What if SJW's are holdovers from the Cold War

So apparently thinking for ourselves, being compassionate towards others and actually caring about our fellow neighbors is now considered evil, wrong and to be stamped out?

What the hell kind of dystopian world are you trying to create here?

originally posted by: Kryties
So apparently thinking for ourselves, being compassionate towards others and actually caring about our fellow neighbors is now considered evil, wrong and to be stamped out?

No, we are talking about Social Justice Warriors.

We are talking about groupthink rather than individual thought.
We are talking about being intolerant rather than being compassionate.
We are talking about acting entitled and demanding rather than acting caring and giving.
We are talking about being divisive rather than uniting.

We are talking about being aggressive, confrontational and violent rather than .. not.


I am liberal to the core, but if I were an American voter, I would have voted Trump out of sheer spite. I simply cannot stand this smug group of people that amount to nothing more than old fashioned bullies with the modern day weapon of social media.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: starwarsisreal

I think it is important to understand that the term Social Justice Warrior is not a negative term, but a positive one, which has been usurped by certain factions to silence civil rights campaigns, campaigners, and critics of right wing fundamentalism.

SJWs are among the most racist and violent people in this country. Explain to me how that;s positive. Try to do it without a wall of text.

originally posted by: Kryties
So apparently thinking for ourselves, being compassionate towards others and actually caring about our fellow neighbors is now considered evil, wrong and to be stamped out?

What the hell kind of dystopian world are you trying to create here?

That's not what SJWs do. They violently suppress speech and promote racist hatred of whites.

Here is a livestream of an SJW, anti-white event going on at Pomona College

www.facebook.com...

The purpose of this event is to broadly generalize and demonize whites as a threat to "people of color".

originally posted by: DupontDeux

originally posted by: Kryties
So apparently thinking for ourselves, being compassionate towards others and actually caring about our fellow neighbors is now considered evil, wrong and to be stamped out?

No, we are talking about Social Justice Warriors.

We are talking about groupthink rather than individual thought.
We are talking about being intolerant rather than being compassionate.
We are talking about acting entitled and demanding rather than acting caring and giving.
We are talking about being divisive rather than uniting.

We are talking about being aggressive, confrontational and violent rather than .. not.


I am liberal to the core, but if I were an American voter, I would have voted Trump out of sheer spite. I simply cannot stand this smug group of people that amount to nothing more than old fashioned bullies with the modern day weapon of social media.

In other words you know nothing about American liberals, because you aren't American and don't live here.

a reply to: TheBulk

Look, TheBulk...

I understand that you have a problem with nuance, with sophisticated communication, with all the things that make a proper discussion of merit possible, but just because you have those problems, does not make it necessary for me to sink down into the bottomless chasm I would need to trawl the depths of, to find a level upon which an even flow of information could be established between the two of us. Raise your game, put in an effort. I mean Christ, its not as if my writings are as hard to read as Tolkien.

Now, I have already spent a whole post explaining that what people call SJWs, and what are ACTUALLY SJWs, are two very different things. Now, if you are in that subset of mental incompetents that cannot tell the difference between concepts, like for example, socialism and communism, or even tell the difference between Nazism and socialism, then there is no way to explain the situation to you, because your ignorance does not come from a lack of access to information, but a refusal to accept and assimilate it. I cannot solve that problem for you. If you are still unable to understand the difference between two totally separate concepts, then thats your problem to solve.

If, however, you are actually capable of rational thought these days, go back and read my first post carefully, and actually assimilate the data in it, without reacting to it. Weigh it, do not shout at it, get angry and close your mind down, just read and assimilate. If you STILL have an issue with what I actually said afterwards, then come back to me on it, but until then, do not waste my time.

originally posted by: jellyrev
They are about to start defending felons and terrorist with mass protesting.
It's about to get interesting.

Yes, it is.

To Byrd: Moral Foundations theory by Jon Haidt explains the actual value systems difference between liberals and conservatives.
Here is a simple diagram of it.

Excellent - was trying to find that one and couldn't for the life of me think of who was the originator. Did the best with what I found but your diagram is much clearer.

a reply to: TrueBrit

When meant Social Justice warriors, I meant those idiots who spray graffiti, call for violence against Republicans, whites and anyone who doesn't fall in line with their thinking, burning cars and blocking freeways.

One time in my college, I was in class during election day when some idiots SJW started banging the doors and pulled the fire alarm causing classes to be canceled. It angered many people including me.

