The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

I don't personally know of any reasonable person who would make the inference you're suggesting, nor can I name any occasion where I've encountered that perspective online prior to reading this post. The term is in common usage and the overwhelming majority of people seem to understand exactly what is meant by it. It would be incredibly foolish to assume a person's political perspective based on their dismissal of SJWs.

The concept of social justice relies on a subjective perception of reality, informed by feelings and bereft of facts. This is what it looks like in practice:



Social injustice is inevitable, whether or not you desire it. There will always be those who are bitter that they aren't as successful, talented or desirable as their peers, who are jealous of the perceived superiority of the lives and experiences of others.

My interest lies in legal justice. Social justice can, frankly, do one.

But yeah it also gets used like 'oh because you said you care about this issue and think its important...you must be trying to be some kind of super justice warrior.' when someone is just expressing their opinion.

But good to know it more is meant to specifically refer to people of such leanings that use bullying/inditmidation.

But yeah it also gets used like 'oh because you said you care about this issue and think its important...you must be trying to be some kind of super justice warrior.' when someone is just expressing their opinion.

they're political hipsters, essentially

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

SJWs have the intention to do good, but that doesn't mean they actually do any good. In fact, I think they have caused, and will continue to cause, many problems that will hinder the progress of freedom and equality rather than further it. They are hurting the cause of social justice, and they cannot be ignored.

Here's an example of a bad idea that seems good: white privilege. The reason they use that idea is because they want to point out the problems in the black community that aren't as prevalent in the white community, like poverty, crime, unfair treatment from law enforcement etc. It seems good; it seems like it makes sense.

But when you examine it closely, you realize it has a problem: it implies that the problem is totally one of race, in a society where systemic racism is almost nonexistent. It focuses on the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. It focuses on a very oversimplified version of the problem, rather than addressing the complexities that need to be understood if progress is to be made. It encourages treating black people differently than white people in order to even out their privilege, rather than encouraging people to treat everyone fairly and with the same respect.

It's a way of viewing things that just perpetuates the problem, rather than focusing on solutions. You shouldn't treat people as if they have more or less of anything simply because of the way they look. You should treat them as individuals. But I've seen many people from the BLM movement encouraging this idea of white privilege. Just today I saw a bunch of them on TV talking about this. Many of them were saying that if you are white, you are in some way responsible for the way things are, and say that you therefore have more of an obligation than they do to do something about it. That is simply a racist idea.

But nobody speaks up, either because they blindly believe it or because they are afraid of being called a racist. So the problem continues.

And this idea of perpetuating the problem rather than focusing on solutions can be really be applied to the whole SJW movement. They focus so much attention on race, gender, sexuality etc., when the goal should be to forget about those things. By forget, I mean, to realize those things don't determine who you are as a person or what you are capable of, and so ultimately they don't matter. The goal should be to treat people as individuals, and not to determine things, like whether or not they are privileged, based on something as inconsequential and meaningless as the color of their skin.

I made this thread because some people here seem to think being opposed to SJWs means you're opposed to social justice, when it's quite the opposite. I'm opposed to them because I think they are now one of the biggest, if not the biggest obstacle to social justice. They are infecting and overrunning the social justice movement, and turning it into a victim cult that seeks to take rather than to give, to hurt rather than to help. So forgive me if I think they are a bigger obstruction to social justice than Neo Nazis or white supremacists, who almost nobody likes and who hold very little influence or power in this country, unlike SJWs, who grow in number and influence every day.

I'll reiterate what I said at the beginning of this post: just because a group of people thinks they are doing good does not mean they won't cause tons of harm. Christians and Muslims are a prime example of that. And plenty of SJWs are just as dogmatic about unfounded beliefs as religious people are. The difference is they come disguised as a movement for freedom and equality, and that makes them all the more dangerous.

Canadian college SJWs are as totalitarian as US college SJWs:

Canadian college SJWs are as totalitarian as US college SJWs:

it's how totalitarians operate. misappropriation

If it makes you feel any better, she's getting rape and death threats since this went viral. Should be some consolation.

The threats are obviously unacceptable, but isn't this how the whole "call out" thing is supposed to work, with people facing consequences for their actions?

This +10.

The people who loudly claim to be "liberal" tend to be the most anti-liberal. The people who loudly claim to be anti-racist tend to be the most racist. The people who loudly claim to be anti-sexist tend to be the most sexist. Etc. They appropriate a positive word (like "liberal") as a cover for doing and being the opposite.

Rape threats should never be the consequence of anything. So no, that's not how it's supposed to work. People should be able to disagree with her and tell her that without also threatening to violently penetrate her against her will. Attack her ideas, not her psychological well-being. Threatening someone with rape because you disagree with their political stance is pretty low, and the only kind of statement it makes is that the originator is an uncivilised cretin.

It's unacceptable, yet that's how it's supposed to work according to you. You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

ETA: I know devil's advocate is sort of your bag, but suggesting receiving rape threats is just how facing consequences for your actions is supposed to work is just low. You can find better stances to argue from than that. Aim higher, dude.

Did you miss the part where I said "the threats are obviously unacceptable"? You know, the very first thing I said?