Inkbunny

That's actually a tactic by SJW's, instead of arguing...they accuse people of being racist, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, ignoring facts. So to define, the side that uses ad hominem attacks and accuses people of the above are the SJWs...and no only eurocentric white societies are bad. Facts be damned.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Yes, accusing people like that is a SJW tactic. And accusing others of accusing their side of those things is also a SJW tactic.

The last presidential election was a classic example of this, when the Trump supporter SJWs responded to any question of Trump's election promises (such as "how will we pay for this wall?") by accusing the Hillary supporter SJWs of having no questions and only insulting them as bigots and racists and so on.

The tactic is a combination of ad hominem (making accusations about the opponent's character rather than addressing their arguments) and a strawman (making up an easily defeated fake argument, pretending that is what the opponent is saying, and proceeding to 'defeat' the straw man argument).

And still I think "SJW" is not a faction any more than "troll" or "white knight" are factions, they are just behaviour archetypes.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

there are no conservative SJW's....and they were calling them racists, bigots and misogynists. Social justice warriors believe in social justice which has meaning. Its basically leftist and seeks a communist equality (for it does have communist origins in universities (read up on Frankfurt school.) Equality means you have to force people to lower themselves to the least able person and seeks to disrupt social supports like police, family, church, religion, so there is just individual and government (very 1984). The diversity movement and multiculturalism are facets of this. So there are no Trump SJW's because they do not believe in social justice, they believe in freedom from government to achieve, not government forcing equality. So I think you are wrong, there is a really clear definition of social justice and its warriors. Its being taught in colleges now, shutting down free speech, redefining racism from thinking other races are less equal to a power thing, so ALL white people are racist being part of a power system and no colored person CAN be racist (this is what they are teaching now in US colleges)

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Sure there are conservative SJWs, just like there are fundamentalists and extremists and so on for every group.

Some people called Trump's supporters names, not all. Hillary included, calling them deplorables. Many (but not all) Trump supporters played the martry card and pretended they had been called names instead of answering questions. It was all pretty lame, wasn't it?

Now, one reason that I have been saying "all sides have SJWs" is that the exact motive you describe for leftists applies to every ideology. Unless you're saying righties wake up in the morning thinking "time to fight for social injustice"? I don't. But as soon as you have someone thinking that their political and/or religious ideology is what is moral and right and just, you get what I call a SJW. Someone on a self declared moral crusade for their version of justice in society.

So I think you have it wrong, you are only using one group's definition of social justice and therefore SJWs.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Well I think you are absolutely wrong again, as SJWs believe in a very definitive doctrine.  What you are saying is something along the lines that because a christian group and muslim group may appear similar, they are the same thing.

There would be a difference in not believing in social justice (asbsolute communist equality among people) and believing that goal is bad as it forces everyone to be equal by force of the state to the lowest common actor.  ie - you can't have/show talent because that makes people who don't feel bad.  This applies to wealth a la Ann Rand, that people who have wealth, namely because in American society, they earned it, that they were lucky or it was given to them by others, and so do not deserve it and must pay back into the system.  Many people consider taxation theft which it is (myself I think it more insidious than that as a scam to rob people of their wealth, with obamacare being the worst offender - concentrating on insurance coverage rather than the goal of healthcare.  It's a scam to feed money into big financials, paying copays, deductibles and high premiums before you even get the healthcare as people can't afford to go to doctor after paying those into system.)

Calling names does not make one a SJW or debate tactics.  It *IS* an ideology that certain groups in society are downtrodden by a "system" rather than fault of government policies and individual choices.  So when they call someone a racist or deplorable, it is because they actually believe it.  All white people are inherently racist because they are in a system of oppression, no matter what they think about other races.  No black people CAN be system because they are on other side of system, because they have redefined the word racism to a meaning of power rather than belief.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Not quite.  I am not saying "because groups look similar they are the same".  There are patterns of behaviour that lead to similar outcomes, however.

A christian fundamentalist and a muslim fundamentalist for instance are both driven by always putting their religious belief above anything else, including the well being of others.  But similarly I have met an environmentalist fundamentalist who put the environment first (and everything else a distant second) and was advocating the mass culling of humanity to do so.  And the outcome need not be detrimental, a nun for instance is a type of religious fundamentalist.

