How would one measure the influence of "social justice warriors"?

You guys on the right need to remember that the squeaky wheel always gets the grease. The SJW that you guys complain some much about, only get louder because you guys give them your attention. There are other problems in the world besides those that cry the most.

I don't think it's really the right-wing people who are greasing them up, as much as it is the corporations that seem to continuously acquiesce to their demands, no matter how inane or ridiculous.

I believe that it partially has to do with the fact that corporations have set standards on themselves, which include an automatic concession to "customers" if there's a large enough number of criticism being directed at them, and that the so-called SJW crowd have figured out a way to abuse this pattern by forming a hive-minded mob which automatically focuses its outrage at a level which seems overwhelming to these corporations, even if it is only temporary and formed by a group of people who probably don't even buy the products, or affect their sales in any way.

A "social media manager" who suddenly notices thousands of complains on his or her e-mail, is going to make a quick call to "Human Relations" and demand a fast solution the the problem, usually involving the indiscriminate firing of somebody even loosely affiliated with the "controversy". That's just how it works in corporations. There's very little human element involved, and the responses to such "problems" are automated, formal, by the book. It's going to take quite a few years before they wake up, and adapt to the problem.

For now, I would say that there is no sense in trying to sweep this problem under the rug because it's most certainly becoming a very legitimate issue, which is affecting many areas of entertainment and other industries.

Most of all it seems to be affecting the liberal side who are seeing their talk show hosts, journalists, comedians, entertainers, even politicians, dropping like flies. In reality it should be the liberals making noise about this, more so than the right which remains relatively unaffected. The right-wingers, for the most part, seem to be applying a "concede absolutely nothing" mentality to the problem, crystallized by Donald Trump, which seems to be working on their part.
 
Last edited:
@Rational Poster
LITERALLY, didn't say that. But enjoy your consistent wrong streak.

You sure as hell did, maybe remove the rational from your name and add delusional
 
...on campus or elsewhere?

I just opened up Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff's book The Coddling of the American Mind and did a quick scan to see if they provide a precise measurement for the increased influence of their "three bad ideas" on American campuses. Here's what they say:



The language of the bolded is a little ambiguous because it seems to imply that the "Great Untruths" are precursors to the subsequently mentioned problems, but the corresponding sections of the book actually show the opposite: that the problems are collectively causing belief in the untruths to proliferate.

While the book does do the job of discussing and contextualizing some of the bigger on-campus events (that you would have heard about on here anyway), there aren't many actual metrics when it comes to demonstrating an increasing trend that's worthy of alarm, and there's no metric at all for the consequences beyond campus. The two graphs they do provide show an increasing number of invited speakers being cancelled due to protest, and the increasing proportion of liberal viewpoints among professors.

So here's my question: I think both sides should be able to agree that the number of headlines produced by a phenomenon is not an ideal measure of the actual influence of the phenomenon (unless you're open to believing, as a consequence, that Trump's crass personality and gender diversity are the two leading problems of this generation) - so what other metrics are superior?

Here are some I've considered:
  • the number of students enrolled in "social justice"-associated post-secondary programs
  • the number of laws passed enforcing "social justice" positions
  • the number of people expressing sympathies or allegiances to "social justice" positions
  • the number of votes going to "social justice" politicians
  • the amount of money going to "social justice" brands

Since the treacherous influence of the "social-justice left" seems to be such a meaningful, partisan issue, it seems like it would be a good idea to have the true risk properly measured. How do we do it?
Just listened to Haidt on Sam Harris. He repeats a few times 'not all campuses' or 'this new culture, not everywhere, but in some parts of colleges' and also points out it is confined mostly to the coasts. ALSO not millennials, but those getting to school around 2013, so born around 1995.

Here's a metric I might suggest:

The proportion of Admins getting ousted due to outrage mobs, or school policies getting affected, or corporations making decisions based on mobs.

Because it doesn't matter how many people are enrolled in women's studies, that's been a thing for a while, but one single person can have an outsized influence in a situation if the powers that be actually capitulate to their outrage.
 
