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

evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

18 Aug 2015, 3:04 am

Barchan wrote:
evilreligion wrote:
I do not understand your conclusion.
No one was joking about any of the things you mention.
The joke was in fact about SJW types who belittle the very things you list with their faux moral outrage.

Joking about people who may have experienced those issues does count as joking about those issues, whether you want it to or not.

By this logic then anyone who might have experienced some kind of bigotry can never be joked about no matter how absurd they are being. Do you not see how dangerous this is? Do you not see how this line of thinking will shut down criticism. If you don't see this allow me to give an example. For decades the actions of the Israeli government against the people in Palestine were shielded by precisely this line of thinking. Any criticism leveled against Israeli oppression of Palestinians was very quickly labeled antisemitic. The guilt and long dark shadow of the holocaust allowed this tactic to work and for many years it allowed the Israeli government to get away with war crimes. Today most people have wised up to this tactic and when Netanyahu starts bleating on about people being antisemitic when they berrate the latest atrocity against the Palestinians no one really listens anymore but for decades the faux charge of antisemitism shielded the Israeli regime from legitimate criticism.

Quote:
"Belittle" by whose standards? Yours? Society's? There's nothing wrong with my rhetoric.

There is plenty wrong with your rhetoric. In whining about trivialities and by attempting to shut down jokes and any other speak that you have managed to work out a way to be offended by you are belittling the very words you use. To user an example that is perhaps important to you personally lets look at the use of the term Islamophobia. This word should be used when examining an irrational fear or prejudice against Muslims. Unfortunately for the last decade or so the word has been consistently used by Muslim groups in the same way as antisemitism was used by Israel, namely to try and s**t down any criticism of Islam. So when someone points out some of the decidedly dodgy stuff going on in Islamic countries as a direct result of the teachings in the Koran on is labeled an Islamophobe. The word is being used to shut down debate and criticism of Islam and various Islamic regime, and believe me there is much to criticise here! But perhaps worse than that the word Islamophobia is now somewhat of a joke to most people. Because it has been consistently abused as a tool of censoring legitimate criticism people have wised up. Now whenever some SJW type starts harping on about Islamophobia people just roll their eyes and think "oh no here we go again more bellyaching from the overly sensitive Muslims". Which is a shame because genuine Islamophobia, just like genuine antisemitism, does exist. But both terms have been so abused and misused by SJW types that they have lost all their potency.

Quote:
The people who tell us to calm down and rethink our words, they're the ones doing the belittling. Calling it "faux moral outrage" is belittling. I promise you, the outrage is real.

I simply do not believe that anyone can be genuinely outraged by many things SJW's crap on about. Most of the stuff SJW's moan about is utterly trivial. If you are outraged about genuine oppression and inequality then I am 100% on yourside and with you all the way. If someone is moaning about white people having dreadlocks being cultural appropriation or some other triviality then I call bullshit.

Quote:
If you don't like our angry tone, then too bad, the anger is justified.

It depends what you are getting angry about. If you are angry about genuine in equalities then yes its justified. If you are getting cross about the use of the term "I believe the most qualified person should get the job" being a microagression then the anger is not justified and to be honest I call bullshit on the anger being there at all.

Quote:
We're not here to play nice.

On this we agree. SJW types are amongst the most unpleasant people I have ever interacted with.

Quote:
We're not going to ask for permission to change society. You need to understand that equality isn't given, it's taken, and by God we are going to take it. 8)

Actually equality is almost always given. In almost all cases of societal reform the majority get on side with the message and the rights are given. In order to effect real change one needs a critical mass of the majority to be on board with the change otherwise it never happens. Real change is about winning hearts and minds about winning people over with the power of ones arguments. And this is precisely why the SJW mentality is so utterly destructive to all civil rights movements. Because the SJW rhetoric is so absurd, so focused on trivial nonsense, so full of fake outrage, so judgemental, so divisive, so condescending and so Orwellian in its attempt to stifle discussion the public will never ever accept it on a large scale. Indeed it simply drive people away from the causes in droves.