I think our disagreement is that you term SJWs as a group with an ideology, and to me SJW is a behaviour type which I have witnessed across many groups under many ideologies.  Now, we might have some common ground that "the original SJWs" match what you describe, hence the name.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 9 months ago by Owner

I think you are REALLY bending terms to fit what you want rather than their actual meanings.  The "original" and current SJWs are the same thing because they are defined by their ideology, which is the same.  You seem to be conflating the term to mean whatever you want it to mean, which *IS* a SJW tactic.

"A christian fundamentalist and a muslim fundamentalist for instance are both driven by always putting their religious belief above anything else, including the well being of others."  That could hardly be less true.  Conflating the term fundamentalist with lots of things.  Fundamentalist is defined as meaning you believe in the original beliefs of the religion.  That is all it means.  And no christian fundamentalist do not act the same as islamic one (if there is such a thing even as the only division in islam in belief is sunni or shite which is a minor political issue, both sects believe in the original texts?) because the core beliefs of the two religion are diametrically opposed.  The fundamental belief of christianity is to love god and therefore love your neighbor to the point of self sacrifice.  Islamic belief seems mainly to be spreading the religion and its ok to kill people to do so, vs christian belief that one can only become a christian by conscious decision to do so (hence support of free speech and free thought) while islamic belief do not support these.  Then you conflate it further by saying there are environmental fundamentalist (when what you mean is extremist, as there are no original doctrines of environmentism to adhere to.  A nun is a practitioner of the catholic faith, which adds a WHOLE lot to the original texts and beliefs, many of which are contrary to original christianity (such as praying to saints, confessing sins to a priest, a priest being able to forgive sin, priests being celibate, nuns being married to god, mary being part of god and/or wife of god, and the list goes on, many of which were incorporated pagan beliefs that god swept into catholicism when people where forced to become such when their king converted.)  So a nun absolutely can not be a fundamentalist.  She could be an extremist although, take Mother Teresa who believed suffering was a good thing.

Our disagreement is that you are conflating and confusing terms, while I go for the definition of the term.  If you don't go by definition of the word, then yes anyone can be a fundamentalist or a SJW and those terms become meaningless.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

And I think you're REALLY narrowly restricting the meaning of terms.

We've both stated what we think and why. I'd be keen to see who some third parties agree with.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Yes I am restricting terms to their actual definitions, strange idea XD

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

No, you are over-restricting the definition. Like the people who restrict the definition of terrorism to only mean islamic terrorism and then using that definition to argue only islam causes terrorism.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

no I am not. its odd you claim i over-restricting a very narrow definition of SJW. This is what they want to do, this is what they claim this is their historical background...kinda communist, equality, with intent to destroy family, religion and any structures between individual and state. To whit....attacks on gender and marriage. Hell Im gayish, this benefits me, but, I realize their goal is trying to destroy society. And its working. The risk cost benefits of getting married and producing offspring have been severely offset against the male in society. A chick can get preggers, take you to court and get half your income for next 18 yrs and can even say you dont get to see children.

moyomongoose

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 9 months ago by Owner

The SJWs really missed the boat on issues that really count...For starters, there are about 167 countries on this planet in our present day and time where slavery is still legal, sadly to say India is one of them.
Yes, I said slavery...legal...167 countries...in our present day and time.
Humans are being sold for $200 each in Libya.
There are little girls who are sex slaves getting raped by 50 men each day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTtxdAxUy_o

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

The weird thing is they allying themselves with muslims, who are one of the most regressive societies on earth, because they aren't white.

moyomongoose

6 years, 9 months ago

link

I really think they don't live in a world of reality to begin with.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 9 months ago by Owner

you soundz like a cis gendered white male, hehehehe...btw i always thought cisgender meant straight, what it actually means is you agree your gender matches the genetics of every cell in your body. How messed up is that...how dare you agree with biology and obvious appendages....we make our own realities in our heads dontcha know

moyomongoose

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Edited 6 years, 9 months ago by Owner

You guessed it completely correct about the cis gender and male. You're close to 100% correct on the white.
I am mostly white, with some Scottish on my dad's side of the family. However, also on my dad's side of the family, one of my great grand dads and an ex-slave woman (my great grand mother) were caught having an affair together.
Back during the 19th Century, especially in places that were religiously influenced, if an unmarried couple were caught in a sexual relationship, they were compelled to be married (it is commonly referred to as a 'shotgun wedding').
Ironically, my dad use to speak racistly about African descent people, which to this day has never made any sense to me...Whether it was a form of denial on the part of my dad, or just his rant about the black race in general, or influence from that madcap pastor of the Southern Baptist church our family attended, I'll never know.

