Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
Oh, no, Joss Whedon might have quit twitter because of SJW backlash against his portrayal of Black Widow, or maybe he just doesn't like Twitter, like he has stated multiple times elsewhere. This entire thread is absurd in its comparisons, between a phenomena that has appeared in the last two or three years confined to the internet and a violent global gang of terrorists and thugs that has existed since WWII in various incarnations.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
Since the whole point of this thread is drawing these distinctions, we should probably note that Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government survivalist type with no known affiliations to any organization. Not a neo-Nazi. It's not like the neo-Nazis have a monopoly on evil, or even a monopoly on right-wing evil.
Oh, no, Joss Whedon might have quit twitter because of SJW backlash against his portrayal of Black Widow, or maybe he just doesn't like Twitter, like he has stated multiple times elsewhere.
Not that it really matters, but Whedon's later statements on the subject are pretty clearly just face-saving spin. The man loved Twitter. And I don't blame him for spinning it - you don't want to let bullies and trolls know you're reacting to them. But let's not affect some sort of agnosticism about what happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
Since the whole point of this thread is drawing these distinctions, we should probably note that Timothy McVeigh was an anti-government survivalist type with no known affiliations to any organization. Not a neo-Nazi. It's not like the neo-Nazis have a monopoly on evil, or even a monopoly on right-wing evil.
Timothy McVeigh had the Turner Diaries on him when he was arrested. William Luther Pierce founded the National Alliance, an anti-semitic, white nationalist group. A man was going to bomb a building and decided that one of the few things in his possession was right-wing white nationalist literature on his person. Either it's a coincidence that he was reading a book about bombing a building that week or it is relevant to him for committing the act. If you want to say that an anti-semitic, white nationalist group is not a neo-Nazi group, sure, but then you can't be lumping every person on Twitter with left-leaning thought into one amorphous slur of SJW.
Oh, no, Joss Whedon might have quit twitter because of SJW backlash against his portrayal of Black Widow, or maybe he just doesn't like Twitter, like he has stated multiple times elsewhere.
Not that it really matters, but Whedon's later statements on the subject are pretty clearly just face-saving spin. The man loved Twitter. And I don't blame him for spinning it - you don't want to let bullies and trolls know you're reacting to them. But let's not affect some sort of agnosticism about what happened.
The mention of Whedon is pretty inconsequential. It is simply an example of the result of what SJWs might or might not have caused, pretty irrelevant to people being assaulted on the streets, which this conversation has completely glossed over in comparing the ideology of what Neo-Nazis espouse to what SJWs might or might not seek to be doing when they critique things online, which is kinda hard to pinpoint because it's not like they have a manifesto or have an organized front or anything of that nature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that SJWs are the same people that will come up with literally any excuse they can think of whenever a terrorist attack happens that is caused by Islamic fundamentalists.
Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that SJWs are the same people that will come up with literally any excuse they can think of whenever a terrorist attack happens that is caused by Islamic fundamentalists.
Not sure what this is even supposed to mean. That SJWs are too blame for the deaths perpetrated by Islamic terrorist groups? That seeking a reason for why such terrorist groups would have interest in attacking America is equivalent to crimes perpetrated by people who are invested in neo-Nazi ideology? Are you claiming that SJWs excuse terrorist attacks that kill innocent people? I would need evidence before having an idea as to what you are referring to and how that could be compared to the violence and destruction caused by neo-Nazi groups and individuals influenced by their ideology.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Timothy McVeigh had the Turner Diaries on him when he was arrested. William Luther Pierce founded the National Alliance, an anti-semitic, white nationalist group. A man was going to bomb a building and decided that one of the few things in his possession was right-wing white nationalist literature on his person. Either it's a coincidence that he was reading a book about bombing a building that week or it is relevant to him for committing the act. If you want to say that an anti-semitic, white nationalist group is not a neo-Nazi group, sure...
I repeat: McVeigh was not a member of any organization. We don't need to guess at his motives, because he wrote about them at some length. Sure, he may have been a racist, but in his own stated reasons for the bombing, race doesn't even rate.
...but then you can't be lumping every person on Twitter with left-leaning thought into one amorphous slur of SJW.