As an example of this lets look at modern feminism. Modern feminism is a joke, only 20% of females in the US identify as a feminist today. This should be close to 100% but it isn't precisely because the rhetoric of third wave feminism is so vile. All the while feminism is in thrall to the SJW mind set, all the while it is fussing over nonsense like computer games causing sexism then it will never achieve anything because the public look at this and just say "WTF? Really? That's what feminism is about? Computer games? Oh well I really don't care about that" and all the while that is happening in many countries around the world women are being oppressed systematically.

So instead of moaning about computer games why is not feminism focused on say a trade embargo against Saudi Arabia? We had sanctions against South Africa during appartite and the way the Saudi's treat their women is just as bad so lets hear a campaign about that. We should all be outraged by the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, people would get behind that cause but no instead is moaning about sexism in computer games. I merely use Saudi Arabia as an example there are many other feminist issues that need addressing world wide.

So in conclusion. I am about as left wing as one can sensibly get. I believe strongly that all people of all races, sexes and sexualities should be free and have equal opportunities under the law and in practice. I want there to be social justice and it is precisely because I passionately believe in those things that I find the SJW mindset so irksome. SJW's damage the very causes they claim to support. On a very personal level I do not want autism rights to become a laughing stock like feminism is. My son needs an effective autism rights movement that will effect real change so he grows up into a more tolerant caring society. So every time I see SJW types hijacking the autism rights movement with their trivial nonsense I see people harming my sons future. This pisses me off. You think you have justified anger? Well let me tell you the love of parent for their kids is one of the strongest forces in the world. The faux moral outrage of the SJW types can not even begin to compete with this.



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2015, 9:54 am

Wow this thread is insane. The complete lack of critical thinking here is staggering. What is it about these "anti-SJW's" that compel them to make the same arguments over and over again despite the fact that they have been overwhelmingly debunked. It's as though they feel as long as they just keep repeating it will become true. If you say something racist then expect to be labeled a racist, it's that simple. I don't know, but if someone random person called me a racist online, I guess I'd just laugh a little and move on. It's not that hard.

Theses "anti-SJW's" have got to be some of the most petulant and whiney groups I have ever seen. Oh well, have fun getting mad at strangers. :roll:



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

18 Aug 2015, 10:15 am

Lukeda420 wrote:
Wow this thread is insane. The complete lack of critical thinking here is staggering. What is it about these "anti-SJW's" that compel them to make the same arguments over and over again despite the fact that they have been overwhelmingly debunked. It's as though they feel as long as they just keep repeating it will become true. If you say something racist then expect to be labeled a racist, it's that simple. I don't know, but if someone random person called me a racist online, I guess I'd just laugh a little and move on. It's not that hard.

Theses "anti-SJW's" have got to be some of the most petulant and whiney groups I have ever seen. Oh well, have fun getting mad at strangers. :roll:

What kind of sick ableist pig are you? Using words like "insane" and "mad" are just so problematic it shows you clearly have a deep rooted hatred of anyone who is differently minded. Using "insane" and "mad" as an insult is every bit as bad as using the R word as an insult. Stop it you ableist.


..... so you just gonna laugh and move on. Or is the point sinking in?



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

18 Aug 2015, 10:20 am

^ You have a point? I don't see it. Oh well, you guys were never good at making a cogent argument anyway.

And yeah I'm going to laugh and move on. This is hilarious :D



Barchan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 695

18 Aug 2015, 6:29 pm

evilreligion wrote:
By this logic then anyone who might have experienced some kind of bigotry can never be joked about no matter how absurd they are being.

Humor isn't always the appropriate response. Yes, I'm aware of the situation in Palestine, and I've spoken quite candidly about it in the past. I could talk about Israel all day long without ever cracking a joke or a smile (though it be well within my right to do so). Our injustices are ours alone to joke about, just as our scabs and cuts are ours alone to poke at.

evilreligion wrote:
I simply do not believe that anyone can be genuinely outraged by many things SJW's crap on about. Most of the stuff SJW's moan about is utterly trivial.

