SJW Courses and Potential Damage?

[Renegade Vile]

Just thought I would share Sargon's latest video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ayVKE5vi8

While he does say he's not trying to cause panic, I do wonder if things are quite as bad as that in the sense that, how many people really prescribe to the SJW mentality? Hardcore that is? I've never really been able to find any reliable figures on how many people take to these opinions, and how many of them actually have their opinions listened to. I get that his point is that it starts from education and works its way up, and the more I personally read about these courses' curricula, the more I definitely get a "brainwashing cult" feel from it all, but how many people really walk away from it believing a word they just read?

Food for thought, I suppose.

[Far eyes]

I occasionally end up looking over his channel, he is part of the skeptical community (Loose term here) so there is some cross section with other outlets sites on YT i do follow.

I feel like he has a point as in its being taught in a some what totalitarian way, any set of suppositions that can not be questioned because if you do then you are the enemy is one that raises several kind of red flags with me. I am not sure how actually wide spread it is besides MTV drowning in its own bullshit (Aint that sad, i actually do not mean that in a sarcastic tone) but as an ideology it is very bad at self correction because of how much of a fortress mentality it has inbuilt, because remember anybody who is not unquestioningly for you is the enemy and they are all these nasty names and not only should you not listen to them but you should not let them speak. I am very leery of any Ideology that teaches you that you can be a total fucking asshole but its ok because you are in the right. Or that X and Y people can not be racist or sexist because we are going to re define terms until we can somehow mind bend it into something that from space looks like logic.   

It is also an ideological construct that can be very appealing to teens unsurprisingly as it deals in total truths. Honestly its taking on some of the hallmarks of a religion, i am not saying religion is bad in the hands of a responsible adult but it is dogmatic and requires reflection to be used wisely. 

[Renegade Vile]

I occasionally end up looking over his channel, he is part of the skeptical community (Loose term here) so there is some cross section with other outlets sites on YT i do follow.

I watch most of his videos. I tend to agree with a lot of what he has to say, usually on these subjects, since I prescribe to the notion that all of these identities and the politics surrounding it shouldn't matter when looking at someone's competences. Meritocracy is the way to go.

I feel like he has a point as in its being taught in a some what totalitarian way, any set of suppositions that can not be questioned because if you do then you are the enemy is one that raises several kind of red flags with me.

Very true. As with many of their tactics, all of this is ideal for shutting a conversation down before it even starts.

I am not sure how actually wide spread it is besides MTV drowning in its own bullshit (Aint that sad, i actually do not mean that in a sarcastic tone) but as an ideology it is very bad at self correction because of how much of a fortress mentality it has inbuilt, because remember anybody who is not unquestioningly for you is the enemy and they are all these nasty names and not only should you not listen to them but you should not let them speak.

I've never been fond of MTV to begin with, but it really has gone off the deep end in recent years, hasn't it?

I am very leery of any Ideology that teaches you that you can be a total fucking asshole but its ok because you are in the right. Or that X and Y people can not be racist or sexist because we are going to re define terms until we can somehow mind bend it into something that from space looks like logic.   

Mental gymnastics, as it's often called.

It is also an ideological construct that can be very appealing to teens unsurprisingly as it deals in total truths. Honestly its taking on some of the hallmarks of a religion, i am not saying religion is bad in the hands of a responsible adult but it is dogmatic and requires reflection to be used wisely.

Or students, since a lot of students tend to get rather opinionated the moment they hit 18 and believe the world is theirs to change. Reality eventually slaps them across the face, of course, but until then they'll make asses out of themselves.
And parallels between social justice, feminism, black lives matter and other organizations like them, and religion have been made many times so far.

[Scribbles]

I'm not certain Malema, Qwabe, et al, are a product of this Social Justice ideology he's going on about; I feel they simply use it so push their respective agendas. They're mostly symptoms of a larger problem, a fact that African countries have extreme gaps in quality of life between classes. This naturally makes the people angry; they want something, or someone, to blame. And so those in leadership say, "Well, it's not us to blame, even if we are involved in obscene amounts of maladministration and corruption, but rather it's the evil west, or the evil whites, or the evil media, or the evil private sector, or the evil intellectual, or the evil ambiguous force, and so on..."

And the masses, having no access to proper information, gobble it all up, likely for years on end. It doesn't help that there are plenty of real racists that are happy to inadvertently drive in such notions. So I disagree that Oxford shaped their thoughts but instead I feel they were shaped by where they came from...

At best, these people utilize tools created by SJWs, such as the attempt to redefine the term "racist" so you can say "kill all white people" with a clean conscience; now revolutionary as opposed to racist. Beyond that I doubt they even spare social justice a passing thought as they do so. Also, it sounds as if he's implying that SJWs or Marxists believe they're liberals but most people I've met that campaigned in the name of either use the term "liberal" like a curse word. It almost sounds as if they hate liberals because a true liberal will stand up for either side, depending on the circumstance, rather than simply pick a side and stick with it even if it compromises their principles.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what he said, although as a warning I was only paying partial attention. I highly doubt the university will pull important courses simply because a few voices find them offensive. And on a similar note, they've already implied that they won't retract Qwabe's degree and I agree, they shouldn't; it would be hypocritical. Universities shouldn't stifle offensive, controversial or diverging opinions as they'd find their time better spent by having such arguments refuted through dialogue, out in the open, where they MIGHT actually sway minds. Certainly a better option than forcibly muffling anything they don't agree with and creating some kind of bizarre martyr, or leaving dangerous thoughts to go unspoken and silently fester.

I have one question regarding the video, probably a really silly one, but are there REALLY social justice classes or is he implying that current courses subtly teach it?

[Renegade Vile]

I'm not certain Malema, Qwabe, et al, are a product of this Social Justice ideology he's going on about; I feel they simply use it so push their respective agendas. They're mostly symptoms of a larger problem, a fact that African countries have extreme gaps in quality of life between classes. This naturally makes the people angry; they want something, or someone, to blame. And so those in leadership say, "Well, it's not us to blame, even if we are involved in obscene amounts of maladministration and corruption, but rather it's the evil west, or the evil whites, or the evil media, or the evil private sector, or the evil intellectual, or the evil ambiguous force, and so on..."

I don't think they are necessarily either, but they're pushing the same overall agenda, if only from a different point of view. It all stems from the same sort of warped thinking if you follow their reasoning far enough.

And the masses, having no access to proper information, gobble it all up, likely for years on end. It doesn't help that there are plenty of real racists that are happy to inadvertently drive in such notions. So I disagree that Oxford shaped their thoughts but instead I feel they were shaped by where they came from...

And let's not forget the part social media plays in perpetuating misinformation. The amount of sources online that can be trusted as opposed to the amount that cannot is likely a pitiable comparison.

At best, these people utilize tools created by SJWs, such as the attempt to redefine the term "racist" so you can say "kill all white people" with a clean conscience; now revolutionary as opposed to racist. Beyond that I doubt they even spare social justice a passing thought as they do so. Also, it sounds as if he's implying that SJWs or Marxists believe they're liberals but most people I've met that campaigned in the name of either use the term "liberal" like a curse word. It almost sounds as if they hate liberals because a true liberal will stand up for either side, depending on the circumstance, rather than simply pick a side and stick with it even if it compromises their principles.

Some do still attribute the word liberal to themselves, but few. He's actually referring to those who have not really been following the social justice shtick and just assume they are liberals proclaiming liberal ideas. It's not so much ignorance as just having better things to do then follow all of this *chuckles*, but he's stressing the point that they are anything but liberals.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what he said, although as a warning I was only paying partial attention. I highly doubt the university will pull important courses simply because a few voices find them offensive. And on a similar note, they've already implied that they won't retract Qwabe's degree and I agree, they shouldn't; it would be hypocritical. Universities shouldn't stifle offensive, controversial or diverging opinions as they'd find their time better spent by having such arguments refuted through dialogue, out in the open, where they MIGHT actually sway minds. Certainly a better option than forcibly muffling anything they don't agree with and creating some kind of bizarre martyr, or leaving dangerous thoughts to go unspoken and silently fester.

I don't think they should retract Qwabe's degree either, but Sargon didn't give his own opinion on that himself, he just pointed at the article talking about that petition. Much like him, I believe that any opinion, no matter how offensive or stupid, should be expressed, so it can be studied, discussed and then judged. Of course, the typical SJW will have shut down the conversation long before then, whether the subjects are their own beliefs or those they disagree with; counterproductive in both cases.
Bad ideas will make themselves apparent under scrutiny, and people were learn lessons from it. Keeping it all hush-hush will only allow misinformation to continue.

I have one question regarding the video, probably a really silly one, but are there REALLY social justice classes or is he implying that current courses subtly teach it?

Not a silly one at all, as I could scarcely believe it myself when I first looked it up. Yes, there are. A few videos back he posted a list of a search he did of a lot of major US and UK universities. Almost all of the ones he went through had Social Justice courses. So not influences through other subjects, no no, actual courses on social justice.
Tumblr had to get the idea from somewhere, after all.
You should Google for yourself and have a look through the curriculum of some of these. His list also included some where it wasn't overtly apparent whether the ideas presented were regressive or not, but among the majority they were. Some of the ones I looked up almost sounded like cults advocating for death camps. Creepy stuff.
But, because of how extreme some of it is, I am left to wonder how many people actually prescribe to it; hence the initial post.

[Lustful Bride]

I'm not certain Malema, Qwabe, et al, are a product of this Social Justice ideology he's going on about; I feel they simply use it so push their respective agendas. They're mostly symptoms of a larger problem, a fact that African countries have extreme gaps in quality of life between classes. This naturally makes the people angry; they want something, or someone, to blame. And so those in leadership say, "Well, it's not us to blame, even if we are involved in obscene amounts of maladministration and corruption, but rather it's the evil west, or the evil whites, or the evil media, or the evil private sector, or the evil intellectual, or the evil ambiguous force, and so on..."

And the masses, having no access to proper information, gobble it all up, likely for years on end. It doesn't help that there are plenty of real racists that are happy to inadvertently drive in such notions. So I disagree that Oxford shaped their thoughts but instead I feel they were shaped by where they came from...

At best, these people utilize tools created by SJWs, such as the attempt to redefine the term "racist" so you can say "kill all white people" with a clean conscience; now revolutionary as opposed to racist. Beyond that I doubt they even spare social justice a passing thought as they do so. Also, it sounds as if he's implying that SJWs or Marxists believe they're liberals but most people I've met that campaigned in the name of either use the term "liberal" like a curse word. It almost sounds as if they hate liberals because a true liberal will stand up for either side, depending on the circumstance, rather than simply pick a side and stick with it even if it compromises their principles.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what he said, although as a warning I was only paying partial attention. I highly doubt the university will pull important courses simply because a few voices find them offensive. And on a similar note, they've already implied that they won't retract Qwabe's degree and I agree, they shouldn't; it would be hypocritical. Universities shouldn't stifle offensive, controversial or diverging opinions as they'd find their time better spent by having such arguments refuted through dialogue, out in the open, where they MIGHT actually sway minds. Certainly a better option than forcibly muffling anything they don't agree with and creating some kind of bizarre martyr, or leaving dangerous thoughts to go unspoken and silently fester.

I have one question regarding the video, probably a really silly one, but are there REALLY social justice classes or is he implying that current courses subtly teach it?

Just about everything I would have said, you just did it better.

The whole Social Justice movement is full of hypocrisy and idiocy that end up making other more noble causes (Like Equality for women and minorities) look violent, psychotic etc. Seriously, its like this whole mindset was made just to ruin hundreds of years of social progress and set us back.

[Maiz]

"You can spot a racist because they are the first to bring up race in any conversation."->in response to someone critiquing how white men dominate positions of power despite not reflecting demographics. recordscratch. (i skipped past the opening though so)

nah, i don't got time to fuck with this fucking 22 minute video lol

edit: so i jumped around the video and some thoughts:
-one is an analysis of power (sadiq khan), the other is someone being an asshole (qwabe).
-"magic of collectivism"??? sooooo much anti-red fearmongering it distracts from everything else. also a conflation of socialism and communism.
-why does it hurt anyone to say "just a heads up there are scenes in the movie ppl might find upsetting." who does that hurt? lmao
-"lgbti rights who know what 'i' is anyway". apparently the i is for ignorance. he couldnt even be bothered to google
-what is wrong with a module about diversity/inclusivity? going to college often means encountering people you have never met before. i think a module about that is great.

basically this video is your standard grumbling ahistorical* youtuber

*ahistorical in that the person has no idea abt past social justice movements and assumes it was all made by zoe quinn or obama or whatever

[Renegade Vile]

"You can spot a racist because they are the first to bring up race in any conversation."->in response to someone critiquing how white men dominate positions of power despite not reflecting demographics. recordscratch. (i skipped past the opening though so)

His point is that race has precious little to do with it.

nah, i don't got time to fuck with this fucking 22 minute video lol

edit: so i jumped around the video and some thoughts:

You really should just watch the video before commenting...

-one is an analysis of power (sadiq khan), the other is someone being an asshole (qwabe).

It's This Week In Stupid, he's going to be jumping from one topic to another, to get any in-depth from him, watch videos on specific subjects.

-"magic of collectivism"??? sooooo much anti-red fearmongering it distracts from everything else. also a conflation of socialism and communism.

He's not fearmongering, merely alluding to his opinion on collectivism.

-why does it hurt anyone to say "just a heads up there are scenes in the movie ppl might find upsetting." who does that hurt? lmao

Quite a few people were whining, so someone yes.

-"lgbti rights who know what 'i' is anyway". apparently the i is for ignorance. he couldnt even be bothered to google

Because he's making light of how impossible it has become to keep up with these terms, because even people within and without the LGBT community cannot agree on these matters anymore.

-what is wrong with a module about diversity/inclusivity? going to college often means encountering people you have never met before. i think a module about that is great.

Oh, you'd know what was wrong with it if you'd look into what modules of diversity/inclusivity actually propose... Google it, as you've said he should LGBTI.

basically this video is your standard grumbling ahistorical* youtuber

Based on one video, that you did not watch in its entirety.

*ahistorical in that the person has no idea abt past social justice movements and assumes it was all made by zoe quinn or obama or whatever

Again, you base this on one video and immediately make your own assumptions about someone else making assumptions. Okay.

[Lustful Bride]

Okay after further watching, everyone in that videos is giving me headaches, both the guy talking and the people in the actual video.

I will just go with the more political approach of I hate everyone equally. (Though the guy talking really comes off as an asshole. Id prefer something more analytical, but I cant draw a good comparison.)

