Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The SJW thread The SJW thread

02-13-2017 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Trolls have zero to do with knowledge.



Right. It's politics.



Pro-abortion people actually stand for something. What do Milo, etc, stand for except being apologists for the racist alt right?
Lol, as if a political movement is constrained to only standing for something...I guess your cause can't be against racism then? I'm sure they're for things too if it makes you feel better. Maybe just ask them or listen to them.

I'm sorry, but conservatives have every right to speak, so all of your objections that boil down to trying to prohibit them speaking I object to on basic liberal principles.
02-13-2017 , 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I haven't noticed you arguing much against the particular views of social justice with the posters in this forum who, for example, spend their time following me around claiming I'm a racist, sexist, rapist, Holocaust-denying fascist, and who support 1-4. So I just assume it's because they are generally doing so in the name of social justice, and you share their general opinions about social justice, even if not their tactics.
There are at least two reasons I don't generally bothering posting on that topic:

1) There is only so much time in the day for 2+2 posting and I have other priorities. I post on topics that interest me, and criticizing some posters for the way they criticize other posters is not generally high on the list.

2) IMO it's ideally a question of moderation. I think posting about posters is very often bad posting, usually only leads to more bad posting, and hence should be avoided whenever possible. My opinion on this isn't really related to issues of social justice in particular.
02-13-2017 , 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Right, I wish people would spend less time with the pointless task of trying to derive other's intentions and instead simply stick the the arguments.

Much of the problem with identity politics as practiced is just that, it promotes teams instead of truth and then no meaningful knowledge can be created or passed on. Emotion-driven tribalism takes over which rarely ends well. Yes, the right is probably more guilty of this. So in our society, who does it benefit most to resort to tribalism?
I'm not sure how this is a response to my post. All I said that could be interpreted as being about tribalism is that it is difficult to reconcile OSJers criticism of SJWs methods with their employment of the same methods. This was evident when you had the discussion about shaming with Original Position, you claimed that SJW's were wrong to try and shame people for expressing particular beliefs while you were engaged in attempting to shame SJWs for expressing their beliefs.
02-13-2017 , 03:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Lol, as if a political movement is constrained to only standing for something...
Um, yes? Isn't that an obvious constraint?

Quote:
I guess your cause can't be against racism then?
Of course it can. Are you saying that their cause is being FOR racism?

Quote:
I'm sure they're for things too if it makes you feel better. Maybe just ask them or listen to them.
I've read Milo and the other anti-SJWs. My conclusion is that their cause is defending the racist alt-right.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but conservatives have every right to speak, so all of your objections that boil down to trying to prohibit them speaking I object to on basic liberal principles.
You keep confusing the right to speak with the right to be invited to speak. Everyone has the former but no one has the latter.
02-13-2017 , 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
you claimed that SJW's were wrong to try and shame people for expressing particular beliefs while you were engaged in attempting to shame SJWs for expressing their beliefs.
is great circle of life
02-13-2017 , 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I appreciate the honesty, but what confuses me is that you keep asserting this claim even so.
So smart people like you can refute it.
Quote:
My view is that the alt-right if anything hurt Trump's chances during the general election, but probably had no effect. During the primary, I don't know, we don't really understand primaries very well, especially this one, so I don't know how meaningful alt-right support was.



FWIW, I think you fundamentally misunderstand the dynamic here between the alt-right and SJWs. The alt-right refers to a group of thinkers/ideas that have been around for a couple decades at least - well before gamergate or anyone had come up with "SJW." It is a real (although still small) political movement, not just a social phenomenon. It has organizations, websites, books, political and intellectual leaders, and so on (although it is not centrally organizaed). It also has real power, with a sympathizer in Bannon being very close to the President.
This sounds like something worth looking into. I think the alt-right made a positive difference for Trump, although how significant I'm not sure.

Maybe we are understanding the alt-right differently. You are focusing on defining it by it's white nationalist base, and I'm looking at who appears make up the bulk of it: conservatives and conservative leaning independents, mostly youngish internet age, many still forming their political identities. I believe strongly they were attracted to it because they were sick of smug aholes telling them how to think, no demanding it using 1-4.

