Hello guys, I want to share my experience with you and hopefully debate what I have learnt and analyzed. Excuse my lack of english typing skills, for it's not my firest language.
I am originally from México, and I have always been fascinated by America, this is thanks to family and friends that come from there and since I was a kid they tried to make me close to english language and the country in general. I remember feeling myself awed with discovery from the videos I saw and the people I met; when they brought me my SNES, my toys, recorded TV in english, movies, etc. I felt I grew more critic of mexican society, as I had ground to compare it to our northern neighbors. My dreeam was always to go to USA and make a living, but after the economic crisis of the 94' in México and the constant empoverishment of the country, added to the distance and fissures that appeared on our family relationships, it became just a dream.
Thanks to the interneet however, I kept getting close to America and its culture, media, society and politics, as well as with the americans I met in México; my most significant relationships during highschool and middle high were with americans, and it got harder for me to sympathize to other Mexicans, as I was quite critical of my own culture and costumes. My first best friend was a texan, and my first romantic relationship was with an asian american from Florida.
After many years I was able to go to America thanks to friends of the family, and as I expected, I loved it. However, I found out that I arrived to find a spciety even more polarized and, at times agressive, than mine. Two groups constantly clashing on colleges and even on public spaces on Washington and Chicago, what people likes to call "Social Justice Warriors" and what I like to call "Advocates of Freedom", none of them as approachable as I thought.
It was baffling to see how obsessed the typical american teenager is with gender and sexuality; I had suffered bad experiences in Tumblr and I wasn't expecting to see these "activists" live. It was quite easy to find shelter with SJW as a foreigner, despite the fact they have a lot going on with their life philosophy, defending things they, themselves, don't truly understand. Maybe it's the fact they have an open mind for controversy (be it for integrating others, or attacking those who make them feel uncomfortable) that let me find myself more welcome with them.
Then, there was this people who defend freedom of speech, and are more inclined towards conservative values and ideals. Tho I agree more with these people, they were equally agressive, and their attitude towards foreginers wasn't better than a SJW pointing their fingers at a "cisgender". They seem to loathe the new tendencies that pop up on society, yet it's ironic how said freeedom is what is creating them.
In the end I felt quite polarized, as both groups get quite uncmfortable about each other and seemed very intolerant. I remember this mockery going outside the White House, people dressed like Obama ordering people to abourt, and I felt disgusted; not because the theme in question, but because people chooses to "piss off" other on purpose when expressing themselves, and it seems this is broadly accepted.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
One thing I noticed tho, with freedom advocates, it's very, very hard to talk to them about international affairs and politics, the only country that seemed to matter or exist in their minds was America.
I came back feeling a little dissapointed and scared, as it was hard to find people who wasn't picking a side, and because talking openly about said issues with people isn't as easy as in Mexico (and my country is far, far behind in terms of politics, it's already hard in Mexico...). It was close to election day so that might explain why people was acting like that, but it's a tendency I see online and I was surprised to experience.
I decide to post this here because, as I've commented before, MTG Salvation community has always been espectful of my arguments, and as I see, the arguments of others.
I wonder if part of the issue is that the internet throws the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides into harsh relief. In US nomenclature, I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal, but have had civil discussions here and elsewhere with conservatives. But when each group sees the worst of the other (and people do hunt for that worst, so that they can fire up their group), they get angry and afraid, which brings out more of that worst, eventually leading to the kind of polarisation you discuss.
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'm telling my story from the point of view of a foreigner, and well, I met a lot of people like I would expect them on the internet in USA; it's easy to hit people up and say hi and strike at least, I really liked that It may have been that I aset my mind in finding those people, and I want to know what Americans think on this issue (it's still easier to ask about it via internet than in person, lol)
It's the battle of security versus comfort, blown out of proportion. Both things are nice, and it's right to like both, but they are always at odds with each other, so people feel like they have to pick a side and turn it into a sporting event. My advice; go to college for the teachers, not for the students. Go to class, learn. College students don't have anything important to teach you. College education was something that wasn't afforded to me in my life that I would have really liked, but never could bring myself to make the financial gamble.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
I agree with all of the later part very much. I'm not sure if the attitude to racial issues is a bigger problem on the left than on the right, as you seem to be implying at the start there. I'd say it's a fairly similar scale problem for both sides, but that the problem is easier to find but harder to recognise on the left than for the right- as I think the problem on the left is a more insidious one than the right which is more lead by lots of angry people on the fringe.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda? That's not even close.
*Sigh* Ok, so we already had a thread on SJWs, but this bears repeating.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda?
Well, some views can absolutely be compared with White Nationalism's agenda. But the problem is when someone takes these extremes and then proceeds to color every single person who discusses identity politics and then proceeds to lump them in the same category. You have a situation in which someone precludes that all people who are SJWs are the outright racist SJWs, and then in turn that all people who discuss identity politics are SJWs.
