'endorse' what are percieved as extreme methods in the name of equality. So the question arises: could these people actually be doing more harm than good, and may themselves be inadvertantly advocating racist or sexist ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 4, 2017 3:56:21 GMT
I've read a bit about them, experienced them in a limited fashion and see no value in them at all. All they seem to do ( and I know this is a generalisation so bear with me) is tarnish whatever cause they espouse (if it's a good one and I had enough of gamergate explained to me that I know it in particular wasn't) and drive people who may agree with their "principles" away or into silence because they don't want to be seen to agree with these people.
As for inadvertently? Some perhaps. Many are quite openly doing so, assuming that they are entitled to spout bile at anyone because they're on the net. It is bad when they have become such a "thing" that their opponents, however dreadful THEY may be, can just play the SJW card and let that stand.
The trouble is they too are amorphous and intersectional, so each needs to be addressed on a case by case basis.
It's 4 am. I may need more sleep to give a better response!
|
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Mar 4, 2017 3:59:09 GMT
Possible renaming of the thread? Social justice is NOT equality's enemy. "Are Social Justice Warriors Equality's biggest enemy?" How about that? I don't see how social justice itself could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Mar 4, 2017 4:34:38 GMT
Bear with me because I've been fighting off the flu all day, so I might babble a bit, but I don't think so. Any group is going to have fringe members who take things too far. However, Social Justice Warriors are comparatively rare out in the wild, and they mainly exist as the bogeymen of the alt-right. They're a tiny subsection of the subculture they inhabit.
I read a great article on Safe Spaces by a minority student who said that she wanted a place to talk with people in similar situations without some dudebro fratboy coming up and asking "Why isn't there a White History Month?"
Trigger Warnings are another issue that's been blown out of proportion. I've always seen them as similar to braille on signs in buildings, as something that does not impact my life in the slightest, but which could be of invaluable service to someone in different circumstances. I don't think it should be controversial to alert a survivor of sexual assault that the topic will be coming up so that he or she can prepare for it.
I think the real problem is in the opposite direction, in liberals who try so hard to be impartial that they prize false comity as a virtue above all else. Repulsive points of view should not be censored, but nor should they be ignored.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 6:25:03 GMT
I think everyone on here is agreed that equality is a good thing. Everyone deserves a fair shake in life and be able to live however and whoever they want to with. No one should be judged by gender or race. However, what has been making news for the last few years is the rise of the infamous 'social justice warriors' i.e. internet activists who endorse extreme methods and censorship in the supposed name of equality. You've probably heard this term tossed around with all the kurfuffle going on in American universities, the to-do about safe spaces, triggering and, well, Tumblr. So the question arises: are these people actually doing more harm than good to the cause they claim to champion, and may themselves be inadvertantly advocating racist or sexist ideas? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by icecreamdf on Mar 4, 2017 6:26:21 GMT
SJWs is a stupid term that refers to a liberal strawmen that barely exist. Some Republicans will either use extreme but rare examples of people going too far, or will just remove important context that explains why "SJWs" are doing what they are doing. It allows them to ignore certain viewpoints by painting them as crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 4, 2017 10:04:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 4, 2017 10:06:45 GMT
Bear with me because I've been fighting off the flu all day, so I might babble a bit, but I don't think so. Any group is going to have fringe members who take things too far. However, Social Justice Warriors are comparatively rare out in the wild, and they mainly exist as the bogeymen of the alt-right. They're a tiny subsection of the subculture they inhabit. I read a great article on Safe Spaces by a minority student who said that she wanted a place to talk with people in similar situations without some dudebro fratboy coming up and asking "Why isn't there a White History Month?" Trigger Warnings are another issue that's been blown out of proportion. I've always seen them as similar to braille on signs in buildings, as something that does not impact my life in the slightest, but which could be of invaluable service to someone in different circumstances. I don't think it should be controversial to alert a survivor of sexual assault that the topic will be coming up so that he or she can prepare for it. I think the real problem is in the opposite direction, in liberals who try so hard to be impartial that they prize false comity as a virtue above all else. Repulsive points of view should not be censored, but nor should they be ignored. Trigger warnings I'm not bothered by (though there's no way you can prepare for every situation and every person because, well, everything is an awfully big thing), but safe spaces are too broad a concept as of this time and, let's face it, we all know 'those people' in establishments who would use them as a lazy fix instead of dealing with the issues. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 11:08:07 GMT
