Page 91 of 108 [ 1723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 ... 108  Next

Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

20 Oct 2018, 5:43 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Drake wrote:
Being an SJW isn't something the vast majority of them are going advertise. Closest thing to such an advertisement is advertising you're a member of Antifa. I'm not sure if you can be with Antifa and not be a SJW.

I don't know how many have been falsely slapped with the label, but it does happen, I've seen it.


SJW is a term like moron in a sense that it is a involuntary pejorative label.

Antifa members do not advertise themselves either, they cover their face. Unlike SJW’s they do not advertise because they do not identify as members of the group but to stay out of legal trouble and maybe to prevent inhaling pepper spray.

Yes, but they're still telling you what they are, even though they're not telling you who they are.



Mythos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: England

21 Oct 2018, 12:27 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Mythos wrote:
I'm not saying SJW isn't a thing, I'm saying it's a buzz phrase like a lot of other neocon talking points. It doesn't have one definition, it has no criteria and thus no clear meaning. Therefore, it has no use and should not be discussed.


Autism is a real thing that arguably has less clear meaning then SJW. Experts do not agree on what it is. Like SJW it is based on a set of observed behaviors. The term has sure has been weaponized by people with agendas.

So the term has no use and should not be discussed? We are putting the word "ret*d" out of usage for similar reasons, why not autism?

Whatever term we replace SJW with to describe these set of people the same damn thing will happen to the replacement term so we will replace that term and it will never end.
Very different. ASD is a set of behaviours that can be defined within a range of criteria. We have tests and understand the signs. Most importantly, it's a globally recognised standard within the medical industry. Regardless of how someone may be misdiagnosed or skipped entirely due to varying severity, we have a set of rules that can define who does and does not possess the traits. Medically and professionally, we know what is what.

SJW is a term like I mentioned before, cultural Marxist. It's propaganda for one political group to use but is used in an entirely derogatory fashion. Further, there's no central definition. We can describe autistic behaviour, we can't describe this kind of behaviour because of how differently it is regarded. As I said already, pension protests versus aggressive pandering could either both fall into the category, or neither could fall into the category depending on who you ask.

As I said in another post, a woman in a game is considered an "SJW agenda (conspiracy)", but it's very likely just a creative choice or, at the least, a decision to be progressive. So if nobody can determine the veracity of even their own statements, there's no point in discussing it.

As for the discussion in general, we don't need to replace the term because there's no reason to even have one to begin with. Again, its sole existence is to score political points. Nothing more, nothing less. It's to portray liberals as crazy by picking out any one riled up individual and labelling them. Subsequently, conservatives then blindly believe that the left is some kind of bastion for insanity.

Rather, just call them out of line, misinformed, ridiculous or redundant. Sorted.



Mythos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: England

21 Oct 2018, 12:39 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Quote:
I think most racist people know their racist they just don’t think it’s wrong.


Or they have just taken that word with pride and learned to wear it because they believe people are bullying them when they call them racist but they still don't see it. They think they are being called racist because they see "facts" or "see reality" so they think 'if that makes me a racist, then I am a racist, woo hoo.' I am sure there is a word for it where people call you names for something you do you know is right and instead of being manipulated by it, you just own up to it and move on and not let it bother you. An example would be if people try to guilt trip you so they call you selfish so you say "I am selfish then" and be happy about it and move on. Never let them put you down. Like if someone tells you to do something you know is stupid and dangerous so you refuse so people start telling you what a p**** you are and how weak you are, just say "yeah I am and I don't care, I would rather be a p**** than be an idiot and kill myself for doing something stupid."
This is what they believe. It is seldom correct. Most supposed "factual" information justifying racial prejudice is often fabricated by far right groups to claim they are in the right, though rarely if ever are. For example, the XY Eizenfal map (I think that's what it's called) was calmy and logically deconstructed on YouTube by a fellow known as Shaun. It was a map to show how immigrants in Sweden (I think...?) were committing proportionally large amounts of felonies only it turned out that it classified burning toast as arson, which is just one example of how it was a pretty blatant piece of racist propaganda.

Of course, if you think you're going to get accurate facts from places like InfoWars or Brietbart (notoriously racist conservative media outlets), I sincerely hope you at least analyse the sources that they cite (if any) to reach the root of the problem.

At any rate, this is usually why I don't believe anybody has any real reason to be racist. They think they're OK doing what they're doing, but they're spreading harmful erroneous stories across their home nations and the entire world.



