DescentBB

Yes, I know the letters stand for Social Justice Warriors, but why, when and how did it become a BAD thing, or a perjorative to attack or demean other people? Sounds to me like in practice it is the neo-fascist version of 'liberal' or 'Progressive' vilification. I mean, who the actual ★■◆● would NOT wish to fight for social justice?

I'll add an example. In another thread, folks were attempting to discuss the nuance around a commentary from a PhD professor at a large University system in the US. Ferno just dismisses the trained professional as SJW? She is a ★■◆●ing academic, Ferno, and as I pointed out, she had a point, where I disagreed with some nuance, but which is fundamentally true. And, you chose to shorthand her with some childishly cute acronym for your personal hatreds. This is NO DIFFERENT than other shallow, broadbrush attacks. For the record, I've fought for social justice my entire adult life, and haven't called for violence, or any such thing. If someone wishes to find fault with my stand, or the idea of fighting for social justice, that person can go ★■◆● themselves.

So I guess all those women who were victims of Weinstein's predations were nothing but a bunch of SJW's to be ignored all those years?

callmeslick wrote:I'll add an example. In another thread, folks were attempting to discuss the nuance around a commentary from a PhD professor at a large University system in the US. Ferno just dismisses the trained professional as SJW? She is a ★■◆●ing academic, Ferno, and as I pointed out, she had a point, where I disagreed with some nuance, but which is fundamentally true. And, you chose to shorthand her with some childishly cute acronym for your personal hatreds. This is NO DIFFERENT than other shallow, broadbrush attacks. For the record, I've fought for social justice my entire adult life, and haven't called for violence, or any such thing. If someone wishes to find fault with my stand, or the idea of fighting for social justice, that person can go ★■◆● themselves.

Just because she's an academic, doesn't mean her opinion isn't above criticism.

Until they raise their opinions out of the swill they're stirring in, you're damned right i'll dismiss it.

And it's commendable that you have not resorted to violence. You should be an example to those who do resort to it.

And as for personal hatred... yes, it's personal. It's personal because it's undoing all the good work that's been done. It's personal because their techniques are a blight on treating everyone equally regardless of who they are. It's personal because we shouldn't have to accept being stuck in a box because we don't fit a certain mindset.

Now...

If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with fairness.

Ferno wrote:

Just because she's an academic, doesn't mean her opinion isn't above criticism.

shorthanding to an ignorant perjoritive isn't 'criticism'. It's intellectual emptiness.

Until they raise their opinions out of the swill they're stirring in, you're damned right i'll dismiss it.

and I will you, every time you show yourself to be that empty.

from what I've read here by example, it would seem as if "SJW" and attacks based upon that acronym, are a way of folks salving their own sexism, racism or other misogyny, and making themselves feel better. I call bull★■◆●, it's that simple.

callmeslick wrote:Yes, I know the letters stand for Social Justice Warriors, but why, when and how did it become a BAD thing, or a perjorative to attack or demean other people? Sounds to me like in practice it is the neo-fascist version of 'liberal' or 'Progressive' vilification. I mean, who the actual ★■◆● would NOT wish to fight for social justice?

You are entitled to "fight" but the manner in which you do so is what is in question. Verbally attacking someone is one thing but physically assaulting them is another. In the case of the degenerate antifa, they have come out and said it is OK to use physical attacks to quell those who they do not agree with. So I take it slick, you to condone violence where it suits your purpose.

I've seen a few Nazis strike first at times and most of the recent protest deaths have been at the hands of White Supremacists, by either using a car or guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -shooting/

http://gawker.com/video-shows-4chan-whi ... 1744412287

However, I like this German town's solution. Out prank the Nazi bastards.

https://thinkprogress.org/german-town-p ... neo-nazis/

callmeslick wrote:

Until they raise their opinions out of the swill they're stirring in, you're damned right i'll dismiss it.

and I will you, every time you show yourself to be that empty.

Of course it's a pejorative. I'll happily dismiss their crazy as just that - crazy.

And the idea that they need to shut down anything that opposes their mindset through guilt, shame, and violence is just as empty.

They crave attention. You're giving it to them. They crave justification. You're enabling it. They crave polarization. You're supporting it.

but why, when and how did it become a BAD thing

About the same time when they started using violence to silence opposing viewpoints. It's happened more than once, historically speaking, and it's always ended badly for everyone.

where the actual ★■◆● are all these violent warriors for social justice?? Good God, Ferno, is it mushroom season up there?

Ferno wrote:They crave attention. You're giving it to them. They crave justification. You're enabling it. They crave polarization. You're supporting it.