Bear with me because I've been fighting off the flu all day, so I might babble a bit, but I don't think so. Any group is going to have fringe members who take things too far. However, Social Justice Warriors are comparatively rare out in the wild, and they mainly exist as the bogeymen of the alt-right. They're a tiny subsection of the subculture they inhabit. I read a great article on Safe Spaces by a minority student who said that she wanted a place to talk with people in similar situations without some dudebro fratboy coming up and asking "Why isn't there a White History Month?" Trigger Warnings are another issue that's been blown out of proportion. I've always seen them as similar to braille on signs in buildings, as something that does not impact my life in the slightest, but which could be of invaluable service to someone in different circumstances. I don't think it should be controversial to alert a survivor of sexual assault that the topic will be coming up so that he or she can prepare for it. I think the real problem is in the opposite direction, in liberals who try so hard to be impartial that they prize false comity as a virtue above all else. Repulsive points of view should not be censored, but nor should they be ignored. Trigger warnings I'm not bothered by (though there's no way you can prepare for every situation and every person because, well, everything is an awfully big thing), but safe spaces are too broad a concept as of this time and, let's face it, we all know 'those people' in establishments who would use them as a lazy fix instead of dealing with the issues. As someone who suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder and knows other people who are affected in similar ways, trigger warnings are a nice little way of prepping the mind for topics that can spark off a mental avalanche if you're simply not ready for them. I certainly wouldn't ever want such discussions to be censored though. People need to be able to talk about these kinds of things, if only so people know how to handle such a situation when it occurs. It's nothing like what Hollywood films would lead others to believe. Extremism is as extremism does, it's inevitable that each political orientation would have its own outliers -- whether real or imagined -- and that the other side would attempt to use them to discredit their views (natch). Where "social justice warriors" tend to fall down is in the same area that alt-right groups do; i.e. you need a blend of both ideologies in order for your society to function in a healthy manner. Without tradition there is nothing to challenge or expand from and without reform civilisations die slow, hollow deaths through attrition. Both need each other to survive. |
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677 
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 4, 2017 13:46:20 GMT
I don't like extremists but hardcore SJWs are unlikely to kill me as opposed to extremists from the other end of the spectrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Mar 4, 2017 13:56:29 GMT
I don't like extremists but hardcore SJWs are unlikely to kill me as opposed to extremists from the other end of the spectrum. No, but then again, at least the other extremists will get it over quickly compared to the usual SJW tedium. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Mar 4, 2017 14:05:53 GMT
Bear with me because I've been fighting off the flu all day, so I might babble a bit, but I don't think so. Any group is going to have fringe members who take things too far. However, Social Justice Warriors are comparatively rare out in the wild, and they mainly exist as the bogeymen of the alt-right. They're a tiny subsection of the subculture they inhabit. I read a great article on Safe Spaces by a minority student who said that she wanted a place to talk with people in similar situations without some dudebro fratboy coming up and asking "Why isn't there a White History Month?" Trigger Warnings are another issue that's been blown out of proportion. I've always seen them as similar to braille on signs in buildings, as something that does not impact my life in the slightest, but which could be of invaluable service to someone in different circumstances. I don't think it should be controversial to alert a survivor of sexual assault that the topic will be coming up so that he or she can prepare for it. I think the real problem is in the opposite direction, in liberals who try so hard to be impartial that they prize false comity as a virtue above all else. Repulsive points of view should not be censored, but nor should they be ignored. I do find there is a problem with things like "Black History Month" not least because it does beg the question what about "White history month"? Now sure, in the UK, US, Australia etc "white" history is taught pretty much all the time, which it would seem is the answer the the question "What about White history month?" But I posit it is not. By having "Black History Month" it reinforces the separation and distinction between races, and it still excludes Asians, native Americans and much else. It shouldn't be about teaching history as in some bizarre way happening separately for different races, leaving one race, or even exasperating the chances that one race will reject as irrelevant the "history" of another race. The solution is surely to draw history lessons from a wide range, to ensure that history lessons cover events from all races. "Black History Month" raises awareness, but it also raises resentment and creates racial division. History taught in such as way as its inclusive have the positive effects of "Black History Months" without the negative effects. |
|
|
|
Post by theotherjosh on Mar 4, 2017 15:12:48 GMT
I agree with you, but I think it's the least bad compromise. Societal inertia is such that I don't think those kind of changes are feasible, at least in the US.
