Page 3 of 7 [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

TheRedPedant93
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 315
Location: Scotland

01 Jul 2015, 2:14 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
o0iella wrote:
I'd rather this forum be full of "SJW's" than the many self-hating NT-supremacists who are here at the moment.

So you'd rather that people hated others, and blamed others for their own problems, than that people focused on their own problems and tried to fix them? Because I don't see Social Justice Warriors paying any attention to their own obvious emotional problems.

I mean, at least by hating myself, I acknowledge that I'm not perfect and that I have issues. When was the last time an SJW did that?


Agreed, these argumentations in objection to neurotypicals is irresolvable to the autistic maladaptiveness in society as I reject the belief that neurotypicals can actually be supremacists, hence that most people will develop the manifestation of a neuroabnormality (whether temporarily or permanently) in their lifetime; the neurotypical may be the bully or is antagonistic (for whatever reason), but clearly understands the difficulties that the autistics are enduring and is simultaneously aware of the creative abilities they possess but are not concerned about it in an envious way, and lastly; the autistics/aspies who resent towards NT’s may themselves be the envious bullies. I can easily tell when one is an aspie/autistic supremacist when they utilize snarl neologisms like "NT-supremacist" or "neurotypical privilege" as an advertent excuse to self-righteously justify their victim mentality agenda. They erroneously assume that neurotypicalism equates to collective conformity to the ad infinitum which is simply not necessarily true; furthermore, aspie/neurodiversity separatists want to shove down their ideological agendum down your face which would precisely correspond to the objectives of the ultra-authoritarian SJWs and third wave feminists. The only discrepancy that can be easily discerned here is that the unadulterated reactionary emotionalism of aspie supremacists is probably just as (if not more) repugnant than SJWs themselves.


_________________
Diagnosed with "Classical" Asperger's syndrome in 1998 (Clinical psychologist).
RAADS-R: 237/240
Aspie score: 199 out of 200
Neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 1 out of 200
Alexithymia Questionnaire: 166/185 AQ: 49/50 EQ: 9/80


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

01 Jul 2015, 2:37 pm

I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 2:43 pm

beneficii wrote:
I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.

Tell me, why should I care about SJWs and try to be compassionate to them when they, by and large, refuse to be compassionate to others? SJWs think it's okay to be as hateful as they want, and don't think they should have to face any sort of repercussions for that behavior. Should that really be thought of as a good thing?


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

01 Jul 2015, 3:26 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.

Tell me, why should I care about SJWs and try to be compassionate to them when they, by and large, refuse to be compassionate to others? SJWs think it's okay to be as hateful as they want, and don't think they should have to face any sort of repercussions for that behavior. Should that really be thought of as a good thing?


It's not about the so-called SJW's themselves. It's about the groups they represent. The groups they represent, or at least claim to, are the ones you should care about. Judge the SJW's in terms of how effective they are for the groups they claim to speak for.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 3:30 pm

beneficii wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.

Tell me, why should I care about SJWs and try to be compassionate to them when they, by and large, refuse to be compassionate to others? SJWs think it's okay to be as hateful as they want, and don't think they should have to face any sort of repercussions for that behavior. Should that really be thought of as a good thing?


It's not about the so-called SJW's themselves. It's about the groups they represent. The groups they represent, or at least claim to, are the ones you should care about. Judge the SJW's in terms of how effective they are for the groups they claim to speak for.

So I should just let the SJWs themselves be hateful? Ignoring their individual behavior does no good, since that just implies that their individual behavior doesn't matter and they should be able to get away with acting as horribly as they want to. Plus, since when have SJWs helped any groups? Seems to me like their endless hatred is just hurting the causes they support.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

01 Jul 2015, 3:50 pm

quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.

Tell me, why should I care about SJWs and try to be compassionate to them when they, by and large, refuse to be compassionate to others? SJWs think it's okay to be as hateful as they want, and don't think they should have to face any sort of repercussions for that behavior. Should that really be thought of as a good thing?


It's not about the so-called SJW's themselves. It's about the groups they represent. The groups they represent, or at least claim to, are the ones you should care about. Judge the SJW's in terms of how effective they are for the groups they claim to speak for.

So I should just let the SJWs themselves be hateful? Ignoring their individual behavior does no good, since that just implies that their individual behavior doesn't matter and they should be able to get away with acting as horribly as they want to. Plus, since when have SJWs helped any groups? Seems to me like their endless hatred is just hurting the causes they support.


It appears, then, that you believe SJW's, however you define them, are always counterproductive to the groups they represent. Take that line of thought and keep following it, because you are considering the groups that they represent.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 3:51 pm

beneficii wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
quiet_dove wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I personally don't have any problem with wanting to help groups that traditionally received the short end of the stick. If there are problems with the way a person is going about it, then I think just labelling them with something isn't helpful; it's better to address the tactics themselves so they can be more effective. Those who seem to have the most problem with "SJW"'s come across as cold to me, like they really just don't care about those groups, or as defensive, in that discussion of these issues tends to make them uncomfortable and in some cases there seems to be fear of a loss of power and privilege.