Good thing I haven't been doing that, then. I dedicated the very first paragraph of my very first post in this thread to explaining how I understand the term. I also made a point of observing that SJWs are harder to identify because, among the many differences between them and neo-Nazis, they're not formally organized and don't identify themselves as such. But let's pretend for a moment that I was lumping everybody into a single group. If you object to this, all you're doing is admitting that you know you shouldn't be doing it either. Tu quoque argument, dude. Foot: shot.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that SJWs are the same people that will come up with literally any excuse they can think of whenever a terrorist attack happens that is caused by Islamic fundamentalists.
Show me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Timothy McVeigh had the Turner Diaries on him when he was arrested. William Luther Pierce founded the National Alliance, an anti-semitic, white nationalist group. A man was going to bomb a building and decided that one of the few things in his possession was right-wing white nationalist literature on his person. Either it's a coincidence that he was reading a book about bombing a building that week or it is relevant to him for committing the act. If you want to say that an anti-semitic, white nationalist group is not a neo-Nazi group, sure...
I repeat: McVeigh was not a member of any organization. We don't need to guess at his motives, because he wrote about them at some length. Sure, he may have been a racist, but in his own stated reasons for the bombing, race doesn't even rate.
I find it hard to distinguish this form of separatism and nationalism from neo-Nazism. The worldview of neo-Nazis is obviously distorted with racism, but how it operates in American groups that I am familiar with it, it has quite a bit in common with that hatred for the federal government and the desire to be done away with it that results in what McVeigh did.
I will concede perhaps that maybe it is the same result based on different motives for McVeigh and neo-Nazi organizations, but I'm not gonna split hairs in a discussion uncouth from the beginning. We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether I'm sweeping with too broad of a brush. Would my point be more valid if I refer to the KKK or is that distinct from neo-Nazism for you? I've grown up in an area where skinheads exist in my neighborhood and communities, where being attacked by them is a possibility, and getting into a fight with them was far too common growing up in a punk scene. These neo-Nazis don't distinguish themselves from the KKK, they adapt its symbols, but just don't wear hoods over their head. I don't know of a larger instance of violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed neo-nazis that captured the broader country's attention of what neo-nazis actually do in communities. Hence, this confusion. This list is a start, but not everyone is familiar with these. I don't even remember everyone. (http://www.alternet.org/story/150218/a_recent_history_of_violent_right-wing_extremism:_neo-nazis_and_other_white_supremacists_are_most_dangerous)
The point still stands that this conversation is absurd if the premise is that SJWs have harmed as many people as the largest domestic terror organization in the US's history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Ummmm no. What have supposed SJWs ever done that is comparable to the Oklahoma state bombing, not to mention the countless attacks on streets each year that Neo-Nazis commit on gays, ethnic minorities, and liberal protestors.
Oh, no, Joss Whedon might have quit twitter because of SJW backlash against his portrayal of Black Widow, or maybe he just doesn't like Twitter, like he has stated multiple times elsewhere. This entire thread is absurd in its comparisons, between a phenomena that has appeared in the last two or three years confined to the internet and a violent global gang of terrorists and thugs that has existed since WWII in various incarnations.
Meh, they are merely using "neo nazi" for shock value since the word is charged.
Several of the men in the video are wearing neo-Nazi symbols such as the Celtic cross.
I don't think the ukranian one is neo-nazi but east european white nationalism which is followed by generations of unrelated racial, political and geographic tension. These are also isolated incidents in the course of a couple of years. I would expect some clash at a socially charged protest anywhere in the world.
Are you claiming that SJWs excuse terrorist attacks that kill innocent people? I would need evidence before having an idea as to what you are referring to and how that could be compared to the violence and destruction caused by neo-Nazi groups and individuals influenced by their ideology.
Of course this is just one link, but this is a pattern that is repeated by most SJWs with regards to Islamic terrorism. Muslims are allegedly oppressed since they're non-white, and so SJWs will go to whatever lengths they can to justify their actions.
Which goes back to my initial argument about how SJWs and neo-Nazis are more similar to each other than they think. Both are willing to turn the other cheek to horrible acts of violence at the cost of advancing their goals.
Of course this is just one link, but this is a pattern that is repeated by most SJWs with regards to Islamic terrorism. Muslims are allegedly oppressed since they're non-white, and so SJWs will go to whatever lengths they can to justify their actions.
Which goes back to my initial argument about how SJWs and neo-Nazis are more similar to each other than they think. Both are willing to turn the other cheek to horrible acts of violence at the cost of advancing their goals.
Quote from your link »
It's an hateful act
(referring to the terrorism)
Quote from your link »
I am not saying that what has happened shouldn't be condemned, it should.
Your link isn't someone making excuses for the terrorism.