Trivial to you, maybe. :?



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

18 Aug 2015, 9:40 pm

Barchan wrote:
Our injustices are ours alone to joke about, just as our scabs and cuts are ours alone to poke at.

These restrictions on humor can be proclaimed loudly and with a huge sense of the entitlement of the injured party, but that doesn't make them true, just or ethical.

Such thoughts are inimical to a free society and promote oppression, not liberty. Thinking along the lines, "If I could just control all the expressions of those who oppress me then I would be free," is not a road to liberation for any people.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

18 Aug 2015, 11:04 pm

Barchan wrote:
And anyone who associates the word "SJW" with bullying and censorship should rethink their position. There is no SJW problem. If your beef with SJW's is that they yell at you when you make rape jokes or racist comments, then frankly they're not the problem. You are.


If someone says a "naughty" word, and you have a whole heap of people trying to get said person fired from his or her job, then said people are the bullies and are doing their best to censor speech. A bully uses a disproportionate amount of force, or the threat of the same, to get the thing he or she wants. The benevolent man or woman will provide his or her opinion in words, which is an equal amount of force.

The thing about censorship is that you can't come up with an objective consensus on what's offensive. Not to mention you shouldn't hide from words, as doing such gives them inordinate amounts of power over you.



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

19 Aug 2015, 1:15 am

Barchan wrote:
evilreligion wrote:
By this logic then anyone who might have experienced some kind of bigotry can never be joked about no matter how absurd they are being.

Humor isn't always the appropriate response.

Not always no. But if one is trying to change something the humour is one of the best weapons. Mocking SJW nonsense is, to my mind, the best way to point out the absurdity of what they do.
Quote:
Yes, I'm aware of the situation in Palestine, and I've spoken quite candidly about it in the past. I could talk about Israel all day long without ever cracking a joke or a smile (though it be well within my right to do so). Our injustices are ours alone to joke about, just as our scabs and cuts are ours alone to poke at.

Again you are missing the point. No one is joking about your injustices. The entire joke was about SJWs finding false injustices and using unjust situations in one area to debate in another, like Israel use anti semitism to stop any descusion of Palestine. Do you see the difference? Do you see how the fake accusations of anti semitism has been used to shield Israeli war crimes? Now if you accept that then apply the same logic the various Muslim groups who use islamophobia as a cover for the horrible things they do. And then apply that lenses to sexism and racism.

No one is condoning sexism racism or any other bigotry. I am simply against those terms being exploited to stop discussion and debate.

Quote:
evilreligion wrote:
I simply do not believe that anyone can be genuinely outraged by many things SJW's crap on about. Most of the stuff SJW's moan about is utterly trivial.

Trivial to you, maybe. :?

Yes trivial to me and anyone else who is a sensible human being including the vast majority of the oppressed group in question. Do you honest think that a woman in Saudi Arabia gives a s**t about sexism in computer games? Do you think a black man from the slums of la gives a second thought to white people with dreadlocks culturally appropriating? These things are trivial to the minority group supposedly being helped. They are a distraction they simply waste energy on addressing fake problems that only white middle class university students have the time to dream up and worry about.



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

19 Aug 2015, 1:28 am

Dillogic wrote:

The thing about censorship is that you can't come up with an objective consensus on what's offensive. Not to mention you shouldn't hide from words, as doing such gives them inordinate amounts of power over you.

Exactly. And anyone can, if they think hard enough, find a way to be offended by pretty much any statement. So now with a little thought any one can ban anything! This is why free speech is the closest thing I have to a sacred truth. I will defend the rights if racists, nazis, sexists snd any other vile scum of humanity to say whatever they want to say. I may not like what they say I may find it deeply offensive insulting and even dangerous but free speech is even more important than that. It is, for want if a better word, sacred because it is free speech from which all our other freedoms come.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,466
Location: northeast US

