The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

No one is suggesting that. But perhaps the advantages that made you seem superior were the result of your privilege. For instance you might have been part of a social network that connected you to powerful people and may have given you recommendations that led to you getting a prestigious degree. While an equally smart person may have had to make due with lesser institutions of learning. Superficially, your degree seems superior, but that other person might have done just as well given the opportunities you got. So maybe if they got the opportunity, for instance in a new job or graduate school, they would get a chance to prove themselves. Superior and inferior isn't always so clear cut.

Because people don't hide behind masks out in public. Online I just as real as being in person. If anything people show. Ore of themselves online then in person

I wouldn't have a problem with someone choosing someone inferior in the moment if they thought they had greater potential. It's quite possible to be lacking on the CV but to still make a powerful impression in the interview. This kind of reasoning would not bother me.

sort of. absolute meritocracy is obviously and inevitably a bad thing for a section of the population in any society (people with disabilities, in particular). how to address that issue is a complex matter though, with no obvious best solution. for example, should people with disabilities always be compensated by the state without having to work for their money? that seems unfair. but then, should they always be subjected to the exact same standards as everybody else? well, then they're screwed and there's nothing they can do about it. it sounds unfair too. such is life. absolute fairness is impossible. society is made of compromises (yep, i'll keep repeating it again and again)


i don't really have a problem with it. it's just a very weak argument, and i guess today i'm in the mood for nitpicking . maybe you meant something more nuanced than what you actually said, but then that's another story

and i don't actually believe life is a competition. there's competition involved in it, but that's different

despite all the things you say that i totally disagree with (and your kkk arguments and whatnot... lol), that ^ is actually very true and relevant

Yes, perhaps you're just being precise while I'm relying on you to fill in some blanks. Like I don't believe all of life is a competition, and I'm not keen on overcompetitive people. But there are a plenty of cases where it is.

"Real diversity" is diversity of opinion and ideas, not diversity of skin tone.



So you would accept a decision by the NBA to disallow black competitors?

The reason it doesn't matter is because the NBA and its associated partners care primarily about results - both on the field of play and off it.



So you have an impossible goal, and your methodology necessitates violence? That doesn't seem like a very useful definition.



A list of things that you believe are racist is not pointing out racism. Explain what makes them racist.



Do you really need me to explain why what you said was racist, or is your ego wired in such a manner as to make acceptance of such impossible? I have zero appetite for Sisyphean tasks.

That's why I never argue with either creationists or SJWs.

A fair point, well made.

Nah...that rock is too heavy...Unless I was Atlas!

I agree in a lot of ways to the main point. I've never really considered myself necessarily anti-swj. But I do consider myself anti-stupid. Which... happens to encompass a lot of people who are swj types(tumblr). There's compassion, and then there's compassion. SWJ's seem to think that everything about society is problematic, and that they need to defend everyone against some great evil.

The issue is, I find that many of them do not address real problems that we encounter, disregarding or simply completely ignoring real-world problems that actually hurt people. Rather than their so-called "micro-aggressions"; bearing down on non-issues.

I'm very far left in my views, but swj's... They are like the Alt-Left to the Alt-Right, if you get what I mean.

And you're not alone in that assessment. For anyone not paying attention, the vast majority of people whose political views fall between the extremes of "left" and "right" are utterly fed-up with extremists of any variety. We're especially fed-up of the pathetic tactic of painting moderate critics as belonging to an antagonistic extremist group, based solely on the extremists' inability to think outside a monochromatic dichotomy.

Pretty much just that. The whole "You're WITH us or you're AGAINST us!" black/white type of thought process is absolutely exhausting. And it seems to be what everyone is reverting to now... which is worrisome. I have a strong distaste for extremists of any variety; even people who share my views. Extremist atheists are just as annoying as extremist christians- and extremist lefties are just as annoying as the extremist right.

I don't really know why society has a hard time adapting to a middling world-view.

Thanks!

Like most forms of colorblind racism, you aren't completely wrong, just ignoring the legacy of discrimination by skin tone.


No, it's one area of American life where black people actually seem to do better than whites. I'm in favor of local inequality when global inequality is so pronounced.


Most worthwhile goals seem impossible, the elimination of poverty, hunger, inequality, etc. I didn't mention violence, although all laws are enforced that way.




College admissions without affirmative action, and secondarily standardized tests are biased towards non-minorities. Housing discrimination occurs as recently as the lawsuit against Donald Trump for rejecting black residents from his developments. Until the 1920's, it was illegal for blacks to immigrate to my state (Oregon), and towns had so-called sunset laws, where it was illegal for blacks to be in the town after dark. I posted studies of hiring, where applications with black names received 50% less callbacks than white names. Black wages still trail behind whites. Police are biased against blacks in traffic stops and shootings. Poor blacks who are arrested don't get adequate representation, and often settle for sentences they don't deserve. Black neighborhoods don't have access to fresh vegetables which effects health and physical development, the rates of diabetes are higher for blacks than whites. And finally, voting rights are being undermined, especially in the South, like it's Jim Crow all over again.


Don't bother, I don't need racist lessons from someone as racially insensitive as you.

It may be your legacy, it most certainly is not mine.



The inequality is that of ability, not race. The beauty of purely meritocratic systems is that they completely eliminate skin colour from the equation. That's the lesson to be learned from the NBA.



But it doesn't logically follow that an impossible-seeming goal is therefore worthwhile.



Which colleges?



There's an argument that they might be considered classist, but a better description is that they're just really shoddily written.



This took place in 1973. It was the Justice Department who sued Trump, and his counter claim was dismissed by the court. Sounds like that particular system was functioning just fine 43 years ago.



Now you're citing things from pre-1920 to demonstrate systematic racism in 2016?



Studies which were not representative of the USA as a whole, as they represented just two cities. Further, the studies do not eliminate the possibilty of classism rather than racism, based on their decision to use what they considered to be "ethnic" names.



Black earnings may be lower, but black people are paid the same wages as their white co-workers. Earnings gaps are not indicative of anything other than choices.



This has already been contested elsewhere. I suggest you refer to some of L_Holmes' data from other threads.



Key word "poor". The same is true of poor people of any colour.



Neither of these amount to evidence of systemic racism.



That one you'll have to provide a link for.



Ah, the old I'll use the phrase "racially insensitive" instead of "racist" so I can hide behind the ambiguity routine.

Coming, as it does, from someone who has made direct racist remarks about white people, your slur is nothing but a source of wry amusement for me.