Basically, there is a sensible middle ground with regards to identity politics, but the problem is that everyone believes that they're in the sensible middle ground, and too often you get someone who believes he is the sensible middle ground when he emphatically is not.
I'm not sure you realize how much you are showing your own bias here. Imagine a devout muslim questioned about homosexuality. To this person, it is a sin that is ugly and inexcusable. That doesn't necessarily mean he or she would also wish to partake in or even support persecution or even actual violence against homosexuals. It will be the same with white nationalists. They can support programs from reduced government support to increased enforced assimilation to deportation to actual ethnic cleansing. You're all lumping them together because they do not want government to enforce this particular sort of equality, which you agree with.
But they can be lumped together in that regard. You just said they both don't want equality. So they can be lumped together in the sense of "does not want legal equality." Similarly, I can lump a Muslim living in America and a bigot living in America under the category "living in America."
There's nothing wrong with lumping people together in a category if they actually can be appropriately and factually lumped together into a category.
What's the critical difference you're suggesting here? I think the great similarity is that both groups have defined an evil other that they can righteously fight.
Erm, yes, but you'll notice that one group is - at least supposedly - protesting the evils of racial discrimination, while the other is protesting the "evils" of racial equality.
Do you see the difference now?
Some of them do fear this, but that is not the point: you're focusing on the most extreme points of view again, which only serves to polarize others to those extremes. White nationalists can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on. I'm sure you too can think of a whole bunch of reasons why you would wish to remove a certain type of people from power or society, or wish to make them change (some of) their ways.
Wait, wait, wait. Seriously? Your complaint is that Jay13x is generalizing among White nationalists by portraying them as all wanting to deport other races, when in fact White nationalists can want to do a host of much worse things to other races? Are you kidding me, dude? THAT'S what you're going to quibble on?!
Yes, I can think of a host of people I would want to act or think differently in society. However, I'm not going to do it out of some belief that they were born wrong. You're trying to say Jay13x is in the wrong for criticizing someone about creating a moral equivalency between civil rights activists and racists by doing exactly that. Except it doesn't work because to treat people unfairly purely on the basis of race is obviously ******* wrong. It's obviously ******* wrong regardless of whether that means exterminating them or deporting them or treating them as second class citizens.
You are clearly contradicting yourself here. There is a lot of difference between only whites and only whites in power.
Yes, BUT THEY'RE BOTH MORALLY ABHORRENT.
Do you seriously think that is a fair juxtaposition?
Which is laughable because you're making that very juxtaposition!
And how do you explain that to the gay guy who got bullied out of his appartment by Turkish immigrants that his grief is not even close to the grief of the racism these immigrants suffer?
When did Jay13x say that? You said he didn't say that at the above, now you're saying he's saying exactly that.
You know, without nudging him towards supporting the extremists that more closely ressemble the strawmen you keep bringing up?
Are you kidding me? How do you disagree with tenets of conservative Islam without turning into a person who hates Muslims? You don't see how that's a false dichotomy?
I'm going to back and clarify one thing.
I'm not entirely sure what this statement is supposed to mean
But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong.
And I want to be clear what interpretation I was agreeing with. And that is the interpretation that 'these things' are 'not considered racist' (and the others) by the people saying them and people who support them. I do not entirely agree that 'these things' aren't considered racist (etc.) by the population overall. I reckon the majority of people would object to them, but a very large percentage doesn't have much exposure to them, and I think that is partly due to the efforts of the people doing these things to disguise themselves as activists for good, especially in their language.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
I'm going to agree with Mad Mat that you are being unfairly tight in your grouping of white nationalism. You are either defining it as a smaller group than 'SJWs', or you are ignoring divisions within that group defined as a more fair comparison in scope to 'SJWs'.
White Nationalism is broad group like the radical left.
On a related note, according to some researchers I have heard from, you can quite cleanly divide the political philosophy of 'political correctness' (or whatever you want to call it) into fairly moderate people with a strong support for social justice changes, and authoritarians who hide amongst the moderates who want more extreme measures of censorship and social control (like with what I was saying earlier).
First off, "does not want legal equality" does not really cover it, as often the grief originates primarily from the perceived legal favouring of certain groups. So, they may actually want legal equality: they're mad because they don't think it's currently in place.
You've got to be kidding me. You're talking about people who want homosexuals and people of non-white race to be treated like second-class citizens and legally be discriminated against, and you're telling me they're doing this in the interest of fairness?
Well that's obviously ******* incorrect, now isn't it?
Second, while there is nothing intrinsically wrong with describing people as groups, you risk generalizations to be made, which in turn leads to polarization. It's much easier to ignore someone by saying "SJW" or "racist" than it is to adress that person's actual argument, because it allows you to associate that person with radical ideas and rhetoric you associate with the buzzword.
However, the corollary to that is there's nothing wrong with saying someone's an SJW or a racist if the shoe fits.