I think you are completely overreacting and at this point it looks like you are trolling the board. If these people just want attention, why not simply call them narcissists instead of taking a positive term and turning it into a pejorative? The more people use the term SJW the more it becomes an vehicle for scapegoating. All it does is divide, which is what you claim these narcissists are doing. It's not helpful in any way. Likewise, I disagree with calling people nazi and fascist when bigot and racist are more suitable. Most people don't know enough history to know what a fascist is.

You kids and your weird internet-only words. I still have no idea what it means and since it doesn't come up anywhere else, I can't be bothered to look it up.

Burlyman wrote:You kids and your weird internet-only words. I still have no idea what it means and since it doesn't come up anywhere else, I can't be bothered to look it up.

sort of where I stood, Burlyman, but I chose to ask.......

"taking a positive term"

It's not positive.

If you guys can't see the potential danger of an out-of-control vocal minority who have been shutting down discussions by using guilt and fear tactics because they disagreed with them, then it's clear I don't belong on this board.

If you're going to erect strawmen that massive, then maybe you don't.

Ferno wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:13 pm...then it's clear I don't belong on this board.

Bye. Go be irrational and hysterical about imaginary dangers somewhere else. Bring ThunderBunny with you.

SJWs are the kind of folk who'd have you lose your job because you don't use somebody's preferred pronouns. They'd force people immediately to accept their worldview, not even giving them any transitional period, and harshly penalizing them if they fail to do it. They're like the Moral Majority - puritanical, fanatical and violent.

Of course throwing the term around just to silence any liberal, pro-equality opinions is just as bad as what they're doing, but let's not pretend they don't exist.

Xfing wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:54 am...but let's not pretend they don't exist.

SJWs are a self-correcting problem. There are countless instances of them being called out publicly and once you are outed as an SJW no one takes what you say seriously. Hysteria about SJWs is completely unwarranted.

Well apparently the right wingers, fear prone as they are, seem to think the SJWs are everywhere, hold key positions and can actually influence politics. Politics perhaps not, but we've kinda seen that they can indeed influence entertainment at the very least (Disney).

Walt Disney corporation is pretty much a textbook example of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.". It isn't that difficult to see how it ended up that way, but peel away the family friendly facade plus a few insulating outer layers of its bureaucracy and you will pretty much find Evil incorporated. And it isn't like the people working for or running it are bad, they are all just doing their jobs to the best of their ability, its a systemic evil exists beyond the will or intentions of the individuals within it.

Krom wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:16 am Walt Disney corporation is pretty much a textbook example of the saying "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.". It isn't that difficult to see how it ended up that way, but peel away the family friendly facade plus a few insulating outer layers of its bureaucracy and you will pretty much find Evil incorporated. And it isn't like the people working for or running it are bad, they are all just doing their jobs to the best of their ability, its a systemic evil exists beyond the will or intentions of the individuals within it.

Aren't most large corporations that way? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" seems to be the case with most large American corporations, especially with the oil companies, the big banks and the telecoms. Why do you single out Disney specifically?

Because they are basically holding culture itself hostage for money and keep on pushing it further and further because they are extending copyright monopolies until the end of time. The DMCA is in no small part Disney's work and it is a horrible censoring tool that can also be abused in ways way beyond what you would think its scope would be (see John Deere tractor maintenance).

Yeah, Disney himself wanted almost permanent intellectual control over Mickey Mouse and things have gone downhill for the public domain ever since.

Senator Hank Brown (R-Colorado 1996) wrote:"To suggest that the monopoly use of copyrights for the creator's life plus 50 years after his death is not an adequate incentive to create is absurd. The real incentive here is for corporate owners that bought copyrights to lobby Congress for another 20 years of revenue—not for creators who will be long dead once this term extension takes hold."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 174f15e9ec

not quite clear how the thread leapt from SJWs to Mickey Mouse, but I am still sad to see that merely questioning the validity on my part led to Ferno running off.

callmeslick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:25 pm not quite clear how the thread leapt from SJWs to Mickey Mouse, but I am still sad to see that merely questioning the validity on my part led to Ferno running off.

Here ya go slick.

https://punditfromanotherplanet.com/201 ... n-command/

LOL, I was under the impression that they made a new Fantastic Four movie just so they could make the Human Torch a black guy, and juxtapose him to a cute white girl just to piss off old white guys.

.........Kidding......sort......of.....

Spidey wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:53 pm LOL, I was under the impression that they made a new Fantastic Four movie just so they could make the Human Torch a black guy, and juxtapose him to a cute white girl just to piss off old white guys.

.........Kidding......sort......of.....

Well, slick complained.