I think if you spend time watching Milo videos or any of the other alt-right, alt-light whatever characters like Gavin Mckinnes and Shapiro, and read the comments sections, this will become apparent. The most common theme is along the lines of, "I may not agree with everything they say, but **** the SJWs and their BS." It's a counter cultural movement.

When Hillary et al start giving them major press coverage and the caricature you mentioned, ie, simply calling them white supremacist deplorables, rioting and shutting down their speeches, they get more attention. This is obvioys and provable. I think we have to look at independent voters to figure out how this benefits Trump. A lot of independents look at these guys and determine they aren't exactly the "deplorables" they are portrayed as, certainly not white supremacists, again just look at the comments and thumbs up. We know independents swung for Trump too.

Quote:
I've also been thinking about your claim that SJWs caused the alt-right to become prominent and I have a different hypothesis for you to consider. Why do so many alt-right people focus on SJWs? Consider the complaint. They say that SJWs infest the progressive movement and the Democratic party. They say that SJWs claim that everyone is racist or sexist for silly reasons. Thus, they say, when Democrats or progressives claim someone is racist or sexist, you shouldn't believe them.

Why is this claim so useful for people on the alt-right? Think about the history of the conservative movement. One of the founding myths of the conservative movement is that it was able to gain mainstream credibility in part by William F. Buckley casting the extreme racist groups like the John Birch society out of the movement. Up until the last year or so, that was also true of the alt-right. However, if the alt-right can convince other conservatives that progressives shouldn't be believed about whether someone is racist, then they will no longer have much reason to keep the alt-right outcasts. If they convince other conservatives that progressives always claim all conservatives are racists, then why should ordinary conservatives continue blocking the alt-right from joining the party?