You have a problem with generalizations, but the thing is there’s nothing wrong with generalizations if the generalizations are correct. It's perfectly fine to lump people who wish to perform atrocities like deporting all non-white races in with people who wish to perform atrocities like committing genocide against non-white races into the category "people who wish to perform atrocities against non-white races." That’s a generalization, but it’s a correct generalization. It’s like saying mammals are warm-blooded. It’s a factually correct generalization. There is nothing wrong with making a generalization when it’s fair and accurate.
It’s not fair or correct to call someone a racist if he’s not one, and it’s not fair or correct to say that all racists believe the exact same thing. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that all people who fit the definition of the descriptive term “racist” are racist. That’s fair and accurate.
OK, so why do you think the people who voted Trump or Brexit or Le Pen or Wilders and had mostly social issues in mind, did so?
You cannot honestly tell me racism had nothing to do with it.
Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Or is it maybe that they are nationalists, who discriminate not on the base of race but of culture (which does often correlate with race, but is also directly linked to social issues unlike skin color).
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
You only want to see the racist
ALL OF THOSE ARE RACIST! They fit the definition of the term “racist.” That’s how words work!
This is the same ridiculous nonsense as you saying, "Hey now! Not all white nationalists want to deport all the non-white people. Some want to kill them all. You can't lump them together." Why the hell would you argue this? (A) That's actually worse! (B) That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
By contrast, you're arguing about lumping in people who wish to oppress people one way with people who wish to oppress people the other way. There's no problem with that because they all fit the definition of “racist!” And also “oppressive!”
A person who wishes to instate Apartheid, a person who wishes to deport all non-white people, and a person who wishes to kill all non-whites are all horrifically racist and willing to commit horrifying atrocities against their fellow man, and in that sense, we can lump them together. That’s how descriptive terms work. The sky and a car can both be described as “blue.”
There were three less extreme classifications after deportation in my list,
Which were still wrong!
as well as an "and son on". I mentioned the extremes precisely because it shows how ridiculous it is to talk about the likes of Richard Dawkins or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or David Duke or Alex Jones or Heinrich ******* Himmler as belonging to the same political group.
Nobody is saying that they belong to the same political group. That is a strawman.
However, are you seriously trying to argue that a Neo-Nazi and a Nazi cannot be grouped together as similar?
Or that a Neo-Nazi and a white supremacist cannot be grouped together? Can you notice no common element there?
And speaking of common elements, why are Dawkins and Ali on that list? I don’t know of them speaking out in favor of racist policies. Can you cite where they did?
So, affirmative action is therefore obviously wrong?
QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unconstitutional and wrong. Otherwise, I wouldn't say *obviously* wrong, no. We could have a debate as to its merits, but that’s a separate discussion.
Moreover, you're bringing back Jay13x's point. There's no comparison between affirmative action and something like Jim Crow. To compare the two is outright ridiculous.
Focusing on achievements like first black man or first woman or first muslim becoming president is obviously wrong?
Of course not. We lived in an era in which black people were enslaved and then legally discriminated against. To have it be not only possible, but a reality, that a black man was able to ascend to the highest office in our nation should be a point of pride for us. It's a symbol of overcoming Jim Crow and other segregation laws, for Barack Obama, for the civil rights movement, and for us as a nation.
Obviously there’s more to Barack Obama than just him being black, and reducing him to that is wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with taking pride in a black person taking the highest office in the nation within a generation of segregation being legal.
Discrimination based on cultural differences is obviously wrong?
What the… YES!
Jay13x made the claim that white nationalists could be lumped together through their goals, whereas SJW's could not.
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
You're saying you can't lump a person who wants to oppress racial minorities in an extreme and horrifying way with someone who wants to oppress racial minorities in an EVEN MORE extreme and horrifying way. The answer is yes. Yes you can.
I'm saying that white nationalists, too, cannot be lumped together like that.
They can. They're all white nationalists. You just did it too.
By calling them or their ideas all "morally abhorrent", "evil" and "******* wrong"
THEIR IDEAS ARE ALL MORALLY ABHORRENT, EVIL, AND ******* WRONG!
To genuinely have the desire to oppress people based on their race is morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong! It's morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong however you decide to manifest it!
White nationalists can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on.
You're acting like ANYTHING on this list is morally acceptable! OF COURSE IT'S NOT. Deliberately promoting unjust discrimination is wrong, and it is wrong regardless of the level of it. Obviously there are ones on that list that are way more horrific than others, but that doesn't make the others correct or morally acceptable!
If I shoot you in the kneecap, and say, “Hey, there are people who would have shot you in the head,” that does not make what I did ok!
Which would be fine, of course, if you genuinely think that anyone in the US or Europe who has issues with immigration, islam and/or feminism should be simply called all those epithets and put on ignore.
Obviously I’m not saying that, and obviously this is a strawman. I have no problem saying that we should take note of a person’s arguments instead of outright dismissing them.
But that’s not the same thing as saying we cannot dub these arguments as “racist” or “discriminatory.” It’s ridiculous to argue that. Those words are descriptive, and they have definitions, and when something fits the description by that definition, then it’s perfectly fine to say that the word describes them. If someone fits the definition of a racist, it’s perfectly fine to say the word “racist” describes him.