It's someone saying that the targets of the terrorism were being jerks.
It's possible to condemn terrorism against jerks, while also noting that the targets were jerks. Being the victim of terrorism doesn't make them not-jerks.
I read it as "The murders were wrong. But I won't laud what Charlie Hebdo do, because it's hurtful to us."
Edit: That took a long time to work out how to post; I fell afoul of the non-Latin character rule, in copying and pasting from the link. Replacing their apostrophes solved it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I find it hard to distinguish this form of separatism and nationalism from neo-Nazism. The worldview of neo-Nazis is obviously distorted with racism, but how it operates in American groups that I am familiar with it, it has quite a bit in common with that hatred for the federal government and the desire to be done away with it that results in what McVeigh did.
The Black Panthers hated the federal government. Were they neo-Nazis too?
I don't know of a larger instance of violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed neo-nazis that captured the broader country's attention of what neo-nazis actually do in communities.
Well, there isn't one, of course. The Oklahoma City bombing was the largest act of domestic terrorism in US history. But what you're saying here - it's as if we were discussing Boko Haram, and you said that Boko Haram committed the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't Boko Haram, it was al-Qaeda. Boko Haram are Islamic extremists, have ties to al-Qaeda, no doubt read a lot of the same literature, and have committed enough atrocities to be loathed and condemned by the entire civilized world. But it's simply not true that they committed this one. And it's dangerous to say they did in order to try to prove a broader point. If the United States invaded Nigeria on the basis that Boko Haram had something to do with 9/11, you would be flipping out.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of course this is just one link, but this is a pattern that is repeated by most SJWs with regards to Islamic terrorism. Muslims are allegedly oppressed since they're non-white, and so SJWs will go to whatever lengths they can to justify their actions.
Which goes back to my initial argument about how SJWs and neo-Nazis are more similar to each other than they think. Both are willing to turn the other cheek to horrible acts of violence at the cost of advancing their goals.
Who is turning the other cheek? No one is trying to justify the attack, it's horrible, it shouldn't happen, it should be condemned, and those responsible should absolutely pay for it. But getting attacked doesn't mean the people who were the targets are automatically some kind of noble martyrs. The recent news from Texas is similar. The attacker(s) are absolutely in the wrong, but that doesn't put the people holding a contest whose sole purpose is just to piss off an entire religion in the right.
I find it hard to distinguish this form of separatism and nationalism from neo-Nazism. The worldview of neo-Nazis is obviously distorted with racism, but how it operates in American groups that I am familiar with it, it has quite a bit in common with that hatred for the federal government and the desire to be done away with it that results in what McVeigh did.
The Black Panthers hated the federal government. Were they neo-Nazis too?
I don't know of a larger instance of violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed neo-nazis that captured the broader country's attention of what neo-nazis actually do in communities.
Well, there isn't one, of course. The Oklahoma City bombing was the largest act of domestic terrorism in US history. But what you're saying here - it's as if we were discussing Boko Haram, and you said that Boko Haram committed the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't Boko Haram, it was al-Qaeda. Boko Haram are Islamic extremists, have ties to al-Qaeda, no doubt read a lot of the same literature, and have committed enough atrocities to be loathed and condemned by the entire civilized world. But it's simply not true that they committed this one. And it's dangerous to say they did in order to try to prove a broader point. If the United States invaded Nigeria on the basis that Boko Haram had something to do with 9/11, you would be flipping out.
I appreciate you calling out my sloppiness. I stand corrected. It's simply hard to discuss things when I don't feel like the other side grasps what they are actually talking about. I know how I feel about neo-Nazis and I know what is being said in that link about Charlie Hebdo, and they are not in any way comparable. Skipping steps to prove my point was sloppy.
That link about Charlie Hebdo explicitly comdemns what the shooters did (" I am not saying that what has happened shouldn’t be condemned, it should. And everyone us doing that."). It does not try to make excuses for Muslim terrorists, if anything it is simply a critique of how the broader story around Charlie Hebdo acted as if the paper was some valiant bastion of freedom, when actually they wrote scandalous garbage. There are no justifications of what happened, only that neither Charlie Hebdo nor terrorists were right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Yeah, that link is a really bad example. You can disagree with it, but it isn't excusing terrorism or shifting the blame.