What's more, they blocked a local freeway in the middle of rush hour.

In another incident, they called my college a place dominated by white supremacy when in reality it composed of mostly Hispanic working class students with some other ethnicities and many of us hated them.

Look I am aware Social Justice Warrior originally meant people Like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela and others but these people hijack the term and now it became a negative thing.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: starwarsisreal
There is also a difference between a campaigner for social justice, and an agitator. A person who cares about the issues, is prepared to spend time campaigning for them, attempting to make positive differences to the lives of their fellow human beings, by increasing awareness of injustices, pointing out government failure to address those injustices, especially in cases where the government are the source of the injustice, is a GOOD person to have around the place. The world needs more people like that, not less.

Thanks for your words.

And that is how we see ourselves. One thing I'm very interested in is the fiduciary rule - which if chopped up (as the current administration wants to do) means that investment groups don't need to consider "is this investment good for my client." While this might be great for some investment groups, it's lousy for the consumer.

But agitators essentially do the work of the unjust for them...

Actually, we're willing to be agitators to some extent. We tend to favor marching, however, and not rioting.

Recently, there have been more arrests in America, of people who have been feeding the homeless. Compassion is illegal in some states, as it turns out, and folk who have been doing a service that ought to be done by the state, have felt the long arm of the law as a result. Those people who were cuffed doing this, were warriors for social justice, prepared to risk arrest because they knew that if it was possible to break a law by doing the right thing, then that law needed breaking, if only to show it for the inhuman and evil thing that it is.

Although that's not against the law here, yes I'm guilty of handing out food to homeless.

Many years ago, people marched despite the risk of arrest, injury and/or death, to ensure that a huge section of the population of the United States of America, could actually have the right to vote. Would those who marched then, be called social justice warriors today?

Yep. They would have. The attitude toward non-whites voting was very negative (and we heard arguments about what horrors this would inflict on society... leading in some ways to some of the abuses of the first half of the 20th century.) The feeling against women voting was very strong and there's lots of cartoons showing the suffragettes in a negative light as SJW's .

The term needs to stop being used as an insult. There ARE those who are using an alleged passion for social issues, to gain themselves unhealthy attention, behaving negatively, rather than advocating for positive change. But to call these people SJWs cheapens the efforts of the real champions of social justice, whose work often goes totally and utterly unrecognised.

Thank you.

In part that's why I stand up and say "I'm a SJW" when I hear the term being used in a negative way. What's been amusing is that people who know me slightly will say, "No, you aren't. You're far too nice and reasonable." But yeah, from enforcing polite conversation and all the rest, I'm a classic SJW.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: TrueBrit

When meant Social Justice warriors, I meant those idiots who spray graffiti, call for violence against Republicans, whites and anyone who doesn't fall in line with their thinking, burning cars and blocking freeways.

How do you know these are SJW's?

This is a serious question. If they are attempting to address a serious social problem then you should be able to pinpoint what it is. Someone who's angry against another group is not necessarily a SJW and graffiti tagging is seldom done by SJWs (it's a European method of protest - American graffiti is more a personal statement rather than a protest against a social institution.)

One time in my college, I was in class during election day when some idiots SJW started banging the doors and pulled the fire alarm causing classes to be canceled. It angered many people including me.

What social issue were they trying to address with this? I ask because "getting out of a test" or "causing classes to be canceled" doesn't sound like a cause.

What's more, they blocked a local freeway in the middle of rush hour.

That one, I'll grant is classic social protest. Remember when truck drivers descended on DC and drove slowly around the city, snarling traffic as one of their protests (the most recent one by Tea Party truckers demanding Obama's removal and prosecution for crimes in 2013)?

Classic. Annoying but classic.

In another incident, they called my college a place dominated by white supremacy when in reality it composed of mostly Hispanic working class students with some other ethnicities and many of us hated them.

Were they talking about the students or the administration?

a reply to: starwarsisreal

Those people, whatever you have been lead to believe, are not social justice warriors. They are provocateurs, vandals, anarchists. There is a great, yawning canyon between that, and the proper use of the term social justice warrior.