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

21 Oct 2018, 5:28 pm

It has been drawn to my attention this week that alt-right sites have formed member groups to work on "projects"; one of the stated projects on a main alt-right site is aimed at targeting "SJWs" on other public forums, including social forums.

The aims of these projects are to target, harass, demean, denigrate and ridicule targets (eg the "SJW left") by acting as an organised group to achieve these aims. I read a list of such "project topics" on a major alt-right site which are in progress now all of which I have seen here, and this thread's title is one of the group projects; whether it is affiliated to the intentions of the alt-right websites I don't know, and I hope it is not.

Generally speaking, the threads begin with an underhand tactic of wording thread titles in a way which frames a target group as a "problem"; this is a useful framing in order to dogwhistle up others of like mind to pile on insult, denigration, smears and sneers at the target group. It isn't political debate, it's the complete opposite of debate; and while alt righters have a right to their beliefs, the behaviour of infiltrating other websites in a group to promote them in the form of group-on-group targeted attacks lacks the integrity of posting as bona fide individuals engaging in a exchange and consideration of differing personal viewpoints.

It is clear that the aim of the alt-right plan to manipulate other website content is to blanket debate and replace it with their highly prejudiced and partisan opprobrium to drown out and discredit all other dissenting viewpoints.

WP never intended to function as a vehicle for extremists groups coming here to exploit the website for their own agendas. If invasion of that kind accelerates incoming months and threatens to derail the intended function of debate here, causing distress and disruption for other members, the rules for this forum and the News forum may have to be amended.

I don't know whether or not this thread sprang from the alt-right base, so will keep an open mind on that, and an eye on what happens in the next few months to assess if WP is also being targeted.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,248
Location: Long Island, New York

21 Oct 2018, 7:43 pm

Mythos wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Mythos wrote:
I'm not saying SJW isn't a thing, I'm saying it's a buzz phrase like a lot of other neocon talking points. It doesn't have one definition, it has no criteria and thus no clear meaning. Therefore, it has no use and should not be discussed.


Autism is a real thing that arguably has less clear meaning then SJW. Experts do not agree on what it is. Like SJW it is based on a set of observed behaviors. The term has sure has been weaponized by people with agendas.

So the term has no use and should not be discussed? We are putting the word "ret*d" out of usage for similar reasons, why not autism?

Whatever term we replace SJW with to describe these set of people the same damn thing will happen to the replacement term so we will replace that term and it will never end.
Very different. ASD is a set of behaviours that can be defined within a range of criteria. We have tests and understand the signs. Most importantly, it's a globally recognised standard within the medical industry. Regardless of how someone may be misdiagnosed or skipped entirely due to varying severity, we have a set of rules that can define who does and does not possess the traits. Medically and professionally, we know what is what.

SJW is a term like I mentioned before, cultural Marxist. It's propaganda for one political group to use but is used in an entirely derogatory fashion. Further, there's no central definition. We can describe autistic behaviour, we can't describe this kind of behaviour because of how differently it is regarded. As I said already, pension protests versus aggressive pandering could either both fall into the category, or neither could fall into the category depending on who you ask.

As I said in another post, a woman in a game is considered an "SJW agenda (conspiracy)", but it's very likely just a creative choice or, at the least, a decision to be progressive. So if nobody can determine the veracity of even their own statements, there's no point in discussing it.

As for the discussion in general, we don't need to replace the term because there's no reason to even have one to begin with. Again, its sole existence is to score political points. Nothing more, nothing less. It's to portray liberals as crazy by picking out any one riled up individual and labeling them. Subsequently, conservatives then blindly believe that the left is some kind of bastion for insanity.

Rather, just call them out of line, misinformed, ridiculous or redundant. Sorted.



People do not agree as to the signs of autism. Some professionals believe you have to be intellectually disabled to be autistic, others think it is the next step in human evolution. Autistic is most certainly being used more and more in a derogatory fashion to say others opinions are worthless just the way SJW is. Autistic may have started as a medical term but it is more and more colloquial and the colloquial "autistic" often misses anything but the social and visible aspects. Despite its misuse as use as you say there is a correct way to use the term. There is a consensus definition by of SJW by political and social analysts. First and foremost SJW describes people who bully people. They do it to impose the "correct" use of language and silence beliefs deemed racist, sexist, ----phobic etc. The SJW's believe in extreme identity politics viewing people by the group they were born into because the groups you are born into defines your privileges.

