The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

I don't like hunting for sport (No, this does NOT make me a SJW!)

And I happen to like giraffes and zebras.

Still, the people who sent in these threats should definitely get a visit from the police, to get a good talking-to. This kind of stuff shouldn't be tolerated.

What a little monster. f**k that b***h. The outrage is justified, but death threats are of course wrong. Still, no one cares about death threats unless the police are threatened. Read the youtube comments section, and you'll probably find a death threat for every video.

So death threats are wrong, but "f**k that b***h" to a 12 year old girl is fine.

Got it.

I was addressing the forum. I would talk to her more appropriately, like, "wow you suck". Actually, it's the parents who are to blame. They suck more. Why not hunt deer in the US? There are too many of those. Giraffes are endangered animals. They are under threat from poaching and habitat loss, and this privileged white family thinks they can just kill whatever they want. How is this not considered wrong in your eyes? What the F is wrong with you?

Might I venture to suggest you read the article that was linked?




Also, paid hunting trips are one of the few industries that are actually putting a monetary incentive towards preserving these animals, a far more reliable approach than relying exclusively on charity.

In short, your outrage is hollow and misplaced.

Yeah, BS. A giraffe in the wild would provide food for other endangered species. I don't believe captive hunting is ecologically sound, no matter how many orphans they claim to feed. And who decides what is a problem animal?

"All foreign tourists coming to South Africa, hunters or otherwise, need to be made aware of these industries," said Neil Greenwood, a researcher for International Fund for Animal Welfare Southern Africa. "They are then empowered to ask the questions and make informed decisions on whether they want to support industries that compromise the welfare and conservation of all animals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/trave ... nting.html

Hm, not sure how the latest posts relate to the original intention of this thread, but Holmes is just wrong with equating a group that would commit genocide with a group that merely points out a difference, even if no difference would be ideal. Just argue, but somehow lumping a non-organization with three-lettered acronyms (as if we already don't have enough of those) won't solve anything, either...

The mention of a hunting farm seems to suggest that this wasn't quite "in the wild". And I'm not defending the unethical practices offered up by some of these places. Drugged lions, what the actual f**k? Well-regulated hunting is beneficial for both the hunted species and the surrounding ecosystem. I'm no fan of "canned hunting" either, but in the case of endangered animals it might actually prove beneficial, and I don't think we should shame the people who partake in it, for they are ultimately funding preservation.

South Africas problem seems to be vague legislation and too weak law enforcement, rather than any actual endorsement of thse practices.

Conservationsists.

I don't think conservationists generally support canned hunting of endangered species. Which shows that what people are calling SJWs in a disparaging way, are often right on the issues. And public shaming seems to be the only legal means available to effect these disgusting and harmful practices. So SJW just means someone who holds views I disagree with, meaning anything liberal.

You just nailed the definition of an "sjw"

If we want to get technical, only three of the nine subspecies of giraffe qualify as endangered, and the south-african giraffe is not among them. The others are "Least Concern", meaning they have been evaluated by the IUCN and not deemed threatened.

And I think conservationists would agree that letting rich people hunt single individuals of lesser conservational value in exchange for oodles of cash that can go towards the upkeep of conservation measures is a net gain for the species in question.

And did you really mean that you disagree with "anything liberal"? Free speech? freethought? Free press? IN which case I think you might really be an SJW.

No, he was saying that's what people who use the term "sjw" are typically saying.

While conservatives certainly would oppose SJWs, I'd hardly call SJWs "liberal". In fact, most people I follow in this debate are people on the left who are appaled at how illiberal self-proclaimed "progressives" can be.

The thing about the term "sjw" that makes it useless is that no one who uses I can agee on a definition. I see it used too often as a slur toward anyone who supports any kind of social justice whatsoever. In an extreme example I've seen people use I to refer to people who mourned the Orlando shooting because the victims were gay. Like I said it's an extreme example but when I see that term it makes me a little wary of anyone who uses that as a slur.

I generally try to avoid the term, partly because of its fluffy definition, and partly because it sounds too much like a good thing. I mean, opposing social justice makes it sound like you're in favour of social injustice, in whatever form. But apparently "social justice" is an academic field now, with students in the field more or less being spoon fed ideology instead of knowledge and given credits for participating in demonstrations. Whatever a more proper term for them would be ("the regressive left" is another popular term), "SJW" is sort of the one that caught on, in spite of some peoples indiscriminate use of the term as a slur.

I prefer the term regressive left because it's more descriptive. But yeah, I agree. Many colleges have gotten a little too insular. But I think academia has always had that reputation.