Remember though, the premise of the thread isn't to say "SJWs are exactly as bad as neo-nazis". The original poster is highlighting certain similarities in rhetoric and philosophy between some members of the widely disorganized movement (the ones people tend to call SJWs) and neo-nazi rhetoric/philosophy. Among these issues is the tendency to blame all of life and the world's problems on a single group of people that is perceived to harmfully control everything. You can argue that you think the SJWs are right, and that white men do harmfully control society, but the rhetoric is indeed similar.
It's worth noting that while it is important to be skeptical and critical of those you disagree with, it is even more important to be skeptical and critical of people already on your side. I'm naturally biased in favor of anyone on the side of equality, and naturally biased against anyone that seems to be trying to resist that. The same goes for my bias towards an atheist in a religious debate and my bias to arguments for combo decks being good in MTG. Bias is dangerous, and the unthinking support it leads to is troubling. As such, I try to be more skeptical toward people I'm already biased towards agreeing with. The fact it feels cringe-worthy to be questioning people vocally on the side of equality just makes it more important to question.
Yes I've noticed this before, and I think it's a good example of one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to believe that people's nature can be changed and controlled while conservatives tend to believe that people's nature can't be changed and should be worked around some other way.
So SJWs and nationalists will always be at odds despite being concerned about similar kinds of injustice. A SJW sees racial and cultural tension and thinks, it is horrible that different people can't get along; we must change the hearts of men by controlling media, language, and education, then finally we can all live together in peace. A nationalist sees racial and cultural tension and thinks, it is horrible that different people can't get along; but it is folly to throw sand against the wind of human nature, so we ought to segregate ourselves to avoid conflict altogether - there can be no racism in an all black nation, nor can there be Jewish over-representation in an all Jewish nation.
I don't think that your analysis is fully correct.
I see SJWs paint the "villains" of their stories as an unredeemable bad guy all the time.
Yes I've noticed this before, and I think it's a good example of one of the core differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to believe that people's nature can be changed and controlled while conservatives tend to believe that people's nature can't be changed and should be worked around some other way.
wtf.gif
Liberals aren't trying to change anyone. Calling SJWs liberal is a joke. Lets just call insanity what it is here and not attach incorrect political agendas to each one. It detracts away from the work many of us are trying to do in society. Also the conservatives aren't trying to work around anything. They take the let them die approach.
The SJWs are just a circle jerk group dedicated to feminism and making themselves feel better about their bodies by posting incorrect memes depicting themselves as curvy instead of apple shaped. I will admit I am an overweight male, but I am not making an excuses and not ashamed of that fact in such a way that I try to shape my own reality.
You are equating SJWs with those of us who fight for the equality of all men, women, and children despite race, gender, religion(or lack thereof), etc. SJWs are just feminazis who are anti-man, anti-white, and anti-telling someone the truth about their weight issues.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
I think, due to the nature of the internet, it can be easy to equate all extreme dialogue. The issue here is that SJWs are hyperbolists first and foremost(a word I was disappointed to learn I did not just coin). Just like the majority of the American population aren't the horrible racists you would be led to believe they are when looking through twitter. On the internet, it can be very easy to confuse the hyperbolic ranting some people use as a relief valve with the legitimate threats of scary organizations. SJWs may have extreme rhetoric in common with Neo-Nazis, but that's really about all they have in common. The Tumblr-sphere can't even get a convention off the ground. Neo-Nazis form gangs and actually commit crimes. It's not really much of a comparison.
Calling SJWs liberal is a joke. Lets just call insanity what it is here and not attach incorrect political agendas to each one. It detracts away from the work many of us are trying to do in society. Also the conservatives aren't trying to work around anything. They take the let them die approach.
There's a pretty astonishing lack of self-awareness in this paragraph. In the first part you decry attaching the political label "liberal" to SJWs because it detracts from the work that moderate, sane liberals are trying to accomplish. In the very next breath, you not only label the right-wing crazies as "conservative," you characterize them as the core of that political ideology. The "let them die" conservatives are no more representative of that ideology than the "die cis scum" SJWs are representative of liberalism. Both the right and left have fringe crazies. Both the right and left have sane, well-meaning people.
I don't understand this question--namely how people have come to agreement on what constitutes a social justice warrior.
I mean, are talking about the feminist commenters on buzzfeed videos? Are we talking about liberals? Are we talking about people who are solely confined to the Internet?
I will answer this question based on my first definition. Are buzzfeed video commenters similar to Nazis? My answer is no.
One likes to sit around and comment. My guess is that they are poorly informed and inactive in their life and aspirations. The other was the political party that came into power and catalyzed World War II, whose continuing effects on global society can continue to be seen today.