So, what are those issues? Are they based around facts or discrimination? Are they rooted in generalities that are fair and accurate, or unfair and inaccurate?
By lumping him together with white supremacists because of it. It's not a dichotomy, it's a process. If people find their griefs are not heard, they will seek support elsewhere.
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same. The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate). I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
A few of the most common two-axis versions of this are:
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Capitalism versus Communism
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Conservative versus Liberal
Personal Rights + Business Rights
Deciding that America is TOO WHITE and working to create a totalitarian solution that tramples fundamental rights while creating a hierarchy based on race etc., hatred towards people based on their skin color, gender, other accident of birth traits etc. is not morally superior or profound because you call it social justice and sell it with buzzwords like equality.
White supremacists are not less moral then SJWs!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.”
Deciding that America is TOO WHITE and working to create a totalitarian solution that tramples fundamental rights while creating a hierarchy based on race
Clarify this?
White supremacists are not less moral then SJWs!
Given that not all SJWs are racial supremacists, whereas all White supremacists are racial supremacists (hence the name "white supremacists"), this is an impossible claim to take seriously.
First off, "does not want legal equality" does not really cover it, as often the grief originates primarily from the perceived legal favouring of certain groups. So, they may actually want legal equality: they're mad because they don't think it's currently in place.
You've got to be kidding me. You're talking about people who want homosexuals and people of non-white race to be treated like second-class citizens and legally be discriminated against, and you're telling me they're doing this in the interest of fairness?
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
If you don't accept this group to be called 'white nationalists', which is understandable, then fine, call it a different name.
I'm generally going to just make the comparison be the radical right vs the radical left, so that's an alternative for you.
Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Or is it maybe that they are nationalists, who discriminate not on the base of race but of culture (which does often correlate with race, but is also directly linked to social issues unlike skin color).
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism. And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
Jay13x made the claim that white nationalists could be lumped together through their goals, whereas SJW's could not.
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism, but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic, so it's pretty irrelevant to say you can't make a cohesive group because some aren't racist and some are.
'SJW' is generally defined by something like oversensitivity.
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate)
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
I think the problem is pretty obviously that you don't actually understand what "white nationalist" means. If you don't think racism is an automatic given, you clearly don't understand the entire point behind the ideology.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism.
No, it does not have to be a narrow definition, because that's what white nationalism means! Why do you think the word "white" is there?!
And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category. That's the difference. Mad Mat is saying they're equivalent. They are not. By definition.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism,
Obviously.
but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic,
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
*Sigh* Ok, so we already had a thread on SJWs, but this bears repeating.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
No, SJW is defined by whatever the user thinks it means. It's frequently applied to any progressive stance. It's a useless term.
I'm not sure you realize how much you are showing your own bias here. Imagine a devout muslim questioned about homosexuality. To this person, it is a sin that is ugly and inexcusable. That doesn't necessarily mean he or she would also wish to partake in or even support persecution or even actual violence against homosexuals. It will be the same with white nationalists. They can support programs from reduced government support to increased enforced assimilation to deportation to actual ethnic cleansing. You're all lumping them together because they do not want government to enforce this particular sort of equality, which you agree with.
White Nationalism wants to make my family second class citizens. Yes, I'm biased against them. White nationalism, by definition, wants a white nation. At the very least (and least disgusting), someone who identifies as a white nationalist wants whites to have all the political power.
The very fact that this has to be explained to you means the Overton Window has shifted too far.
White Nationalists want inherent inequality, with a group having power simply because they were born pale.
A "SJW", by contrast, could have a host of different policy goals.
What's the critical difference you're suggesting here? I think the great similarity is that both groups have defined an evil other that they can righteously fight. The naive, ignorant, lowlife, evil SJW or bigot.
You could boil any argument down to this. Do you believe White Nationalists have a fair point?
"Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't."
Some of them do fear this, but that is not the point: you're focusing on the most extreme points of view again, which only serves to polarize others to those extremes. White nationalists can want anything from extermination, to sterilization, to deportation, to deregulation, to more specific rules of assimilation, to reduced tolerance of other cultural peculiarities and so on. I'm sure you too can think of a whole bunch of reasons why you would wish to remove a certain type of people from power or society, or wish to make them change (some of) their ways.
What's a non-extreme white nationalist point of view?
Why is it wrong to focus on their state goal: a white nation, but not wrong to focus on the extreme views of some people are referred to as "SJW"?
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power)
You are clearly contradicting yourself here. There is a lot of difference between only whites and only whites in power. And that is not an exhaustive classification.
, whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
Do you seriously think that is a fair juxtaposition?
Do you? You seem really defensive of an ideology that, at it's most basic, wants to disenfranchise people based solely on ethnic characteristics.
And seem to equate people that want that to not happen as equally bad.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda? That's not even close.
