I use her and the many terrible beliefs of Christianity in here mostly to make points that I think might stick with leftists, so it doesn't surprise me I'm coming off as a "religion is the root of all evil" type. But rest assured I don't think that, and much of my family are still various degrees of believers whom I love and empathize with.

I'll be glad to defend religion for some of it's good traits, like fellowship and community building, self reflection, charity, devotion to a higher cause, while mocking it mercilessly for the ridiculous fantasies, medieval morals, and dangerously irrational thinking it promotes.

Merciless mocking of someone's beliefs might cause them to resent you and start calling you names, like "sinner" or "racist." Even stupid people understand when they are being mocked. They probably don't find your mockery amusing either, so when they answer back, they are likely not really trying to be funny, but rather malicious and cruel in their response. That is, imo, the price of mockery. You have to be willing to pay it if you are going to do it.

True, and you probably won't find me mercilesly mocking the religious beliefs of someone I know to be deeply religious, or the racial beliefs of someone I know to be a minority. I tend to take a gentler approach. We're just getting into manners now. Of course, the internet presents special challenges here.

Part of the problem I think social media and forums like these present is that it's difficult to balance having conversations with one or more people whom you cannot see and read their reactions, most of our writing skills suck (not you guys), most of our reading skills suck (again, you guys are brilliant), we can't control who else drops in and gets offended, we don't necessarily know who's read what so arguments can easily get jumbled, we could be arguing with three different trolls who are the same person, anonymity leads to internet "road rage". I'm leaving things out.

Generally, I think you guys* have the right approach. You're sincere, you treat your interlocutor with respect. You are doing a lot of good, imo. Keep it up!

* assuming you're guys, and you're more than one troll

I was pointing out your idea speakers must be for something is silly, they can just as well be against something.

You're free to believe Milo and other "anti-SJWs" are for defending racism, or sadomasochism, or snake charming.

Every state school student group has the right to invite speakers, and every private school interested in academic freedom and the pursuit of truth should also extend that right to their student organizations. And yes, those invited speakers should have the right to speak in free and liberal societies.

if someone's terrible, racist, fascist ideas and behaviors can be described accurately and anyone decides to take it as an insult, why is that the responsibility of the describer?

You +1ed a little fast this time and maybe didn't realize FoldnDark was criticizing you.

Yeah, this is completely wrong. I've been involved in Democratic Party politics in NYC for almost ten years now. I know and work with actual social justice activists, not a few Twitter/Tumblr/2p2 people who complain about racist pictures or people. I often argue and disagree with these IRL social justice activists. I also have some sense for what real political power looks like. The stuff you and LordJvK obsess over (eg university speakers, online civility, European philosophers) seems to me almost completely irrelevant. It's possible that it has some longterm subterranean impact on political culture, but how that works is mysterious to everyone, including you two.

This is true of all political movements everywhere. If your political movement requires all its adherents being able to philosophically defend their ideas, then your movement will fail. Sometimes it's best to just let people speak their views, crazy or unsupported as they may seem.

I think you should type in SJW into google and youtube and look at the shear number of different webpages and youtube accounts devoted to solely criticizing, mocking, and lamenting the overbearing nature of those you believe have so little detrimental impact on the movement, as well as the popularity of these pages in subscribers and views. It may all be part of a vast right wing conspiracy, or just an army of a few alt-right trolls with way too much time on their hands, Russians? or it could be a grass roots uprising vastly larger than the number of sincere social justice sites that pop up. What does it mean? I don't know, but I don't think it bodes well.

"a lot of people are saying"

This just seems summarily ignored by people here, and I find that weird.

No, no, I realised there was a little of that. But I also know he understands that we are all human and prone to be emotional.

I suspect he's been put in similar spots on this forum.

Yeah, "a lot of people are saying," and then the orangeman won. Hmm.

I just searched for youtube videos with the term "SJW" and it looks like there are over 300 uploaded from over 100 different accounts with nearly a million views, just this week. SJW blooper videos may be rivaling cat videos soon.

Edit: within the past one week, I meant.

Sargon has something like 450,000 subscribers. I think Amazing Atheist and Thunderfoot might be on even more.

Bearing went from 0 to over 100,000 in record time. He's just someone who makes fun of SJWs. They make enough money from YouTube to give up their jobs. I mean literally professional anti-SJWs.

There has to be actual SJWs to give these guys constant material. And they never ever seem to run out.

I only really watch Sargon these days. Although I might make some more of my own soon.

I certainly have. I'm not trying to claim any of this isn't due to purely human tendencies.

Mutating perception of the concepts and agents of social justice is a full-time alt-job. Can't have supremacy while SJ still thrives.

Are you saying these YouTube people are part of a white supremacy cult? I don't get this post.

The word "white" wasn't in that post and neither was the word "cult".

Youtube people do like views and subs, but trends can die as fast as they are manufactured on such a platform.

Why were these things manufactured? What did they grow out of?

Actually lord we should talk about it here: How wrong does an academics post on the internet have to be before it can be protested?

Pathetic

Resentment. Rick Perlstein's Nixonland shines a light on this.

What is driving this resentment in the case of the anti-SJW?

Um, people manufacture YouTube videos for views and subs that translate into ad revenue.

Or to tell the terrible "truth" about sjws, whatever they really are!?

This isn't really how any of them got started.