The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Also, if most SJWs are the sort who care deeply about others, then what the hell are you complaining about, that they use words you don't like but that aren't hate speech or hurtful to others? How is this causing so much damage to the world then? Your own argument is not even consistent, you keep backpedaling and contradicting yourself because you can't keep straight who it is you think is so wrong.

I think perhaps you are jealous of people who care deeply about issues and get involved trying to do something about the things they care about, because you don't do that about the things you care about and it makes you feel guilty or inferior. Maybe if you got more involved with issues that matter to you and took some action of your own in a charitable way you would feel less guilty and not have to lash out at others that are getting more accomplished than you. Whenever I read OPs like yours whining about evil SJWs I always get the impression that the complaints are coming from a place of jealousy and pettiness and guilt rather than genuine concern for whatever problems SJWs might be causing in your imagination. You don't seem like someone who is genuinely concerned for the welfare of others, you seem only genuinely concerned about how others are making you look bad in comparison for not taking action about issues you care about.

I would, I actually can't edit it now though. Sorry. It was meant to be a joke, because obviously you didn't really say that; but if you must report it, go ahead. I was just trying to make the point that you are taking things that I'm saying out of context, and are seemingly making no effort to understand my actual views. But I went too far and didn't consider the consequences, so if you want to report me, fair enough. I'll take responsibility for that. I'll see if I can get a mod to remove it.

But to address the other thing you said: berating means criticizing, not name-calling. You most certainly did criticize me. Here is the part of your first post directed at me:


You're telling me that I should take more concrete action, instead of just complaining on the internet. That is a criticism of me and my behaviour, rather than a criticism of my argument. That is a red herring.


First of all: they do use hate speech, they do hurt other people, physically and otherwise, they do censor people and use bully tactics, and more. I'm criticizing the general behaviours and ideas that I've seen evidence of on YouTube, television shows, the news etc. I am not trying to say they are evil, I'm saying they are wrong.

You, however, seem to be unable to stay away from attacking me as a person. You keep saying how wrong I am, yet you have still not addressed any of the arguments I've made for my position.

Instead, you tell me things like that I'm whining, or jealous, or guilty. According to you, I don't care about the welfare of others, even though I have said no such thing. You are trying to paint me as a bad person, based on your personal opinion of what my intent is, or what my internal emotions are, even though you have no proof of those things. And even if I were all those things you say I am, that makes no difference on the validity of my criticism of SJW ideas and behaviours.

That is called poisoning the well, a form of ad hominem. It is an attack on my character, instead of my argument, intended to discredit everything I say without refuting my argument.

You are also calling me a hypocrite, by saying I am criticizing others who are taking action, when I am not taking action myself. First of all, you have no evidence for that. But I'll hand it to you, you are mostly right that I'm not doing a whole lot, other than talking about it. I'm not out doing protests, and I've donated to Bernie Sanders, but he is not anti-SJW. So you can say I'm a hypocrite for that. But that doesn't disprove anything that I've said about SJWs.

This implication of hypocrisy is another type of ad hominem attack called tu quoque. You are trying to discredit my claims on the basis that I'm a hypocrite, and that I'm "lashing out" from the resulting guilt. But even if I am a hypocrite, and everything you are saying about me is true, that does not make me wrong in my criticism of SJW behaviour. I smoke cigarettes, but if I was telling others I don't think they should start smoking, would you say I'm wrong because I'm a hypocrite? I sure hope not.

I strongly, strongly suspect that the war between "SJWs" (note the quotations) and their opponents is more a reflection of typical Internet behavior than the qualities of any group in particular. It leads them to reduce each other into simplistic, one-dimensional caricatures that can be attacked under a single shiny buzzword, each pained and energized by their mutual aggression. Every label, from "SJW" and "sensitive" to "offensive" and "white supremacist", is corrupted into a nearly meaningless talking point, if it held any value to begin with. In truth, no ideology of any size exists as a unified whole, even in its extreme strains. The idea of "sides" on the Internet is almost an illusion itself, formed by brief, insignificant snapshots into the lives of complete strangers. But we (because I'm not immune to this) assign those snapshots the weight of great atrocities, judging each new enemy by the stereotypes of a group they may not even truly belong to, and the end result is a level of pettiness that may never before have existed. Many conversations become about the conversation itself, rather than material aims that might conceivably be satisfied, and I say that for every faction involved. Every defensive reaction from the opponent becomes a catastrophe, evidence of some grand conspiracy to destroy whites/black people/gays/America. In some ways, it's easier to view them as victims than aggressors, trapped behind the muffled communication of a screen.