What is the difference, then? Numbers? If so, then at what threshold black supremacism would become a problem? And how do you explain that to the gay guy who got bullied out of his appartment by Turkish immigrants that his grief is not even close to the grief of the racism these immigrants suffer? You know, without nudging him towards supporting the extremists that more closely ressemble the strawmen you keep bringing up?
I think you're thinking we're having a different argument than we're having. First of all, you don't get to use 'Strawmen' if you think 'SJW' is a reasonable term. Because it's inherently meaningless and solely exists to portray all progressive/liberal platforms as the same irrational nonsense.
Second, 'black supremacy' or anything like it is also reprehensible nonsense. I don't know why you think that. The problem here is the word SJW, which is used equally on the 'irrationals', as they've been called here, but also on basically any progressive as well. SJW is a perfect attack term because it basically means nothing, but smears everyone.
Deciding that America is TOO WHITE and working to create a totalitarian solution that tramples fundamental rights while creating a hierarchy based on race etc., hatred towards people based on their skin color, gender, other accident of birth traits etc. is not morally superior or profound because you call it social justice and sell it with buzzwords like equality.
White supremacists are not less moral then SJWs!
What does this even mean?
Look, no one has decided America is 'too white' except idiots. The reality, if you pay even a little bit of attention, is that people who aren't white men have been historically - and currently - disenfranchised for a wide variety of reasons. Saying 'Olly Olly Equal Rights' doesn't magically undue years of systemic racism.
The solutions, however, are quite different. One aims to disenfranchise based on race. The other wants you not to be able to do that, and to help fix the problems it's caused over the years.
It's amazing to watch disaffected white males get radicalized by this nonsense to the point where people legitimately can't see the difference between those two positions.
*Sigh* Ok, so we already had a thread on SJWs, but this bears repeating.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda?
Well, some views can absolutely be compared with White Nationalism's agenda. But the problem is when someone takes these extremes and then proceeds to color every single person who discusses identity politics and then proceeds to lump them in the same category. You have a situation in which someone precludes that all people who are SJWs are the outright racist SJWs, and then in turn that all people who discuss identity politics are SJWs.
Basically, there is a sensible middle ground with regards to identity politics, but the problem is that everyone believes that they're in the sensible middle ground, and too often you get someone who believes he is the sensible middle ground when he emphatically is not.
Incorrect.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is a form of white knighting, where someone defends a disadvantaged female in order to garner favor from said female entirely for the purpose of trying to have sex with said girl.
These days, SJW is similar to "cuck" or "snowflake": a catch-all term used by conservatives to belittle and attack the other side via ad hominem. Outside that, it has absolutely zero meaning, since the original meaning was lost long ago. Similar in loss of meaning to "troll".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
You don't call "dying to removal" if the removal is more expensive in resources than the creature. If you have to spend BG (Abrupt Decay), or W + basic land (PtE) to remove a 1G, that is not "dying to removal". Strictly speaking Goyf dies to removal, but actually your removal is dying to Goyf.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.
I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
I think the problem is pretty obviously that you don't actually understand what "white nationalist" means. If you don't think racism is an automatic given, you clearly don't understand the entire point behind the ideology.
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
How many white nationalists do you think actually identify as white nationalists?
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
Sure, they aren't lots of these people, but it's not hard to believe simply that there are some.
At the very least, you can't just assume they don't exist.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic,
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
This quote here seems to directly suggest that either being racist or not being racist means you can't be an SJW. And also just above you argued a difference in racism means some don't fit.
So if SJW doesn't have to do with racism, you are going to have to concede you can very well lump racists and non racists together under it.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.
I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
Anarchical communism (closer to the actual definition of the theory) is not contained within socialism. Authoritarian "communism" like the USSR would be part of socialism, but arguably not really part of communism. Though to be fair, perfect theoretical communism and perfect theoretical capitalism are both utopias that function effectively the same in that regard. Though I agree that socialism doesn't have a solid place on the radical left, even though it is often placed there in the US.
I am originally from México, and I have always been fascinated by America, this is thanks to family and friends that come from there and since I was a kid they tried to make me close to english language and the country in general. I remember feeling myself awed with discovery from the videos I saw and the people I met; when they brought me my SNES, my toys, recorded TV in english, movies, etc. I felt I grew more critic of mexican society, as I had ground to compare it to our northern neighbors. My dreeam was always to go to USA and make a living, but after the economic crisis of the 94' in México and the constant empoverishment of the country, added to the distance and fissures that appeared on our family relationships, it became just a dream.
Thanks to the interneet however, I kept getting close to America and its culture, media, society and politics, as well as with the americans I met in México; my most significant relationships during highschool and middle high were with americans, and it got harder for me to sympathize to other Mexicans, as I was quite critical of my own culture and costumes. My first best friend was a texan, and my first romantic relationship was with an asian american from Florida.
After many years I was able to go to America thanks to friends of the family, and as I expected, I loved it. However, I found out that I arrived to find a spciety even more polarized and, at times agressive, than mine. Two groups constantly clashing on colleges and even on public spaces on Washington and Chicago, what people likes to call "Social Justice Warriors" and what I like to call "Advocates of Freedom", none of them as approachable as I thought.
