This seems legit to me. We learned from the Milo discussions that shooting down is okay, but shouting down just isn't cool. Attacks to the throat may be controversial as it's unclear whether this could constitute "silencing".

Again, for clarification, but they are willing to vote in favour of racism if they're feeling a little spiteful about university students or some inane ****?

Perfect post and easily the most intelligent one in this thread. Rather than derailing on several tangents I would like to see the pro-SWJ's address these points.

^ 100% agree with Mr. Baseball. Cotton Hill made the perfect post.

I didn't say you were "those people."

But your statement was false. Many people against SJWs--and some of the most prominent people who are against SJWs--are full blown racists. That doesn't mean that your criticisms are wrong or that you personally are a racist, but you keep arguing for the purity of the anti-SJW movement and it isn't pure at all.

You see though, this is the problem and the reason they cannot be taken seriously. It's like the boy who cried wolf and why rational thinkers simply dismiss anything they have to say. Anything they disagree with means you are a racist, homophobe etc. And they are not willing to discuss anything in a rational manner. It is either their way or you are some kind of sludge at the bottom of a basket of deplorables.

I can only speak for myself and I would never vote in favour of racism.

The vast majority of people who may have voted because they are fed up of PC culture are not anti-SJWs, alt righters or anything else. They are just normal people.

People who would roll their eyes if they were told some red-tape measure was being brought in at work to ensure that gender pronouns were now to be neutral in all correspondence.

Those people don't know what an SJW is, they don't know what alt right is, they don't read or watch Infowars, they are just people who are a bit fed up.

Trump spoke to them more than Hilary spoke to them.

They aren't thinking about racism or anything like that, they just know that when Trump talks and he's not always PC, he sounds authentic, and when Hilary does she sounds clean and PC.

The left has:

1. A messaging problem.
2. An approach to persuasion problem.

In both of these areas SJWs have hijacked the narrative and made both incredibly ineffective.

Here's one of my videos.



Here I look at the sheer wrong-headedness of this Duke university poster campaign. Why it is doomed to failure, and why ordinary people would roll their eyes at it.

Here's another one.



Here I look at a comic strip in which we are meant to sympathise with a woman who shouts at someone at a social gathering for making a joke about lesbians.

Again, doomed to utter failure.

Tell me I'm wrong and why. If I'm not wrong, then kindly stop arguing the point.

No, no. Let's not be dishonest here. You've been speaking about all those people that aren't SJWs, aren't anti-SJWs, aren't alt-right, but voted for Trump because they were mad about SJWs. Remember, the narrative is that Trump wouldn't have got elected if all those people hadn't spite voted against their conscience because of SJWs.

So those people you totally aren't speaking for, they voted for Trump to spite SJWs even though they don't know what an SJW is?

It sounds like 1st year college kids who Just Got Woke to bad things in the world. A good start and luckily their views will get more nuanced as they age.

The real question is why you people are getting so shook behind the hot takes of some 19 year olds?

I appreciate the definition.

The problem with the definition, of course, is that it is wholly dependent on what you find "racist."

You're not an SJW if the racism you are decrying is real, right? It's okay to be outraged at, say, a white person who calls a black person the N-word.

What about somebody who says black people are genetically inferior?

What about somebody who wants police officers to profile black people?

What about someone who argues that the Civil War wasn't about slavery?

What about someone who says that Trayvon Martin was addicted to lean and had liver damage from drug use?

All those things are racist, imo. But some people aren't going to agree with me and suddenly I become an SJW. And so the definition again becomes "someone I disagree with."

You have introduced concepts that are entirely missing from my analysis.

For example, I never talked about spite voting. I talked about voters being pushed away from the left by SJW regressivism.

The voter isn't being spiteful, isn't even necessarily consciously thinking about these things. He or she just has a point of view they want to express but feel they haven't been able to because of the dominance of PC policing.

