Page 2 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Aug 2015, 2:53 pm

Evilreligion do you realize how much you sound like the people you're complaining about? It's kind of ironic, and quite funny. This is why I don't take people whining about social justice seriously. "I hate it when people make false allegations of sexism so I going to call any person who disagrees with me a radical feminist."

So yeah, I'm sticking to what I said earlier. If you get offended by strangers on the internet calling you racist, bigoted or misogynistic then you are either racist, bigoted or misogynistic or you are too easily offended.

Btw, yes it is associated with horrible people I.e. MRA's and white supremacists.



gamerdad
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 288

14 Aug 2015, 3:16 pm

The problem, with all of these groups, is that there is no standard by which people are allowed to identify themselves members of said groups. So you have feminists who genuinely want to work towards overall gender equality, and you have feminists who think all men are scum. You have MRAs who want to address injustices in the draft and paternal rights, and you have MRAs who want to use the movement to keep women oppressed. You have SJWs who want to just work towards more respectful dialogue in everyday life, and you have SJWs who want to use the movement as a bludgeon to beat down others so they can feel morally superior.

Anytime you try to identify these groups you're going to commit a categorical error. Either you're miss attributing the negative aspects of the problematic members to the the genuinely positive parts of the movement, or you're covering up the problematic aspects with the good parts in defense of the ideology.

So one person uses SJW derogatorily and another uses it as a label to be proud of, even when those two individuals might actually agree on any potential issue in question. The labels themselves become meaningless.

If you have issues with ideas being presented by a group, it is much more constructive to argue against the ideas than against the group. Ideas are concrete and constant. But groups are heterogeneous and dynamic.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1021
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Aug 2015, 3:26 pm

gamerdad wrote:
If you have issues with ideas being presented by a group, it is much more constructive to argue against the ideas than against the group. Ideas are concrete and constant. But groups are heterogeneous and dynamic.

Accurate perception. Flawless logic.



Dethl
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 21

14 Aug 2015, 3:42 pm

I'm going to be anti-intellectual here but I strongly associate SJW crowds with bullies and belligerents, people who strike first, and not simply hit back.

There's a lot to be said about the anti-PC movement catching a second wind in US right now



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

14 Aug 2015, 3:43 pm

gamerdad wrote:
The problem, with all of these groups, is that there is no standard by which people are allowed to identify themselves members of said groups. So you have feminists who genuinely want to work towards overall gender equality, and you have feminists who think all men are scum. You have MRAs who want to address injustices in the draft and paternal rights, and you have MRAs who want to use the movement to keep women oppressed. You have SJWs who want to just work towards more respectful dialogue in everyday life, and you have SJWs who want to use the movement as a bludgeon to beat down others so they can feel morally superior.

Anytime you try to identify these groups you're going to commit a categorical error. Either you're miss attributing the negative aspects of the problematic members to the the genuinely positive parts of the movement, or you're covering up the problematic aspects with the good parts in defense of the ideology.

So one person uses SJW derogatorily and another uses it as a label to be proud of, even when those two individuals might actually agree on any potential issue in question. The labels themselves become meaningless.

If you have issues with ideas being presented by a group, it is much more constructive to argue against the ideas than against the group. Ideas are concrete and constant. But groups are heterogeneous and dynamic.


I disagree. I don't think you can claim that all of those groups are equally legitimate. Some of those groups actually work to advance human rights while others like the MRA's only harass people.


Also will never get rid of labels to describe a persons world view. These labels are only a shorthand way to express how a person sees the world. It's much easier and efficient to say I'm a liberal than to describe all of the details of my philosophy. The problem isn't with the labels, the problem is people use a groups fringe elements to delegitimize that group. That helps no one. Just because some vegans will call you evil for eating meat the vast majority would not. Same with feminists, just because a few hate men doesn't mean that the majority does.

(I see the MRA's to be consisted of entirely of fringe elements. I put them in the same category as white supremacists)



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1021
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Aug 2015, 3:52 pm

An old saying has it that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't know how representative this article is, but it does seem to show some excellent "road building":
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... nd/399356/



gamerdad
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 288

14 Aug 2015, 4:14 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
gamerdad wrote:
The problem, with all of these groups, is that there is no standard by which people are allowed to identify themselves members of said groups. So you have feminists who genuinely want to work towards overall gender equality, and you have feminists who think all men are scum. You have MRAs who want to address injustices in the draft and paternal rights, and you have MRAs who want to use the movement to keep women oppressed. You have SJWs who want to just work towards more respectful dialogue in everyday life, and you have SJWs who want to use the movement as a bludgeon to beat down others so they can feel morally superior.