It would all be so much simpler if everyone in the world realized that this kind of bickering, backstabbing and bullshitting was beyond stupid.

To somewhat borrow some phrasing from Rick Sanchez. “All humans (even me) are pieces of shit and I only value other people by how little of a pain in my ass they are.”

(So far everyone here on E rates a 0 so you are all like living saints to me, I love each and everyone of you.)

[Maiz]

His point is that race has precious little to do with it.

You really should just watch the video before commenting...

It's This Week In Stupid, he's going to be jumping from one topic to another, to get any in-depth from him, watch videos on specific subjects.

He's not fearmongering, merely alluding to his opinion on collectivism.

Quite a few people were whining, so someone yes.

Because he's making light of how impossible it has become to keep up with these terms, because even people within and without the LGBT community cannot agree on these matters anymore.

Oh, you'd know what was wrong with it if you'd look into what modules of diversity/inclusivity actually propose... Google it, as you've said he should LGBTI.

Based on one video, that you did not watch in its entirety.

Again, you base this on one video and immediately make your own assumptions about someone else making assumptions. Okay.

thats nice he doesnt think race has anything to do with it. i disagree. its obvious to me that if white men dominate a government board when the population is not dominantly white and male that theres something going on there...

he definitely is fearmongering about socialism. you can tell because of how he lumps communism and socialism together and then to purges.

hes making light of people who are intersex. that's pretty shit behavior.

ive worked at a university, i know what modules on diversity/inclusivity look like and most people are alright with them since it makes for interactions that are more friendly. (example: someone comes from a small town where out lgbt people are not known or are known only by slurs so they dont know respectful terminology. so, they see a module on lgbt people and learn something and we avoid any unpleasant (hopefully) situations where they use a slur on accident/because they didnt know the right terminology)

i'd rather not watch more of his videos and give him views nor do i want to to write a book on his work. i got a pretty representative look of his views from this one video. i know he thinks racism isn't real, thinks "sjws" are a thing, hates socialism, etc. why would i want to watch more?

[Lustful Bride]

hes making light of people who are intersex. that's pretty shit behavior

Never attribute to Malice that which can adequately be explained by Ignorance.

i know he thinks racism isn't real, thinks "sjws" are a thing, hates socialism, etc. why would i want to watch more?

Racism is very much indeed real and a problem which could doom humanity, im with you there.

But SJWs are also a thing, just not some organized planned out group like people think they are. Just a bunch of hypocrites and soft skinned people who cant handle the real world and would rather burn bridges and throw tantrums than actually work to better the world for everyone, instead of shunning out the ideas they don't like or oppinions that don't put forth their agenda. And if you complain about them you are obviously indoctrinated by the patriarchy or upset of someone questioning your 'Privilege' an they plug their ears and don't listen to anything that could oppose their thougths.

Sadly 'Social Justice Warrior' has become a catch all term for people and ends up muddying the water for those who actually want to do good as they end up being the baby tossed out with the bathwater.

As for Socialism, some socialism is bad other is good. Like how 100% Capitalism is chaos and 100%Communism is also chaos. You know what I mean?

We cant have everything being one sided, balance or a relaxed mix is good and what is needed.

[Far eyes]

Do you believe that your interests can not be represented by somebody of a different sex or race? Because as long as they are competent at there job and i can expect representation from them personally i can not give 2 fucks if they are male, female, black, white, green tall or short. And i especially dont care what makes them go whoopy in there personal life.   

---
Communism is a failed system, this is coming from somebody who lived there, if i really want i can dig up a picture of me when i was 7 with a little cap and a red star on it very cute. It is a system that fails at self correction, democracies self correction is messy but at least there are moments for it so any one individual can only fuck it up so bad.   

Socialism, some can be useful but you have to be careful with it. Because a lot of it will brake your back Socialism is like medication if one makes you healthy it dos not mean taking all the pills is going to make you super healthy, you will die on an overdose

[Maiz]

Do you believe that your interests can not be represented by somebody of a different sex or race? Because as long as they are competent at there job and i can expect representation from them personally i can not give 2 fucks if they are male, female, black, white, green tall or short. And i especially dont care what makes them go whoopy in there personal life.   

---
Communism is a failed system, this is coming from somebody who lived there, if i really want i can dig up a picture of me when i was 7 with a little cap and a red star on it very cute. It is a system that fails at self correction, democracies self correction is messy but at least there are moments for it so any one individual can only fuck it up so bad.   

Socialism, some can be useful but you have to be careful with it. Because a lot of it will brake your back Socialism is like medication if one makes you healthy it dos not mean taking all the pills is going to make you super healthy, you will die on an overdose

Yes, they can be represented by people of different genders, races, sexualities, etc. But there is a problem when only certain genders and certain races are allowed to represent everyone else.

Capitalism is also a failed system. I did not advocate for communism anywhere. I just despise the way that communism/socialism are conflated together in order to fearmonger.

[Lustful Bride]

Capitalism is also a failed system. I did not advocate for communism anywhere. I just despise the way that communism/socialism are conflated together in order to fearmonger.

I feel he was mostly talking to me when he brought up Communism/Socialism.

To be fair its not as if there wasn't precedent either way. Though its not like Capitalists (Or any group in the world for the matter) have a monopoly on good behavior. But neither does anyone group have a monopoly on bad behavior. :P *shrug*

[Renegade Vile]

thats nice he doesnt think race has anything to do with it. i disagree. its obvious to me that if white men dominate a government board when the population is not dominantly white and male that theres something going on there...

You do know that the majority of people in the US and Europe are white, right? So you are going to end up with a majority in other locations. But why do you instantly grasp to something as arbitrary as skin color for the reasons behind these discrepancies? Why isn't it a lack of education opportunities due to poverty? That's a real problem in poorer places in America. Additionally, if being white is all you need to be, why are so many white people in America impoverished along with everyone else? This is less a case of skin color and more a case of rich people being rich, which has precious little to do with race.

he definitely is fearmongering about socialism. you can tell because of how he lumps communism and socialism together and then to purges.

Okay.

hes making light of people who are intersex. that's pretty shit behavior.

He is not making light of people who are intersex, he is making light of the situation with these acronyms. Significant difference.

ive worked at a university, i know what modules on diversity/inclusivity look like and most people are alright with them since it makes for interactions that are more friendly. (example: someone comes from a small town where out lgbt people are not known or are known only by slurs so they dont know respectful terminology. so, they see a module on lgbt people and learn something and we avoid any unpleasant (hopefully) situations where they use a slur on accident/because they didnt know the right terminology)

Yes, that is what such a module should be, but if run on social justice and made mandatory, it's easy to see how these things can start getting warped. Seriously warped.

i'd rather not watch more of his videos and give him views nor do i want to to write a book on his work. i got a pretty representative look of his views from this one video. i know he thinks racism isn't real, thinks "sjws" are a thing, hates socialism, etc. why would i want to watch more?

*snorts* Doesn't think racism is real? He's said many times that racism is still ap roblem, in the West and everyone else in the globe. Again, you're just spouting these things without even bothering to know the person. As for socialism, only when it takes on certain forms, which is definitely a healthy outlook. SJWs are a thing, I'm skeptical that they're anywhere near as big a thing as he makes them out to be, hence my first post, but yes, they are a thing.

Never attribute to Malice that which can adequately be explained by Ignorance.

See above.

Racism is very much indeed real and a problem which could doom humanity, im with you there.

He does not think any differently. However, he does have a problem with people attributing every problem in their lives and those of others to racism, in the absence of proof.

But SJWs are also a thing, just not some organized planned out group like people think they are. Just a bunch of hypocrites and soft skinned people who cant handle the real world and would rather burn bridges and throw tantrums than actually work to better the world for everyone, instead of shunning out the ideas they don't like or oppinions that don't put forth their agenda. And if you complain about them you are obviously indoctrinated by the patriarchy or upset of someone questioning your 'Privilege' an they plug their ears and don't listen to anything that could oppose their thougths.

Which is precisely what he says.

Sadly 'Social Justice Warrior' has become a catch all term for people and ends up muddying the water for those who actually want to do good as they end up being the baby tossed out with the bathwater.

This is also sadly true.

As for Socialism, some socialism is bad other is good. Like how 100% Capitalism is chaos and 100%Communism is also chaos. You know what I mean?

Precisely.

We cant have everything being one sided, balance or a relaxed mix is good and what is needed.

Middle of the road tends to be the pragmatic solution. But good luck getting that to catch on.

Do you believe that your interests can not be represented by somebody of a different sex or race? Because as long as they are competent at there job and i can expect representation from them personally i can not give 2 fucks if they are male, female, black, white, green tall or short. And i especially dont care what makes them go whoopy in there personal life.   

But therein lies the problem, some people want positive discrimination, which does away completely with the concept of merit. Everyone, white and otherwise, should not give two fucks what skin color someone has or what sexuality, but neither the regressive left, nor the conservative right seem to be able to let it go.
But yes, some people think that you cannot represent someone's interest unless you share skin color. Which is just as racist as anything else, since it once again implies skin color defines a person, their views and their background. Which it most certainly does not.

---
Communism is a failed system, this is coming from somebody who lived there, if i really want i can dig up a picture of me when i was 7 with a little cap and a red star on it very cute. It is a system that fails at self correction, democracies self correction is messy but at least there are moments for it so any one individual can only fuck it up so bad.   

They do say that democracy is the least bad form of government we can conceive of...

[Renegade Vile]

Yes, they can be represented by people of different genders, races, sexualities, etc. But there is a problem when only certain genders and certain races are allowed to represent everyone else.

Why? I'm not saying we should not include other genders, races and sexualities, but why is seeing a room full instantly a conspiracy and institutionalized racism?

Capitalism is also a failed system. I did not advocate for communism anywhere. I just despise the way that communism/socialism are conflated together in order to fearmonger.

Works a damn sight better than our alternatives.

[Lustful Bride]

We should make our own group, call it the Humanists or the Equalists, and one of our main tenants should be rationality. Cause being rational is going the way of the Dodo bird if you ask me.

[Renegade Vile]

We should make our own group, call it the Humanists or the Equalists, and one of our main tenants should be rationality. Cause being rational is going the way of the Dodo bird if you ask me.

I think it went the way of the Dodo when man discovered they could think. Because for every person that proceeded to think, there were three others who chose not to.

[Scribbles]

We should make our own group, call it the Humanists or the Equalists, and one of our main tenants should be rationality. Cause being rational is going the way of the Dodo bird if you ask me.

What about us Anarchists, who else is going to fight for the right to par-teh?



Sorry, am taking thread seriously, just trying to play catch-up!

[Lustful Bride]

What about us Anarchists, who else is going to fight for the right to par-teh?

Why else would we have Burning Man and such? :P

[Renegade Vile]

What about us Anarchists, who else is going to fight for the right to par-teh?

I agree, I need to be able to go streaking drunk down the street if I want to! Laws be damned!

Sorry, am taking thread seriously, just trying to play catch-up!

Nowhere does it say it has to be serious and doom and gloom all the time, so feel free to quip.

[Lustful Bride]

I agree, I need to be able to go streaking drunk down the street if I want to! Laws be damned!



Nowhere does it say it has to be serious and doom and gloom all the time, so feel free to quip.

Never!

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

[Renegade Vile]

Never!

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Can you ask your friend to come clean up Brussels for us?
Much obliged.

[Maiz]

You do know that the majority of people in the US and Europe are white, right? So you are going to end up with a majority in other locations. But why do you instantly grasp to something as arbitrary as skin color for the reasons behind these discrepancies? Why isn't it a lack of education opportunities due to poverty? That's a real problem in poorer places in America. Additionally, if being white is all you need to be, why are so many white people in America impoverished along with everyone else? This is less a case of skin color and more a case of rich people being rich, which has precious little to do with race.

Yes, that is what such a module should be, but if run on social justice and made mandatory, it's easy to see how these things can start getting warped. Seriously warped.

He does not think any differently. However, he does have a problem with people attributing every problem in their lives and those of others to racism, in the absence of proof.

Yes, overall in the US and Europe the majority is white, but when you break it down there are places within both where this is not the case and yet still the people in power are white. Like Sadiq Khan's comment about the transport board in London. (Also, in the US at least, white men are over represented in Congress and the Senate). Not to mention people from different backgrounds bring up different ways of solving issues and probems. We need a diversity in thought and outlooks. You are also arguing against arguments that I never made here ;)

Your insistence that social justice is all bad is very confusing. I suggest you look up the history of the term, movements, etc besides what people like this youtuber present. Ignore internet "social justice" and people who do shit just for themselves and instead read about rich histories of different activist groups who have fought over decades and centuries for things like welfare rights, the right to vote, against colonial powers, for a fair wage, against child labor, etc.

Why? I'm not saying we should not include other genders, races and sexualities, but why is seeing a room full instantly a conspiracy and institutionalized racism?

I don't think its a conspiracy but I do think its a sign of institutional racism when the people with power have always been one section of the demographic. How does that happen "naturally"?

[Lustful Bride]

(Also, in the US at least, white men are over represented in Congress and the Senate

I stopped believing that congress actually represented the country long ago. They just represent the Rich and influential, no one else. Their only real care is about the green. $$$$

If they actually gave two shits about the Country and the people in it, the Veterans Hospitals wouldn't be so fucking broken and incompetent. Jesus they border on being third world hospitals sometimes, its ridiculous.

[Far eyes]

institutional racism

*Sigh*  No... no i am not even going to.

Sadiq Khan's comment about the transport board in London

Is this the one ware he suggests firing people based on there race and sex? And then hiring others based on there race and sex? That one?

[Renegade Vile]

Yes, overall in the US and Europe the majority is white, but when you break it down there are places within both where this is not the case and yet still the people in power are white. Like Sadiq Khan's comment about the transport board in London. (Also, in the US at least, white men are over represented in Congress and the Senate).

And it isn't just possible that people of color happen to not give a single care about being on that transport board? They are actively being warded from such a position of immense power? What do you suggest happens? Quotas? Lay off some white people and replace them with other ethnicities? Or bloat the board by only adding more people (I'm from Belgium, trust me, you don't want to bloat any kind of board *looks at his government and winces*).

Not to mention people from different backgrounds bring up different ways of solving issues and probems. We need a diversity in thought and outlooks. You are also arguing against arguments that I never made here ;)

Sure, agreed. But how do you suggest we do this? Do we let these people work their way up like everyone else has to? Or do we just hand these positions out to whoever comes by sporting the right color of skin or gender?