Now, this doesn't mean that some progressives aren't in fact doing exactly this. But, when you see such a strong incentive for a political movement (the alt-right) to exaggerate the size and power of an opposing political phenomena (SJWs), and the evidence for this claim is mostly anecdote rather than data and susceptible to confirmation bias - you should be suspicious of that claim.
Perhaps the crappiness of the "SJWs" is exaggerated by the leaders of the alt-right, but I doubt it. Maybe their size, sure. I've never been called worse things in my life than the crap and lies on this forum practically every day, and I'm generally sympathetic to social justice causes, cheering them on and sometimes protesting for them. I'm middle aged, but I doubt a 18-30 year old me wouldn't have been driven away. Anecdotal sure, but it makes sense and I think we're seeing it in action. You have to look though. One of you smarties should do a study and write a paper.
02-13-2017 , 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
I'm not sure how this is a response to my post. All I said that could be interpreted as being about tribalism is that it is difficult to reconcile OSJers criticism of SJWs methods with their employment of the same methods. This was evident when you had the discussion about shaming with Original Position, you claimed that SJW's were wrong to try and shame people for expressing particular beliefs while you were engaged in attempting to shame SJWs for expressing their beliefs.
I still don't think you guys understand what shaming is. I rarely do it if ever. Objecting to lies and insults, countering arguments, etc., is not shaming, even if people are embarrassed and sometimes eventually ashamed of themselves. I'm not following people around calling them horrible people and SJWs if that's what you're getting at.
02-13-2017 , 04:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I still don't think you guys understand what shaming is. I rarely do it if ever. Objecting to lies and insults, countering arguments, etc., is not shaming, even if people are embarrassed and sometimes eventually ashamed of themselves. I'm not following people around calling them horrible people and SJWs if that's what you're getting at.
You've not used language to ridicule other peoples views? If you have regardless of whether you noticed you were engaged in a form of shaming.
02-13-2017 , 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
He's read Haidt
You should put in words what it is about Haidt's view that you find compelling so I can add it to the list of things you don't understand.
02-13-2017 , 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
You've not used language to ridicule other peoples views? If you have regardless of whether you noticed you were engaged in a form of shaming.
Again, we don't agree on what shaming means and how it's used. Ridiculing can certainly be overdone, but it isn't particularly or necessarily linked to shaming. There needs to be a moral component to shaming. I can assure you, I rarely do this, and when you catch me doing it, it is almost exclusively in response to someone trying to shame me with lies and distortions.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...hame-and-guilt
Quote:
Whereas embarrassment is a response to something that threatens our projected image but is otherwise morally neutral, shame is a response to something that is morally wrong or reprehensible. Shame is normally accentuated if its object is exposed, but, unlike embarrassment, also attaches to a thought or action that remains undisclosed and undiscoverable to others. Embarrassment can be intense, but shame is a more substantial feeling in that it pertains to our moral character and not merely to our social character or image.
02-13-2017 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Again, we don't agree on what shaming means and how it's used. Ridiculing can certainly be overdone, but it isn't particularly or necessarily linked to shaming. There needs to be a moral component to shaming. I can assure you, I rarely do this, and when you catch me doing it, it is almost exclusively in response to someone trying to shame me with lies and distortions.
If you are ridiculing someones stated moral belief, that some picture is racist for instance and calling them cuckoo, then the moral component is satisfied.
02-13-2017 , 04:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
If you are ridiculing someones stated moral belief, that some picture is racist for instance and calling them cuckoo, then the moral component is satisfied.
No way, josť. I'm ridiculing their terrible thought processes, the state of mind that would lead them to imagine something to be offended about that simply isn't there, and pointing out the potential harm it does when you go around looking for offense to shame people over. We both agree racism is morally reprehensible, but we often disagree on what it is.
02-13-2017 , 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
You should put in words what it is about Haidt's view that you find compelling so I can add it to the list of things you don't understand.
This is getting old
02-13-2017 , 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
No way, josť. I'm ridiculing their terrible thought processes, the state of mind that would lead them to imagine something to be offended about that simply isn't there, and pointing out the potential harm it does when you go around looking for offense to shame people over. We both agree racism is morally reprehensible, but we often disagree on what it is.
You are ridiculing the thought processes that resulted in a moral belief so the moral component is satisfied. Consider the following two scenarios in response to a dubious advert.

Person A: That advert is not racist.
Person B: Of course that advert is racist you ****ing idiot.

Person A*: That advert is racist.
Person B*: Of course that advert is not racist you ****ing idiot.

Both scenarios entail one person stating a moral belief and the other person ridiculing/insulting them. You seem to be arguing that Person B engages in shaming where person B* does not. I think this is wrong. What am I missing.
02-13-2017 , 05:05 PM
P1) It's only shaming if the claim is unjustified.
P2) Foldn as B* is totes justified
C) Foldn ain't no shamer

QED, check your privilege, etc.
02-13-2017 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
This is getting old
Egalitarianism and by reducto Altruism.
General Strike.
Moral Relativism.
Goalpost shift.
Majority.
Personal abuse.
Fascism.
Peer review.
Machiavelli.

Can't believe I left peer review off the original list, my bad.

If you construct a decent response to Luciom Machiavelli will come off but remember I've read some and I'll be able to spot any bollocks.
02-13-2017 , 05:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
P1) It's only shaming if the claim is unjustified.
P2) Foldn as B* is totes justified
C) Foldn ain't no shamer

QED, check your privilege, etc.
Seems plausible.
02-13-2017 , 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
You are ridiculing the thought processes that resulted in a moral belief so the moral component is satisfied. Consider the following two scenarios in response to a dubious advert.

Person A: That advert is not racist.
Person B: Of course that advert is racist you ****ing idiot.

Person A*: That advert is racist.
Person B*: Of course that advert is not racist you ****ing idiot.

Both scenarios entail one person stating a moral belief and the other person ridiculing/insulting them. You seem to be arguing that Person B engages in shaming where person B* does not. I think this is wrong. What am I missing.
Disagreeing with, even mocking moral beliefs is not shaming.