As for my mom's side of the family, my grand mother imigrated from Poland with her family when she was a kid. Some of my grand mother's family two generations before her fleed the middle east during the 1850s because of the persecution against Christains during the Druez War.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Here in Australia we have an interesting phenomenon where the behaviour problems we see are from bad parenting not race.  We have do-nothing parents who don't instill any work ethic or ambition in their kids, so the kids are visible wagging school and loitering about in public areas (and often doing petty crime for cigarette money)...but because they gather in racial groups they create the stereotype (since all the working or in-school members of said race are not visible).

When a venue finally manages to get the loiterers to move on, quickly another group will move in.  That happens where I work (because we have free wifi) and it's a pain in the tail.

The parents are what many call "dole bludgers" and their children grow up to be the same, a perpetual cycle.  And the funny thing is that it's a tiny portion of the community yet very highly visible.  BUT, people see the problem and leap to the conclusion race is the factor (or avoid mentioning it fearing they will seem racist)...but actually it's bad parenting as the root cause, and as far as I can see it is common to all ethnicities.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

but thats government created, no? here's the odd thing, do you think that was what they wanted to do?

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Excellent question!  Both yes and no.

In the case of Australia's indigenous population there is a deliberate effort to make welfare-towns in the outback where indigenous Australians will be out of sight of the general population...they get given funds but no opportunities (to work) and the lack of work ethic is subtly encouraged.

Now, it is for this reason that most indigenous Australians who move to the cities to get a job tend to do well and be good examples (and visible, unlike the ones sequestered off into the welfare towns).  But then there's always the dregs of any group (like I described in the previous comment).

But the problem with the bad parents raise kids badly who become bad adults then bad parents who raise kids badly problem...no that's just a tough nut to crack and the government is not doing that deliberately.  The only solution would be something harsh like taking the kids from the parents into state care and then somehow instilling a work ethic into them...and I do not see that being easy.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

eh...there was/is a similar problem in the US....welfare mums...20 years ago a women could get pregnant out of wedlock and the government would support her and kids medically, rent and food wise. It activated discouraged a man from being in that scenario as he would be required to get a job. Government programs also encouraged these women to have multiple children without fathers as they would get more money. The situation still exists, but under clinton subtle pushes for them to find work changed it a bit, but a father with kids would not get the same support, nor a traditional family that was poor.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Australia has that problem too. Very hypocritically we have the "baby bonus" that the government pays for people to have children and then the government runs scare campaigns about overpopulation and why we need to turn away anyone coming to Australia from overseas. All the drama from the government about "boat people" when "womb people" outnumber them about 10,000 to 1 (so how can it be about 'overpopulation'?).

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

I don't know what the hospitable land in Austrailia, but I would think you are one of the least overpopulated countries in world.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Australia is about the same size as the USA with a population of an average state of the USA. It is not land area that is the problem but water supply that is the main limit. Also IMHO employment is the bigger issue limiting Australia.

But the point though is, "why encourage population growth with one policy but discourage population growth with another policy"?

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

cuz they want to keep their culture...I'm sure the biggest fear of your country is a massive wave of immigrants in the millions from way more overpopulated asian countries to your north. There was a rumor I heard a decade ago that China calls Austrailia New China.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Exactly. But they should be honest and say it's continuing the White Australia Policy not pretending it's about numbers.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

but they'd be called racists hehehe

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

It's weird that both major parties act like the public wants such policies when all the polling says the majority do not.

Yiffox

6 years, 9 months ago

link

well i think its a good idea not to let in too many immigrants. It was ok in the 1920s when no welfare state existed, because they had to learn the language and get jobs to support themselves. Now they come in and go on welfare. This could quickly overwhelm the welfare system and deprive citizens of those services, not to mention there is less of a need to assimilate.

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link

Where I work I see piles of locals doing that with their lives. I am not sure about the percentages of deadbeats in the local pool vs immigrant pool, but there is no doubt when you look at the numbers the local deadbeats far outnumber the other type.

Very frustrating...

moyomongoose

6 years, 9 months ago

link

The generation after generation of "dole bludgers" reminds my of an old saying, "The apple does not fall far from the tree".

Stumpycoon

6 years, 9 months ago

link