It's hard to attach such a label to a broad group of people who don't have any sort of manifesto nor feats. However, yes I would say a ton of them that post online can be compared to Nazi ideology, in the general attitude of "My affiliations are the only legitimate ones, I should have more rights than opposing groups, X groups are the problem, etc."
Perhaps this is just because of the anonymous nature of the internet, and people are quicker to reveal their hypocrisy and insanity. The difference however, is that Nazis actually had the power to enact their ideology politically, whereas I'm 90% sure SJW's have no chance of acting upon some of their more extreme tendencies.
Of course this is just one link, but this is a pattern that is repeated by most SJWs with regards to Islamic terrorism. Muslims are allegedly oppressed since they're non-white, and so SJWs will go to whatever lengths they can to justify their actions.
Which goes back to my initial argument about how SJWs and neo-Nazis are more similar to each other than they think. Both are willing to turn the other cheek to horrible acts of violence at the cost of advancing their goals.
Who is turning the other cheek? No one is trying to justify the attack, it's horrible, it shouldn't happen, it should be condemned, and those responsible should absolutely pay for it. But getting attacked doesn't mean the people who were the targets are automatically some kind of noble martyrs. The recent news from Texas is similar. The attacker(s) are absolutely in the wrong, but that doesn't put the people holding a contest whose sole purpose is just to piss off an entire religion in the right.
I was going to post on the Texas situation when it first happened. Reading the warriors' responses to this event on some of the more left-wing outlets (e.g. Huffpost) was a shocking and horrifying experience. There were a ton of creepy "had it coming" arguments, like the ones that are used to justify rape. The outrage was directed primarily at those who would have the audacity to draw cartoons rather than those who chose to go on a killing spree. Within the U.S., SJWs are a 5th column that is infected with dangerous European ideas such as their opposition to freedom of speech, religion, association, etc.
Within the U.S., SJWs are a 5th column that is infected with dangerous European ideas such as their opposition to freedom of speech, religion, association, etc.
Could you elaborate on how Europe is against freedom of speech, religion and association, or even etc.?
I'm starting to think that SJW is like the welfare queen; a bugbear that isn't actually as scary as it's painted to be. (And an excuse to condemn people who talk about social justice, just like 'welfare queen' was an excuse to condemn beneficiaries.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Social Justice Warriors are the people who gave the world "privilege theory", they are the people who don't see a problem with kangaroo courts for people accused of sexual assault, their the people who rant about how white people are "the problem" while claiming they can't be racist because marxism inspired gibberish. Social justice warriors pervert and flip the meaning of concepts like justice, equality, etc.
Social Justice Warriors do harm! This year twice as many cops have been shot as usual because of an absurdly intellectually dishonest narrative about police shootings and race spread by SJWs.
Europeans are not the problem it's just that social justice warriors have made more inroads there so it is more visible.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Social Justice Warriors are the people who gave the world "privilege theory", they are the people who don't see a problem with kangaroo courts for people accused of sexual assault, their the people who rant about how white people are "the problem" while claiming they can't be racist because marxism inspired gibberish. Social justice warriors pervert and flip the meaning of concepts like justice, equality, etc.
Actually, SJWs didn't create privilege theory. That was WEB Dubois way back in the early 20th century (although it wasn't in the same vein as we think of it today). SJWs just misunderstand what they're talking about and take it to ridiculous extremes because they feel like more reasonable approaches aren't doing enough, or doing it fast enough.
Social Justice Warriors do harm! This year twice as many cops have been shot as usual because of an absurdly intellectually dishonest narrative about police shootings and race spread by SJWs.
That's patently false, and obviously hyperbolic. Were these SJWs around in the 1970's or during the prohibition when law enforcement officers were killed at twice the 'normal' rate of the last 100 years (which has hovered around 120-180 deaths)?
There have been 44 line-of-duty deaths this year. There is absolutely no indication that any of these are a result of the SJW 'narrative', unless you think they're conspiring to organize car accidents on a fairly regular basis.
I definitely don't agree with the extremes posed by the people who are being labelled as SJWs here, but the underlying social inequities they're driven by are still real. They just don't have the ability to grapple with them effectively, and the internet provides a convenient outlet for their frustration. You see this in almost every internet-based 'movement', from Gamergate and beyond, where an injustice or inequity is latched onto by people with heavy confirmation biases and it quickly becomes ugly and place for people to spew their most vile inner thoughts without fear of repercussions. It doesn't make them any more dangerous than your average internet troll, and probably less dangerous than your average teenage 'swatter'.