Your insistence that social justice is all bad is very confusing. I suggest you look up the history of the term, movements, etc besides what people like this youtuber present. Ignore internet "social justice" and people who do shit just for themselves and instead read about rich histories of different activist groups who have fought over decades and centuries for things like welfare rights, the right to vote, against colonial powers, for a fair wage, against child labor, etc.

Modern social justice in the West has slowly become synonymous with university activism and internet nonsense, yes, so when I say social justice, that is what I am referring to, not people who did good in the world. I have a deep respect for feminists who gave women the right to vote, for example, who were also arguable warriors for social justice. But nowadays, the movement (if you unfairly lump it all together, I know) has been poisoned.
As for what this Youtuber presents, you again assume things he does not do, as he also mentions things you have many times. You keep putting words in his mouth based on fractions of one video.

I don't think its a conspiracy but I do think its a sign of institutional racism when the people with power have always been one section of the demographic. How does that happen "naturally"?

Did I say naturally? But why is it racism? Can it not be that other races live in poorer places in the US? Low job opportunities because of an ailing economy? With few money to go around comes a struggle to educate. With a lack of education comes a lack of high-end opportunities. With a lack of those, you hit a brick wall when climbing the ladder. Is it fair? No. Should it change? Yes. But is it immediately all because of white people being racist?
Additionally, with poverty comes boredom. Bored kids hit the streets. Some of those get into criminality. You start getting ghettos, which in turn give other youths a sense that they have no way out. Ambition takes a hit. Those that do get to go to school somewhere have no motivation or get into the wrong crowd. Slash a few more potentially very competent people from the job market. Again, these things have nothing to do with racism since it happens to plenty of white kids too.
These are just two examples off the top of my head, I'm sure we could both find many more scenarios. Sometimes racism will be the cause. Sometimes you will go present yourself at a job where the interviewer is a racist bigot who will make up some stupid reason why you're unfit and write you off. But it's far too convenient to call it institutionalized when most people I've ever met don't seem to give two cents what skin color someone is as long as you can get the job done.

Is this the one ware he suggests firing people based on there race and sex? And then hiring others based on there race and sex? That one?

Yes, but it's not racist because he's not white. He can say these things.

[Lustful Bride]

*institutional Racism* errr....im kind of in the party that says 'Yes this does exist, just not at the levels that some people say."

Its more like a cancerous sore in various parts rather than the entire system top to bottom is racist. 

[Renegade Vile]

*institutional Racism* errr....im kind of in the party that says 'Yes this does exist, just not at the levels that some people say."

Its more like a cancerous sore in various parts rather than the entire system top to bottom is racist.

I think you can find it in bigoted places, places where racism is still deeply ingrained. But indeed, for some, it seems to be everywhere. It's very easy to blame life on others, after all.

[Lustful Bride]

I think you can find it in bigoted places, places where racism is still deeply ingrained. But indeed, for some, it seems to be everywhere. It's very easy to blame life on others, after all.

Which most people would say is the south since that's the stereotype but I say its in many places and cannot be pinned down to just one place. Evil is in the hearts of all men, and wears many masks.

[Far eyes]

Institutionalized racism would be something like a proposal to take land away from a racial group based on there race. And then you call it something ells like... say a Land Reform.

[Maiz]

Is this the one ware he suggests firing people based on there race and sex? And then hiring others based on there race and sex? That one?

The transport board is appointed so no need to worry about people getting fired! I'm assuming he will appoint new people once the previous people's terms are up.

And it isn't just possible that people of color happen to not give a single care about being on that transport board? They are actively being warded from such a position of immense power? What do you suggest happens? Quotas? Lay off some white people and replace them with other ethnicities? Or bloat the board by only adding more people (I'm from Belgium, trust me, you don't want to bloat any kind of board *looks at his government and winces*).

Sure, agreed. But how do you suggest we do this? Do we let these people work their way up like everyone else has to? Or do we just hand these positions out to whoever comes by sporting the right color of skin or gender?

Modern social justice in the West has slowly become synonymous with university activism and internet nonsense, yes, so when I say social justice, that is what I am referring to, not people who did good in the world. I have a deep respect for feminists who gave women the right to vote, for example, who were also arguable warriors for social justice. But nowadays, the movement (if you unfairly lump it all together, I know) has been poisoned.

Did I say naturally? But why is it racism? Can it not be that other races live in poorer places in the US? Low job opportunities because of an ailing economy? With few money to go around comes a struggle to educate. With a lack of education comes a lack of high-end opportunities. With a lack of those, you hit a brick wall when climbing the ladder. Is it fair? No. Should it change? Yes. But is it immediately all because of white people being racist?
Additionally, with poverty comes boredom. Bored kids hit the streets. Some of those get into criminality. You start getting ghettos, which in turn give other youths a sense that they have no way out. Ambition takes a hit. Those that do get to go to school somewhere have no motivation or get into the wrong crowd. Slash a few more potentially very competent people from the job market. Again, these things have nothing to do with racism since it happens to plenty of white kids too.
These are just two examples off the top of my head, I'm sure we could both find many more scenarios. Sometimes racism will be the cause. Sometimes you will go present yourself at a job where the interviewer is a racist bigot who will make up some stupid reason why you're unfit and write you off. But it's far too convenient to call it institutionalized when most people I've ever met don't seem to give two cents what skin color someone is as long as you can get the job done.

I'm guessing people of color (and white people!) do care since they elected Khan. :) Again, the board is appointed so... he would just appoint different people... and the next mayor would appoint different people.. etc.

We should encourage and promote different people to run for positions, in whichever way a country deems appropriate. :) Maybe its limiting how much $ a person can use in an election campaign.

I completely disagree re: "Western Modern social justice" ;) You should look into the matter more in depth avoiding university or internet activism. ;) ;)

Because the race of a person affects what opportunities/jobs/education they can receive and race can show life expectancy/wages/health outcomes etc. We can change it by funding education for everyone. In the US there are several places where funding for schools is tied to property tax, which has been found unconstitutional on a state level in Ohio, which means schools in poor neighborhoods get less funding. Those poor neighborhoods end up overrepresented by people of color. We could change how that funding system works, but yet people don't.

Your understanding of racism is very flawed. It's not about individual people being racist. While that is hurtful it does not explain racism. Racism is the embedded structure where one race benefits. It works with classism a lot of the times. :) So, in the state of funding schools, people who are wealthier (and more likely to be white) are benefiting from a system where funding flows to wealthier (and more likely to be white) schools. Where as the poor (who are both white and not white) are hurt by this situation. :D I hope this explains some things.

Institutionalized racism would be something like a proposal to take land away from a racial group based on there race. And then you call it something ells like... say a Land Reform.

What should happen when the land was owned by people indigenous to the land but then that land was taken and redistributed to corporations or wealthy foreigners or the elites of the country? Should it just remain in the hands of the few? Or should it be split up and given to people who can then sustain themselves on the land and no longer be in poverty?

[Lustful Bride]

What should happen when the land was owned by people indigenous to the land but then that land was taken and redistributed to corporations or wealthy foreigners or the elites of the country? Should it just remain in the hands of the few? Or should it be split up and given to people who can then sustain themselves on the land and no longer be in poverty?

But then what if those people have not owned that land in generations and another group lives there now, and has lived there all their lives? Should they be punished for their ancestors? Should they be forced to move because someone else who hasn't lived there or cared and taken care of the land suddenly wants it back?

I agree with a fair bit of what you say in part but it feels like you are making it too cut and dry in some of your arguments. If the world was that simple and easy to fix up we wouldn't be having this thread. (As much as id wish the world were fixed)

[Far eyes]

What should happen when the land was owned by people indigenous to the land but then that land was taken and redistributed to corporations or wealthy foreigners or the elites of the country? Should it just remain in the hands of the few? Or should it be split up and given to people who can then sustain themselves on the land and no longer be in poverty?

How meany years ago? Do you think one wrong deserves another? And then given to who? Determined by what, probably buddy ship with the current power? Lets hope justice like that dos not get on to meany people.

Using the same logic you can justify any number of horrific crimes, blood fudes are based on logic like that a never ending cycle of blood and guilt passed down from one group/family to the other and one group/family is always 1 point up so its time for the other side to get equal.

The reason this pisses me right the fuck off, is because Hungarian nationalists in my own country work on this similar logic. They have this magical mystical picture of a grate Magyarorszag. The country they mean never existed as such, yes technically all those bits were at one time land owned by what is Hungaria it was not exactly the same thing all the while. But they demand that this place be a part of Hungary because there fantasy land, because yes historically Hungarian did extend out to here at one point. (They are not a large group, its a quck community but the reasoning goes along the same lines and being part Hungarian i occasionally have to deal with these...  individuals)   

[Maiz]

But then what if those people have not owned that land in generations and another group lives there now, and has lived there all their lives? Should they be punished for their ancestors? Should they be forced to move because someone else who hasn't lived there or cared and taken care of the land suddenly wants it back?

I agree with a fair bit of what you say in part but it feels like you are making it too cut and dry in some of your arguments. If the world was that simple and easy to fix up we wouldn't be having this thread. (As much as id wish the world were fixed)

No, being punished for what happened generations ago should not happen.. but no one needs millions of acres of land when the people who used to own it are now starving :) Land reform is pretty interesting and has been handled in several ways. Its fun to study

How meany years ago? Do you think one wrong deserves another? And then given to who? Determined by what, probably buddy ship with the current power? Lets hope justice like that dos not get on to meany people.

Using the same logic you can justify any number of horrific crimes, blood fudes are based on logic like that a never ending cycle of blood and guilt passed down from one group/family to the other and one group/family is always 1 point up so its time for the other side to get equal.

What if people vote to redistribute the land so that its just more equal? Previous people still have their land.. just not as much as before so that others can own land too.

Please don't put words in my mouth thank you. :D

[Lustful Bride]

What if people vote to redistribute the land so that its just more equal? Previous people still have their land.. just not as much as before so that others can own land too.

Please don't put words in my mouth thank you. :D

Your giving too much credit to humanity. (or maybe ive only seen the worst too much and been too long in the dark)  But you can barely get people to form an orderly line, or to drive on the right side of the road without problems.

[Maiz]

Your giving too much credit to humanity. (or maybe ive only seen the worst too much and been too long in the dark)  But you can barely get people to form an orderly line, or to drive on the right side of the road without problems.

:) Soooo cynical. Land reform has been attempted and worked for a while and failed for various reasons. Theres no reason to say it can't work.. but people in power (who have $) tend not to like it ;) so they fund ways to make it fail of course!

[Far eyes]

What if people vote to redistribute the land so that its just more equal? Previous people still have their land.. just not as much as before so that others can own land too.

More equal?
Yes violent seizure of land lead to more equality, oh yes ex Communist countries histories is full of that type of more equality. Its written in blood, real peoples real blood. Dont misunderstand i do not think you are stupid, i think you are naive either on purpose or by being sheltered

I am fucking done...

[Maiz]

More equal?
Yes violent measures of land lead to more equality, oh yes ex Communist countries histories is full of that type of more equality. Its written in blood, real peoples real blood. Dont misunderstand i do not think you are stupid, i think you are naive either on purpose or by choice

My knowledge is mostly based on Latin American countries where, yes after revolution against a system that was entirely unjust and unfair, people attempted land reforms. These failed for various reasons, mostly because the people who previous held millions of acres of land did not agree with the majority of people who wanted land reform.

But you are ignoring the deaths, blood, forced labor, etc that went into concentrating land into large parcels owned by very few people. Is that not also bad? Should we keep the status quo? That does not seem right to me.

anyway this is very off topic! Back to the point, no one needs to worry about being fired since the london transport board is appointed which means people on it serve terms and then are either reappointed or replaced by new appointees

[Renegade Vile]

The transport board is appointed so no need to worry about people getting fired! I'm assuming he will appoint new people once the previous people's terms are up.

Ah yes, I'm going to guess they will be using those lovely quotas to that end. Good good.

I'm guessing people of color (and white people!) do care since they elected Khan. :) Again, the board is appointed so... he would just appoint different people... and the next mayor would appoint different people.. etc.

Of course they did, doesn't matter whether he will do a good job or anything, he brings up some race relations things and the election is his.

We should encourage and promote different people to run for positions, in whichever way a country deems appropriate. :) Maybe its limiting how much $ a person can use in an election campaign.

Sure, I agree that we need to encourage a climate where skin color and gender are entirely irrelevant, something that does start in education but also at home where parents make sure their children are blind to these differences (even though kids actually ARE blind to these things until overly sensitive parents start pointing things out 24/7). But again, there should never be quotas that discriminate or disable the best person for the job to get the job.
As for the corruption in an election campaign, that does seem to be a significant issue in the US, for example, where I sometimes fall off my chair when I see how much they spend on just getting their faces put on billboards...

I completely disagree re: "Western Modern social justice" ;) You should look into the matter more in depth avoiding university or internet activism. ;) ;)

You assume I haven't just because you disagree. I have yet to find meaningful, substantial movements in the West that are getting the sort of attention social activists at university are. If you can give me examples to the contrary, please do, but otherwise don't just make the claim I can't be bothered to look these things up when you're the one passing judgement on someone on YouTube based on fragments of one video and say you can't be bothered to look at more before making a judgement call.

Because the race of a person affects what opportunities/jobs/education they can receive and race can show life expectancy/wages/health outcomes etc. We can change it by funding education for everyone. In the US there are several places where funding for schools is tied to property tax, which has been found unconstitutional on a state level in Ohio, which means schools in poor neighborhoods get less funding. Those poor neighborhoods end up overrepresented by people of color. We could change how that funding system works, but yet people don't.

That's not race, that's their situation, which used to have race as a larger factor due to things such as segregation, but are now much more heavily tied to local economy. Race also does not change wages, it changes income based on the jobs they receive. Unless they're working illegally (an issue over here in Belgium) they'll get whatever wage is appropriate for a given job. Same for the wage gap myth related to women.
As for funding for schools being tied to property tax, I agree, that's a horrible system that will keep poor neighborhoods poor, but again, this has nothing to do with race and more just stupidity or callousness on the part of politicians; a universal theme. Don't assume people don't because "dem black", they don't because it would take money out of their or their friends' pockets. It's greed. It's almost always greed.

Your understanding of racism is very flawed. It's not about individual people being racist. While that is hurtful it does not explain racism. Racism is the embedded structure where one race benefits. It works with classism a lot of the times. :) So, in the state of funding schools, people who are wealthier (and more likely to be white) are benefiting from a system where funding flows to wealthier (and more likely to be white) schools. Where as the poor (who are both white and not white) are hurt by this situation. :D I hope this explains some things.