It was baffling to see how obsessed the typical american teenager is with gender and sexuality; I had suffered bad experiences in Tumblr and I wasn't expecting to see these "activists" live. It was quite easy to find shelter with SJW as a foreigner, despite the fact they have a lot going on with their life philosophy, defending things they, themselves, don't truly understand. Maybe it's the fact they have an open mind for controversy (be it for integrating others, or attacking those who make them feel uncomfortable) that let me find myself more welcome with them.
Then, there was this people who defend freedom of speech, and are more inclined towards conservative values and ideals. Tho I agree more with these people, they were equally agressive, and their attitude towards foreginers wasn't better than a SJW pointing their fingers at a "cisgender". They seem to loathe the new tendencies that pop up on society, yet it's ironic how said freeedom is what is creating them.
In the end I felt quite polarized, as both groups get quite uncmfortable about each other and seemed very intolerant. I remember this mockery going outside the White House, people dressed like Obama ordering people to abourt, and I felt disgusted; not because the theme in question, but because people chooses to "piss off" other on purpose when expressing themselves, and it seems this is broadly accepted.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
One thing I noticed tho, with freedom advocates, it's very, very hard to talk to them about international affairs and politics, the only country that seemed to matter or exist in their minds was America.
I came back feeling a little dissapointed and scared, as it was hard to find people who wasn't picking a side, and because talking openly about said issues with people isn't as easy as in Mexico (and my country is far, far behind in terms of politics, it's already hard in Mexico...). It was close to election day so that might explain why people was acting like that, but it's a tendency I see online and I was surprised to experience.
I decide to post this here because, as I've commented before, MTG Salvation community has always been espectful of my arguments, and as I see, the arguments of others.
Thanks for reading friends.
I wonder if part of the issue is that the internet throws the loudest, most extreme voices on both sides into harsh relief. In US nomenclature, I'm pretty sure I'm a liberal, but have had civil discussions here and elsewhere with conservatives. But when each group sees the worst of the other (and people do hunt for that worst, so that they can fire up their group), they get angry and afraid, which brings out more of that worst, eventually leading to the kind of polarisation you discuss.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
I agree with all of the later part very much. I'm not sure if the attitude to racial issues is a bigger problem on the left than on the right, as you seem to be implying at the start there. I'd say it's a fairly similar scale problem for both sides, but that the problem is easier to find but harder to recognise on the left than for the right- as I think the problem on the left is a more insidious one than the right which is more lead by lots of angry people on the fringe.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
Now, to be blunt, of course everyone is racist. It's not okay for a black person to be anti-semetic or homophobic, and it's something rarely talked about. There are plenty of feminists who, frankly, don't know what they're talking about. But acting like that's equivalent to White Nationalism's agenda? That's not even close.
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
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is generally used to describe a type of person, usually an internet user found on Twitter or tumblr, who has views on racism, sexism, or identity politics that is completely irrational. This irrationality may be seen in this person seeking discrimination that isn't actually there, having illogical views on said discrimination, having illogical views on what constitutes a sensible response to said discrimination, or a combination of all three. These people absolutely are ridiculous, and at times are outright racist themselves.
However, a problem occurs when you have people who then go ahead and attempt to lump anyone who makes any claim in a discussion about discrimination contrary to their own under the term "SJW," including when said people are being entirely rational. This is the trap we can run into with the use of the term SJW.
Well, some views can absolutely be compared with White Nationalism's agenda. But the problem is when someone takes these extremes and then proceeds to color every single person who discusses identity politics and then proceeds to lump them in the same category. You have a situation in which someone precludes that all people who are SJWs are the outright racist SJWs, and then in turn that all people who discuss identity politics are SJWs.
Basically, there is a sensible middle ground with regards to identity politics, but the problem is that everyone believes that they're in the sensible middle ground, and too often you get someone who believes he is the sensible middle ground when he emphatically is not.
There's nothing wrong with lumping people together in a category if they actually can be appropriately and factually lumped together into a category.
Do you see the difference now?
Yes, I can think of a host of people I would want to act or think differently in society. However, I'm not going to do it out of some belief that they were born wrong. You're trying to say Jay13x is in the wrong for criticizing someone about creating a moral equivalency between civil rights activists and racists by doing exactly that. Except it doesn't work because to treat people unfairly purely on the basis of race is obviously ******* wrong. It's obviously ******* wrong regardless of whether that means exterminating them or deporting them or treating them as second class citizens.
Yes, BUT THEY'RE BOTH MORALLY ABHORRENT.
Which is laughable because you're making that very juxtaposition!
When did Jay13x say that? You said he didn't say that at the above, now you're saying he's saying exactly that.
Are you kidding me? How do you disagree with tenets of conservative Islam without turning into a person who hates Muslims? You don't see how that's a false dichotomy?