We live in New Jersey, but my to Washington state a few years ago and, on the way to the airport to pick her up, our daughter and I stopped at a store to grab some of the vanilla cream soda for the ride back, because my wife really likes it and we wanted to give her a treat. While we were checking out, my daughter told the clerk "I like your shirt." The clerk responded that she liked my daughter's shirt. I said, "Awwww...nobody likes my shirt" and we all laughed.
While we were walking to the car, my daughter said "I like daddy because he makes people laugh." I said that I try to, and just like anything else, you can be choose to be nice or be mean when making a joke. Further, I told her that she probably made the lady happy when she complimented the shirt. That's something she always tries to do. Somehow, she got it in her head that service employees have terrible jobs (which is not incorrect, but it's an understanding that eludes a lot of adults), and she always tries to be very nice to them, and offer them a specific compliment when interacting with them. The kid's got a ton of issues, but this isn't one of them.
The conversation turned to Maya Angelou, and I paraphrased her quote that goes along the lines of "People will forget what you did, and what you said, but they'll never forget how you made them feel", and I told her that she should be proud, because she always tries to make people good about themselves.
Then my daughter said, "I don't want to be racist, but...what color is her skin?"
"She has brown skin."
"Oh, that's so nice! Brown people finally get a poet of their own." She was in the back seat, so she couldn't see me wince at that. I didn't feel like unwrapping her unconsciously condescending middle-class white views at that time, but that's another topic to discuss at some point in the future. "We should learn about her in Black History Month!"
Race is a myth, in that there is no basis for it from a biological point of view. However, it's a pernicious and enduring one and it does exist in the cultural sense. I honestly know what the best thing to do would be to make history more inclusive.
|
|
|
|
Post by anothermanicmondas on Mar 4, 2017 22:29:03 GMT
I first heard the term during the GamerGate furour - there were problems that people couldn't agree what the definition of the term was and the term was being applied to anyone who wanted more equality.
There seemed to be some who seemed to want to oppose SJWs by demanding more sexism and racism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 12:31:44 GMT
SJWs are the cancer of society and scarcely anyone who isn't one of their members wants them to exist. I wouldn't cast this website as a reliable source, though, as a majority of the people here are to an extent liberal or socialist with the odd far-right.
|
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 12, 2017 13:48:02 GMT
SJWs are the cancer of society and scarcely anyone who isn't one of their members wants them to exist. Mate, you spelled "Tories" wrong. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2017 13:52:37 GMT
SJWs are the cancer of society and scarcely anyone who isn't one of their members wants them to exist. Mate, you spelled "Tories" wrong. Very amusing I'm sure. |
|
shutupbanks
Castellan
There’s a horror movie called Alien? That’s really offensive. No wonder everyone keeps invading you.
Likes: 5,677
|
Post by shutupbanks on Mar 12, 2017 13:59:21 GMT
Mate, you spelled "Tories" wrong. Very amusing I'm sure. I giggled. |
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Mar 12, 2017 18:06:37 GMT
SJWs are the cancer of society and scarcely anyone who isn't one of their members wants them to exist. I wouldn't cast this website as a reliable source, though, as a majority of the people here are to an extent liberal or socialist with the odd far-right. I'm right wing, and raised 2 right wing kids, 1 liberal, and 1 socialist...that didn't bother me...I knew I had failed when my son became a Jeff Gordon fan. |
|
|
|
Post by relativetime on Mar 12, 2017 18:25:53 GMT
Thing is, I really do think SJWs as described in the first post barely exist. The term is more often used to label anyone who attempts to speak out about an injustice online. It's a term that people against equality use to try to discredit them. A woman who feels like she's not being taken seriously at work? Labeled an SJW. A person of color doesn't like all the police brutality that's going on? Labeled an SJW. On and on and on. So, no, I do not believe SJWs are equality's greatest threat. Sure there's a few who get a too riled up, but the number of people trying to shut down the movement for social justice and equality is far greater and far more dangerous.
|
|