I did not say it was about individual people being racist. Groups of people can be racist. But it has nothing to do with it being an embedded structure where one race benefits. It can be part of the government's policy, sure, but you cannot make that claim without some serious evidence backing it up. Apartheid is a good example of institutional racism as it involved actual laws based on race. A parallel can also be drawn to custody or rape laws that are heavily based on gender; these are institutional. It's purely about deeming one ethnicity or race (both terms are a bit muddy) inferior based completely on arbitrary, meaningless features such as the color of their skin, the shape of their eyes or any other common, identifying trait of that race. You are still just describing a system that benefits the wealthy with the motivation of greed and not bigotry towards other races. You even say so yourself that the poor are hurt by this situation and that they are both white and not white. So how exactly does that define racism in the US?

What should happen when the land was owned by people indigenous to the land but then that land was taken and redistributed to corporations or wealthy foreigners or the elites of the country? Should it just remain in the hands of the few? Or should it be split up and given to people who can then sustain themselves on the land and no longer be in poverty?

Just because you give land back to people doesn't mean poverty magically goes away. Plenty of poor people manage to own a house or even a small business. Was it wrong for people in the past to take land away aggressively as they did in the US? Of course, but I fail to see why current day people need to be punished for the sins of their forefathers. If that were the case, we should all pay everyone else reparations because someone, somewhere, will have caused someone somewhere, indirectly or directly, grievances through an ancestor. Most African-Americans would need to go to Africa and demand local figures of authority to pay them reparations for their ancestors selling them to Western slavers en mass in exchange for weapons and other tools they needed to install lasting dictatorships. Doesn't make a lick of sense.

anyway this is very off topic! Back to the point, no one needs to worry about being fired since the london transport board is appointed which means people on it serve terms and then are either reappointed or replaced by new appointees

Actually, this is still off-topic, my initial question was: how many people do you think prescribe to the SJW mindset, and is it really a danger on campus that is having far-reaching consequences like Sargon describes.

[ElvenKitten]

I don't think it's the number of people thats the issue but the amount of power they seem to have. More often than not the media takes their side using the same flawed statistics and arguments. The BBC is probably the worst offender in this and I've seen them bring in more and more SJW propaganda.

[Renegade Vile]

I don't think it's the number of people thats the issue but the amount of power they seem to have. More often than not the media takes their side using the same flawed statistics and arguments. The BBC is probably the worst offender in this and I've seen them bring in more and more SJW propaganda.

I've noticed that too whenever my wife has the BBC news on (she's English). Just a lot of blatant lying or twisting facts going on; it's quite messy.

[Maiz]

Ah yes, I'm going to guess they will be using those lovely quotas to that end. Good good.

Sure, I agree that we need to encourage a climate where skin color and gender are entirely irrelevant, something that does start in education but also at home where parents make sure their children are blind to these differences (even though kids actually ARE blind to these things until overly sensitive parents start pointing things out 24/7). But again, there should never be quotas that discriminate or disable the best person for the job to get the job.
As for the corruption in an election campaign, that does seem to be a significant issue in the US, for example, where I sometimes fall off my chair when I see how much they spend on just getting their faces put on billboards...

You assume I haven't just because you disagree. I have yet to find meaningful, substantial movements in the West that are getting the sort of attention social activists at university are. If you can give me examples to the contrary, please do, but otherwise don't just make the claim I can't be bothered to look these things up when you're the one passing judgement on someone on YouTube based on fragments of one video and say you can't be bothered to look at more before making a judgement call.

That's not race, that's their situation, which used to have race as a larger factor due to things such as segregation, but are now much more heavily tied to local economy. Race also does not change wages, it changes income based on the jobs they receive. Unless they're working illegally (an issue over here in Belgium) they'll get whatever wage is appropriate for a given job. Same for the wage gap myth related to women.
As for funding for schools being tied to property tax, I agree, that's a horrible system that will keep poor neighborhoods poor, but again, this has nothing to do with race and more just stupidity or callousness on the part of politicians; a universal theme. Don't assume people don't because "dem black", they don't because it would take money out of their or their friends' pockets. It's greed. It's almost always greed.

I did not say it was about individual people being racist. Groups of people can be racist. But it has nothing to do with it being an embedded structure where one race benefits. It can be part of the government's policy, sure, but you cannot make that claim without some serious evidence backing it up. Apartheid is a good example of institutional racism as it involved actual laws based on race. A parallel can also be drawn to custody or rape laws that are heavily based on gender; these are institutional. It's purely about deeming one ethnicity or race (both terms are a bit muddy) inferior based completely on arbitrary, meaningless features such as the color of their skin, the shape of their eyes or any other common, identifying trait of that race. You are still just describing a system that benefits the wealthy with the motivation of greed and not bigotry towards other races. You even say so yourself that the poor are hurt by this situation and that they are both white and not white. So how exactly does that define racism in the US?

Actually, this is still off-topic, my initial question was: how many people do you think prescribe to the SJW mindset, and is it really a danger on campus that is having far-reaching consequences like Sargon describes.

How is that a quota? He has not mentioned, from what I've googled, any mention about setting a quota, just about appointing different people. All this handwringing about firing people or quotas is borderline hysterical.


You should look into why colorblindness is unproductive and in fact minimalizes and hides patterns of racism. Also, the myth of meritocracy is another thing you should look into. "The best person for the job" is often overly white and male and that starts to look fishy when other people are passed over. Sometimes that may be the right person but a lot of times its not.

For movements you could look up Black Panthers in the 70s and the free meals they provided, you could look at immigration rights activists, you could look at welfare rights organizations, the fight for a living wage ($15 now), these are all US based. Look on local and small scale levels and you will find a lot of stuff

I really wish the wage gap was a myth but sadly its not. Even when other issues are controlled theres still unexplained gaps due to race and gender. Assuming that the free hand of the market is color blind is quite silly and not based in reality. You claim that funding isnt tied to race, but it clearly is, my friend :) You can read the history of it in several books, along with issues like housing and transportation. Examples: Sugrue The origins of the Urban Crisis, Kruse, White Flight, Lassiter The Silent Majority. Also, it's pretty fucked up that you assume all people of color are black (though I know why you do, its because of how poverty is tied to blackness and then disparaged) and then use some really racist language. Seriously, "dem black"? Who does that? That is not very civil of you.

Try reading the books I mentioned or anything that looks at the history of the US economy. Poverty in the US affects people across race, however it is highly concentrated in communities of color (whether Black or Latino or Hmong or native or whatever else). These groups also tend to have less access to resources or are denied resources more often. They are often more vilified for their poverty (See your "dem black" comment).

To answer your question, I take issue with "SJW" since it seems to encompass any left leaning ideology that you/Sargon do not agree with. There are plenty of people working for economic justice or against racism or against sexism or against a lot of other issues. I don't think its a danger. Some people will use it to excuse their asshole behavior but jumping to point to them as the rule not the exception is flawed.

Neither of us are going to change the other's mind, so we can stop the pretense of this "debate". I mostly started commenting on this thread because I wanted the record to show though that someone dissented since I know when I read threads like these it feels toxic when everyone agrees with this rabid reactionary "SJW are dangerous and everywhere" discourse.

[Far eyes]

You should look into why colorblindness is unproductive and in fact minimalizes and hides patterns of racism. Also, the myth of meritocracy is another thing you should look into.

I just want you to sit there and read that to your self in a difference voice.

I really wish the wage gap was a myth but sadly its not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

[Renegade Vile]

How is that a quota? He has not mentioned, from what I've googled, any mention about setting a quota, just about appointing different people. All this handwringing about firing people or quotas is borderline hysterical.

Because that is generally what happens. Happens over here all the time.

You should look into why colorblindness is unproductive and in fact minimalizes and hides patterns of racism. Also, the myth of meritocracy is another thing you should look into. "The best person for the job" is often overly white and male and that starts to look fishy when other people are passed over. Sometimes that may be the right person but a lot of times its not.

So you're just going to ignore the reasons I gave as to why that happens to often be white people (not even going into gender at this time)? I just told you a lot of that is attributed to education, which is skewed right now and something should be done to help people of all races get the education they need/deserve. But again, that is usually because of financial reasons.

For movements you could look up Black Panthers in the 70s and the free meals they provided, you could look at immigration rights activists, you could look at welfare rights organizations, the fight for a living wage ($15 now), these are all US based. Look on local and small scale levels and you will find a lot of stuff

In the 70s.

I really wish the wage gap was a myth but sadly its not. Even when other issues are controlled theres still unexplained gaps due to race and gender.

Go look up some papers on the subject and tell me again that the gap is unexplained. Many of the high paying jobs (often due to things like hazard pay) or because of pregnancy, time off taken, and so, women tend to get jobs that earn less, or miss the boat on promotion. But that isn't because they're women, oftentimes that is because they make the very conscious choice to choose something else over that promotion. There is nothing wrong about that, so long as that choice is not forced on them, and last time I checked in the West, it isn't.

Assuming that the free hand of the market is color blind is quite silly and not based in reality. You claim that funding isnt tied to race, but it clearly is, my friend :) You can read the history of it in several books, along with issues like housing and transportation. Examples: Sugrue The origins of the Urban Crisis, Kruse, White Flight, Lassiter The Silent Majority.

Not based in reality? Okay.

Also, it's pretty fucked up that you assume all people of color are black (though I know why you do, its because of how poverty is tied to blackness and then disparaged) and then use some really racist language. Seriously, "dem black"? Who does that? That is not very civil of you.

Er... Where did I assume that? I was giving an example, not making any claims of the sort. Also, ever heard of someone being facetious? It seems not. Pity. Making more assumptions about people is the uncivil thing to do, miss Maiz.

Try reading the books I mentioned or anything that looks at the history of the US economy. Poverty in the US affects people across race, however it is highly concentrated in communities of color (whether Black or Latino or Hmong or native or whatever else). These groups also tend to have less access to resources or are denied resources more often. They are often more vilified for their poverty (See your "dem black" comment).

*snorts* Again with the "dem black". Mirth really is lost on you.

To answer your question, I take issue with "SJW" since it seems to encompass any left leaning ideology that you/Sargon do not agree with. There are plenty of people working for economic justice or against racism or against sexism or against a lot of other issues. I don't think its a danger. Some people will use it to excuse their asshole behavior but jumping to point to them as the rule not the exception is flawed.

Again, you are making assumptions that I lob all left leaning ideologies in with SJW. You are also once again making assumptions on people you don't know. You are basically reinforcing the stereotype that anyone who does not agree with a given ideology is instantly against everything it stands for and everyone that agrees with parts of the ideology. You're also instantly assuming that I am not against racism, or sexism and any number of other social justice causes. You also think I don't know and find it deplorable that the label SJW is flung at everything that people don't agree with, but don't act as though people from both sides don't do this. Labels like that are used by people of all manner of opinions to shut down conversation, and I have done nothing of the sort, and neither has Sargon since he speaks about these things are tremendous length in all of his videos EXCEPT This Week in Stupid, which is intended as a semi-humorous, very brief glance at events over the week that his viewers asked him to glance over. Not exactly helping your case here.

Neither of us are going to change the other's mind, so we can stop the pretense of this "debate". I mostly started commenting on this thread because I wanted the record to show though that someone dissented since I know when I read threads like these it feels toxic when everyone agrees with this rabid reactionary "SJW are dangerous and everywhere" discourse.

This is not a debate, or I'd be going out to find evidence and facts to support my viewpoint. This is a discussion, nothing more.
Also, get a sense of humor, and stop assuming things about people you have no idea of knowing nor have been given any indication of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

There's a reason people asked Shoe0nHead to make that section separate *snorts*.

[Maiz]

I just want you to sit there and read that to your self in a difference voice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

http://www.aauw.org/files/2016/02/SimpleTruth_Spring2016.pdf
http://inequality.stanford.edu/cpi-research/area/inequality (you can search wage/pay gap)
http://blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/

Sorry, I know Stanford and the US Dept of Labor are pretty SJW

@Renegade Vile: 15now is a contemporary movement, as are the various immigration right activists. You can look at LGBT activism too. I don't find mocking speech patterns to be mirthful.

[Renegade Vile]

@Renegade Vile: 15now is a contemporary movement, as are the various immigration right activists. You can look at LGBT activism too. I don't find mocking speech patterns to be mirthful.

But one of your examples were active and did something meaningful in the 70s.
As for LGBT activism, that's a type of activism that indeed has a lot of work left in the US. But again, we hardly ever hear about them. I've never said they don't exist, but if the media is overrun by SJWs then they are going to slowly overwhelm the public perception of what social justice movements are and therefore when I say "social justice" I will be primarily referring to them. Or shall I add a laundry list of specifying adjectives to make sure everyone knows who I'm talking about and doesn't misconstrue... And makes assumptions about me?

As for mocking speech patterns: it's alright if you don't find it mirthful, but tell me again how that means you can just claim I think there are no other races than black and white?

[Lilias]

Go look up some papers on the subject and tell me again that the gap is unexplained. Many of the high paying jobs (often due to things like hazard pay) or because of pregnancy, time off taken, and so, women tend to get jobs that earn less, or miss the boat on promotion. But that isn't because they're women, oftentimes that is because they make the very conscious choice to choose something else over that promotion. There is nothing wrong about that, so long as that choice is not forced on them, and last time I checked in the West, it isn't.

See 'Feminization of Work'.

[Renegade Vile]

See 'Feminization of Work'.

Yes, I know about this. It seems to support the claims of an earnings gap over a wage gap.

[Lilias]

Yes, I know about this. It seems to support the claims of an earnings gap over a wage gap.

Then I guess men have no reason to grumble that, since them pesky females started taking over [insert previously male-dominated profession], wages have stagnated. :-) Good to know.

[Renegade Vile]

Then I guess men have no reason to grumble that, since them pesky females started taking over [insert previously male-dominated profession], wages have stagnated. :-) Good to know.

You're going to have to elaborate on that, because I'm afraid that went right over my head.

[Lilias]

You're going to have to elaborate on that, because I'm afraid that went right over my head.

If you haven't heard anyone (usually hailing from a heavily male-dominated profession, like tech repairs or construction) candidly complain that they aren't making as good money as they used to, because the women will do it for less... you will, at some point. Also known as devaluation of female work.

[Renegade Vile]

If you haven't heard anyone (usually hailing from a heavily male-dominated profession, like tech repairs or construction) candidly complain that they aren't making as good money as they used to, because the women will do it for less... you will, at some point. Also known as devaluation of female work.