I'm not entirely sure what this statement is supposed to mean
And I want to be clear what interpretation I was agreeing with. And that is the interpretation that 'these things' are 'not considered racist' (and the others) by the people saying them and people who support them. I do not entirely agree that 'these things' aren't considered racist (etc.) by the population overall. I reckon the majority of people would object to them, but a very large percentage doesn't have much exposure to them, and I think that is partly due to the efforts of the people doing these things to disguise themselves as activists for good, especially in their language.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
I'm going to agree with Mad Mat that you are being unfairly tight in your grouping of white nationalism. You are either defining it as a smaller group than 'SJWs', or you are ignoring divisions within that group defined as a more fair comparison in scope to 'SJWs'.
White Nationalism is broad group like the radical left.
On a related note, according to some researchers I have heard from, you can quite cleanly divide the political philosophy of 'political correctness' (or whatever you want to call it) into fairly moderate people with a strong support for social justice changes, and authoritarians who hide amongst the moderates who want more extreme measures of censorship and social control (like with what I was saying earlier).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
However, the corollary to that is there's nothing wrong with saying someone's an SJW or a racist if the shoe fits.
You have a problem with generalizations, but the thing is there’s nothing wrong with generalizations if the generalizations are correct. It's perfectly fine to lump people who wish to perform atrocities like deporting all non-white races in with people who wish to perform atrocities like committing genocide against non-white races into the category "people who wish to perform atrocities against non-white races." That’s a generalization, but it’s a correct generalization. It’s like saying mammals are warm-blooded. It’s a factually correct generalization. There is nothing wrong with making a generalization when it’s fair and accurate.
It’s not fair or correct to call someone a racist if he’s not one, and it’s not fair or correct to say that all racists believe the exact same thing. But there’s nothing wrong with saying that all people who fit the definition of the descriptive term “racist” are racist. That’s fair and accurate.
You cannot honestly tell me racism had nothing to do with it.
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
ALL OF THOSE ARE RACIST! They fit the definition of the term “racist.” That’s how words work!
This is the same ridiculous nonsense as you saying, "Hey now! Not all white nationalists want to deport all the non-white people. Some want to kill them all. You can't lump them together." Why the hell would you argue this? (A) That's actually worse! (B) That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
By contrast, you're arguing about lumping in people who wish to oppress people one way with people who wish to oppress people the other way. There's no problem with that because they all fit the definition of “racist!” And also “oppressive!”
A person who wishes to instate Apartheid, a person who wishes to deport all non-white people, and a person who wishes to kill all non-whites are all horrifically racist and willing to commit horrifying atrocities against their fellow man, and in that sense, we can lump them together. That’s how descriptive terms work. The sky and a car can both be described as “blue.”
Which were still wrong!
Nobody is saying that they belong to the same political group. That is a strawman.
However, are you seriously trying to argue that a Neo-Nazi and a Nazi cannot be grouped together as similar?
Or that a Neo-Nazi and a white supremacist cannot be grouped together? Can you notice no common element there?
And speaking of common elements, why are Dawkins and Ali on that list? I don’t know of them speaking out in favor of racist policies. Can you cite where they did?
QUOTA-BASED affirmative action is unconstitutional and wrong. Otherwise, I wouldn't say *obviously* wrong, no. We could have a debate as to its merits, but that’s a separate discussion.
Moreover, you're bringing back Jay13x's point. There's no comparison between affirmative action and something like Jim Crow. To compare the two is outright ridiculous.
Of course not. We lived in an era in which black people were enslaved and then legally discriminated against. To have it be not only possible, but a reality, that a black man was able to ascend to the highest office in our nation should be a point of pride for us. It's a symbol of overcoming Jim Crow and other segregation laws, for Barack Obama, for the civil rights movement, and for us as a nation.
Obviously there’s more to Barack Obama than just him being black, and reducing him to that is wrong, but there’s nothing wrong with taking pride in a black person taking the highest office in the nation within a generation of segregation being legal.
What the… YES!
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
You're saying you can't lump a person who wants to oppress racial minorities in an extreme and horrifying way with someone who wants to oppress racial minorities in an EVEN MORE extreme and horrifying way. The answer is yes. Yes you can.
They can. They're all white nationalists. You just did it too.
THEIR IDEAS ARE ALL MORALLY ABHORRENT, EVIL, AND ******* WRONG!
To genuinely have the desire to oppress people based on their race is morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong! It's morally abhorrent, evil, and ******* wrong however you decide to manifest it!
You're acting like ANYTHING on this list is morally acceptable! OF COURSE IT'S NOT. Deliberately promoting unjust discrimination is wrong, and it is wrong regardless of the level of it. Obviously there are ones on that list that are way more horrific than others, but that doesn't make the others correct or morally acceptable!
If I shoot you in the kneecap, and say, “Hey, there are people who would have shot you in the head,” that does not make what I did ok!
Obviously I’m not saying that, and obviously this is a strawman. I have no problem saying that we should take note of a person’s arguments instead of outright dismissing them.