Tell me, why should I care about SJWs and try to be compassionate to them when they, by and large, refuse to be compassionate to others? SJWs think it's okay to be as hateful as they want, and don't think they should have to face any sort of repercussions for that behavior. Should that really be thought of as a good thing?


It's not about the so-called SJW's themselves. It's about the groups they represent. The groups they represent, or at least claim to, are the ones you should care about. Judge the SJW's in terms of how effective they are for the groups they claim to speak for.

So I should just let the SJWs themselves be hateful? Ignoring their individual behavior does no good, since that just implies that their individual behavior doesn't matter and they should be able to get away with acting as horribly as they want to. Plus, since when have SJWs helped any groups? Seems to me like their endless hatred is just hurting the causes they support.


It appears, then, that you believe SJW's, however you define them, are always counterproductive to the groups they represent. Take that line of thought and keep following it, because you are considering the groups that they represent.

What exactly do you mean by "take that line of thought and keep following it, because you are considering the groups that they represent"? Not sure I grasp your meaning there, sorry.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


o0iella
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

01 Jul 2015, 4:27 pm

SJW doesn't really mean anything, it's just shorthand for "someone I don't like who is in the progressive movement"

Other people who don't believe in progressive ideas just use the term to bash those idea they don't like, in the same way Fox news uses the term liberal. Like "Aspie supremacist" bashers before them, they are afraid of change and try to attack those who try to bring it about.



quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 4:32 pm

o0iella wrote:
SJW doesn't really mean anything, it's just shorthand for "someone I don't like who is in the progressive movement"

Other people who don't believe in progressive ideas just use the term to bash those idea they don't like, in the same way Fox news uses the term liberal. Like "Aspie supremacist" bashers before them, they are afraid of change and try to attack those who try to bring it about.

SJW actually does mean something. It means "someone who uses hatred and anger in a misguided attempt to fight for female supremacism, black supremacism, or LGBT supremacism." Pretending that SJW doesn't actually mean anything means ignoring SJWs' actions. And what's the point of ignoring their actions? That's like saying "the Tea Party isn't a real thing, and saying it is is the same thing as hating conservatives."

Also, why should "Aspie supremacists" be seen in a positive light? Supremacism of any kind is wrong, since we, as a society, should be aiming for equality.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


o0iella
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 18 Aug 2013
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 229

01 Jul 2015, 4:42 pm

Sometimes anger and even hatred can be appropriate. Aspie supremacists are actually very, very rare, and so are female/black/LGBT supremacists. NT supremacy, on the other hand is widespread and far more destructive.

I think people bash these so-called "SJW's" or "Aspie supremacists" because they are easier to attack than racism, sexism, homophobia or NT-Supremacy.



quiet_dove
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 290
Location: Massachusetts

01 Jul 2015, 4:47 pm

o0iella wrote:
Sometimes anger and even hatred can be appropriate.

Yes, but not the way that SJWs are using them. They're using anger and hatred as weapons against anyone and everyone they dislike. You know who else does that sort of thing? Bullies. So are you saying that there's nothing wrong with bullies?

o0iella wrote:
Aspie supremacists are actually very, very rare, and so are female/black/LGBT supremacists. NT supremacy, on the other hand is widespread and far more destructive.

Actually, female/black/LGBT supremacists are very widespread these days. Have you looked at Tumblr lately?

And if Aspie supremacists are so rare, then why did you bring them up in the first place?

And since when is there such a thing as "NT supremacy"? Most NTs don't give a s**t about us Aspies, and they certainly don't care about us enough to think that we're inferior to them. Stop with your victim complex.

Quote:
I think people bash these so-called "SJW's" or "Aspie supremacists" because they are easier to attack than racism, sexism, homophobia or NT-Supremacy.

Can you name even one instance in which SJWs have brought about positive social change? I bet you $10 that you can't.


_________________
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." - Albert Camus


evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

02 Jul 2015, 4:12 pm

o0iella wrote:
Sometimes anger and even hatred can be appropriate.

Anger and hatred can sometimes be justified but that is not the same as appropriate.
If one is looking to change peoples hearts and minds then hating them is almost always counterproductive. Sure getting angry can indeed provide energy and motivation but seeing the people you want to effect change in with your message never really works because all you end up doing is alienating them.

Quote:
Aspie supremacists are actually very, very rare, and so are female/black/LGBT supremacists.

Sure but thats not really the issue at hand. The SJW's are not really aspie supremacists they are simply consumed by a hatred of "the other". They seek to put down, belittle and shame those that do not absolutely agree with them in all maters. Changing hearts and minds is not what an SJW is about, its all about them and their ego's. This is always what happens when you give into hatred.

Quote:
NT supremacy, on the other hand is widespread and far more destructive.