19 Aug 2015, 1:42 am

i am self-diagnosed and the autistic self-advocacy network knew that and accepted me as an autistic writer for their communications team. they are strongly against people without disabilities making decisions for folks with disabilities. their entire board is autistic. they understand that folks my age (59) did not have access to diagnosis when we were young and don't always have a pressing need to get a diagnosis having gotten by so long without one. thinking that a diagnosis makes a person a better representative of the autistic community is unfounded and unfair.



evilreligion
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 152

19 Aug 2015, 2:27 am

cathylynn wrote:
i am self-diagnosed and the autistic self-advocacy network knew that and accepted me as an autistic writer for their communications team. they are strongly against people without disabilities making decisions for folks with disabilities. their entire board is autistic. they understand that folks my age (59) did not have access to diagnosis when we were young and don't always have a pressing need to get a diagnosis having gotten by so long without one. thinking that a diagnosis makes a person a better representative of the autistic community is unfounded and unfair.

I think being autistic makes a person a better representative of the autistic community. I think that many of the SJW's who claim autism are not autistic. They are either frauds or they are mistaken in their self diagnosis. It is one thing for a 59 year old to self diagnose after a lifetime of experience and self reflection and entirely another for a 17 year old kid to do the same.



Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

19 Aug 2015, 7:29 am

evilreligion wrote:
cathylynn wrote:
i am self-diagnosed and the autistic self-advocacy network knew that and accepted me as an autistic writer for their communications team. they are strongly against people without disabilities making decisions for folks with disabilities. their entire board is autistic. they understand that folks my age (59) did not have access to diagnosis when we were young and don't always have a pressing need to get a diagnosis having gotten by so long without one. thinking that a diagnosis makes a person a better representative of the autistic community is unfounded and unfair.

I think being autistic makes a person a better representative of the autistic community. I think that many of the SJW's who claim autism are not autistic. They are either frauds or they are mistaken in their self diagnosis. It is one thing for a 59 year old to self diagnose after a lifetime of experience and self reflection and entirely another for a 17 year old kid to do the same.


It seems to me that you are saying they can't be autistic because they disagree with you. It also seems that you are of another generation than the people you are complaining about and I wonder if the differences you notice might not be attributable to that. I find the whole anti-free speech tone that seems popular among college students today deeply shocking and unethical, but it does seem to be a thing with those young people.

Your position actually seems more like theirs than you might think. Only the authentic, board certified autistic can legitimately speak on these issues, etc. More than a little like one of the SJWs you find so objectionable.



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,458
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Aug 2015, 10:43 am

I think that only diagnosed autistic people should speak as autistic people, but others can advocate for autistic people too, without speaking as autistic people.


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


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1020
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

19 Aug 2015, 11:17 am

btbnnyr wrote:
I think that only diagnosed autistic people should speak as autistic people, but others can advocate for autistic people too, without speaking as autistic people.


I can't help but notice that your post comes a few posts after cathylynn's:
cathylynn wrote:
i am self-diagnosed and the autistic self-advocacy network knew that and accepted me as an autistic writer for their communications team. they are strongly against people without disabilities making decisions for folks with disabilities. their entire board is autistic. they understand that folks my age (59) did not have access to diagnosis when we were young and don't always have a pressing need to get a diagnosis having gotten by so long without one. thinking that a diagnosis makes a person a better representative of the autistic community is unfounded and unfair.


Do you feel that such public advocacy as an autistic person is unethical without a diagnosis? Or is this idea somewhat flexible and contingent on circumstance and history, as the people at ASAN have evidently concluded?

I am curious to know how you would apply this principle in the complexity of real lives.



btbnnyr
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,458
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago

19 Aug 2015, 11:37 am

I didn't read cathlynn's post, so my post is not reply to hers.

I think it is unethical to speak as an autistic person without an official diagnosis.
One can always speak as a person with autistic traits or BAP without misrepresenting anything.
Many parents of autistic children have autistic traits, but are not diagnosed, and the ones I have met don't speak as autistic people, but do mention their autistic traits.

To me, there is nothing complex about this issue of speaking as autistic person.
If someone doesn't have diagnosis, don't speak as autistic person.
There are alternatives that still allow these people to advocate if they want to.


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