But, as I type this, I am, myself, talking about the conversation. And there lies the problem: in describing it, you risk bogging yourself down on that level and inflaming it even further. Isn't life fun?

Last edited by Adenosine on 16 Jul 2016, 5:50 pm, edited 3 times in total.

You put a lot of effort into being wrong. I'm sorry I'm not willing to put in the same amount of effort clarifying my position, as I don't believe you are actually reading my words and taking in their meaning so much as projecting meaning you have already decided onto my words and any further effort on my part would be fruitless. There is clearly no point in further discussion as dialogue is not what you are looking for. I don't enjoy the "point-scoring" type of back and forth you are seeking, but rather seek discussion with people in the hopes of opening their hearts to new ideas and new ways of being more caring about others and about social justice. I really think if you went among the people you claim to have a problem with and tried working along side them to make real social and political change, you would realise how hyperbolic and biased your perception of SJWs is and would see that your own bias is what's holding you back from going from a complainer to an action-taker.

I think you've touched on something very important here--in many cases it's much more about personal feelings and identity politics (including those who identify as anti-SJW) than it is about actual social justice issues and those who actively fight for social justice or against it. What is critical is what we do when we are away from our computer screens--the choices we make and the actions we take IRL speak more to our character and true identity than whatever arguments we make in internet forums.

The modern left (including the SJW foot soldiers) is mostly composed of anti-white non-whites (blacks, asians, hispanics and most influentially jews) and maladjusted white misfits with chips on their shoulders. Their intentions are not good from where I'm standing, so I reject your opening premise.

You have a strange idea of how to open my heart. You continually make attacks on my character and my behaviour, rather than simply pointing out where I was wrong in what I said. That is simple enough to do if you are actually correct. You even admit that you are not putting as much effort into clarifying your views as I am. I appreciate your honesty; you are proving my point for me.

I have read your words and understood their meaning. I just don't believe them, and I don't have to. If that's your idea of an open discussion, that I have to internalize or "take in" your opinion of me (a person you've never met and know precious little about), then that is a very strange idea indeed.

In a nutshell, you think I am a hypocrite. You think that I feel guilty for not taking action on what I believe in, and so I vent my emotion by criticizing those who do. Is that not accurate? You also say that I am biased. It's true, I am biased, but that doesn't mean I don't have any valid points to make. You think if I actually talked and interacted with these people that I would learn that maybe they aren't all so bad. Perhaps that's true too. However, you could just provide evidence of them doing good things to counter all the bad things I'm saying, which would be much more effective than telling me to take your word for it, and possibly waste my time and energy doing something I'm unsure of. But you aren't doing that.

And the irony of what you are saying is on an absurd level. You're telling me that I'm projecting meaning on your words that isn't there, all the while that is exactly what you are doing to me, by making all these claims about what my inner emotions and motives are for making this thread, when you have zero proof that these things are true. The mental gymnastics you perform are astounding.

The "point-scoring, back-and-forth" thing you are referring to is usually termed as "rational debate" or a similar term; generally, the way it goes is: one person makes a claim and attempts to support that claim, while the other person makes a counter-claim and attempts to refute the evidence provided and/or point out faulty logic. You have not done that, by your own admission, because you dismiss my claims on the basis of ad hominem attacks instead of clarifying your own viewpoint and providing evidence for it.

Perhaps my idea of what is going on is exaggerated. But you have done nothing to prove this, so why should I believe you? I don't care about your opinion of me, just as I'm sure you don't care about my opinion of you. I don't know you, so why would you? I could start making similar claims that you are attacking me, because deep down you know you are wrong, but don't want to admit it. So instead, to make yourself feel better, you make baseless attacks on my character, because you know I'm right and that makes you angry. Do I believe that's true? No, because I don't know you, and I can't read minds. Apparently you believe you can.

TL;DR: Regardless of your motive, you are making endless ad hominem attacks and adding nothing of value to this discussion. But you seem to have finally realized that this method simply does not work on a logical person. Congratulations, and good riddance.