I'm sorry, but telling someone they're an idiot for misinterpreting a photo, or for thinking dancing is a sin, or whatever, and thinking I should care or change my behavior in any way is not shaming. It's saying you can take your idiotic opinion and stick it up your ass. If that's embarrassing or makes you feel bad, so be it.

If I said your belief makes you a terrible person and you should apologize, that's shaming.
02-13-2017 , 06:06 PM
The distinction you are attempting to draw (as between telling someone they're an idiot and telling someone they're a terrible person and demanding an apology) seems a bit self-serving to me. Mostly in that I can imagine our hypothetical beleaguered SJW splitting the same hairs to explain why calling so-and-so a racist for saying whatever allegedly objectionable thing is not inappropriate while <insert typical hostility directed at liberals> is. Edit: it makes one suspect the real difference is whether you think the person being critical is correct to be critical, which feels like begging the question. You have to establish that they are wrong first!

Anyway, this is a dead horse. Of course there are degrees of incivility or of behavior along these lines in a disagreement. We all agree there is some line between acceptably hostile and unacceptably hostile. We don't necessarily agree where the line is (and it might vary by context!) and you seem to think that a certain sub-set of especially liberal people violate the acceptable norms more often than other sub-sets of not liberal people.

The main point dereds is raising with you is that the distinctions you make between what you and other anti-SJW folks do in discussions and what the people you criticize do are pretty fine, if you're going to focus on conversations taking place on forums. At least with something like various forms of protest, or uninviting speakers, there's a more meaningful difference you could draw out.

Last edited by well named; 02-13-2017 at 06:14 PM.
02-13-2017 , 06:12 PM
Look that is only one aspect, and I'm not claiming immediately resorting to mockery is a good thing either. One mistake you keep making is claiming I'm calling out liberals for shaming, but I think I've made it pretty clear I don't think the people we're talking about, those who practice 1-4, are particularly liberal at all. I'm making a lot of analogies to the methods of the Church, in case you've missed that, and I think we both agree they aren't too liberal either.
02-13-2017 , 06:16 PM
By liberal I'm referring to the kinds of political positions that are stereotypically "liberal" vs "conservative" in the partisan sense. One thing I'm fairly sure of re: SJWs is that they hold "liberal" views in this sense of the word.
02-13-2017 , 06:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I've got about five books open right now, but a new gf of mine (a Bernie Bro, who I'm trying to understand) gave me this book: The Shock Doctrine, which she says is critical I understand. Not really SJW, but I will read it and report back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
Update: my new gf informs me that she is neither my new gf nor a Bernie Bro. Moving along, I'll probably not be finishing this book very soon, so don't hold your breaths.
these two posts were great
02-13-2017 , 06:20 PM
turns out we're just friends w benefits. I can live with that.
02-13-2017 , 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
By liberal I'm referring to the kinds of political positions that are stereotypically "liberal" vs "conservative" in the partisan sense. One thing I'm fairly sure of re: SJWs is that they hold "liberal" views in this sense of the word.
I think you guys often get confused because you think I don't believe conservatives do this crap too. Part of my entire (informal) thesis is that the social justice crowd are being overtaken by the same illiberal thought processes as the religious conservative right. If you play that game with them you will probably lose, because not only are they much more experienced at it, the right is much more comfortable with authoritarian and tribal morality. The left is way out of it's element.
02-13-2017 , 06:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I think you guys often get confused because you think I don't believe conservatives do this crap too. Part of my entire (informal) thesis is that the social justice crowd are being overtaken by the same illiberal thought processes as the religious conservative right. If you play that game with them you will probably lose, because not only are they much more experienced at it, the right is much more comfortable with authoritarian and tribal morality. The left is way out of it's element.
I'm not confused by this. You don't talk about it much, so I don't press you on it much, but I'll make the same criticism from the right. I think your view of Christian conservatives is also conspiratorial and unduly focuses on a few "crazy" voices like your aunt.

Last edited by Original Position; 02-13-2017 at 06:38 PM. Reason: accuracy

      
m