It depends what you mean by "NY supremacy" if you mean the notion that NT's are better than the neurodiverse then yes I agree it is very widespread and very destructive. This is precicely what we seek to change. But one needs to look at why this supremacy exists and what motivates it. NT's think they are "superior" not because they are evil or bad people they simply know no better. They are ill educated, they have the wrong information and they ignorant of the true nature of autism. But this does not make them bad people. They are like the racists of my grandparents generation. Simply a product of the misinformation they have been fed.

So the question now becomes how does one change their minds? DO you shout and shame them? Do you tell them they are evil? Bad? Bigots? Idiots? Or do you try to reason with them and explain why they have things wrong?
I think if you think about this for a while you will see that they calm reasoned discusion will always be more effective. I am living proof of this. As someone who had undergone this "re-education" on autism over the last few years I can tell you from direct experience that what changed my mind was the reasoned discusions with autistic people who explained to me why my previous "autism is bad" paradigm was wrong. I can also tell you that the SJW hate mongers who called me a bigot, evil and a terrible parent almost made me give up engaging with the autism self advocacy movement. Thankfully I befriended several really cool autistic people who patiently discussed things with me and didn't judge me. They saw that I was trying to educate myself and helped me in that process. I am greatful to them and in time my son will be, it is he that will reap the real benefits of their wisdom because now in my new "autism is ok" paradigm I can parent him better.

Quote:
I think people bash these so-called "SJW's" or "Aspie supremacists" because they are easier to attack than racism, sexism, homophobia or NT-Supremacy.

I bash SJW's because they are destructive to the cause of autism rights. They alienate parents like myself who are trying to learn. They drive parents like myself to Autism Speaks and the like. This is a tragedy. Mostly for the kids of these parents. Every parent who is attacked, belittled and berated by some self rightious SJW represents a lost opportunity to change someones heart and mind. Hatred is always destructive, always divisive and always counterproductive. So whilst the SJW's do make me angry and I think they are dangerous I will always try to engage with them. The piece I wrote was a little incenduary sure but the discussions it generated on reddit and other places were interesting and productive I think. I got to engage with many people who didn't know much about autism and educate them and also I got engage with some SJW types and hopefully educate them as to why they actions are counterproductive. I think the message got through. I hope so.

So did I change any minds with this? Who knows? I hope so. The article was read by about 30,000 people so hopefully it did some good.



Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

03 Jul 2015, 3:39 am

o0iella wrote:
Sometimes anger and even hatred can be appropriate. Aspie supremacists are actually very, very rare, and so are female/black/LGBT supremacists. NT supremacy, on the other hand is widespread and far more destructive.

I think people bash these so-called "SJW's" or "Aspie supremacists" because they are easier to attack than racism, sexism, homophobia or NT-Supremacy.
Ugh. Don't say "NT supremacist." People will take that and make a connection to white supremacists, you might as well pull the Hitler card, you'll get the same result.

Yes, you want to point out the bigotry, and there are situations where it's appropriate, such as a curebie becoming belligerent. It's fine to, for example, point out that it's bigots that are calling us diseased or defective. But, there is a clear point, at which it becomes divisive, especially if it's ad hom. If you come off looking like a SJW, no that's not a good image for the AS community to have, because people will associate the AS community with vilifying people over made up issues.

In terms of activism, it should be about universal suffrage and equal due process, where if one person's rights are violated, then so are mine. We should be looking towards activists like Martin Luther King and following their examples, not screeching psychopaths like Anita Sarkeesian and Rebecca Watson.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,600
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

08 Jul 2015, 11:43 am

What's with all this ant-feminism nonsense? Extreme radicals in feminism are just as rare as extreme radicals in neurodiversity and neither Anita Sarkeesian nor Rebecca Watson did anything remotely bad enough to get the amount of scorn they seem to get. Anita Sarkeesian isn't even trying to censor games like what some people seem to claim that she is doing, she's just criticising content, the same way all other media, including books and movies get criticised.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Jul 2015, 12:48 pm

Jono wrote:
What's with all this ant-feminism nonsense? Extreme radicals in feminism are just as rare as extreme radicals in neurodiversity and neither Anita Sarkeesian nor Rebecca Watson did anything remotely bad enough to get the amount of scorn they seem to get. Anita Sarkeesian isn't even trying to censor games like what some people seem to claim that she is doing, she's just criticising content, the same way all other media, including books and movies get criticised.


Do you spend much time perusing mainstream feminist blogs and or tumblr these days?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Moromillas
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 455

08 Jul 2015, 8:20 pm

Jono wrote:
What's with all this ant-feminism nonsense?

What? Not sure what you mean by calling it nonsense.


Jono wrote:
Extreme radicals in feminism are just as rare as extreme radicals in neurodiversity

It's very difficult to find a person or place within feminism that isn't extremist or radical. If by 'rare,' you mean 'plentiful,' then neurodiversity has some serious problems. You would hope that just the name itself 'neurodiversity,' would ward off these sorts of people, when neurodiversity is basically dreaming of a world that has diversity between all the different neurotypes.


Jono wrote:
neither Anita Sarkeesian nor Rebecca Watson did anything remotely bad enough to get the amount of scorn they seem to get.

Er, you may want to brush up on this subject.