I noticed you use the term "alt-right". People also have different definitions of that term, a millennial internet savvy alternative to mainstream conservatism, Nazis and KKK types. The vast majority of the time "alt-right" is used in an entirely derogatory fashion. Despite its early definition as an alternative conservatism, it, for the most part, has come to mean white supremacist/nationalist.

Any political term is going to be misused and weaponized. The best thing we can do is use them as correctly as possible or decide we are going to use no terms to describe political things but I think that is impractical.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

25 Oct 2018, 3:41 am

Whew! It has taken me nearly two weeks to plow through this gigantically long thread, reading up to 10 pages per day.

Regarding the definition of "Social Justice Warrior": For now I'll just try to post some links (I'm not yet sure the system will allow me to, given that I'm a relative newcomer to this board). Here goes:

"Social Justice Warrior" - Merriam Webster Dictionary

"Social Justice Warrior" - Wikipedia

Social Justice Warrior - Urban Dictionary

Social Justice Warrior - Know Your Meme

"Social Justice Warrior" - RationalWiki

How the Term 'Social Justice Warrior' Became an Insult - Foundation for Economic Education

What SJW Means in Internet Lingo - LifeWire

I'll post my own thoughts later.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

25 Oct 2018, 4:32 am

Both in this thread and on the pages I linked to in my message above, the term "Social Justice Warrior" is used in a variety of ways. Historically, it was originally a positive term. It became an insult only within the past 10 years or so. Within this thread, the term is used by some people to refer only to those left-wingers with a propensity for bullying and censorship, while others use the term to refer to left-wingers in general.

Apparently also, the term "Social Justice Warrior" was not used by very many people until 2014, when it was popularized via mass media coverage of "Gamergate" -- in which it appears that the "SJW's" were more the bullied than the bullies. See, for example: Gamergate and the new horde of digital saboteurs - Christian Science Monitor, November 25, 2014.

In any case, "Social Justice Warrior" never was a technical term with a precise meaning. SJW's are "warriors" only in a metaphorical sense, and the word "warrior" can have a variety of different metaphorical meanings, both positive and negative, depending on context. Thus "Social Justice Warrior" is a term whose meaning depends on connotations rather than on literal meaning -- and connotations can vary drastically depending on the speaker's point of view.

Hence, in my opinion, "SJW" is not a useful term for communication amongst people with different points of view.

I think it would be much better, especially on a board for autistic people, to stick to using more literal and precise terminology. For example, if what you're objecting to is censorship and bullying, just call it censorship and bullying.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

25 Oct 2018, 5:33 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
Whew! It has taken me nearly two weeks to plow through this gigantically long thread, reading up to 10 pages per day.

Regarding the definition of "Social Justice Warrior": For now I'll just try to post some links (I'm not yet sure the system will allow me to, given that I'm a relative newcomer to this board). Here goes:

"Social Justice Warrior" - Merriam Webster Dictionary

"Social Justice Warrior" - Wikipedia

Social Justice Warrior - Urban Dictionary

Social Justice Warrior - Know Your Meme

"Social Justice Warrior" - RationalWiki

How the Term 'Social Justice Warrior' Became an Insult - Foundation for Economic Education

What SJW Means in Internet Lingo - LifeWire

I'll post my own thoughts later.


I wouldn't put too much stock in what dictionaries say because it is the lexicographer's job to document how people use words, it is not the lexicographer's job to tell people how to use words.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

25 Oct 2018, 12:06 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in what dictionaries say because it is the lexicographer's job to document how people use words, it is not the lexicographer's job to tell people how to use words.


I agree that the lexicographer's job should be considered descriptive rather than prescriptive. Nevertheless, "how people use words" does affect how useful a word is, and for what purposes.

My point is this: When trying to communicate between people with different ideologies (especially if those people also happen to be autistic), I think it's important to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Hence, in the context of political discussions on this board, I think it would be a good idea to avoid ambiguous terms like "SJW" and use more precise terminology instead.

Had this thread been titled something like, "the problem of bullying by too many leftists these days," it probably would have contained a lot fewer misunderstandings and thus would have been a lot shorter and less repetitious.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

25 Oct 2018, 6:32 pm

Mona Pereth wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in what dictionaries say because it is the lexicographer's job to document how people use words, it is not the lexicographer's job to tell people how to use words.