For example, let's pretend that they were upset about immigration. That they have seen communities shattered because of globalist policies. That they aren't happy about seeing their childhood towns go to ruin.

BUT some leftist tells them they aren't allowed to say that because it's racist.

There's your issue right there. But the voter might not be able to articulate it because he or she hasn't been to college and maybe doesn't have the words to do it. Or whatever. This over decades supresses the feeling so that it is pushed under the surface, not dealt with, not discussed. Eventually it bubbles over into rage.

This is nothing about "spite". It's about not being allowed to speak their mind on an issue because someone somewhere is going to (wrongly) sidetrack the issue into racism or whatever else.

I'm merely pointing out why, in a world where neoliberal economics is successful at capitalism, a person with far-right free-market views might be viewed as having ulterior motives.

I mean, look, we tried it your way. When you people got to the end of Milton Friedman movie and found out (shocking twist!) that he felt ensuring the socioeconomic welfare was a moral and ethical duty of capitalism, you all balked. Reagan had him as a ****ing advisor but I guess he was absent that day Friedman said, "No, NOT **** poor people," and the rest is history.


p.s. And I'd bet All The Money that this is not the 1st time somebody tried to explain this to you.

It ebbs and flows. There are decent conversations. It's not the liberal version of r/the donald, from what I hear, where anyone critical of Trump get's banned. But it is clearly a bubble where a lot of unpopular points of view will eventually get you banned, and yes, what I described regarding personal attacks is admitted policy.

So are they being pushed or do they just, I don't know, disagree? They start off all anti-racism, anti-sexism, but then they hear some SJW and think "Oh, I should probably be a racist after all"?

Oh, so these people you aren't speaking for, you know about their subconscious thought processes? That's intriguing.

So immigration gave them bad feels, and someone told them their feels were wrong, and that hurt their feels even more, so they had to go racist and vote Trump? Aren't you the side that doesn't think feels are to be protected?

This is an unfalsifiable theory. Even if people said explicitly they weren't voting against "PC Policing" you could still claim that they are doing so unconsciously.

I can't disprove your theory, but neither can you prove it. It seems quite wrong to me.

Incorrect. No one said anything about racism. I talked about having specific issues.

I've heard them articulate things like this when interviewed. There were a lot of intereviews over the election. I have consumed 100s of hours of content and analysis.

These are conclusions I've drawn from that.

The bit where you say "had to go racist" is something you've parachuted in and has nothing to do with what I've said.

You are refusing to have the conversation without accusing these people of being racists.

That is why you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Saying "there goes the neighborhood and/or childhood town shattered by globalist policies and in ruins" is never a good look. Verbosity isn't some magic missile defense for intolerance and bigotry.

What he's doing is called empathy, maybe you've heard of it. It's not something reserved just for minority groups.

Electorally, this "Trump is the fault of SJWs" theory makes no sense. Wouldn't California be a state chock full of SJWs? Clinton bettered Obama's margin by more than a million votes. Your theory says that all the SJWs should have cost her votes.

Meanwhile, Trump made huge gains in rural Pennsylvania and rural Michigan and Iowa. Are these people running into SJWs in the cornfield?

"And remember gang, whatever you do, DON'T SAY 'N****R'"

You are sidelining their concerns into pre-made narratives with ready-made conclusions.

That means you are not hearing their concerns, you are just judging them.

This is why you still don't understand the election result.

No. It's agenda-pushing. He doesn't like SJWs, therefore everyone must not like them, therefore Trump.

The empathy is baked in though. That's the whole point of broad left policies. They're not gonna be denied because you hold some backwards racial prejudices in their mind.

13ball, you are not reading my posts carefully enough. You are making the things I'm saying more mechanistic and schematic than they are.

California is neither here nor there. It is a place with a majority globalist outlook, just like London, which also voted in the opposite way to the rest of the country on Brexit.

So, he's making an argument. Why would you like SJW's as defined by him/Cotton Hill?