Social Justice Warriors are the people who gave the world "privilege theory", they are the people who don't see a problem with kangaroo courts for people accused of sexual assault, their the people who rant about how white people are "the problem" while claiming they can't be racist because marxism inspired gibberish. Social justice warriors pervert and flip the meaning of concepts like justice, equality, etc.
Actually, SJWs didn't create privilege theory. That was WEB Dubois way back in the early 20th century (although it wasn't in the same vein as we think of it today). SJWs just misunderstand what they're talking about and take it to ridiculous extremes because they feel like more reasonable approaches aren't doing enough, or doing it fast enough.
Social Justice Warriors do harm! This year twice as many cops have been shot as usual because of an absurdly intellectually dishonest narrative about police shootings and race spread by SJWs.
That's patently false, and obviously hyperbolic. Were these SJWs around in the 1970's or during the prohibition when law enforcement officers were killed at twice the 'normal' rate of the last 100 years (which has hovered around 120-180 deaths)?
There have been 44 line-of-duty deaths this year. There is absolutely no indication that any of these are a result of the SJW 'narrative', unless you think they're conspiring to organize car accidents on a fairly regular basis.
I definitely don't agree with the extremes posed by the people who are being labelled as SJWs here, but the underlying social inequities they're driven by are still real. They just don't have the ability to grapple with them effectively, and the internet provides a convenient outlet for their frustration. You see this in almost every internet-based 'movement', from Gamergate and beyond, where an injustice or inequity is latched onto by people with heavy confirmation biases and it quickly becomes ugly and place for people to spew their most vile inner thoughts without fear of repercussions. It doesn't make them any more dangerous than your average internet troll, and probably less dangerous than your average teenage 'swatter'.
The reason I asked about the definition about a social justice warrior is that this thread is honestly the first time I have ever heard the term. Maybe I've been living under a rock or something.
But having never heard the term before, it sounds like by social justice warrior, people mean internet trolls.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Random headlines that two google searches pulled up:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/08/video-ukrainian-gay-club-attacked-in-violent-neo-nazi-attack/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/15/world/europe/sweden-nazi-attack/
Oh, no, Joss Whedon might have quit twitter because of SJW backlash against his portrayal of Black Widow, or maybe he just doesn't like Twitter, like he has stated multiple times elsewhere. This entire thread is absurd in its comparisons, between a phenomena that has appeared in the last two or three years confined to the internet and a violent global gang of terrorists and thugs that has existed since WWII in various incarnations.
Not that it really matters, but Whedon's later statements on the subject are pretty clearly just face-saving spin. The man loved Twitter. And I don't blame him for spinning it - you don't want to let bullies and trolls know you're reacting to them. But let's not affect some sort of agnosticism about what happened.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The mention of Whedon is pretty inconsequential. It is simply an example of the result of what SJWs might or might not have caused, pretty irrelevant to people being assaulted on the streets, which this conversation has completely glossed over in comparing the ideology of what Neo-Nazis espouse to what SJWs might or might not seek to be doing when they critique things online, which is kinda hard to pinpoint because it's not like they have a manifesto or have an organized front or anything of that nature.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that SJWs are the same people that will come up with literally any excuse they can think of whenever a terrorist attack happens that is caused by Islamic fundamentalists.
Good thing I haven't been doing that, then. I dedicated the very first paragraph of my very first post in this thread to explaining how I understand the term. I also made a point of observing that SJWs are harder to identify because, among the many differences between them and neo-Nazis, they're not formally organized and don't identify themselves as such. But let's pretend for a moment that I was lumping everybody into a single group. If you object to this, all you're doing is admitting that you know you shouldn't be doing it either. Tu quoque argument, dude. Foot: shot.
Show me.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I will concede perhaps that maybe it is the same result based on different motives for McVeigh and neo-Nazi organizations, but I'm not gonna split hairs in a discussion uncouth from the beginning. We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether I'm sweeping with too broad of a brush. Would my point be more valid if I refer to the KKK or is that distinct from neo-Nazism for you? I've grown up in an area where skinheads exist in my neighborhood and communities, where being attacked by them is a possibility, and getting into a fight with them was far too common growing up in a punk scene. These neo-Nazis don't distinguish themselves from the KKK, they adapt its symbols, but just don't wear hoods over their head. I don't know of a larger instance of violence perpetrated by self-proclaimed neo-nazis that captured the broader country's attention of what neo-nazis actually do in communities. Hence, this confusion. This list is a start, but not everyone is familiar with these. I don't even remember everyone. (http://www.alternet.org/story/150218/a_recent_history_of_violent_right-wing_extremism:_neo-nazis_and_other_white_supremacists_are_most_dangerous)
The point still stands that this conversation is absurd if the premise is that SJWs have harmed as many people as the largest domestic terror organization in the US's history.