I haven't heard that because at least here in Belgium, the wages are equal. It is illegal have different wages for the same job based on anything but your diploma, years worked or any negotiations that were done during contract signing (and even that happens less than it used to because a lot of companies have started normalizing their wages in an effort to push down employee costs...). For example, I have a female colleague, a programmer, that does the exact same work I do. She gets paid exactly the same, minus the bonus I've gotten for having worked a year more than her. Same education, same background, same job, same wage, one year behind. As far as I can tell, the same holds for other women that work there. Maybe this is a US-specific thing that I really am just misinformed on, but from my own experience here, I just don't see it, or even hear complaining about it apart from very radical feminists who have come out saying they want women to earn more than men because it is their biological right (they're a rather disturbed minority...).

Regardless, this article isn't really presenting anything substantial beyond continually admitting that the factors I mentioned are factors and not really giving any evidence that the pay drop is because women have become the dominant workforce gender. I'm going to need more than that to see the correlation, especially since I've read that wages across the board in many countries are falling or - in the case of Belgium - wages have remained the same and it's the taxes that are skyrocketing. This across both genders. The article also keeps mentioning that the wages in various jobs are lower but it never seems to analyze these figures, unless the sources do but I don't have the time right now to check those out (I will when I can if you say they actually do have that information).

Regardless, we're going off-topic again, I think.

[Lilias]

I haven't heard that because at least here in Belgium, the wages are equal. It is illegal have different wages for the same job based on anything but your diploma, years worked or any negotiations that were done during contract signing

And there exactly is the problem (and all sorts of other problems): that laws aren't guaranteed to be enforced. In both countries where I have work experience, the law prescribes equal pay, and in both there is an actual wage gap that 'choices' don't account for. Perhaps the laws are adhered to better in Belgium, or perhaps you haven't noticed because it doesn't affect you. Either way, your experience is not a universal standard.

Now back to the regularly scheduled whachamacallit. :-)

[Renegade Vile]

And there exactly is the problem (and all sorts of other problems): that laws aren't guaranteed to be enforced. In both countries where I have work experience, the law prescribes equal pay, and in both there is an actual wage gap that 'choices' don't account for. Perhaps the laws are adhered to better in Belgium, or perhaps you haven't noticed because it doesn't affect you. Either way, your experience is not a universal standard.

True, but if it were such a massive problem, you'd think I'd notice it, no? Especially given that the majority of people who work where I do (a technology-based company no less, so all highly educated workers) are actually female. But what is the cause for this gap? The article and you both prescribe it to gender, but neither seem to give any real facts to back up that gender is all that is involved. One of their examples is computer science, which used to be female-dominated (I assume they are referring to when computer science was primarily using typewriters quite a few decades ago?) but when men began to dominate the field, wages went up and "it became more prestigious" (no idea how you objectively gauge that). I am pretty certain that that massive wage increase happened because the field literally exploded into probably one of the most important fields for businesses today. If you don't have someone skilled, happy and at least reasonably well-paid/educated doing your infrastructure or writing your code, you won't get very far if that program is key in your business; man or woman. Because of that importance and the rising complexity, it seems much more plausible that the wages went up not because the workforce grew a penis, but because that workforce became more important.

That's just one example, but that's what I mean by wanting to know if they actually looked at both sides of the coin (such as: have wages for male-dominated fields gone down too? If so, why? If not, why?) and if they interpreted the date they collected from every angle they could come up with?

Now back to the regularly scheduled whachamacallit. :-)

No-one wants to take a stab at the number of SJWs rampant *frowns*. I will forever be bereft an answer.

[Lilias]

You'll have to go through the research for those answers. No shortcuts to anywhere worth getting at, I'm afraid. :-)

[Renegade Vile]

You'll have to go through the research for those answers. No shortcuts to anywhere worth getting at, I'm afraid. :-)

Okay?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

One can look at professions like nursing to see the effect of men in a female dominated field.  Also the title change men are associated with in fields such as chef vs cook or professor vs teacher.

[Renegade Vile]

One can look at professions like nursing to see the effect of men in a female dominated field.  Also the title change men are associated with in fields such as chef vs cook or professor vs teacher.

Female professors are called teachers in the US? Or am I misinterpreting what you mean? As far as I know, the title professor is a very different one from teacher, at least over here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Professors are stereotypically considered men whereas teachers are considered female.

[Renegade Vile]

Professors are stereotypically considered men whereas teachers are considered female.

The US is weeeeird.

[TheGlyphstone]

The US is weeeeird.

What do you think it's like from the inside... ;D

(Though worth noting that is the 'stereotype'. as in the stereotypical professor is a man. Female professors do actually get called professor, they aren't denied the title.)

[Renegade Vile]

What do you think it's like from the inside... ;D

(Though worth noting that is the 'stereotype'. as in the stereotypical professor is a man. Female professors do actually get called professor, they aren't denied the title.)

Ah, okay, that makes more sense. If it's just a stereotype, what is the problem? I'm sure most people know it's just a stereotype.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'm not sure. But I suppose it has some correlation - male teachers at the pre-university level are far rarer than female teachers, and male professors outnumber female professors at the collegiate/university level.

[Renegade Vile]

I'm not sure. But I suppose it has some correlation - male teachers at the pre-university level are far rarer than female teachers, and male professors outnumber female professors at the collegiate/university level.

And this is attributed to gender-bias?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Stereotypes have serious consequences.

[TheGlyphstone]

For example, one unrelated stereotype that intersects unfortunately with this one, the stereotypical child molester is also male. So a certain, if subtle, undercurrent gets laid in societal membranes that a man who spends lots of time alone with groups of young children feels 'off', unless he is coaching them in athletics (because gym teachers/coaches are almost always male, as direct contrast to classroom teachers). Thus very few men go into academic teaching at the elementary/primary level, because that is seen as something women do and a male in that environment becomes an oddity.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

And women are always considered to be "natural" caretakers for children.  People generally feel safer leaving their child with a woman over a man, for no true reason.

[Doomsday]

I'd rather be a social justice warrior than a status quo warrior. Sargon of Akkad is gross.

[Lustful Bride]

I'd rather be a social justice warrior than a status quo warrior. Sargon of Akkad is gross.

I'd rather be a Social Activist and actually work to help others, instead of throwing tantrums and declaring all those who don't agree with me as brainwashed by the patriarchy, government, church, etc.

I'm not speaking against you D, *hugs* I like you and your a good person.  ;D

[Renegade Vile]

Stereotypes have serious consequences.

Some do, though not all I'm sure.

For example, one unrelated stereotype that intersects unfortunately with this one, the stereotypical child molester is also male. So a certain, if subtle, undercurrent gets laid in societal membranes that a man who spends lots of time alone with groups of young children feels 'off', unless he is coaching them in athletics (because gym teachers/coaches are almost always male, as direct contrast to classroom teachers). Thus very few men go into academic teaching at the elementary/primary level, because that is seen as something women do and a male in that environment becomes an oddity.

That's certainly the case here too. Not sure if it's because of that stereotype, but male teachers at primary school level are in the minority.

And women are always considered to be "natural" caretakers for children.  People generally feel safer leaving their child with a woman over a man, for no true reason.

For no true reason, provided the man knows how to take care of a child. If they're doing a job like that or are babysitting, then it's unfair to assume they can't, but there are more men that have no idea how to take care of a baby, for example, than there are women. It's not a matter of ability though, more just a matter of opportunity. For most of a male's youth, we don't really care all that much about babies and children, so we don't really look into what they entail. This doesn't go for everyone of course, I know plenty of women who had no interest in babies when they were children either, but there's still a difference there between the two. Now, as for older children, there the stereotype really is harmful since there's really no reason anymore to think a man can't take care of a child.

I'd rather be a social justice warrior than a status quo warrior. Sargon of Akkad is gross.

As lady Lustful Bride said, I'd rather be a social activist. Social justice warriors do nothing worthwhile. At all. they don't even really point out problems in society in a good way, because even when they're right, they present their case in such a horrendous fashion that they're unlikely to garner any real support from anyone. As for Sargon, he's anything but a status quo warrior. Quite a few videos of his are on progressive matters such as the issue with religious fundamentalism, lethal racism, sexism and the like in other countries, as well as places in the US, etc. Just because he's not progressive about everything on the face of the Earth doesn't mean he advocates living close-minded and hugging one's Bible (just dabbling in some mirth and hyperbole here, I know that's not exactly what you meant).

[Lustful Bride]

As lady Lustful Bride said, I'd rather be a social activist. Social justice warriors do nothing worthwhile. At all. they don't even really point out problems in society in a good way, because even when they're right, they present their case in such a horrendous fashion that they're unlikely to garner any real support from anyone. As for Sargon, he's anything but a status quo warrior. Quite a few videos of his are on progressive matters such as the issue with religious fundamentalism, lethal racism, sexism and the like in other countries, as well as places in the US, etc. Just because he's not progressive about everything on the face of the Earth doesn't mean he advocates living close-minded and hugging one's Bible (just dabbling in some mirth and hyperbole here, I know that's not exactly what you meant).

To be fair he also takes it too far sometimes and bogs himself down in the stereotypical 'Atheist with a stick up his ass" and rages at anything religious.

Which is not really being an Atheist, just an Anti Theist and that gives a bad name to other atheists.

*has fun sitting on the fence* It lets me see everything! And realize how bad the world is  :'(

[Renegade Vile]

To be fair he also takes it too far sometimes and bogs himself down in the stereotypical 'Atheist with a stick up his ass" and rages at anything religious.

He does? He's usually only raging against fundamentalists. Religious fundamentalism isn't good in -any- circumstance. Religion can be good in a lot of circumstances. It's like with Islam, he's a vocal opponent to Islamists, not Muslims.

Which is not really being an Atheist, just an Anti Theist and that gives a bad name to other atheists.

*has fun sitting on the fence* It lets me see everything! And realize how bad the world is  :'(

I'm on that fence too for most things. People may call us cowards, but it's cozy up here.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think Vile you just pointed out your own stereotype and the danger of them.

As you pointed out before stereotypes are fine if people recognize them as stereotypes.  Yet here your own stereotype is presented, women being more comfortable with children, and you then attempt to rationalize that stereotype.  This is where stereotypes become dangerous because everyone rationalizes them.  Human beings are smart and most have the self-image of being intelligent.  People recognize that holding a belief about someone else without some sort of supporting argument, no matter how weak, is stupid.  Therefore people rationalize their belief and hence their stereotype.  Here you have done this with women, unfairly putting on them the burden of natural child care experts.

[Renegade Vile]

I think Vile you just pointed out your own stereotype and the danger of them.

As you pointed out before stereotypes are fine if people recognize them as stereotypes.  Yet here your own stereotype is presented, women being more comfortable with children, and you then attempt to rationalize that stereotype.  This is where stereotypes become dangerous because everyone rationalizes them.  Human beings are smart and most have the self-image of being intelligent.  People recognize that holding a belief about someone else without some sort of supporting argument, no matter how weak, is stupid.  Therefore people rationalize their belief and hence their stereotype.  Here you have done this with women, unfairly putting on them the burden of natural child care experts.

Yes and no. I didn't say that the stereotype was a good one, I was just explaining why I can understand the reluctance some people would have with handing very young children over to the care of grown men without credentials. Rationalizing isn't a bad thing if used to recognize a stereotype, and then use that to remind oneself that sometimes they're about as wrong as possible.

Now, as for "putting a burden on women", your average woman (yes, average) has evolutionary tools that make it far easier for her to learn how to care for very young children. That doesn't mean men can't do it, and that doesn't mean all women are good at it, but if you only look at differences between brains (such as women having a large area of the brain for empathy, which is very important in the earliest years of a child), then if you take your average man and your average woman, the average woman will learn these things quicker and more easily. Now let me stress again that the average man and average woman does not exist. But there is a reason why these things come easier for a lot of them. If I look at the number of women I've met and how handling a child is like flipping a switch for them, while for a lot of men, it takes time, there is a disproportion there.
As a new father, I can speak of this myself. I'm perfectly comfortable with changing diapers, feeding, carrying, holding, putting to sleep, etc; but it took time, whereas my wife just picked these things up like they were nothing.
Again, this difference might not be massive, but it's there. And on top of that, I'm not advocating that woman should get all responsibility with children, not in the slightest. It needs to come from both parents, equally, and that includes the dirty diapers. So I'm not saying that this "burden" should go to women by default. I'm only saying these things come easier for more women than they do men.

Evolution may have shaped men and women differently, but nothing says we have to fulfill those or any other roles, but you also can't just close your eyes and pretend these differences aren't there.

You also ignored the fact that I stated the stereotype can be an understandable apprehension (it's one's own children, I think we're entitled to some irrational over-protectiveness, no?) only in the case of very young children. Once they hit the age of two, I've never heard of any real reason to think any guy can't be trusted with taking care of them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Evolution then?  Wow, I really am not sure I need to go much farther into showing how absolutely warped this stereotype as become for you.

[Renegade Vile]

Evolution then?  Wow, I really am not sure I need to go much farther into showing how absolutely warped this stereotype as become for you.

Go look up some sources on the differences between the male and female brain and current theories on why those differences are there. Also, what makes you think I act on those stereotypes? What makes you think I look at a woman and just assume: she must be good with babies? I'm explaining where the stereotype comes from and that it's not entirely mired in irrationality and bigotry.
Next you're going to tell me I think all women belong in the kitchen or something.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

For all the beauty and advancement science has brought to civilization, please understand that science is a tool at the end of the day.  The bias and desires of those conducting the studies, writing the papers and performing the reviews still stands.  Since the creation of science there has been a desire to assert one’s beliefs and impress stereotypes with the backing of science.  At one time science claimed superiority of the white race over other groups.  Women were subscribed as being incapable of logical thought and unable to physically compete with men.  Observations of intelligent men manipulated to satisfy their own bias and actions.  So to say that there are different structures in the brain is an objective measurement which is true.  Then to turn around and hazard a guess, which is what these individuals would be doing, is to support their beliefs with something possibly unrelated.

Your wife does not have an innate understanding of children any more than you do.   An increase in empathy does not give her any super abilities to change the child any faster, to understanding the cries of the child or any other skill set needed to care for a child.  Indeed her only advantage is that society designated her as caregiver long ago while she was a child and so gave her tools for the task.  A stereotype supporting itself through the generations until people no longer question the origin.  Men have just as much ability to care for children as men from birth and onward.  That stereotype has done much to separate men from their children along with place a undeserved burden on the shoulders of women.

Evolution plays no part in the process of societal integration and stereotype propagation.  Were women in fact breed to be the true caretakers of children there would be greater ability to hold, defend and feed their children over their male counterparts.  Women have no such ability beyond what is taught to them by others.  Those same skills can just as easily be given to men.