You need to understand that it is not the case that social justice warrior originally meant people like Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Nelson Mandela and others, but that it STILL refers to those people, NOT to those you have been talking about. Terms only change use when everyone using the term agrees to that change of use, and guess what? I do not agree with it, and neither do those without whom the fabric of decent society would not operate. The campaigners that keep the water clean, and make a stink when it is not. The people who demand proper education for ALL a nations young people, not just those who go to private schools. The people who call out government corruption at the local level, the people who protest about genuine equality issues, the folks who call out corporations which routinely break employment law, or which fail to abide by ecological safety rulings. These people will still be a necessary part of your nations future tomorrow, the day after that, and the day after that into time ever lasting, and those people are social justice warriors. They are the backbone of your country, indeed, your nation would not exist without them, and will not exist if they are insulted into non-existence because the masses refuse to differentiate between them, and the vandal mob you are talking about.

There is a difference between these two, and I suggest you learn it, and stop misusing the term SJW, when what you mean is criminal.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well said take down. Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact it's probably best if I didn't, because opinions like the OP's are offensive and cause me to lash out.

a reply to: Byrd

I remember one time me and my friend were hanging out when Black Lives Matter started protesting. Instantly they started acting disruptive by banging doors and pulling the Fire Alarm.

Then later I logged in to facebook and went into my college's fb page. Me and many others are simply called racist and white supremacists after we criticized the actions of BLM. A lot of us were saying that while we understand what's going on, it's not okay to disrupt classes while people are taking a test.

Many of the people that got criticized are not even white and were in agreement that Police Brutality is a big concern.

My point is what certain groups of SJWs are doing is that they are using methods that would drive away potential supporters.

Actually in my college many of us don't like Trump at all. Many people including one of my professors called Trump a Man Baby and that what Trump was doing are wrong. However, we get really angry when SJWs like BLM started wreaking havoc with our daily lives.

You seriously need to be in LA Byrd, you'll probably see more of these types of SJWs.

originally posted by: TheBulk
Here is a livestream of an SJW, anti-white event going on at Pomona College

www.facebook.com...

The purpose of this event is to broadly generalize and demonize whites as a threat to "people of color".

It looks like you're getting your impression from the title and not from having been there. Let's face it - if you're not into sociology or psychology or anthropology, the title probably looks threatening to you. If you're into minority studies or psych or anth or sociology, then the title falls into context. The purpose there is to give some insight into how things look if you're Black or Hispanic or Asian or Muslim or whatever and give us who are White and interested in helping or working with them (such as social workers) some idea of how to help without being stupid about it.

I've been to lectures like that. Nobody there demonized me for being White and nobody thought I was a threat to them. There was appreciation that I was willing to learn about things that concerned people who weren't like me and appreciation that I was interested in helping them solve their problems in ways that they are comfortable with (in other words, helping with respect.)

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Byrd

I remember one time me and my friend were hanging out when Black Lives Matter started protesting. Instantly they started acting disruptive by banging doors and pulling the Fire Alarm.

Then later I logged in to facebook and went into my college's fb page. Me and many others are simply called racist and white supremacists after we criticized the actions of BLM. A lot of us were saying that while we understand what's going on, it's not okay to disrupt classes while people are taking a test.

Now... here's what I don't get: that sounds like the actions of troublemakers and not necessarily BLM. Not every Black person running around a protest is a member of BLM. Some of the youngsters shout "Black Lives Matter" simply to work themselves up ... kind of like shouting "Sparta!" or "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!" And it's also known that BLM protests often are convenient distractions when a gang (not members of BLM) wants to do something destructive. The gang gets a handy scapegoat that everyone can get mad at.

Disrupting classes doesn't sound like a protest, y'know?

So I'm just curious.

But if you accused peaceful marchers of actions that some riff-raff took simply based on the color of their skin then yes, I can see why some might call you racist.

Many of the people that got criticized are not even white and were in agreement that Police Brutality is a big concern.

And that's why I wonder who was doing the disruption. Disrupting schools has nothing to do with police brutality. In fact, it would be counterproductive because it'd cause problems... and anyone who's been involved in protests knows this. You don't start trouble if you want community support.

On the other hand, if you just want to cause trouble, waiting till a demonstration happens means the police are focused on the march and you and your buddies can smash-and-grab and get away with stuff makes perfect sense. The demonstrators get the blame and you get off with the goods.

(BTW, that scenario happened with the original Boston Tea Party where some took advantage of the protest to steal tea and other things. It's happened a a lot of other protests.)

My point is what certain groups of SJWs are doing is that they are using methods that would drive away potential supporters.

I'm just curious about who identified the ruffians as SJWs and BLM folks. It just seems like a buzzword for "somebody was causing trouble" - kind of a group blame at a handy target.

