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.

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.

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.

Um, yes? Isn't that an obvious constraint?

Of course it can. Are you saying that their cause is being FOR racism?

I've read Milo and the other anti-SJWs. My conclusion is that their cause is defending the racist alt-right.

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.

is great circle of life

So smart people like you can refute it.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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, josé. 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.

This is getting old

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.

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.

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.

Seems plausible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

these two posts were great

turns out we're just friends w benefits. I can live with that.

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.