Reality check: SJWs don't want to help only persecute

[Daverisimo]

Look, I'm fine with what you are saying here, and there is a lot of truth to it.

There are politicians and media that publicly state this stuff openly. It's not just some well intentioned stupid people with no power that can be ignored.

Who are you even talking about? And what are they saying? If someone specific is saying something you disagree with, address that specifically. You can do that without parroting reactionary buzzwords and spamming clichés.

That said, I will grant you one thing, and it kind of ties into one of my biggest pet peeves regarding political discourse, especially in the US (specifically, the conflation of leftism and liberalism). As far as media figures and corporations advocating for social justice issues, I am always sceptical. I don't think the CEO of Target, for instance, actually gives a shit about trans rights, but appearing to is good PR. Liberals (and here I use the term more broadly than it is generally used in the US) and those in power LOVE to coopt movements on the left that are starting to gain traction, partially for the sake of PR, but also partially for the sake of defanging and declawing those movements before they can actually create any real, substinative systemic change. Don't get me wrong, I think coalition building is essential, but when Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street are on the same side, that's a bit suspect.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well wouldn't that be nice? This is what all the lefties around me will never accept. They're just on a team, and they FEEL they're always correct. But they're just sucking on big brothers force-fed Blood/Crip mentality. All they've done is pick a team and put their big-brother-issued blinders on.

Their is blame to go around in this, but for me, it is more likely that dems become social libertarians, than it is reps become economic progressives, so my camp is with the dems. Because of this, it is my responsibility to hold the dems feet to the fire.

If your camp is the reps, it is more important for you to be critical of them, then of the left.

You might find that the best way to combat the lizard brained partisanship, is to lead by example.

 

[Necromantic]

The Confederate flag is inherently a symbol of racism.

Not it isn't. What it originally meant was that you were part of General Lee's army. What it means besides that is what you ascribe to it. Now, just because X% of people associate with racism does not mean it is inherently a symbol of anything.
In fact, "symbol" and "inherently" should not be placed in the same sentence if you have any understanding of semiotics.

Some people take it as just being a sign you are a Southerner, while others don't. But you cannot claim that it means racism to the person displaying it without some type of evidence.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Who are you even talking about? And what are they saying? If someone specific is saying something you disagree with, address that specifically. You can do that without parroting reactionary buzzwords and spamming clichés.

That said, I will grant you one thing, and it kind of ties into one of my biggest pet peeves regarding political discourse, especially in the US (specifically, the conflation of leftism and liberalism). As far as media figures and corporations advocating for social justice issues, I am always sceptical. I don't think the CEO of Target, for instance, actually gives a shit about trans rights, but appearing to is good PR. Liberals (and here I use the term more broadly than it is generally used in the US) and those in power LOVE to coopt movements on the left that are starting to gain traction, partially for the sake of PR, but also partially for the sake of defanging and declawing those movements before they can actually create any real, substinative systemic change. Don't get me wrong, I think coalition building is essential, but when Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street are on the same side, that's a bit suspect.

Ha! I just realized we are both lacking some logical consistency here. I am basically defending the use of the term virtue signaling, because despite the fact that it has been co opted into partisan non-sense, it still doesn't effect the core definition of the word.

You are basically arguing the same for social justice.

The truth though, is that the political parties are in bed with corporations. This is true in Europe and Canada as well.

So whether the source is corporate media, or politicians, it is all co opted.

My problem with SJW's in the US, other than the frequent use of debate tropes to silence, is that it never had to be co opted, it was astroturf from the start.

 

[n...not crazy]

Their is blame to go around in this, but for me, it is more likely that dems become social libertarians, than it is reps become economic progressives, so my camp is with the dems. Because of this, it is my responsibility to hold the dems feet to the fire.

If your camp is the reps, it is more important for you to be critical of them, then of the left.

You might find that the best way to combat the lizard brained partisanship, is to lead by example.

That's all I can do.

I have no camp. I have very little understanding of why everyone's opinions line up in rows like they do. Like when people bitch about racism or cultural insensitivity or whatever, then they crack inbred redneck jokes upon simply hearing the word "Alabama". It always sounded the same to me, but I guess to most people it doesn't. You can generalize X but not Y. It's so simply wrong to me either way.

I do tend to get annoyed by the left more, but that's probably because that's what I hear more often. When I was young, the right annoyed me.

I don't think there's a way to combat the partisanship, but I'll just do what I do and go unnoticed I guess. When the party talk goes to politics, I'll go play with the kids and the dog. Well I might just do that right off the bat to be honest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is where I think we diverge. Prejudice isnt morally wrong, it is logically wrong.

It's used to make a rough guess about reality, and it's based on evidence rather than logic.

You may be right to say someone is more likely to be a racist who owns a confederate flag, then one that doesn't. Just as the person who is prejudice against young black males, would be right some of the time.

You'd admit, I assume, that there's a huge gap there, though, right? The chance that a young, black male will do you harm if you pass each other is vanishingly small, while the chance that a Confederate flag waver has dumb ideas about race is very high.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It's used to make a rough guess about reality, and it's based on evidence rather than logic.



You'd admit, I assume, that there's a huge gap there, though, right? The chance that a young, black male will do you harm if you pass each other is vanishingly small, while the chance that a Confederate flag waver has dumb ideas about race is very high.

Gap compared to what?

The danger from a black grandma, compared to a young black male, is pretty significant.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Gap compared to what?

The danger from a black grandma, compared to a young black male, is pretty significant.

Gap in the odds.

Note that the person quoted was saying that the mother was herself a bully.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Gap compared to what?

The danger from a black grandma, compared to a young black male, is pretty significant.