I agree that the lexicographer's job should be considered descriptive rather than prescriptive. Nevertheless, "how people use words" does affect how useful a word is, and for what purposes.

My point is this: When trying to communicate between people with different ideologies (especially if those people also happen to be autistic), I think it's important to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Hence, in the context of political discussions on this board, I think it would be a good idea to avoid ambiguous terms like "SJW" and use more precise terminology instead.

Had this thread been titled something like, "the problem of bullying by too many leftists these days," it probably would have contained a lot fewer misunderstandings and thus would have been a lot shorter and less repetitious.


True but people with an agenda to push actually benefit from ambitious terms. It helps with their bait-and-switch tactics.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,205
Location: Pacific Northwest

26 Oct 2018, 10:17 am

This is supposed to be satire but instead this is actually an accurate description of them:


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

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Drake
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,577

26 Oct 2018, 11:59 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
I wouldn't put too much stock in what dictionaries say because it is the lexicographer's job to document how people use words, it is not the lexicographer's job to tell people how to use words.


I agree that the lexicographer's job should be considered descriptive rather than prescriptive. Nevertheless, "how people use words" does affect how useful a word is, and for what purposes.

My point is this: When trying to communicate between people with different ideologies (especially if those people also happen to be autistic), I think it's important to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Hence, in the context of political discussions on this board, I think it would be a good idea to avoid ambiguous terms like "SJW" and use more precise terminology instead.

Had this thread been titled something like, "the problem of bullying by too many leftists these days," it probably would have contained a lot fewer misunderstandings and thus would have been a lot shorter and less repetitious.

I agree with you, but SJW is the best we've got. I actually made a thread with the goal of doing better, but we weren't able to succeed.

viewtopic.php?t=313897

Btw, well done for reading through the entire thread. I hope it was educational for you, as that's the role I hope this thread will play to warn people about SJWs and the way they operate which common sense alone is ill equipped to deal with.



Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

26 Oct 2018, 6:29 pm

Drake wrote:
I agree with you, but SJW is the best we've got. I actually made a thread with the goal of doing better, but we weren't able to succeed.

viewtopic.php?t=313897

Btw, well done for reading through the entire thread. I hope it was educational for you, as that's the role I hope this thread will play to warn people about SJWs and the way they operate which common sense alone is ill equipped to deal with.


I just now replied to you in that thread.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,933
Location: Adelaide, Australia

26 Oct 2018, 11:15 pm

League_Girl wrote:
This is supposed to be satire but instead this is actually an accurate description of them:




Spot on! Parts of it also sum up MRAs or as I like to call them, reverse SJWs.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,810
Location: New York City (Queens)

28 Oct 2018, 8:00 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
There is a consensus definition by of SJW by political and social analysts.


Really? It is not my impression that there is any such consensus at all. Which political and social analysts are you talking about, for example?

Again, please see the links I posted here.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter / "X" (new as of 2021)


Chummy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,343
Location: Location

29 Oct 2018, 7:04 pm

AspE wrote:
Chummy wrote:
AspE wrote:
Justice is of course open to interpretation, which is why we have juries and a Supreme Court. It's simply not possible to have a legal list of rules that apply to all situations.


"We" as in the US of A have juries. Some countries don't trust random people to impact a verdict and leave only qualified judges to do so. Also, other countries simply have a dictator that arbitrates who is innocent and who's guilty and how he should be punished (.. and perhaps be executed).

The point isn't that justice is not open to interpretation. It's people using it to say only their opinion holds because that's how THEY interpret it thus you don't count because whatever you say isn't justified. Got it?

Everyone interprets things differently. If I believe I'm right in my interpretation, that makes other interpretations wrong. That's just how logic works. The judge in your case does the same thing a jury does, interprets the law, since the law can't anticipate every permutation of wrongdoing. And new situations emerge all the time that the law hasn't anticipated.


But SJW are prepared to use violence and break the law to enforce what they believe is "right". You won't force me to believe something that in your interpretation is right but I think is wrong - the state law is above all that and if the issue does not contradict it - we all have the freedom not to be enforced!. By the way, what we now agree upon as Ethics/law/moral code that is used by most western states is a long time process of development throughout human history: starting with the Hebrew bible at: "don't steal", "don't kill" and then more laws entered the consensus during the new testament, French/American revolution (Democracy, peoples' rule), American Civil War (no more slaves by law), Women's rights movements (Women can vote, be elected and have equal rights etc.)