But that’s not the same thing as saying we cannot dub these arguments as “racist” or “discriminatory.” It’s ridiculous to argue that. Those words are descriptive, and they have definitions, and when something fits the description by that definition, then it’s perfectly fine to say that the word describes them. If someone fits the definition of a racist, it’s perfectly fine to say the word “racist” describes him.
So, what are those issues? Are they based around facts or discrimination? Are they rooted in generalities that are fair and accurate, or unfair and inaccurate?
No, dude, that's ridiculous. What you're saying is these two sentences:
I disagree with certain tenets of your faith
I hate you
are exactly the same. Of course that's not true.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same. The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate). I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
A few of the most common two-axis versions of this are:
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Capitalism versus Communism
Authoritarian versus Anarchy + Conservative versus Liberal
Personal Rights + Business Rights
White supremacists are not less moral then SJWs!
Given that not all SJWs are racial supremacists, whereas all White supremacists are racial supremacists (hence the name "white supremacists"), this is an impossible claim to take seriously.
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
If you don't accept this group to be called 'white nationalists', which is understandable, then fine, call it a different name.
I'm generally going to just make the comparison be the radical right vs the radical left, so that's an alternative for you.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism. And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism, but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic, so it's pretty irrelevant to say you can't make a cohesive group because some aren't racist and some are.
'SJW' is generally defined by something like oversensitivity.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
No, it does not have to be a narrow definition, because that's what white nationalism means! Why do you think the word "white" is there?!
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category. That's the difference. Mad Mat is saying they're equivalent. They are not. By definition.
Obviously.
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
White Nationalism wants to make my family second class citizens. Yes, I'm biased against them. White nationalism, by definition, wants a white nation. At the very least (and least disgusting), someone who identifies as a white nationalist wants whites to have all the political power.
The very fact that this has to be explained to you means the Overton Window has shifted too far.
White Nationalists want inherent inequality, with a group having power simply because they were born pale.
A "SJW", by contrast, could have a host of different policy goals.
You could boil any argument down to this. Do you believe White Nationalists have a fair point?
"Being born white does seem like a great indicator of who belongs and who doesn't."
Agree or Disagree?
What's a non-extreme white nationalist point of view?
Why is it wrong to focus on their state goal: a white nation, but not wrong to focus on the extreme views of some people are referred to as "SJW"?
They're equally reprehensible.
Do you? You seem really defensive of an ideology that, at it's most basic, wants to disenfranchise people based solely on ethnic characteristics.
And seem to equate people that want that to not happen as equally bad.
I think you're thinking we're having a different argument than we're having. First of all, you don't get to use 'Strawmen' if you think 'SJW' is a reasonable term. Because it's inherently meaningless and solely exists to portray all progressive/liberal platforms as the same irrational nonsense.
Second, 'black supremacy' or anything like it is also reprehensible nonsense. I don't know why you think that. The problem here is the word SJW, which is used equally on the 'irrationals', as they've been called here, but also on basically any progressive as well. SJW is a perfect attack term because it basically means nothing, but smears everyone.
What does this even mean?
Look, no one has decided America is 'too white' except idiots. The reality, if you pay even a little bit of attention, is that people who aren't white men have been historically - and currently - disenfranchised for a wide variety of reasons. Saying 'Olly Olly Equal Rights' doesn't magically undue years of systemic racism.
The solutions, however, are quite different. One aims to disenfranchise based on race. The other wants you not to be able to do that, and to help fix the problems it's caused over the years.
It's amazing to watch disaffected white males get radicalized by this nonsense to the point where people legitimately can't see the difference between those two positions.
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
Incorrect.
SJW, or Social Justice Warrior, is a form of white knighting, where someone defends a disadvantaged female in order to garner favor from said female entirely for the purpose of trying to have sex with said girl.
These days, SJW is similar to "cuck" or "snowflake": a catch-all term used by conservatives to belittle and attack the other side via ad hominem. Outside that, it has absolutely zero meaning, since the original meaning was lost long ago. Similar in loss of meaning to "troll".
"I hope to have such a death... lying in triumph atop the broken bodies of those who slew me..."
I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
How many white nationalists do you think actually identify as white nationalists?
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
Sure, they aren't lots of these people, but it's not hard to believe simply that there are some.
At the very least, you can't just assume they don't exist.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
This quote here seems to directly suggest that either being racist or not being racist means you can't be an SJW. And also just above you argued a difference in racism means some don't fit.
So if SJW doesn't have to do with racism, you are going to have to concede you can very well lump racists and non racists together under it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'd like to see some numbers on that.
Anarchical communism (closer to the actual definition of the theory) is not contained within socialism. Authoritarian "communism" like the USSR would be part of socialism, but arguably not really part of communism. Though to be fair, perfect theoretical communism and perfect theoretical capitalism are both utopias that function effectively the same in that regard. Though I agree that socialism doesn't have a solid place on the radical left, even though it is often placed there in the US.