Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset

Page 2 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slam_thunderhide
Deinonychus

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 335

28 Jan 2021, 4:16 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

Alt-Right folks play the “victim card” at least as much as SJWs.

They say things like “I’m discriminated against because I am white,”

Bradleigh wrote:

It is like an entire meme how people on the far right, and right wing religious groups, want so bad to be victims. You can see it so much likely where they are crying that they are being censored on social media, or receive any social consequences to spreading their bigotry.

Let's try a thought experiment here, using America as an example.

Imagine if a proposal was put forward to divide America into two separate nations, with the "rightists" (conservative voting, Trump supporting, mostly white etc) in one nation, and the "leftists" (liberal left voting, more non-white, more LGBT etc) in another nation. Who do you think would be more likely to welcome this and who would be more likely to protest against it?

Well, it's obvious that the rightists would be more likely to welcome this, and the leftists would be more likely to protest it. In fact, actual calls for secession come almost exclusively from the so-called far right. (Well, there was the Nation of Islam too, but the liberal-left don't like them either.)

So this just shows that the complaints of each side are qualitatively different. To spell it out: since those on "the left" refuse to even consider separation from their so-called oppressors, their complaints about their "oppression" are for the most part hollow, and are just a never-ending pretext to grab more privileges for themselves.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

28 Jan 2021, 4:25 pm

slam_thunderhide wrote:

Your assertion fails on two key pivot-points:

1. You assume that only the "Right" would welcome such a proposal, as if this assumption was "obvious" to anyone but yourself. A self-validating assertion is automatically invalid.

2. You equivocate your thought-experiment as an actual real-world situation (which it is not) that has already occurred (which it has not).

Strawman arguments like yours may be useful in an informal discussion; but if you intend to convince the rest of us that you (and only you) fully understand the situation, then you are in error, for you "obviously" do not.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

slam_thunderhide
Deinonychus

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 335

28 Jan 2021, 4:52 pm

Fnord wrote:

slam_thunderhide wrote:

I note your pivot points, Fnord, but I have already stated that actual real-world calls for secession or separation come almost exclusively from the right. The same dynamic is played out in the real world other areas of US national life - the "Left" complaining incessantly that this or that institution, club, town, school or neighborhood is "too white" for instance, while demanding safe spaces for members within their own leftist coalition.

Fnord wrote:

Strawman arguments like yours may be useful in an informal discussion; but if you intend to convince the rest of us that you (and only) you understand the situation, then you are in error, for you "obviously" do not.

If there are people here I would actually be concerned with trying to convince, that would not include people like you, since from what I have observed your only function on the politics sub-forum seems to be to point and sputter at "conspiracy theorists", shriek hysterically about Trump voters, and pig-headedly stick to the establishment narratives on everything.

Last edited by Cornflake on 28 Jan 2021, 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Removed personal attack

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

28 Jan 2021, 4:59 pm

Then who are you trying to convince?

And why?

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Jan 2021, 5:41 pm

Fnord wrote:

NaturalEntity wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Finding "proof" after reaching a conclusion? How very unscientific.

As a fellow science person, I see your point. Think of a hypothesis. Then test it. Then come to a conclusion after thorough research and experiments.

In a forensic study, one abandons all assumptions, gathers as much evidence as possible, and then forms a conclusion. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

How so?
Is this a general statement or specific to this situation?

In the absence of facts, 'Speculation' is king.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

28 Jan 2021, 5:42 pm

It is a general statement. Look it up.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Jan 2021, 6:01 pm

Fnord wrote:

slam_thunderhide wrote:

I am not sure you are using "Self-validation" correctly, here.
Could you clarify?

Quote:

Self-validation is accepting your own internal experience, your thoughts, and your feelings. Self-validation doesn't mean that you believe your thoughts or think your feelings are justified. There are many times that you will have thoughts that surprise you or that don't reflect your values or what you know is true. You will also have feelings that you know aren't justified. If you fight the thoughts and feelings or judge yourself for having them, then you increase your emotional upset. You'll also miss out on important information about who you are as a person.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... validation

While I don't agree entirely with the premise slam_thunderhide is using, there is a grey area of truth in what he has said.

Hitlerian fascism, as an example, is extremely segregationist in nature, where it was even forbidden to have inter-racial marriages.
There is no leftist ideological equivalency that I am aware of.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Jan 2021, 6:11 pm

Fnord wrote:

It is a general statement. Look it up.