@Rational Poster
SJW has become a broad brush for the modern Neo-Nazi that means "anyone that thinks or believes something I disagree with"

You tried to edit, but I got you before you realized you were an idiot

Try harder next time you fool
 
They destroyed the greatest film series of all time.

star-wars-the-last-jedi.jpg
Fuck me, if star wars was ruined it was jar jar and that shithead playing Annakin. (I'm sure he's a cool dude IRL)

I don't really mind the popolo guy or girl protagonist rey being casted, if I have any complaint it would be they dressed her to make an entire generation think its ok to have cankles
61avuxdZS%2BL._SY550_.jpg
 
@oceansize

The complaints started at Last Jedi, then it became clear they were pushing a SJW agenda

The fans really hated the new portrayal of old characters, Lando, now fucks anything in space? They went full retard, and you know, you never do that. And look, they canceled most everything and got rid of Kennedy to try and save something
 
Well it made Jordan Peterson a boat load of money, I guess.

Lindsey Shepherd successfully sued Wilfrid Laureier for what they did to her, because she was innocent...yet she still has a court case for hate speech and can serve time thanks to C-16.
 
That means neo-nazis use the term as a broad brush. That doesn't mean everyone that uses the term is a neo-nazi and only neo-nazis use it as a broad brush. They could just be regular retarded.

I hope this helps.

Why would you single out one group (neo-Nazis) who uses the term? I've heard Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan amongst many others, use that term. Your argument makes no sense.
 
Why would you single out one group (neo-Nazis) who uses the term? I've heard Sam Harris, Douglas Murray, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan amongst many others, use that term. Your argument makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense.

Neo-Nazis use the term as a broad brush. Period.

Other people also use the term. Other people are just retarded but not Neo-Nazis. Other people use the term in conversation, but not as a broad brush.
 
Neo-Nazis use the term as a broad brush. Period.

So do non-neo-Nazis. So again, you are NOT making any sense because it wouldn't make any sense to single out neo-Nazis... unless of course I was right the first time: you're accusing anyone of using the term 'SJW' of being a neo-Nazi.

Other people also use the term. Other people are just retarded but not Neo-Nazis. Other people use the term in conversation, but not as a broad brush.

You're floundering. I, and others, caught you out. Ya moron.
 
So do non-neo-Nazis. So again, you are NOT making any sense because it wouldn't make any sense to single out neo-Nazis... unless of course I was right the first time: you're accusing anyone of using the term 'SJW' of being a neo-Nazi.



You're floundering. I, and others, caught you out. Ya moron.

No I'm not and no you didn't.

<Dany07>
 
After doing everything he could to defend slave owners, this was the exchange:
I can't believe I'm fucking typing this out right now but @Ripskater has a point. Its pretty ludicrous to pretend like all forms of slavery were equally bad or that some slaves didn't great lives as a result of their slave status.

The best example I've read extensively on are the Mamluks in the Muslim world. They were slave soldiers who in many cases, most notably Egypt, achieved significant political power. From Wiki:
In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.
You can't pretend the "slaves" are the victims when they occupy a village of subsistence peasants and violently extract taxes from them. So terrible they were that the peasants would even write poems about the fear these mamluks would inspire in the villages when they would come around to collect taxes. It wasn't entirely different with the concubines of these slave soldiers. Records of inheritance show that these concubines often owned respectable estates composed of urban commercial and residential property. These concubines had more property rights than freeborn Western women during the same time. And they were virtually all manumitted at some point(like ripskater's example of Biblical slavery).

I'm not going to pretend it was all great. The supply of slaves came from the slaving raids of border tribes and these raids were violent affairs. So these slaves were often ripped from their homes and families. But studies show that many of them were ultimately able to retain their contact with their homeland and families, sending them gifts and receiving visits from parents and other relatives. And they would even praise the slavers who brought them to Egypt for giving them a life of luxury they would've never had as a subsistence peasant back in their homelands.