Anytime you try to identify these groups you're going to commit a categorical error. Either you're miss attributing the negative aspects of the problematic members to the the genuinely positive parts of the movement, or you're covering up the problematic aspects with the good parts in defense of the ideology.

So one person uses SJW derogatorily and another uses it as a label to be proud of, even when those two individuals might actually agree on any potential issue in question. The labels themselves become meaningless.

If you have issues with ideas being presented by a group, it is much more constructive to argue against the ideas than against the group. Ideas are concrete and constant. But groups are heterogeneous and dynamic.


I disagree. I don't think you can claim that all of those groups are equally legitimate. Some of those groups actually work to advance human rights while others like the MRA's only harass people.


Also will never get rid of labels to describe a persons world view. These labels are only a shorthand way to express how a person sees the world. It's much easier and efficient to say I'm a liberal than to describe all of the details of my philosophy. The problem isn't with the labels, the problem is people use a groups fringe elements to delegitimize that group. That helps no one. Just because some vegans will call you evil for eating meat the vast majority would not. Same with feminists, just because a few hate men doesn't mean that the majority does.

(I see the MRA's to be consisted of entirely of fringe elements. I put them in the same category as white supremacists)

Your entire post is perfect example of what I'm talking about. All these groups are comprised of good and bad elements. You can't just round up/down to a blanket determination of whether or not the group itself is binary good or bad. When you do this in favor of a group (as you're doing with feminism here), you minimize the real problems within it, and damage the group's ability to draw new people to support their worthwhile goals. As outsiders will always view your cause with more objective and less favorable perspective. Likewise, when you do this in opposition of a group (as you're doing with MRAs), you cut yourself off from constructive dialogue with members who might actually share your positions and be capable of working to improve their own groups for the better.

For the record, I am not claiming that all of these groups are equally legitimate. But that is not the same thing as claiming that any of them are 100% legitimate/illegitimate, as you are doing.

Yes, these labels can serve a function as a shorthand. Yes, it is often more efficient than enumerating each and every position individually. But efficiency has its limits. It is efficient to round pi to 3.1, but it is often inadequate for many calculations in math and science. It's important to recognize when that shorthand, though it may be efficient, is inadequate for furthering the conversation. And more often than not, these labels polarize people into opposing camps before any attempt at dialogue has even started. The conversation is over before it's even begun. All in the name of efficiency.



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

14 Aug 2015, 9:36 pm

I dislike social justice warriors, their behaviors, and most of their ideas.


_________________
Drain and plane and grain and blain your brain, and then again,
Propane and butane out of the gas main, your blain shall sustain!


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,693

14 Aug 2015, 11:19 pm

evilreligion wrote:
Ok so following on from the piece I wrote a month or so ago about social justice warrior types damaging the autism rights movement I have written a follow up piece about them using autism as an excuse for their behaviour. There is, as far as I can tell, a plethora of tumblrites who "self identify" as autistic.


Sorry, apologise in advance but you are tarring a lot of very good people with the same brush.

I don't dispute there are some SJWs who fall under your category. I think you are looking at autism rights through the prism of Aspergers where there are (perhaps) some people who might be searching for a identity and wanting a cause to adopt or self diagnose to fit in. I agree with you in this context that people officially diagnosed with Aspergers and have had to live with the challenges of their condition and diagnosis are in the best position to represent the civil rights of people with "their condition" in places like employment, education and other sectors.

On the other hand autistic people who lack the social skills to live independently strongly rely on NTs (like myself) and have nobody except NTs to look after their interest and advocate for them. The question of whether NTs should be allowed to advocate for autistic people is irrelevant as my NT wife and I are the only people who can advocate for my daughter's rights in school or in obtaining funding for services she needed when she was younger.

Hope this broadens your horizons a little. I find it irritating how many Aspies on WP continue to think they speak on behalf of everyone on the spectrum. They don't and never will.



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Aug 2015, 2:32 am

cyberdad wrote:
evilreligion wrote:
Ok so following on from the piece I wrote a month or so ago about social justice warrior types damaging the autism rights movement I have written a follow up piece about them using autism as an excuse for their behaviour. There is, as far as I can tell, a plethora of tumblrites who "self identify" as autistic.