...like Muslims.

Many people including one of my professors called Trump a Man Baby ...

Y'know, if that was in casual conversation, it's fine. If it's part of a class then (depending on how it's framed) that may be overstepping the boundaries of professionalism and shouldn't be done. (a professor can say "this cartoon depicts him as a Man Baby" but to use it as a slur instead of saying his name - "Man Baby Trump whined about the press today" - isn't very professional.

You seriously need to be in LA Byrd, you'll probably see more of these types of SJWs.

I've visited there and I've lived in Austin. I know a lot of SJWs.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I appreciate what you are trying to do but we are past that.
I don't see a ceasefire happening between both sides using these terms against each other. Once one side does it the other side retaliates.
Pro-tip from the other side: Wear SJW as a badge of honor. explaining it is pointless.

trump supporter: racist, bigot, nazi, hitler, alt-right, white supremacist

liberal: SJW, snowflake, cuck, ctrl-left, communist, comrade

a reply to: TrueBrit

Thats just a flat out lie compassion isn't illegal, What people get in trouble for with local governments is they are trying to move the ho,eless out of parks and into shelters. Problem is if people bring them food they are not going to leave and this puts their life in danger as they try to stay in areas with little or no protection from the elements and poor police protection. What these people think are a good deeds is actually putting there life at risk. Nut this often happens when you make decisions solely based on emotion and dont look at consequences.

Thought it's about time Americans learned the true political spectrum and not the skewed 1950's version they seem to subscribe to... e.g contained in this thread.... Factual Political Spectrum
SJW's are Liberalists so just because they are called Social Justice Warriors doesn't really imply they have a Socialist or to the extreme Communist ethos...

As to whether or not they are a Cold War left over? I think you are overestimating the influence of communism and askewing a natural human habit to resist regarding to what ever side of the spectrum they sit on. SJW today being the opposite to the current US Government, Evangelical Conservatives with bordering Fascist Overtones.

a reply to: DreamerOracle

Did you just put a 1950's version? That's what that is. I was expecting a nolan chart.
If you were referring to my diagram, It is very new, created by social psychologist Jon Haidt, Who has been doing a lot of research into ideology and personality. There is a lot out on the subject.

Here is my version, It is a simple way to look at how people reason/emote through their political decisions.
We are watching this unfold in real time.
It explains both the surge in ethnocentrism of the right and the insane behavior of progressives aligning themselves with muslims and no longer wanting to defend free speech. Both sides are both sliding down from liberty

a reply to: dragonridr

Not having adequate nourishment in their bellies kills people a damned sight faster than exposure to the elements ever will. Theres a good deal of hardship that a body can cope with, as long as it has biomass to process, which produces body heat, aside from any nutritional benefits. I know this, because I have actually lived in the elements, on the street. Its also worth pointing out, that a park offers a great deal of shelter to a canny rough sleeper. Bushes and trees offer shelter from certain levels of rain and snow fall, as well as offering shelter from the wind. Further to that, many rough sleepers and homeless persons, are adept scavengers, capable of creating workable shelter by recycling material found in dumpsters, or at the side of the road.

They also know where to score cheap, second hand clothing, how to select it for the weather. A properly set up homeless person has a damned sight better chance of surviving a night in the cold, than any number of clubbers have of surviving the wait for the cab after a night on the tiles, as long as they have something in their belly. Just because the government locally want these people to be in shelters, does not give local law enforcement or government the right to incarcerate people doing humanitarian work, which actually saves lives. It should be perfectly obvious that not all homeless persons do too terribly well in shelters. Many of them are vulnerable to being abused by others, others still have socialisation issues which prevent a group setting being healthy for them, or for other members of that group. They still need help, even if they cannot be helped at a shelter. They still need food, even if they cannot make use of the kitchen at a shelter because of a psychological problem or because they have become set in their ways.

The real deal is this. The people who got arrested, got arrested because the local government do not want homeless in the park, because they want the homeless to all be in shelters, where they can be monitored, where they can be watched, not protected, not defended, not enabled, but controlled. The people who got arrested, do NOT believe that putting everyone in shelters is an answer that works. They do believe that ALL homeless people, ideally, should be reached by hearty food, no matter where they elect to sleep, and that is right, cannot be anything else. The lives of the homeless are rightly worth more to these people, than the opinions and desires of the local government, and so they damned well ought to be.