To clarify, I mean as opposed to a young white male, and a young black male.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Threads that use random Twitter posts to generalize huge groups of people don't really make any sense.

It's pretty appropriate to generalize SJWs, they're pretty much a hive mind.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Gap in the odds.

Note that the person quoted was saying that the mother was herself a bully.

Right, but I mean the rate as compared to demographic. If we are comparing young black males to young white males, yes there would be a significant rate difference, between that and confederate flags. However if we measure old women, to you black males, the rates are comparable, if not even more compelling.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Right, but I mean the rate as compared to demographic. If we are comparing young black males to young white males, yes there would be a significant rate difference, between that and confederate flags. However if we measure old women, to you black males, the rates are comparable, if not even more compelling.

I'm not following you. What I'm saying is that assuming a Confederate flag waver is a racist is most likely to be right, while assuming that a random black dude is going to hurt you is almost certainly wrong.

 

[Daverisimo]

Ha! I just realized we are both lacking some logical consistency here. I am basically defending the use of the term virtue signaling, because despite the fact that it has been co opted into partisan non-sense, it still doesn't effect the core definition of the word.

You are basically arguing the same for social justice.

Well, no. Phrases like "virtue signaling" and "SJW" have never really had any use outside of reactionary politics, much less any coherent definition, unlike terms like racist, sexist, etc. This is kind of an apples and hand grenades comparison.

The truth though, is that the political parties are in bed with corporations. This is true in Europe and Canada as well.

I agree, but to put this at the feet of the left is to completely misunderstand leftist ideology. The only leftist political movement with any real political power is the Corbynite segment of Labor (and as a sidenote, I think that the way Corbyn was slandered by the British media during the election pretty thoroughly discredits the idea of there being any sort of leftist bias in the media. Liberal bias, sure, but not leftist).

My problem with SJW's in the US, other than the frequent use of debate tropes to silence, is that it never had to be co opted, it was astroturf from the start.

Bullshit. Leaving aside the fact that you are, again, using a buzzword to homogenize and strawman myriad social justice movements, you're acting like all of these movements are brand new, but in reality, they are the continuation of disparate movements that are decades old, albeit, occasionally with new tactics.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I'm not following you. What I'm saying is that assuming a Confederate flag waver is a racist is most likely to be right, while assuming that a random black dude is going to hurt you is almost certainly wrong.

But why?

If I change the parameters of measure from people who own confederate flags being racist, to how many racists own confederate flags, it shows the flaw in logic.

Just as how if I change the measure from young black males to young white males, to Asian women in their 80's, to young black men, it does the same.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm not following you. What I'm saying is that assuming a Confederate flag waver is a racist is most likely to be right, while assuming that a random black dude is going to hurt you is almost certainly wrong.

The more Viva explains the more I'm confused.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well, no. Phrases like "virtue signaling" and "SJW" have never really had any use outside of reactionary politics, much less any coherent definition, unlike terms like racist, sexist, etc. This is kind of an apples and hand grenades comparison.




I agree, but to put this at the feet of the left is to completely misunderstand leftist ideology. The only leftist political movement with any real political power is the Corbynite segment of Labor (and as a sidenote, I think that the way Corbyn was slandered by the British media during the election pretty thoroughly discredits the idea of there being any sort of leftist bias in the media. Liberal bias, sure, but not leftist).



Bullshit. Leaving aside the fact that you are, again, using a buzzword to homogenize and strawman myriad social justice movements, you're acting like all of these movements are brand new, but in reality, they are the continuation of disparate movements that are decades old, albeit, occasionally with new tactics.

I think I see where the misunderstanding is here. The concept of social justice has existed for a long time. This young people social justice movement in the US, that started popping up at the same time, and is being preached like a religion on college campuses, is astroturf.

The intelligence agencies infiltrated college campuses after the Vietnam protests.

Social justice is a fine objective. In a time when corruption is threatening the very foundation of the US, with US forces engaging in military action in over 100 countries, and wealth inequality at pre-great depression levels, it is most obviously astroturf, and a divide and conquer ploy, in my opinion.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Sjws and SLWLs are on a rung lower than the white racists in Charlottesville.

 

[nac386]

And? I can't tell if you're trying to deflect attention from one side of the political spectrum to the other or if you're suggesting that because more of it happens than people generally acknowledge that it somehow means that aspect of the SJW phenomenon should be ignored. Can't think of any other reason you seem to be fixated on this.

It's nothing to get defensive about. I'm not deflecting blame from one side to another, and I'm not fixated on this topic.

I just see this strange trend in our society where people criticize political opponents for doing the same exact shit that they do themselves. But they seem to think that if they are more aggressive in their accusations towards the other side, then everybody will just go along with ignoring the obvious hypocrisy.

 

[Mark Cutting]

I have a solution for SJW's. You have to high road them.

SJW: Your racist/ Your a misogynist/ Your a homophobe.....ect.

Me: You care about brown people, women, gays? Chexk your first world priviledge bro. Why aren't you talking about the brown people dying in the 100,000's in the ME, by American made weapons?

You care about women? You should check your first world priveledge bro. Women are dying as human shields and being sold as slaves in Yemen.

You care about gays? Check your first world priveledge bro, their throwing gays off of roofs in the ME.

They honestly don't know how to respond to someone playing their stupid game, better than they do.

How can you write such well reasoned and accurate post and not know the proper your / you're ?! Or their / there / they're ?! Ha

Oh...and SJW are loathsome scum.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The more Viva explains the more I'm confused.

In a nut shell. Number never lie, but they sure do mis-inform.

Yes, both statistics are true, but basing actions on likelihood based on statistics, guarantees that you are wrong some of the time, which is why prejudice is logically flawed.