Sorry, apologise in advance but you are tarring a lot of very good people with the same brush.

I don't dispute there are some SJWs who fall under your category. I think you are looking at autism rights through the prism of Aspergers where there are (perhaps) some people who might be searching for a identity and wanting a cause to adopt or self diagnose to fit in.


I am an nt parent of a classically autistic boy.
Quote:
I agree with you in this context that people officially diagnosed with Aspergers and have had to live with the challenges of their condition and diagnosis are in the best position to represent the civil rights of people with "their condition" in places like employment, education and other sectors.

Indeed

Quote:
On the other hand autistic people who lack the social skills to live independently strongly rely on NTs (like myself) and have nobody except NTs to look after their interest and advocate for them. The question of whether NTs should be allowed to advocate for autistic people is irrelevant as my NT wife and I are the only people who can advocate for my daughter's rights in school or in obtaining funding for services she needed when she was younger.

Indeed I'm still waiting for a point we disagree on!

Quote:
Hope this broadens your horizons a little. I find it irritating how many Aspies on WP continue to think they speak on behalf of everyone on the spectrum. They don't and never will.

Again I share this frustration. Indeed one of the main motivations for both my SJW essays was SJW self diagnosed aspies telling me and other parents that our opinions didn't count because we were not autistic. I have seen parents of severely autistic kids told to "shut the f**k up and listen" by self diagnosed clearly high functioning aspires and it drive me mad. Yes we need to listen to autistic people, yes they must be central to any discussion BUT the spectrum is so wide encompassing so many different experiences that no one can speak for everyone. And those that are telling people to shut the f**k up are, for the most part, destructive to the movement.

Now it should be noted that I have not seen this type of behaviour much at WP. However go to the face book groups like the thinking persons guide to autism or thautcast and you will see this phenomena I guarantee, self diagnosed "autistic" people and their nt SJW allies bashing and berating parents like you and I. It is hurtful, dispicable and most importantly destructive to the outcomes for autistic people in general. Such nonsense has no place in effective activism.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,693

15 Aug 2015, 2:46 am

evilreligion wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
evilreligion wrote:
Ok so following on from the piece I wrote a month or so ago about social justice warrior types damaging the autism rights movement I have written a follow up piece about them using autism as an excuse for their behaviour. There is, as far as I can tell, a plethora of tumblrites who "self identify" as autistic.


Sorry, apologise in advance but you are tarring a lot of very good people with the same brush.

I don't dispute there are some SJWs who fall under your category. I think you are looking at autism rights through the prism of Aspergers where there are (perhaps) some people who might be searching for a identity and wanting a cause to adopt or self diagnose to fit in.


I am an nt parent of a classically autistic boy.
Quote:
I agree with you in this context that people officially diagnosed with Aspergers and have had to live with the challenges of their condition and diagnosis are in the best position to represent the civil rights of people with "their condition" in places like employment, education and other sectors.

Indeed

Quote:
On the other hand autistic people who lack the social skills to live independently strongly rely on NTs (like myself) and have nobody except NTs to look after their interest and advocate for them. The question of whether NTs should be allowed to advocate for autistic people is irrelevant as my NT wife and I are the only people who can advocate for my daughter's rights in school or in obtaining funding for services she needed when she was younger.

Indeed I'm still waiting for a point we disagree on!

Quote:
Hope this broadens your horizons a little. I find it irritating how many Aspies on WP continue to think they speak on behalf of everyone on the spectrum. They don't and never will.

Again I share this frustration. Indeed one of the main motivations for both my SJW essays was SJW self diagnosed aspies telling me and other parents that our opinions didn't count because we were not autistic. I have seen parents of severely autistic kids told to "shut the f**k up and listen" by self diagnosed clearly high functioning aspires and it drive me mad. Yes we need to listen to autistic people, yes they must be central to any discussion BUT the spectrum is so wide encompassing so many different experiences that no one can speak for everyone. And those that are telling people to shut the f**k up are, for the most part, destructive to the movement.

Now it should be noted that I have not seen this type of behaviour much at WP. However go to the face book groups like the thinking persons guide to autism or thautcast and you will see this phenomena I guarantee, self diagnosed "autistic" people and their nt SJW allies bashing and berating parents like you and I. It is hurtful, dispicable and most importantly destructive to the outcomes for autistic people in general. Such nonsense has no place in effective activism.


