The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

No, it is a term I use to describe a subgroup of social justice activists who are a legitimatly a threat to freedom of expression and thought and maybe ultimately free speech.

Of course many conservatives use the term to own the libs and stifle freedom of thought of anybody to the left of them. People use the term Autistic for all sorts of nefarious reasons also. I am not going to be SJW about it and will continue to call myself autistic and use the term SJW when it accuratly applies. We really should get out of the habit of letting bullies be they SJW’s or anybody own us to such a degree that they decide the very terminology we use.

Go ahead and use it - all I'm saying is due to how rampant the right throws it around at literally every minority fighting for their own civil rights - it just makes you sound batshit crazy to many minorities. If that's cool with you though, by all means
- go all out.

A lot of things get thrown around wrongly. It shouldn't stop us using those things correctly.

Btw, as for your Christian example, those and others might have their own word for them. Fundies for instance for such Christians. So it doesn't matter that they're not being called SJWs.

Well said!

As said, use the term - it just signals to many "oh you're one of those people" - which causes you to be seen as crazy or get tuned out. If you're cool with that, as said, knock yourself out.

I'm thinking those "social justice activists" argue that your freedom of expression and thought and freedom to speak freely should be curbed, stifled or punished because I would assume they would decide you were......intolerant. Since they would deem you "intolerant", then it's OK in their minds to silence you.

A story from my past comes to mind here:

In the early 1990s I worked at an office job processing claim forms. I was one of only three men out of a group of 20. We were all able to wear headphones to listen to music, radio, etc while working. Some of the women would listen to Dr. Laura Schlessinger, a conservative Jewish talk radio host of a national call in show. No idea if she's still on the air. Some of the women would comment to each other over the cubicle walls about their various reactions and opinions of the show. I was curious so I tuned in so I knew what the women were talking about.

One call has stuck with me forever. The caller was a homosexual male (I don't use the co-opted term "gay" nor do I say "queer" because I think that's derogatory). He said that he had "come out" to his mother a few years before and although she reacted negatively to the revelation for a few years, she asked him to come home for some major Holiday. He looked forward to it and looked forward to mending their relationship. He told his mother he had a partner and that he wanted to bring his partner along. His mother said that would be OK but that he and his partner could not stay over in the house and would have to rent a hotel or something. The son said he was calling Dr. Laura because he was very angry and hurt by his mother saying he could not stay in her house with his partner. Dr. Laura told him it was her house, her rules, her prerogative and she asked him why exactly he was angry and hurt. He replied because he not only wanted his mom to accept his homosexuality, he wanted her to embrace it, him and his partner....................Dr. Laura went off on that guy like I would not have imagined. "How DARE you! How DARE you DEMAND that your mother accept your lifestyle choice! Who do you think you are?! It's HER house! She's entitled to her own views." She went on... I think my jaw dropped sitting there in my cubicle.

Oh, a divided country we are. I wish it wasn't the case. I really do.

Use the term "Alt-Right" (or other trendy label for conservatives) - it just signals to many "oh you're one of those people" - which causes you to be seen as crazy or get tuned out. If you're cool with that, as said, knock yourself out.

You do know that the Alt-Right literally coined that term for themselves, right? It's a group title created by their group leader Richard Spencer. Another thing, if you want to be taken seriously, at least know what you're talking about first. "Stop calling some people on the right 'Alt-Right'!" makes as much sense as "Stop calling some people on the right Republicans!"

Yeah, I know it is advice. I won't know until it is said though.

For now I just hope you know that there are people who use it right.

About Alt-Right, yes, the actual Alt-Right are the Alt-Right, and will tell you that that is what they are with pride. The problem is certain people on the left just slap anyone and everyone who isn't in lockstep with them with the label.

I'd actually say the people doing that are a mixture of right and left - plus, it likely started after Trump supporters started labeling Republicans against Trump as "RINOS." So you have your Trump supporters calling Republicans "RINOS" (Republican In Name Only) and Republicans calling Trumpsters "Alt-Right;" or basically the right keeps on saying the other right isn't the actual right.

The circular nature of it is very amusing because according to both - right now there is no actual right.

I'm amused by this. Yes, that's why I added "(or other trendy label for conservatives)". I have no idea who Richard Spencer is, nor do I care to know.

I can assure you I don't intentionally try to press your buttons, but sometimes when it obviously happens, I guess I get a kick out of it.

And with the left, even people on the left can get slapped with the alt-right label.

The other day I was thinking what would it be like if those of us away from the fringes of both sides could just unite in rejecting the rest. Something roughly like this:

Extreme Left - Far Left - Left - [Moderate Left - Centre Left - Centre - Centre Right - Moderate Right] - Right - Far Right - Extreme Right

Everyone within the [ ] I think could do it, probably with plenty from the Left and Right. I thought about putting them in as well, but what is in I'd be fully confident of because I think they could all at least have a basic level of respect for the people in the other four groups and be able to work with them on such a common goal.

Yeah, your lack of insight was kinda obvious.

Cool.

Drake - here's the flaw with that premise: most people today are independent, they belong to neither party and many people have different ideological views. It can't be summed up in as simple a manner. The British government system is much closer and in my view works better than that of the state's since it's a closer approximation to the way people actually think. In my view we should do away with the Democrat and Republican parties altogether so that it can be a more than three party system so everyone's voice can be heard in as accurately a manner as possible. Part of the problem is people aren't one way or the other, especially as the population increases.

Other countries have a perfectly fine working multiple party system, why must we be restrained to "this or that"?

Yes, I think both parties are awful because they have no competition. The system in America is set up to keep these two on top. I don't think we need to necessarily get rid of either, what's needed is competition. Change the voting system so you can vote by rank so you could vote for a third party and not lose your say about blue or red. And get the ridiculous amount of money out of American politics so that other parties can step up and compete.