I think the leaders of these movements probably do have bad intentions and simply seek to further their own agenda, but that many if not most of the "SJW foot soldiers" are just sheep who truly believe they are fighting against injustice.

But regardless of their intentions, their actions are abhorrent.

I will simply ask one question in response to this, and leave it at that. You have perceived my contribution to this thread as many ad hominem attacks against you, when all I have done is speculate about the feelings behind the things you are posting (jealousy and guilt). How is it an ad hominem attack to suggest you may be feeling jealousy--is jealousy not a human emotion that we all feel from time to time? How can it be a personal insult to suggest that you might be feeling some perfectly normal human emotions, and those emotions come through in the way you express yourself???

You seem to be attributing value judgements to different emotions that don't strike me as particularly logical or rational--feelings are not good or bad in themselves, and feeling perfectly normal human emotions says nothing at all about your character other than that you are in fact human. Judgements can only be made on the actions we take, not what emotions might have fueled them. Because you have this idea that the feelings I suggested you might have have value judgements, you have read everything I've said through that lens and perceived them as attacks on your character. Because of this, how can I say anything to you without you perceiving it as an ad hominem attack? This is why I believe further discourse is pointless--you've already decided that everything I say is insulting to you. You don't want to hear me, you simply want to rage against me for these perceived insults. That's not interesting to me.

You're not going to listen, but fine, I will explain how you are wrong yet again using logic, something you seem very averse to.

I will try to make this very clear so hopefully you can grasp it this time: you are making totally baseless claims about my emotional state (I'm "jealous, guilty, raging" etc.), character (I'm unconcerned about the welfare of others, I'm a hypocrite) and motives (I seek to vent my emotion in anger rather than to have a rational discussion), and you're using them as evidence to support your claim that my argument is wrong, or to avoid any need to refute it. That is the definition of ad hominem: (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

The value judgement makes no difference whatsoever. What matters is that you are directing your claims and criticisms at me and my supposed character flaws and ulterior motives, rather than my argument that many SJWs, with their unfounded beliefs and extreme behavior, are quite ironically hurting innocent people in the name of justice. Do you see how the two are completely different topics of discussion?

If you stop doing ad hominem attacks, I will stop calling you out on it. It's as simple as that. Stop talking about me and my motives, as if that has any bearing on the validity of my argument, which it doesn't. An argument is judged on it's merits: the validity of the logic, the evidence provided etc., NOT who is saying it or why. I am irrelevant to the discussion.

Conclusion: Shut the f**k up about me and use your brain (assuming you even have one), or go away. I'm done responding to your BS accusations.

These SJW people are our future low wage workers.

The kind of people I feel sorry for when I go to the grocery store or out to eat.

When analyzing their arguments, remember, they have poor abstract reasoning skills, or they would of picked math/science/medicine/STEM.

Also, their opinions likely change very radically in ten years.

In 10 years time:
Pastafarian religion is Athiest-phobic.
Everything has a distinctive pronoun including inanimate objects.
Alien lives matter.

I appreciate this sort of honesty. Unfortunately many people won't express their views with this level of honesty in polite company, so one typically has to pay closer attention for shibboleths and coded language to identify those with morally reprehensible opinions they wish to avoid association with.

Please tell us more about how the modern left is 'mostly composed of anti-white non-whites (blacks, asians, hispanics and most influentially jews) and maladjusted white misfits' and how criticizing social privilege is the same as being 'anti-white'. I'm sure you have a very reasonable case to make.

So terribly sorry I had to take a "low wage" job in a restaurant to support myself and my physically disabled mother.

Not all of us had the luxury of having a mommy and daddy who could finance our college educations.

Preach. I would have loved to continue with my university education and become a scientist like I planned when I was a child, but it was not and is still not financially possible for me to do so. Must be nice to have everything in life handed to you--then again, it seems to make people who do get everything handed to them turn into self-righteous insensitive jackasses, and I wouldn't want to give up my ability to understand the majority of other people who haven't had everything handed to them in life (because those are the large majority of people out there.)

I used the "GI Bill".

No one needs to rely on their parents. That's why student loan debt is 1.3 trillion.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3663 ... ebt-crisis

My mom reminds me how she drove me to Detroit, showed me bums, and said get an education, or become like these people.

Last edited by LoveNotHate on 17 Jul 2016, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.