LOL! welcome to the club then (apologies for the cranky post). I guess we both have keep some distance between our families and these SJWs then :wink:



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

15 Aug 2015, 4:04 am

This thread needs to check its privilege, otherwise it's highly problematic.

We need safe spaces from all these microaggressions and shaming.

(Yes, SJWhores are some of the worst. The internet has given a home for the physically weak bullies to bully others.)



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Aug 2015, 4:23 am

Lukeda420 wrote:
Evilreligion do you realize how much you sound like the people you're complaining about? It's kind of ironic, and quite funny. This is why I don't take people whining about social justice seriously.

I'm not whining about social justice. I an whining about people who use social justice issues to berate and bully others. There is a world of difference between a SJW and a social justice activist
Quote:
"I hate it when people make false allegations of sexism so I going to call any person who disagrees with me a radical feminist."

So yeah, I'm sticking to what I said earlier. If you get offended by strangers on the internet calling you racist, bigoted or misogynistic then you are either racist, bigoted or misogynistic or you are too easily offended.

You do realise that this means no one can ever defend themselves against being called racist or sexist? By this logic I could now just out of the blue call you a racist and by your own argument you would need to either concede you were racist or if you protest then you would prove your own racism And if you got upset you would bd over sensitive.

Do you see the problem with this way if thinking? This is how SJW types attempt to shut down criticism. Anyone who disagrees with anything they say is label a bigot. If they defend themselves then this is seen as just mor evidence if bigotry. You can't win!

Quote:
Btw, yes it is associated with horrible people I.e. MRA's and white supremacists.

These groups do jump on the anti SJW bAcklash and we must guard against the genine bigots copying the counter movement. But on the whole most anti SJWs are just decent people sick of identity politics nonsense.



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

15 Aug 2015, 7:12 am

Dillogic wrote:
This thread needs to check its privilege, otherwise it's highly problematic.

Actually I find this statement highly triggering. Stop oppressing me!



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,770

15 Aug 2015, 8:30 am

evilreligion wrote:
Actually I find this statement highly triggering. Stop oppressing me!


Forgive me for not giving a trigger warning (wait, no, you don't have to forgive me as that means I'm asking too much of you. You can if you want to, though; I'm not trying to control your choices.... Snap! I'm sorry for saying "control" without a warning. Ah damn! I didn't mean to put an exclamation mark after "snap", as that implies more noise than what many sensitive people are comfortable with. O god, I put one after "damn" too. Ah, sorry for using "god" as a mark of shock, as that's very offensive to many oppressed people worldwide. But, if you're Muslim, then praise be to god and peace be upon him).



Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

15 Aug 2015, 10:51 am

There is some serious noun-verb confusion going on in this thread. If I advocate for the human rights of women, I may call myself a womens rights advocate (not synonymous with feminism), and the term would apply. So, if I in turn also advocate for the human rights of men, I might call myself a hateful misogynistic bigot, wait, what?

There are indeed some very questionable sub-groups who label themselves MRA and the term probably does apply to them. But if the pro-SJW side wants to judge the MRM by its worst elements, it will have to submit to the same scrutiny in kind, and that is not going to be a favourable comparison for them.

I would never suggest that discrimination against either sex and/or gender on that basis is acceptable. I think both sides has issues that do need to be adressed. That being said, it would be helpful if one side didn't have to deal with a mob of political ideologues rushing in and shouting about how adressing one sides problems is minimizing the problems of the other side, and stifling any and all progress. Case in point: Earl Silverman. In a nation the size of Canada, there is ONE shelter for battered men (women are the perpetrators in 40% of intimate relations violence cases) Guess the ideology of those that would see there be none?

Genital mutilation is a problem for babies of both sexes only in the least developed parts of the world. In the first world, it is only a problem for male babies. I'm going to reveal my deeply rooted misogyny and suggest that this is a problem in need of adressing.

When was the last time you heard anything about male-only scholarships for university, seeing as women make up 61% of university students? Or any real effort whatsoever to get more men into academia? My guess is never. And compare that to the prevalence of female-only scholarships. But oh, there's my misogyny again.

And finally a question to trans-inclusionary feminists: I'm glad that you advocate for LGBTQ rights, but how do you even reconcile the idea of having a different gender to your sex, if gender is "just a social construct"? I'll be nice and not even ask about those feminists who claim that biological sex is also a social construct.

and now I will take my raging misogyny and go out for a bit.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.