As for my belief in your stereotypes, I am fairly certain you do believe this one as evidenced by what you have said about your role in raising your child. 

[Renegade Vile]

For all the beauty and advancement science has brought to civilization, please understand that science is a tool at the end of the day.  The bias and desires of those conducting the studies, writing the papers and performing the reviews still stands.  Since the creation of science there has been a desire to assert one’s beliefs and impress stereotypes with the backing of science.

So what you're saying is we should no longer believe any source because it will always be biased? No matter how much peer review from various sources it gets?

At one time science claimed superiority of the white race over other groups.

Yes, and this science was significantly contested at that same time as well. Not every scientist just nodded their heads and went: makes sense.

Women were subscribed as being incapable of logical thought and unable to physically compete with men.

Which was based on baseless assumptions.

Observations of intelligent men manipulated to satisfy their own bias and actions.  So to say that there are different structures in the brain is an objective measurement which is true.  Then to turn around and hazard a guess, which is what these individuals would be doing, is to support their beliefs with something possibly unrelated.

The sources I was referring to are not about women's innate abilities with children, those are purely on differences between the brains, which you say is a true, objective measurement. What flows are not always accurate assumptions on what effect these differences have, but you can also not just discredit them by claiming bias, especially given the increasing number of eyes that study every single scientific claim that gets made compared to ye olden days where it was more wild west than today.

Your wife does not have an innate understanding of children any more than you do.   An increase in empathy does not give her any super abilities to change the child any faster, to understanding the cries of the child or any other skill set needed to care for a child.

The empathy was an example of one aspect and one aspect alone. I do however believe she, in particular, had a much easier time learning these things.

Indeed her only advantage is that society designated her as caregiver long ago while she was a child and so gave her tools for the task.

So you believe it is society? Perhaps, though I still think that this was shaped by these roles an extremely long time ago, long enough to have an impact on how our bodies evolved over time, brains included. Just looking at animals you can see the same tendencies, though primitive.

A stereotype supporting itself through the generations until people no longer question the origin.  Men have just as much ability to care for children as men from birth and onward.  That stereotype has done much to separate men from their children along with place a undeserved burden on the shoulders of women.

And I reiterate, while I think your average woman will have a somewhat easier time learning the ropes, some of which will just flow naturally and from a link with their children through pregnancy, I do not think this should be a constant and a reason to force anyone into a role they do not want or are comfortable with, just like I think it's a father's responsibility to be as involved with their children as possible (a responsibility that a lot of fathers do take up). But again, I still think that difference is there, influencing matters subtly, and I don't think it's just some social construct crafted in times anyone is going to find any records of.

Evolution plays no part in the process of societal integration and stereotype propagation.  Were women in fact breed to be the true caretakers of children there would be greater ability to hold, defend and feed their children over their male counterparts.  Women have no such ability beyond what is taught to them by others.  Those same skills can just as easily be given to men.

I never said they just have to wake up one day and 'boom!' she knows how to hold a child. From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive. What mothers and fathers bring to the table for a child's development is different because of these differences between genders that you can't just ignore. And since I've said it about five times by now, I'll just add it again: this does not apply to all women and not all men. Can those skills be taught to men? Of course. But with your average male, just the interest and desire to learn will be less and less common.

As for my belief in your stereotypes, I am fairly certain you do believe this one as evidenced by what you have said about your role in raising your child.

Care to elaborate?
I also don't appreciate being called a liar, especially not when I've stated about a thousand blasted times that I do not think these stereotypes should be acted upon, even if some of them have a basis in rational reasoning. It's like you skip over these extremely vital disclaimers every time they're brought up.

[Lilias]

Go look up some sources on the differences between the male and female brain and current theories on why those differences are there.

Excellent - and eminently readable - analysis right here. Enjoyment of reading necessary, I'm afraid (sorry, RV! :-))

[Renegade Vile]

Excellent - and eminently readable - analysis right here. Enjoyment of reading necessary, I'm afraid (sorry, RV! :-))

This book isn't going to claim there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women is it?

[Lilias]

This book isn't going to claim there are absolutely no inherent differences between men and women is it?

No. It definitely claims that the differences don't mean what we have long been told they mean, though.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

People still hold onto the physical inability of women to compete with men.  Many make use of scientific analysis that is peer reviewed and tested.  Theories range from bone density, hormone levels, physical build, and protein uptake and muscle development.  Such science has kept women out of certain jobs, out of military promotions and barred entry to sporting leagues.  People still hold a myth about the thought process of women and there are indeed scientific articles published about women having “emotional” thought processes versus the logical process of men.  Empathy is also a big one people like to use, supposing that sounds better.

All scientific papers and theories should be taken with a grain of salt.  That is one of the cornerstones of science is that nothing is safe.  This is particularly true when guessing at the nature of a difference.  While a difference that shows up on a scan might indeed exist objectively, determining the purpose is not so objective.  This is especially true when we have little understanding of empathy, intellect and so forth. 

I do not think evolution works the way you think it does or in a time frame you are presenting. 

As for liar and reading your posts, I certainly am.  Hence why I am stating you are holding this stereotype.  "From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive." - Renegade Vile.

[Renegade Vile]

No. It definitely claims that the differences don't mean what we have long been told they mean, though.

Why a book and not a paper, though?

People still hold onto the physical inability of women to compete with men.  Many make use of scientific analysis that is peer reviewed and tested.  Theories range from bone density, hormone levels, physical build, and protein uptake and muscle development.  Such science has kept women out of certain jobs, out of military promotions and barred entry to sporting leagues.  People still hold a myth about the thought process of women and there are indeed scientific articles published about women having “emotional” thought processes versus the logical process of men.  Empathy is also a big one people like to use, supposing that sounds better.

So you're saying women build muscle as quickly and easily as men? Some women certainly do, in fact, I've seen some women build muscle faster (and I mean strong muscles, not bulk, bulk means nothing in terms of strength; you can be built like a gorilla but have no real explosive power) than most men. But I've yet to see this be a norm. And don't tell me that's society's fault because the number of fitness instructors I've heard tell women to exercise using weights for their health - weights that push their limits - are innumerable. Women can make just as good a soldier as any man. Women should be allowed to enter any sporting league. Women should be allowed to do any job. However, IF they can get through the entrance requirements. If a woman can get through a Navy Seal training (i think those are still barred from women in the US, right?), and I am 100% certain there are plenty of female soldiers who can, she should be allowed to do so. But it is a pipe dream to proclaim it's a myth that all women build physical strength as quickly as men do. Just go to any mixed-gender gym and follow a weightlifting course with a male friend yourself and see. You won't fail, but unless you belong to the exceptions, it's going to take longer.
As for the emotional thought processes, that's actually one I do not ascribe to. I've met as many women who are calm and rational as I've met women who get emotional over the smallest thing, just as I've met men on both spectra. Though maybe that's personal perception, emotional investment and experience is something I've not really looked into much so my opinion could change on that.

All scientific papers and theories should be taken with a grain of salt.  That is one of the cornerstones of science is that nothing is safe.  This is particularly true when guessing at the nature of a difference.  While a difference that shows up on a scan might indeed exist objectively, determining the purpose is not so objective.  This is especially true when we have little understanding of empathy, intellect and so forth. 

Of course they should be taken with a grain of salt, and science is an ongoing process. We're understanding more and more about how the brain works every passing day. My opinion, just like the scientific results, can - and probably will - change with every discussion. But right now, from what I've read over the years, from all manner of scientists, this is what seems most likely to me. That doesn't mean I just read something and instantly go: yup, that's true, I don't have to look into the opposing view to this because I like this one the most.

I do not think evolution works the way you think it does or in a time frame you are presenting. 

I am talking from even before Homo Sapiens, before we became human as we know it.

As for liar and reading your posts, I certainly am.  Hence why I am stating you are holding this stereotype.  "From the very first comment, I've said it comes easier for them because of something innate and instinctive." - Renegade Vile.

Charming. Also in need of reading again.

EDIT: The stereotype being that all women know babies better and should be handling babies not men? Yes, from that you can definitely divulge that I believe that.
That was sarcasm.

[Lilias]

Why a book and not a paper, though?

Because it is an excellent piece of work, and easy to find in a public library (at least in English-speaking countries).

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The idea of beauty and the ideal body is of great interest to women and men.  Women are not shown to be beautiful by having layers of powerful muscles.  Social stigma and pressure push most women toward leaner exercises such as cardiovascular exercises and toward low weight, high repetition exercises.  Women rarely participate in strength training as men do at the gym.  A lack of participation brought about by societal expectations propagates the stereotype, reinforcing the assumption.

Societal roles as you know them today are believed to originate at the time when men and women started to farm and raise animals.  Essentially a division of labor was developed where women maintained a home and men would do the farming activity.  Evolution does not move to support a societal role unless that society is killing or sterilizing the reproductive abilities of anyone not filling that niche. 

As I pointed out there is a great deal of rationalizing that goes into supporting a stereotype.  People are always saying they have read the latest peer reviewed article in regard to their beliefs or have empirical evidence.  Am I to simply fold my beliefs every time someone says they read Scientific American or some other magazine?

Your quote pretty much sums up your stereotype.

[Renegade Vile]

Because it is an excellent piece of work, and easy to find in a public library (at least in English-speaking countries).

If it comes with your recommendation (and I've looked up some reviews and it's been well-reviewed even by opponents of the views as they claim it makes some valid points) I'll try and look for it. Ghent and Leuven, for example, have extensive libraries with English books in their university. I've actually gone in them still years after finishing uni by flashing my old student card and making sure I shave *snorts*.

The idea of beauty and the ideal body is of great interest to women and men.  Women are not shown to be beautiful by having layers of powerful muscles.

This I will immediately contest as you will find a lot of men (a lot of women too for that matter) like women with a powerful body. Just look at female wrestlers that are popular (not those shoves in our faces, those that are actually popular). You're going to be finding a lot less of that hourglass figure, and a lot more actual strength and athleticism. Also look at female superheroes in comic books. You do not get much more ripped than the likes of Wonder Woman, Rogue, Storm, etc.

Social stigma and pressure push most women toward leaner exercises such as cardiovascular exercises and toward low weight, high repetition exercises.  Women rarely participate in strength training as men do at the gym.  A lack of participation brought about by societal expectations propagates the stereotype, reinforcing the assumption.

Societal expectations? From whom? If I look at who perpetuate these things, more often than not, it's other women. With diet plan A or exercise plan B that just incorporates vegetables or jogging. Every time I see private trainers, male or female, coaching women in gyms (and because I've been moving around a lot, I've seen a lot of gyms) they always include or try to include strength training. Because guess what makes your heartrate skyrocket and help you lose weight (and keep lost weight off)? Muscle. Advertisement certainly pushing the model-thin type of woman bu-... We're going off track, my point was that it's harder for women to build muscle. It just is. Get over it and go lift weights to tell the people that say women -cannot- be strong that they're wrong, because that is an actual false and baseless claim. Once they're shown a female boxer knocking someone out with the toughest right hook this side of the Western World, they quickly change their tune anyway. Even quicker if they were to be on the receiving end.

Societal roles as you know them today are believed to originate at the time when men and women started to farm and raise animals.  Essentially a division of labor was developed where women maintained a home and men would do the farming activity.  Evolution does not move to support a societal role unless that society is killing or sterilizing the reproductive abilities of anyone not filling that niche.

So what did people do before then? We just all did the same things? You can't look at the male and female bodies and tell me that there wasn't a division of roles even before we knew how to till a field or domesticate an animal. Go far back to our ancestors and those same differences still exist. I agree that society reinforced these roles the more complex it became, but there will have been naturally progressed differences going back to before we could even be considered human.

As I pointed out there is a great deal of rationalizing that goes into supporting a stereotype.  People are always saying they have read the latest peer reviewed article in regard to their beliefs or have empirical evidence.  Am I to simply fold my beliefs every time someone says they read Scientific American or some other magazine?

Of course not. You're supposed to read many different viewpoints and then come to your own conclusion, not dismiss everything as bias because you don't like it. I never once said you should just take everything at face value. But at some point, when building your own opinion on something, you're going to have to place your trust in -something-. Whether that be your own experiences, statistics, papers, books, debates, whatever. Unless you have access to the perfect machine that can separate raw, unadulterated fact from speculation, you have no other choice.

Your quote pretty much sums up your stereotype.

Hmkay.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Actually cardiovascular exercises such as running make your heartrate increase the fastest.  Muscle training and development increases fat loss due to the caloric intake of muscles being higher.  Basically the human body requires more to maintain the increased muscle mass, so less goes into storage and more goes into use.  Hence why body builders eat such a tremendous amount of food.  Just felt I should go ahead and address that statement.

Athletic is not the same as muscular.  Being “ripped” is not the same as having heavy muscle mass or even building muscle.  Honestly comic books are a poor medium to show female equality in regard to body image.  The women there are hour glass shaped, with lean to slender builds. 

Body image is pushed from both men and women.  Women are included in society as well.

Once more what is the practical difference with male and female bodies that creates a division of labor?  Before the domestication of animals, humans were hunters and gatherers.

[Renegade Vile]

Actually cardiovascular exercises such as running make your heartrate increase the fastest.  Muscle training and development increases fat loss due to the caloric intake of muscles being higher.  Basically the human body requires more to maintain the increased muscle mass, so less goes into storage and more goes into use.  Hence why body builders eat such a tremendous amount of food.  Just felt I should go ahead and address that statement.

Running makes the heart go fastest, but it takes much longer for it to start burning calories. There's a difference between the rush the body gets when lifting weights, and how your heart responds, and jogging or cycling. As for the caloric intake, that was what I was referring to as to why it helps keep the weight off.

Athletic is not the same as muscular.  Being “ripped” is not the same as having heavy muscle mass or even building muscle.  Honestly comic books are a poor medium to show female equality in regard to body image.  The women there are hour glass shaped, with lean to slender builds. 

I am well aware of the difference, but they often go hand-in-hand, especially in the examples I gave. And comic books were an excellent example in how muscle on a woman is not viewed with aversion. I know all too well that depictions of women overall are unrealistic, often over-sexualized and also just plain wrong, but if they were to yield to the ideal you seem to be proposing, shouldn't they all have no muscles to show?

Body image is pushed from both men and women.  Women are included in society as well.

What kind of weird statement is that last one? Did I say otherwise? I just made that claim because it seemed to me like you were creeping towards sexism with that train of thought. My mistake and apologies if that was not the case.

