That is not the argument being made. It's not an argument even, it's a prediction.

It's a prediction that the next facists will actually come in the guide of anti-fascists.

It's just a stupid little line anti-SJWs like to trot out to call SJWs illiberal. No point getting your knickers in a twist over it.

The thing you should be getting them twisted up about is the fact that SJWs ARE illiberal. All this other stuff is just noise.

The fearmongering and stereotyping makes it too late to bluff FYI. Too many of the "anti-SJWs" cards have turned face-up.

So these are the defining characteristics of SJW as per the opening post of this thread. However during the course of your posting across the two politics forums you have engaged in all of these activities. You have labelled people as SJW's you have labelled SJW's as illiberal, you have dismissed criticism of your posting in an attempt to shout down critics and you have requested kerowo be banned. So if these are the only moves in the SJW trick box and SJW's are illiberal based on these tactics and you have engaged in these tactics you must be illiberal?

What am I missing?

I have dismissed people who have advanced bizarre conspiracy theories about my IRL self, views and motives. I have not dismissed criticisms of my arguments. There is a vital difference between these two things.

I do not advocate that Kero should be banned for his views but for his disruptive and trolling behaviour.

I haven't shouted ANYone down, but there are literally countless examples of SJWs trying to do that to me.

You have labelled a bunch of posters SJW's then illiberals and whatever you asked kerowo to be banned for you asked for him to be banned. You have claimed that people are stupid while you are a world class scholar which is a shouting down and dismissing their arguments.

You are illiberal by your own definition.

Chez, can we please get a timeout on this guy for saying I'm lying. I merely quoted poetry.

The quote that was applied to Churchill describes a feature of the human condition.

'Some humans scheme and manipulate like fascists and nazis.'

'Some humans may be manipulated by fascists schemes to react like fascists.'

Some humans don't put up with any of that for longer than it takes to warm up chilled speech.

It's not a prediction. It's someone's opinion on now pretending to be a prediction.

Your post was marginal despite it's cuteness. I wouldn't push your luck with it and please don't bring up moderation in content threads.

Everyone move on please, this thread is not about LordJvK or Kerowo or any other poster

You can't be sure it's even a prediction. It's very possibly been created post-hoc to masquerade as one. In which case it's a questionable assertion of disingenuous phrasing and the attribution flat out false.

This speaks to how poor your label is. Steve Biko - fascistically opposing apartheid. Rosa Parks illiberally sitting her ass on a bus. Tolpuddle Martyrs insidiously using their free time to fight for better conditions. All people who could properly be termed Social Justice Warriors.

I get your pet term is one of irony, but its bloody awful because it denudes real causes and people who really do fight against social injustice. In another thread I remember you saying you'd moved on from the term and instead were moving on to "some illiberal people" because it was more accurate - apparently not.

Actually I thought about it some more and don't think the mis-attribution matters really. The quote is basically saying that fascists will probably deny being fascist. Seems reasonable enough. It's not an argument that people claiming to be antifascist must be fascist. So I think I agree with Lord?

Not really, it is making an active claim - that the group involved will specifically style itself as anti-fascist. I think that's different from saying something like "in the future all liars will deny lying." Though If I'm wrong and in truth that's all it's saying it becomes a complete banality.

SJWs do or do not generally use violence and intimidation?

When SJW is used to reference people does it mean: fascists, or anti-fascists, or fascists acting like anti-fascist, or people who went to the women's march? All of them?

We still have a language issue here that the words social, justice, and warrior have standing and meaning. At least for the sake of cognitive dissonance for readers, it's a matter some may have to clear up.

Yeah but even the active claim is fine. "in the future the bad guys will claim to be the good guys". Fine, whatever. The only problem is thinking the quote is insightful.

It's besides the discussion though and I'm probably just being a nit

It seems to be a bit like Gibbon's description of the Holy Roman Empire. Social Justice Warriors are anti-social, and are neither just nor warriors. Of course Social Justice Warriors are also people who genuinely fight and speak out against social injustice.

It's a blurring of the lines that either intentionally or accidentally impugnes the aims and motives of the latter.

Yeah, we basically agree.

This is a non-issue really, and not the first time I've seen arguments derailed for what is essentially a nit pick.

The key just comes down to whether or not you agree that SJWs are a bit like fascists in how they impose their wills on everyone else. Either you agree or you don't.

No. They aren't fascist. Why don't you hear of anti-SJW speaking out against hate speech as often as SJWs?

Because anti-SJWs don't think basically just talking is "hate speech".

SJWs have reduced the meaning of words like racism and Nazi down to being meaningless.

No, in this forum SJW call people who use racist language racists. And sometimes bigoted speech, those can run together a bit. We call people who say bigoted things bigots. And the same for misogyny.

I was almost hoping that was a meme fake quote because Lord would fall for it.

What people don't seem to realise, or don't seem to acknowledge, is that 2017 is absolutely nothing like 1963.

You're right, MLK would have had way more than 60 followers on twitter Lord.

Meaning what? That it's ok for people to use racist language because obviously there are no racial problems anymore?