Meh, they are merely using "neo nazi" for shock value since the word is charged.
I don't think the ukranian one is neo-nazi but east european white nationalism which is followed by generations of unrelated racial, political and geographic tension. These are also isolated incidents in the course of a couple of years. I would expect some clash at a socially charged protest anywhere in the world.
I do like cases such as http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/05/rolling-stone-uva-rape-story-columbia-school-journalism-review where people think they can avoid due process and try to be judge and jury on a 100% emotional basis.
Here is a good example in context of the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Of course this is just one link, but this is a pattern that is repeated by most SJWs with regards to Islamic terrorism. Muslims are allegedly oppressed since they're non-white, and so SJWs will go to whatever lengths they can to justify their actions.
Which goes back to my initial argument about how SJWs and neo-Nazis are more similar to each other than they think. Both are willing to turn the other cheek to horrible acts of violence at the cost of advancing their goals.
(referring to the terrorism)
Your link isn't someone making excuses for the terrorism.
It's someone saying that the targets of the terrorism were being jerks.
It's possible to condemn terrorism against jerks, while also noting that the targets were jerks. Being the victim of terrorism doesn't make them not-jerks.
I read it as "The murders were wrong. But I won't laud what Charlie Hebdo do, because it's hurtful to us."
Edit: That took a long time to work out how to post; I fell afoul of the non-Latin character rule, in copying and pasting from the link. Replacing their apostrophes solved it.
Well, yes. The KKK is obviously distinct from neo-Nazism, since the organization predates even the original Nazi Party.
Well, there isn't one, of course. The Oklahoma City bombing was the largest act of domestic terrorism in US history. But what you're saying here - it's as if we were discussing Boko Haram, and you said that Boko Haram committed the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't Boko Haram, it was al-Qaeda. Boko Haram are Islamic extremists, have ties to al-Qaeda, no doubt read a lot of the same literature, and have committed enough atrocities to be loathed and condemned by the entire civilized world. But it's simply not true that they committed this one. And it's dangerous to say they did in order to try to prove a broader point. If the United States invaded Nigeria on the basis that Boko Haram had something to do with 9/11, you would be flipping out.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who is turning the other cheek? No one is trying to justify the attack, it's horrible, it shouldn't happen, it should be condemned, and those responsible should absolutely pay for it. But getting attacked doesn't mean the people who were the targets are automatically some kind of noble martyrs. The recent news from Texas is similar. The attacker(s) are absolutely in the wrong, but that doesn't put the people holding a contest whose sole purpose is just to piss off an entire religion in the right.
That link about Charlie Hebdo explicitly comdemns what the shooters did (" I am not saying that what has happened shouldn’t be condemned, it should. And everyone us doing that."). It does not try to make excuses for Muslim terrorists, if anything it is simply a critique of how the broader story around Charlie Hebdo acted as if the paper was some valiant bastion of freedom, when actually they wrote scandalous garbage. There are no justifications of what happened, only that neither Charlie Hebdo nor terrorists were right.
Remember though, the premise of the thread isn't to say "SJWs are exactly as bad as neo-nazis". The original poster is highlighting certain similarities in rhetoric and philosophy between some members of the widely disorganized movement (the ones people tend to call SJWs) and neo-nazi rhetoric/philosophy. Among these issues is the tendency to blame all of life and the world's problems on a single group of people that is perceived to harmfully control everything. You can argue that you think the SJWs are right, and that white men do harmfully control society, but the rhetoric is indeed similar.
It's worth noting that while it is important to be skeptical and critical of those you disagree with, it is even more important to be skeptical and critical of people already on your side. I'm naturally biased in favor of anyone on the side of equality, and naturally biased against anyone that seems to be trying to resist that. The same goes for my bias towards an atheist in a religious debate and my bias to arguments for combo decks being good in MTG. Bias is dangerous, and the unthinking support it leads to is troubling. As such, I try to be more skeptical toward people I'm already biased towards agreeing with. The fact it feels cringe-worthy to be questioning people vocally on the side of equality just makes it more important to question.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I don't think that your analysis is fully correct.