Once more what is the practical difference with male and female bodies that creates a division of labor?  Before the domestication of animals, humans were hunters and gatherers.

Turn back time to a time when life was countless times tougher than it is today. Need not even go so far as hunter/gatherers, but that is the easiest. If you had one gender that could get ready for tasks of strength quicker than the other, do you think they had the luxury to just take their time and make sure everyone was on that level playing field before assigning roles?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I have yet to see evidence that women would be discounted for their strength and physical ability in this division of labor.  So I am not sure again what physical difference you are making reference to in this ancient drawing of straws for whom does what in society.

As for comics, once more athletic does not mean muscular.  Compare a runner’s body to a power lifter if you would.

[Renegade Vile]

I have yet to see evidence that women would be discounted for their strength and physical ability in this division of labor.  So I am not sure again what physical difference you are making reference to in this ancient drawing of straws for whom does what in society.

Evidence I do not have on hand, no. I would have to walk into my handy time machine, but it's plugged in and charging at this moment. However, I can bring up a lot more reasons for why a division of roles would have come about naturally from the way our bodies work (not the least of which pregnancy or the shorter life span of males, for example). But I get the feeling you'll just call me biased, so perhaps this is where the conversation dies down and we leave it at that?

As for comics, once more athletic does not mean muscular.  Compare a runner’s body to a power lifter if you would.

I've been saying -both-, combined (they can combine, actually...) and otherwise, are not as reviled as you seem to think. Underrepresented, definitely.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

A lack of evidence means you are making conjecture to support your view point.  This means that I could just as easily do the same and the discussion is simply moot.

[Renegade Vile]

A lack of evidence means you are making conjecture to support your view point.  This means that I could just as easily do the same and the discussion is simply moot.

Never said I had hard evidence about cavemen times, only what I've read in a variety of sources written by experts on the subject matter *shrugs*. But that does not mean I'm making conjecture to support my view point. What I say isn't baseless, there's just no certainty. My view point has come from research in these documents and is built onto that, just like I am certain your view point comes from research you have done into these things. There is a middle ground between completely baseless claims and hard evidence. Unless we're discussing what oxygen is, or at what temperature water boils under normal circumstances, theories, research and guesses are all we have, and these are the ones I've always found to be the most plausible. Doesn't mean I held that view -before- I encountered them. If that were the case for everyone, we wouldn't be able to trust anything anyone says ever, which isn't exactly going to get us anywhere either.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You are lacking evidence to support your claims.  This may be window dressed how you like but simply put there is no evidence that you are presenting to support your claims for this division of labor and it's  basis in physiology.  I understand the need to save face, but that is how this argument is drawing to a close. 

[Renegade Vile]

You are lacking evidence to support your claims.  This may be window dressed how you like but simply put there is no evidence that you are presenting to support your claims for this division of labor and it's  basis in physiology.  I understand the need to save face, but that is how this argument is drawing to a close.

Not about saving face *shrugs*. But alright.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Too long; watched 3/4 of it.

Skipping the male vs female derailment.
 
At this point, the argument seems to be that colleges are failing to properly educate some of their students with regard to social justice? Is it the college's fault though, or is it the fault of the student?

Some of the examples given appear to be misdirected anger with this whole SJ thing being nothing more than a platform to shout from. When you look at larger examples of this like the Occupy Wall Street movement, you see anger about inequality directed at some abstract group called "the one percent"  and claims that the one percent should not have whatever wealth they possess - presumably because if you have more stuff than me, then we are no longer equal, and that is not fair. Somehow the solution is always to dispossess someone else of their resources rather than to make an equivalent personal sacrifice.

Inequality is not equivalent to injustice.  It is fair and reasonable that some people have more than others. That's just what happens when money moves from person to person. Those who profit end up with more regardless of the color of their skin or the shape of their fiddly bits.

[Renegade Vile]

Somehow the solution is always to dispossess someone else of their resources rather than to make an equivalent personal sacrifice.

There is a reason why a lot of SJWs are often called whiny, severely entitled people who want to blame others for their own bad mistakes or, even stranger, the privileges they enjoy. Like they feel an odd sense of guilt over having more than others, even when this wasn't acquired in any nefarious manner.

Regardless, I agree with what you said, though the argument is more that the idea of social justice (at universities) has become warped by an ideology. Social justice should be dealing in facts or supported theories like every other course, whereas many of these dabble in propaganda and misinformation, on purpose. Whether that's something to be concerned about or not, I'm on the fence about. I get the feeling that a lot of these screaming SJWs reach a certain age where they either decide to grow up, or continue to be mired in that sub-culture. In the latter's case, I believe they aim to become university professors of Social Justice *snorts*.

[TheGlyphstone]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

[Renegade Vile]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

Easy, the latter doesn't scream and shout from the top of their lungs, hugs and cries together when they hit opposition, tolerates discussion and debate, does not make blanket statements about people, aren't blatantly racists/sexist/whatever themselves, etc. SJWs are essentially everything they fight, but just turned against whatever ethnicity or sexuality is perceived as being 'the oppressor' in a given location. There are exceptions to this, where SJWs do not behave like this, but actually still are of that kind, but these are the general patterns of behavior. Especially the intolerance for any kind of discussion or debate which results in them shutting it down with as many buzzwords as they can conceive of, is a big trademark. Just think of anything you'd imagine a right-wing, religious fundamentalist fanatic saying or doing, but give it a left-leaning, progressive spin, and you've got SJWs. People genuinely fighting for social justice, at least the ones I've read about in articles or watched online, are generally calm, rational people who take challenges on headfirst, be they online or in real life.
Note that I did describe the people who fly the SJW flag high. You've got admittedly harder to distinguish people who follow the same ideology, but aren't really into the whole activism part of it.

[Scribbles]

How does one distinguish between a 'whiny SJW' and someone genuinely trying to diminish sexism/racism/homophobia/whatever, though?

Personally, I hate the term SJW, it's become synonymous with "oppressive" in my mind. If someone stands up for the rights of others, without resorting to hypocrisy or drowning out dissenting voices, then I feel they're more a liberal than an SJW. Just my own personal opinion, though.

[Renegade Vile]

Personally, I hate the term SJW, it's become synonymous with "oppressive" in my mind. If someone stands up for the rights of others, without resorting to hypocrisy or drowning out dissenting voices, then I feel they're more a liberal than an SJW. Just my own personal opinion, though.

I agree. A lot of other people are now using the term SJW in the same way to shut down any conversation. But that's how it always is, extremists ruining it for moderate people with actual points to make on the same material. I've seen it happen quite a few times already, where a liberal-minded person raises valid points of concern from situations where things like racism and sexism may very well be the root cause, only to be called an SJW and chased away by a hate mob. For absolutely no reason.

[TheGlyphstone]

Personally, I hate the term SJW, it's become synonymous with "oppressive" in my mind. If someone stands up for the rights of others, without resorting to hypocrisy or drowning out dissenting voices, then I feel they're more a liberal than an SJW. Just my own personal opinion, though.

I always saw it as a perjorative from the start, and I think it was intended that way. A means for certain conservative groups to demean/reduce people opposed to their agendas, only to end up creating the demons they were supposedly fighting against by providing a banner for the fringe crazies RV mentions to come out of the woodwork and rally around. Now SJW gets used both as a perjorative and a supposedly 'positive' term in different circles, muddying the waters into uselessness.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Never imagined the term was meant to be a positive one.

[Renegade Vile]

Never imagined the term was meant to be a positive one.

I don't actually know who used it first, them or their critics. In either case, SJWs call themselves Social Justice Warriors in a positive sense, which is what I believe The Glyphstone is getting at.

[Doomsday]

There is a reason why a lot of SJWs are often called whiny, severely entitled people who want to blame others for their own bad mistakes or, even stranger, the privileges they enjoy. Like they feel an odd sense of guilt over having more than others, even when this wasn't acquired in any nefarious manner.

Regardless, I agree with what you said, though the argument is more that the idea of social justice (at universities) has become warped by an ideology. Social justice should be dealing in facts or supported theories like every other course, whereas many of these dabble in propaganda and misinformation, on purpose. Whether that's something to be concerned about or not, I'm on the fence about. I get the feeling that a lot of these screaming SJWs reach a certain age where they either decide to grow up, or continue to be mired in that sub-culture. In the latter's case, I believe they aim to become university professors of Social Justice *snorts*.

What stances do these imagined SJW's take that the 'real activists' do not?

[Renegade Vile]

What stances do these imagined SJW's take that the 'real activists' do not?

Imagined?

[Lustful Bride]

What stances do these imagined SJW's take that the 'real activists' do not?

Problem is people treat all SJWs as if they are one big organized group, when in reality it is the opposite. They are a lot like Anonymous. Where it is a ton of people with different mentalities, ideals and goals just going under the same monicker.

Also I have one for you of these 'imagined' SJWs.  On Tumblr there was an artist who drew a normally more...heavy character as a thinner woman.

They all proceeded to throw insults and harassment at her for 'Fatshaming' and her support of 'Thin Privilege' until the poor girl nearly killed herself in real life from the nonstop bullying and attacks.

Say what you want but there are people out there, (call them SJWs, call them Extremists I don't really care) who pretend to be all abut the equality and such of others but only use it as a cover or really think they are helping theirh cause by acting like psycopaths and pushing people away, when n reality they just hurt their own cause more.

But you cant act like they don't exist. Just like there are bat shit insane people on the right side, there are also equally batshit insane people on the left.

[Renegade Vile]

Problem is people treat all SJWs as if they are one big organized group, when in reality it is the opposite. They are a lot like Anonymous. Where it is a ton of people with different mentalities, ideals and goals just going under the same monicker.

Definitely true, though there are several tenets the larger groups and concentrations follow; things like white privilege or, as you'll mention later, fatshaming (or any -shaming, reall). But you are absolutely correct in defining them not as one group with one idea, but just a disjoint mess of frustrated people that will infight at the drop of a hat.

Also I have one for you of these 'imagined' SJWs.  On Tumblr there was an artist who drew a normally more...heavy character as a thinner woman.

They all proceeded to throw insults and harassment at her for 'Fatshaming' and her support of 'Thin Privilege' until the poor girl nearly killed herself in real life from the nonstop bullying and attacks.

I heard about that; horrible.

Say what you want but there are people out there, (call them SJWs, call them Extremists I don't really care) who pretend to be all abut the equality and such of others but only use it as a cover or really think they are helping theirh cause by acting like psycopaths and pushing people away, when n reality they just hurt their own cause more.

And there are also a number of them that just seem to want to blame the world for all of their own ills, because that seems the easier way to go about it to them. I am entirely certain some of these should be seeing a counselor about their frustrations.

But you cant act like they don't exist. Just like there are bat shit insane people on the right side, there are also equally batshit insane people on the left.

I don't think that's what he was getting at with that question, though I can't speak for someone else.
As for batshit insane people, they run the whole gamut, that's for sure.

[Lilias]

I don't actually know who used it first, them or their critics.

Google is your friend.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I think Doomsday was trying to ask where is the line between SJW and the real activists as you see them.  Almost everyone would attempt to put their opponents in the camp of whining and arguing without factual basis. 

[Renegade Vile]

I think Doomsday was trying to ask where is the line between SJW and the real activists as you see them.  Almost everyone would attempt to put their opponents in the camp of whining and arguing without factual basis.

Very true, hence why I mentioned that the moniker has been used to shut down arguments almost as often as SJWs use theirs for the same reason.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So how do you distinguish between a SJW and someone trying to accomplish social change?

[Renegade Vile]

So how do you distinguish between a SJW and someone trying to accomplish social change?

I already said so in an earlier response? I very clearly said so.

EDIT: Well, I said how to recognize the obvious SJWs; people are people, it isn't so easy to label them.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You spoke about whiny and self-entitlement.  Is that what you are referring to?

[Renegade Vile]

You spoke about whiny and self-entitlement.  Is that what you are referring to?

Among other things, yes.

[Doomsday]

I already said so in an earlier response? I very clearly said so.

EDIT: Well, I said how to recognize the obvious SJWs; people are people, it isn't so easy to label them.

Could you possibly reiterate? Was it where you mentioned white supremacy and fat-shaming? I just wanna be sure, I have ADD and I have a difficult time reading through this whole thread in case it was mentioned on previous pages.

[Renegade Vile]

Easy, the latter doesn't scream and shout from the top of their lungs, hugs and cries together when they hit opposition, tolerates discussion and debate, does not make blanket statements about people, aren't blatantly racists/sexist/whatever themselves, etc. SJWs are essentially everything they fight, but just turned against whatever ethnicity or sexuality is perceived as being 'the oppressor' in a given location. There are exceptions to this, where SJWs do not behave like this, but actually still are of that kind, but these are the general patterns of behavior. Especially the intolerance for any kind of discussion or debate which results in them shutting it down with as many buzzwords as they can conceive of, is a big trademark. Just think of anything you'd imagine a right-wing, religious fundamentalist fanatic saying or doing, but give it a left-leaning, progressive spin, and you've got SJWs. People genuinely fighting for social justice, at least the ones I've read about in articles or watched online, are generally calm, rational people who take challenges on headfirst, be they online or in real life.
Note that I did describe the people who fly the SJW flag high. You've got admittedly harder to distinguish people who follow the same ideology, but aren't really into the whole activism part of it.

This is a quote of it, it's at the end of the previous page.

[Doomsday]

Thanks for quoting that forward. I don't think I'm going to engage any further as all of these criteria seem extremely vague and subjective. So let's agree to disagree before we waste dissertations on each other.

[Renegade Vile]

Thanks for quoting that forward. I don't think I'm going to engage any further as all of these criteria seem extremely vague and subjective. So let's agree to disagree before we waste dissertations on each other.

Of course they're subjective, they're an opinion? Have you ever watched a self-professed SJW video or read an article by one? I'm not describing people that are declared SJW by others, I'm describing people who label themselves SJW. As for vague. I could write in more detail, but wouldn't it be better to check out these things as well as the contents of several university courses to see what it's like? Besides, I don't really know what is vague about them being whiny, self-entitled, prone to harassment and also extremely sensitive to criticism to the point of trying to live in an echo chamber. Rather clear-cut and direct accusations I think, no?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You just described half the internet if not the majority.

[Renegade Vile]

You just described half the internet if not the majority.

*sighs* Apply those adjectives to Social Justice agenda please; do I really have to spell these things out in meticulous detail?
Whiny about institutionalized racism, self-entitled about things being owed to them based on race, gender, sexuality and nothing else, prone to harassment because of having their views challenged, etc.
Of course these traits can be applied to other people, just like any other list of traits associated with a given group of people can be expanded to include a lot of other ones. These are some ways you can tell them apart. For starters, I was asked to compare social justice activists with social justice warrior activists, so there's already a question on which of the two they are, which excludes "the majority" of the Internet. I gave some of the key differences between the two, and the fact that some of these differences can be applied to general, petulant children online says something about your average, hardcore SJW. I wasn't aware I was supposed to make a laundry list of every single trait ever associated with one.
Dear lord.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

You can lose the attitude.

[Renegade Vile]

Well then contribute by expanding what I said, challenging it or something.
But I do apologize if that was condescending, but it really isn't that hard to tell the two apart, one can tolerate a conversation, the other cannot.

[Scribbles]

Please take whatever I say with a pinch of salt but words such as "whiny" or "self-entitled" are far more emotive than insightful. When it comes to ideals there are people of all kinds, on both sides, from the highly intelligent and charismatic, to the... less so (like me! ^^). Also, it's difficult to label an SJW as self-entitled when you consider that most, depending on their cause, are fighting for others.

Doomsday, you can't blame Renegade Vile for not defining his point clearly when you've been just as vague, going so far as to establish that he is imagining it all from the get go without explaining why. I'm not certain if this will help since I'm iffy on the term myself but, as far as I can tell, SJW's meaning (at least within the context of this thread) refers to those who are overly aggressive in the pursuit of seemingly liberal ideals, to the point of being malicious or even hypocritical. Lustful Bride gave a nice example.

[Renegade Vile]

Please take whatever I say with a pinch of salt but words such as "whiny" or "self-entitled" are far more emotive than insightful. When it comes to ideals there are people of all kinds, on both sides, from the highly intelligent and charismatic, to the... less so (like me! ^^). Also, it's difficult to label an SJW as self-entitled when you consider that most, depending on their cause, are fighting for others.

They are self-entitled because their reasons for fighting for the cause of others are generally selfish in nature, which is why they do not tolerate discussion because their ideology tends to unravel under pressure. That's the other key difference: ideology. Social justice activists do not have an ideology. They do not see the world through the social justice lens and other buzzwords like that. They just see a problem of inequality, and they tackle it directly; usually through discussion and legal pursuits. SJWs tend to gang up on people, get them in trouble with employers, harass them, etc. Of course they're not the only group that does it, but it's still a defining trait and tactic of theirs.
Whiny is more emotive than insightful, true, but it's still a trait and it can be seen among their spokespersons quite often.

Doomsday, you can't blame Renegade Vile for not defining his point clearly when you've been just as vague, going so far as to establish that he is imagining it all from the get go without explaining why. I'm not certain if this will help since I'm iffy on the term myself but, as far as I can tell, SJW's meaning (at least within the context of this thread) refers to those who are overly aggressive in the pursuit of seemingly liberal ideals, to the point of being malicious or even hypocritical. Lustful Bride gave a nice example.

I'd say that's a fair start to defining what the average SJW is, as well as a means of separating the two.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Can you give an example a SJW?

Would you consider Anita Sarskeezian or Laci Green as examples?

[Renegade Vile]

Can you give an example a SJW?

Would you consider Anita Sarskeezian or Laci Green as examples?

Anita Sarkeezian... Not really? She's often called an SJW, but she's more a third-wave feminist who also prescribes to SJW rhetoric. But usually when I hear her speak or read things she's written she's primarily talking about feminism and women.
Laci Green most definitely is, even if she never comes out with it. But she's neck-deep in the insanity. Another example would be Franchesca Ramsey who also makes videos for MTV on YouTube, among other media.
For a former faculty member that is most certainly an SJW: Melissa Click.
These are the "famous" examples though, names that a lot of people have at least heard in passing.

[White Wolf]

You've spent just as much time on this thread, I think, defending even the definition of "SJWs" as you have pursuing the original intent of discussing whatever problems they may be causing. I think that establishes something.

The term "Social Justice Warrior" seems to seek to diagnose, or categorise, something that is, in fact, far simpler than a shadowy cabal of tumblr-using liberals out to silence all free speech. There are extremists in every movement and in every conceivable ideology on Earth. On the internet that gets magnified as people lose their inhibitions over a keyboard and can dip their toes into cruder rhetoric or behaviour they usually wouldn't engage in in real-life. This applies to everyone, of every possible political standpoint - you agreed that it was horrible that SJWs almost drove a girl who drew a picture to kill herself. That's hardly a trait unique to SJWs. That happens every single day on the internet, with no single group as the perpetrator.

The problem here is you're singling out ONE group of ridiculous extremists based solely on their political views - hence, "Social Justice Warrior." As somebody else earlier in this thread pointed out, the term SJW was never intended to be used as you now use it, as if, far from being pejorative, it is actually the clinical definition of a political movement. It's not - it was very much intended to be pejorative. That's not to suggest these people who you refer to as SJWs - a friend of mine calls them "Tumblr people" - aren't extreme and ridiculous and that they don't do damage. Of course they do. No different to any other extreme movement on the internet. The problem is that in singling out and acting as if this one section of a far larger internet population, "SJWs," are actually a cohesive unit, it looks to everyone else - both people on this thread, and people elsewhere - that you're specifically targetting liberals. If not, they may ask, why not rage against conservative voices who use the exact same destructive rhetoric and tactics? There are plenty out there.

And whether or not that's the case, it begs a few questions. If it IS the case that you're solely holding liberals to account for this kind of extremist behaviour, then, clearly it's just bias and it undermines your opinion. Everyone uses these sorts of tactics on the internet; extremists, as a whole, are the ones to denigrate. Of course, going off your previous posts I know that's not the case, you're holding SJWs to account solely because of this behaviour and not their beliefs. But, again, since every political movement or ideology uses those same tactics the question then is - why? Why SJWs? You're misusing a term that, going off previous posts, you haven't realised was always intended to be used as a pejorative, not a clinical label. Whatever source you first heard it from and rely on for information regarding SJWs, if I was you I would think critically about it and try to establish if it's really worth your time.

Incidentally I saw you shared a video of Sargon of Akkad's at the onset of this thread. That's...maybe worth thinking about. He's hardly a font of wisdom on any subject worth holding a conversation on.

And that incidentally brings up the bottom line quite nicely: GamerGate, mostly the onset of all this SJW labelling nonsense for most people, is replete with examples of the OTHER side of the aisle (i.e. those who use the term "SJW") using EXACTLY the tactics you denigrate SJWs for. Voices like Sargon's, while not admittedly part of that extreme fringe, nonetheless spun-off from that movement and hold their values as their own. Which is to say, whatever sources you've chosen as your inroads to internet culture, be they solely Sargon or others besides, have led you into specifically targetting ONE group for the misdeeds of the entire internet.

One way or the other, that's the problem people are picking at the corners of throughout this thread. If you're simply a conservative who disagrees with the basic values SJWs believe in, that's one thing - but since you've actually made a point of differentiating between their beliefs and their tactics, it may be worth reconsidering how you're going about protesting this. The internet is a huge place, and SJWs are a tiny - if loud - part of it.

[Renegade Vile]

You've spent just as much time on this thread, I think, defending even the definition of "SJWs" as you have pursuing the original intent of discussing whatever problems they may be causing. I think that establishes something.

Not really defending, as far as I remember, no-one claimed the definition was wrong, some people just asked what the definition could be.

The term "Social Justice Warrior" seems to seek to diagnose, or categorise, something that is, in fact, far simpler than a shadowy cabal of tumblr-using liberals out to silence all free speech. There are extremists in every movement and in every conceivable ideology on Earth. On the internet that gets magnified as people lose their inhibitions over a keyboard and can dip their toes into cruder rhetoric or behaviour they usually wouldn't engage in in real-life. This applies to everyone, of every possible political standpoint - you agreed that it was horrible that SJWs almost drove a girl who drew a picture to kill herself. That's hardly a trait unique to SJWs. That happens every single day on the internet, with no single group as the perpetrator.

Did I say it was something only SJWs do? They should still be held as accountable for it as everyone else. As for there being extremists everywhere and internet giving the possibility of being horrible to other people with far fewer repercussions than you would get in real life: yes, this is true and I don't think anyone in this thread claimed otherwise. Not quite sure what it has to do with anything since SJWs have shown themselves to be rather vitriolic off the internet as well (and yes, they are not the only people who are like that off the internet, but again, this discussion is about SJWs, not every horrible person on the planet...).

The problem here is you're singling out ONE group of ridiculous extremists based solely on their political views - hence, "Social Justice Warrior." As somebody else earlier in this thread pointed out, the term SJW was never intended to be used as you now use it, as if, far from being pejorative, it is actually the clinical definition of a political movement. It's not - it was very much intended to be pejorative. That's not to suggest these people who you refer to as SJWs - a friend of mine calls them "Tumblr people" - aren't extreme and ridiculous and that they don't do damage. Of course they do. No different to any other extreme movement on the internet. The problem is that in singling out and acting as if this one section of a far larger internet population, "SJWs," are actually a cohesive unit, it looks to everyone else - both people on this thread, and people elsewhere - that you're specifically targetting liberals. If not, they may ask, why not rage against conservative voices who use the exact same destructive rhetoric and tactics? There are plenty out there.

Well, a few things. First and foremost, I'm singling them out because they are the topic of these courses and this discussion so... I don't see what the problem is.
Second, not all SJWs form a single cohesive unit, but there are groupings of SJWs that clump together, and even then, their ideologies tend to be overall similar enough to be able to be defined as SJW.
Thirdly, I don't think anyone here thinks I am targeting liberals... especially since I myself am far more liberal than I am conservative.
Fourth, I have not raged in this thread once, and have stated multiple times that hate speech is used by others too, again, it has no bearing on the subject specifically pertaining to this group of hate spewing people. If I feel like making a thread about neo-nazis, bible bashers, black supremacists, white supremacists, etc, I will do so. But I came across the subject of these courses, which are labeled as social justice, so I thought I'd bring them up in particular. I have no idea why you think I believe they are the source and root of all evil, or am portraying them as such, based on this discussion.

And whether or not that's the case, it begs a few questions. If it IS the case that you're solely holding liberals to account for this kind of extremist behaviour, then, clearly it's just bias and it undermines your opinion. Everyone uses these sorts of tactics on the internet; extremists, as a whole, are the ones to denigrate. Of course, going off your previous posts I know that's not the case, you're holding SJWs to account solely because of this behaviour and not their beliefs. But, again, since every political movement or ideology uses those same tactics the question then is - why? Why SJWs? You're misusing a term that, going off previous posts, you haven't realised was always intended to be used as a pejorative, not a clinical label. Whatever source you first heard it from and rely on for information regarding SJWs, if I was you I would think critically about it and try to establish if it's really worth your time.

I can ignore this entire paragraph because, as I said before, I've not said a single thing against liberals so...
Though, as for it being usd a pejorative: they've adopted its use -themselves- meaning they now use it to define themselves as. People with this particular ideology or set of ideologies need a name or some definition, however lucid, or any discussion involving them would need to repeat the same paragraph of common, main traits just so everyone knows who in the world you're talking about. I even said in a post that it was originally a pejorative, but was adopted by them.
As for my sources, you're making some pretty big assumptions on where I get what I know and seem to think I get it from one source and one source only like some braindead mouthpiece.

Incidentally I saw you shared a video of Sargon of Akkad's at the onset of this thread. That's...maybe worth thinking about. He's hardly a font of wisdom on any subject worth holding a conversation on.

Do tell me why he's such a moron then? I disagree with his standpoint on a lot of matters, but almost never have I thought to myself that he's worthy of that description.

And that incidentally brings up the bottom line quite nicely: GamerGate, mostly the onset of all this SJW labelling nonsense for most people, is replete with examples of the OTHER side of the aisle (i.e. those who use the term "SJW") using EXACTLY the tactics you denigrate SJWs for. Voices like Sargon's, while not admittedly part of that extreme fringe, nonetheless spun-off from that movement and hold their values as their own. Which is to say, whatever sources you've chosen as your inroads to internet culture, be they solely Sargon or others besides, have led you into specifically targetting ONE group for the misdeeds of the entire internet.

I don't even know where to start here.
First and foremost, for the hundredth time, I have never stated that one group is responsible for the misdeeds of the entire Internet. Nowhere have I said that and nowhere will I ever say that. I've not even claimed they are responsible for the majority and I've never even stated that they may be a very large group of people- vocal at they are. GamerGate indeed has rotten elements as well, and I have and never will claim they do not. I've seen some of the horrible junk they spew over social media and how they harass people. But this thread is about SJWs, not GamerGate, so again, you want a discussion about ALL the ills of the internet, which is beyond the scope of this thread. I continue to be baffled by the fact that you somewhere read in this thread that anyone here believes SJWs are the root of all "misdeeds of the entire internet". Myself and no-one else said so.

One way or the other, that's the problem people are picking at the corners of throughout this thread. If you're simply a conservative who disagrees with the basic values SJWs believe in, that's one thing - but since you've actually made a point of differentiating between their beliefs and their tactics, it may be worth reconsidering how you're going about protesting this. The internet is a huge place, and SJWs are a tiny - if loud - part of it.

And because they are tiny they are not worth looking at on their own?
Regardless, stop assuming things about me and everyone in this thread, if you would. You may have seen others talk about SJWs as if they're the Anti-Christ come to claim us all, but I reiterate for a final time that no-one here has made any such claims. No matter how small they are, they are worth talking about. No matter how hard to define or label they and their ideologies are, they are worth discussing. Finally, the very intent of this post was to ask whether anyone else believed that these courses were influential enough to have a negative impact. By your logic, this discussion is not allowed to be had. Instead, I should be asking whether ALL courses ever made are influential enough to have a negative impact. After all, not a single piece of information exists that hasn't somehow been used to harm someone.  By that same logic, no-one can discuss fascists either, since fascists aren't the only people who have done horrible things to others, we can only discuss them if we talk about every other, possible, negative group in current or past existence. I think that would mean these posts are going to get significantly longer...

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I feel so awkward when a SJW claims to be fighting for my rights (as if there isn't large variation in a group). I also feel like burying my head in the sand whenever I see another black lives matter disaster. It makes me feel immense embarrassment. I'm very happy to have graduated well before much of this insanity started. Lately, it just seems to be getting worse and worse. Protesting and making a point is one thing - terrorism/violence is another. I think things should calm down in a decade or so. SJWs are getting exposed for being unintelligent and loud-mouthed. Many of them do mean well, but there are others who are just living in delusion. Social justice is a good thing, but there is no reason to create and exacerbate problems where there are none.