Freeborn peasants on the other hand were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, above only the beggars. There's no question that it would be better to be enslaved into the mamluk system than be a freeborn peasant at the mercy of the whims of the former. It was the peasants that bore the brunt of the evils of this system, not the slaves themselves as evidenced by the fact it was the slaves who benefited and perpetuated this system. In fact even the sons of these slaves, being free persons at birth, had lower status than their formerly enslaved parents precisely because they were never enslaved.
 
I can't believe I'm fucking typing this out right now but @Ripskater has a point. Its pretty ludicrous to pretend like all forms of slavery were equally bad or that some slaves didn't great lives as a result of their slave status.

The best example I've read extensively on are the Mamluks in the Muslim world. They were slave soldiers who in many cases, most notably Egypt, achieved significant political power. From Wiki:

You can't pretend the "slaves" are the victims when they occupy a village of subsistence peasants and violently extract taxes from them. So terrible they were that the peasants would even write poems about the fear these mamluks would inspire in the villages when they would come around to collect taxes. It wasn't entirely different with the concubines of these slave soldiers. Records of inheritance show that these concubines often owned respectable estates composed of urban commercial and residential property. These concubines had more property rights than freeborn Western women during the same time. And they were virtually all manumitted at some point(like ripskater's example of Biblical slavery).

I'm not going to pretend it was all great. The supply of slaves came from the slaving raids of border tribes and these raids were violent affairs. So these slaves were often ripped from their homes and families. But studies show that many of them were ultimately able to retain their contact with their homeland and families, sending them gifts and receiving visits from parents and other relatives. And they would even praise the slavers who brought them to Egypt for giving them a life of luxury they would've never had as a subsistence peasant back in their homelands.

Freeborn peasants on the other hand were at the bottom of the social hierarchy, above only the beggars. There's no question that it would be better to be enslaved into the mamluk system than be a freeborn peasant at the mercy of the whims of the former. It was the peasants that bore the brunt of the evils of this system, not the slaves themselves as evidenced by the fact it was the slaves who benefited and perpetuated this system. In fact even the sons of these slaves, being free persons at birth, had lower status than their formerly enslaved parents precisely because they were never enslaved.

I can't believe you're typing that either.
 
Might have already been posted but the party of science just keeps on giving


"You can tell btw that she doesn't like the conclusions of her own study when she keeps saying more research needs to be done"

I've read plenty of studies where that caveat is added. Unlike Ben most researchers have humility and attempt to be aware of the limitations of their own research. And beyond that part of the point of research isn't just to provide an answer but to raise more question for research. Shapiro confirmed for not reading science journals (unless it confirms his POV).
 
I like SJW's for one reason, the mass butthurt they cause among the deplorable sensitive snowflakes
 
What I have seen I like Haidt more than I like Peterson. I haven't read Haidt's book because if I am at home I would rather watch TV or porn than read.

After Haidt was on Harris podcast he went and talked to a Christian guy and they talked about his ideas for this book. It made for an interesting conversation.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/jonathan-haidt-coddling-american-mind/

In the podcasts I have heard Haidt says the SJW thing is mostly in elite colleges where kids live on campus and it is mostly in the humanities type departments that the SJW stuff goes on. It isn't at most colleges.

The badly way to sum it up is there are protected classes of people to them and they are seen as sacred and need of protection. And whatever people see as a sacred you will find a lot of wilful ignorance and dumbshit behavior.

Three quick points he makes besides the first 3 listed on the op.

1) At around 10 minutes in this podcast, Haidt talks about two kinds discussions. One type of discussion is playing the truth seeking game. The other type of discussion is playing the political warfare game where people play to win and truth is of less important and that is the type of game a lot of SJW play. Truth is an element but truth seeking isn't the objective.

2) In one and one discussions people seek love. On social media people play on the economy of prestige. It is a different game where people seek status in the tribe. If someone says something positive about the opposing group are critical of your own group you are seen a traitor and kicked about like you committed blasphemy.

3) It was interesting to hear the stats on how college aged women are not doing well psychologically today. Haidt had the hypothesis that women get into relationship conflicts with other females on social media or see other females hanging out with the in group and they aren't while guys go on electronic devices and play games with each other. It is less of a conflict against each other deal.
 
Back
Top