I see SJWs paint the "villains" of their stories as an unredeemable bad guy all the time.
wtf.gif
Liberals aren't trying to change anyone. Calling SJWs liberal is a joke. Lets just call insanity what it is here and not attach incorrect political agendas to each one. It detracts away from the work many of us are trying to do in society. Also the conservatives aren't trying to work around anything. They take the let them die approach.
The SJWs are just a circle jerk group dedicated to feminism and making themselves feel better about their bodies by posting incorrect memes depicting themselves as curvy instead of apple shaped. I will admit I am an overweight male, but I am not making an excuses and not ashamed of that fact in such a way that I try to shape my own reality.
You are equating SJWs with those of us who fight for the equality of all men, women, and children despite race, gender, religion(or lack thereof), etc. SJWs are just feminazis who are anti-man, anti-white, and anti-telling someone the truth about their weight issues.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
There's a pretty astonishing lack of self-awareness in this paragraph. In the first part you decry attaching the political label "liberal" to SJWs because it detracts from the work that moderate, sane liberals are trying to accomplish. In the very next breath, you not only label the right-wing crazies as "conservative," you characterize them as the core of that political ideology. The "let them die" conservatives are no more representative of that ideology than the "die cis scum" SJWs are representative of liberalism. Both the right and left have fringe crazies. Both the right and left have sane, well-meaning people.
I mean, are talking about the feminist commenters on buzzfeed videos? Are we talking about liberals? Are we talking about people who are solely confined to the Internet?
I will answer this question based on my first definition. Are buzzfeed video commenters similar to Nazis? My answer is no.
One likes to sit around and comment. My guess is that they are poorly informed and inactive in their life and aspirations. The other was the political party that came into power and catalyzed World War II, whose continuing effects on global society can continue to be seen today.
Perhaps this is just because of the anonymous nature of the internet, and people are quicker to reveal their hypocrisy and insanity. The difference however, is that Nazis actually had the power to enact their ideology politically, whereas I'm 90% sure SJW's have no chance of acting upon some of their more extreme tendencies.
I was going to post on the Texas situation when it first happened. Reading the warriors' responses to this event on some of the more left-wing outlets (e.g. Huffpost) was a shocking and horrifying experience. There were a ton of creepy "had it coming" arguments, like the ones that are used to justify rape. The outrage was directed primarily at those who would have the audacity to draw cartoons rather than those who chose to go on a killing spree. Within the U.S., SJWs are a 5th column that is infected with dangerous European ideas such as their opposition to freedom of speech, religion, association, etc.
Could you elaborate on how Europe is against freedom of speech, religion and association, or even etc.?
I'm starting to think that SJW is like the welfare queen; a bugbear that isn't actually as scary as it's painted to be. (And an excuse to condemn people who talk about social justice, just like 'welfare queen' was an excuse to condemn beneficiaries.)
Social Justice Warriors do harm! This year twice as many cops have been shot as usual because of an absurdly intellectually dishonest narrative about police shootings and race spread by SJWs.
Europeans are not the problem it's just that social justice warriors have made more inroads there so it is more visible.
That's patently false, and obviously hyperbolic. Were these SJWs around in the 1970's or during the prohibition when law enforcement officers were killed at twice the 'normal' rate of the last 100 years (which has hovered around 120-180 deaths)?
There have been 44 line-of-duty deaths this year. There is absolutely no indication that any of these are a result of the SJW 'narrative', unless you think they're conspiring to organize car accidents on a fairly regular basis.
I definitely don't agree with the extremes posed by the people who are being labelled as SJWs here, but the underlying social inequities they're driven by are still real. They just don't have the ability to grapple with them effectively, and the internet provides a convenient outlet for their frustration. You see this in almost every internet-based 'movement', from Gamergate and beyond, where an injustice or inequity is latched onto by people with heavy confirmation biases and it quickly becomes ugly and place for people to spew their most vile inner thoughts without fear of repercussions. It doesn't make them any more dangerous than your average internet troll, and probably less dangerous than your average teenage 'swatter'.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The reason I asked about the definition about a social justice warrior is that this thread is honestly the first time I have ever heard the term. Maybe I've been living under a rock or something.
But having never heard the term before, it sounds like by social justice warrior, people mean internet trolls.