What about the deductive approach?

Quote:

The deductive approach involves beginning with a theory, developing hypotheses from that theory, and then collecting and analyzing data to test those hypotheses. Inductive and deductive approaches to research can be employed together for a more complete understanding of the topic that a researcher is studying.

https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +then+data

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:

28 Jan 2021, 7:09 pm

You, like so many others, seem to be conflating "theory" with "conclusion" when they are not equivalent.

Again, look it up!

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Jan 2021, 11:02 pm

Fnord wrote:

You, like so many others, seem to be conflating "theory" with "conclusion" when they are not equivalent.

Again, look it up!

I asked you a question.

goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

29 Jan 2021, 2:45 am

Or.. perhaps their motivation is.. Social Justice. :chin:

_________________
No :heart:

for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,317
Location: Pacific Northwest

29 Jan 2021, 2:59 am

goldfish21 wrote:

Or.. perhaps their motivation is.. Social Justice. :chin:

I know some of their motivation is to change how people speak and change science and facts and turn everyone into deniers.

To expect people to just go around asking everyone their pronouns is like us aspies expecting everyone to change how they talk and interact with each other by expecting them to quit doing eye contact, stop using non verbal cues, etc. just to cater to the 1%. Now when it comes to actually interacting with someone on the spectrum, then they can make adjustments towards us but not to each other.

I mean sure if we see someone that looks like a dude but they are wearing a dress, then ask them "excuse me, what are your pronouns?" when we interact with them.

_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

29 Jan 2021, 3:08 am

Before anyone rushes to defend the OP, please note that
i) TIV has nothing to do social activism
ii) SJW is a slur used by right wingers to attack left leaning social activism
iii) the article posted by the OP has nothing to do with either social activists or (for that matter) the mythical SJW

Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

29 Jan 2021, 3:48 am

League_Girl wrote:

goldfish21 wrote:

Or.. perhaps their motivation is.. Social Justice. :chin:

What about instead of just asking pronouns like something odd, we could have it incorporated with normal introductions. I generally believe that beyond now, more people might question their gender if they could question it. But I also think the lack of it being a common act hurts even expressing that. No part of normal human interaction, at least in my parts, would lead into me expressing that I am non-binary without coming across as super unnatural, that I am some sort of stereotype of a person that people make of the SJW.

Granted following that almost no one I meet knows my gender, and it takes a lot of guts in the few times people might call me a man to suddenly correct them. As much as it was painful for my father to include me in "fellas", the idea of out of the blue in that moment to explain non-binary is also painful.

League_Girl wrote:

I mean sure if we see someone that looks like a dude but they are wearing a dress, then ask them "excuse me, what are your pronouns?" when we interact with them.

So, I have to start wearing a dress to get people to maybe care? That is not happening, at least for a while, because I would die of embarrassment.

If the getting everyone to ask is too hard right now, it can maybe be worked towards along with the likes of not assuming someone's gender and attack helicopter memes stops being a thing. While it might seem like a kind of minder inconvenience that does not overcomplicates interactions a bit, to other people it could mean the world.

_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall

Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

29 Jan 2021, 5:20 am

cyberdad wrote:

How about instead of trying to incite people to attack the OP, critics actually watch/listen to the video linked?

It starts by pointing out how "SJW" is a pejorative term, how the study referenced is not targetted against them (or any particular group - explaining it covers a range of the population), but simply refers to how behaviour online (focussed on the video game industry in particular, often referred to as "SJW" activy) can be explained, and how\why it is becoming more prominent...It is not "attacking" "SJW"'s, but rather trying to provide an explanation of why they may act as they do (from the presenters view, based upon the study), in order to try and assist those who may not be "SJW" to interact with them in a more productive manner.

KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

29 Jan 2021, 5:40 am

goldfish21 wrote:

Or.. perhaps their motivation is.. Social Justice. :chin:

Exactly.

In my experience 90% of SJWs are sensible people who are right.

About 10% of them take it the other way.

And when they do, it tends to be a case of not caring for the experiences of specific individuals over the general 'cause'.

For eg the way Natalie Wynn is hated because she likes to be seen as 'she' on first glance.

That isn't much different to a rad fem who hates a woman becuase she actually enjoys staying home with the kids.

_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him

Page 2 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset Post Reply New Topic

Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset