+1

We're seriously citing the NAP? 2007 called and wants its ancap reductionism back.

How does this tie in to brexit? The first part holds true of course; liberal minds argued that there was no evidence of a problem, indeed quite the opposite, yet conservative minds decided to tear everything down with complete carefree abandon. Actually the same holds true for Trump. Have we decided on a role reversal in such times, where it's the liberals who needed strong evidence that there wouldn't be any problems arising from leaving the EU before committing to do so, and it was the conservatives who decided to plod on regardless, ever hopeful of a positive outcome? I feel like we're missing something here.

Liberals, not progressives/sjw-types. Although the SJW-types reject any label you use to identify them, in attempt to normalize their ideals as mainstream liberal, using obfuscation. It's why when you identify the radical elements, they immediately pivot to the moralistic argument....i.e. "medicare for all is radical" (how many times have we heard that?).

i feel like progressives saying "hey man, stop being a piece of **** human. it takes 5 seconds" have become mislabeled as SJW'ers and overly PC around here.

You mean "medicare for all isn't radical"? Otherwise what you wrote doesn't make any sense.

Brexit is so complex but re the analysis here it's the EU that has long been seen, quite correctly, as a project of massive change that is still on-going. Positions against that change have become entrenched among a largely older group of conservatives. Yes that competes against fear of leaving which is also change but such strongly entrenched positions are much tougher to shift. Especially so when it's become such a divisive issue.

Also as we get older the effective status quo becomes further in the past.

I don't know what your definition of SJW is but it seems to be too broad a definition manifested by your own narrow mind. If progressives and SJWs are one in the same, or most/many progressives are SJWs, why would Bernie get attacked for accepting endorsements from Cenk Uygur or Joe Rogan? Why would the sexist label of Bernie bro be freely used by liberals without scrutiny to describe Bernie supporters for over 4 years? Your entire existence on this forum is outrage against people who are outraged on the internet, which wouldn't be so bad if we weren't in a pandemic with a lunatic for a president, and that toxic SJW outrage comes more from liberals/faux-progressives than actual progressives.

I'm just not sure there is an agreed SJW type.

We had lengthy threads on it and I still don't know what it means. Can't say it's that important either and I can't imagine anyone seriously being bothered by being called a SJW.

P.S. No one on this forum is outraged by libertarians mostly because they're a ****ing joke.

its called reactionary. and yes obv thats what you guys want.

I believe a sub-type exist, commonly referred to SJW/radical progressives/"the woke". You all don't believe that subtype exist and your reliance on that is their own disconbobualtion, which I would say is obfuscation.




Bernie is not a progressive, he's a socialist. It just so happens he aligns on some progressive-minded ideals probably due to needing to attract their votes. My place on this forum is not to express outrage, but to comment on an ideological block that is harming society. Rogan is a liberal, and Uygur is a caricature.

He's not a socialist he's a social democrat. Probably one of the biggest blunders of his campaign was to call himself a democratic socialist.

Who do you consider progressive then, if not Bernie and his supporters?

Well I'd fit that definition and although I have been called an SJW, it's doesn't seem to quite fit.

I believe there's a small group who in addition have largely given up on politics in favour of a name calling, anti-reasonable, divisive tending towards hate type behavior. That would seem to fit better to me but is it right?

It exists, and I believe it exists, but I don't spend all my free time thinking about it, hating it, and watching yt vids about it like you do. It's good that you're finally admitting it's a subset and not a representation of the movement as a whole, it's also a much smaller subset than I assume you believe it to be. All they really do is make social media an insufferable place to spend your time, and they do turn some people off of the progressive movement but if that's your ultimate fight then go right ahead, keep fighting the Brie Larsons of the world.

I don't know. I also reject labels. I'm don't really consider myself a conservative or a republican, I could be also classified as a contrarian liberal, but that would ignore some of my thinking that would clearly be defined as conservative. Conservative and Liberal are rather broad terms, so is Progressive. SJW's, "the woke", are more specific, but still broad terms. I'm convinced you know what we mean when we say SJW's, in a non-pejorative sense, maybe not specifically, but you get the general idea.

That's crazy. If he renounced socialism his support would dry up, immediately.




Well Named, and Chez, they are some of the few true believers of the ideological bloc, and think most other are SJW's leveraging progressiveness for popularity/financial/personal reasons, whether they lie to themselves or are just in denial about reality, or more likely, they are unwitting marxist. The true believers are misguided as well, but at least there is authenticity, and you don't get the marxist-eque tactics.

You should really stop trying to guess what I do with my free time.

I'm not really sure what ideological commitments you are referring to (so I'm not sure if I agree with your characterization), but I don't think I've ever said anything similar to the second half of this, fwiw.

"you guys" lol

Typical sexist language by Vic.

You seem to be a proponent of intersectionality, which almost all progressives/SJW's/"the woke" are, but not all liberals. Not all progressives care about intersectionality, despite being a proponent of it. Most progressives don't care, and they make up the bulk of ideological bloc. Those are your SJW's. I would not classify you as a SJW, but you at the very least are bit of an apologist for them. SJW's are the activist progressives.

I think "intersectionality" is a reasonably useful analytical concept in the social sciences, and one which (somewhat entertainingly) is often applied unknowingly by the same people who have a big problem with their perception of it's role in politics. I think the utility of the concept is pretty easily separable from some of the specifics of its origin. That is, you don't have to consider yourself a critical race theorist to borrow the core idea.

Beyond that, I don't really think of myself as a "proponent" of any particular sort of political movement based around intersectionality. I'm not even sure it makes sense to think of any social movements as being framed explicitly around the concept. I guess maybe when people say intersectionality they might really mean some kind of critical theory, but that's why I point out sometimes that the two are separable.

In any case, I am sympathetic to the core goals of some (most? I dunno) civil-rights focused social movements. Some members of those movements use intersectionality as a way of talking about the issues they care about, at least some of the time. I don't mind that, but I also wouldn't say it was obviously the correct framing in all cases, politically. Mostly this is just to say that I think your mental model of my mental model is probably inaccurate because we conceptualize a lot of these buzz-words differently.

There are a couple memes floating around celebrating that countries run by women are allegedly handling the COVID crisis better, leading one to question whether women are better suited for such a task.

Even before these memes came out I was wondering something along these lines, although from a different direction. The one thing psychological studies of sex difference indicate is women have significantly higher neuroticism and in-group agreeableness than men, that appears to be (at least in part) biological in origin.

It doesn't take a giant intuitive leap to extrapolate this and conjecture this could explain why women might be more likely to take the threat of an external infectious agent more seriously, and adapt a socially cohesive approach, than men would, on average.

I'm not sure the group you're talking about were ever much interested in politics anyway. Works the same both ways.

Anyways, are they really a big enough group to be devoting any time to whatsoever? I don't know what the left equivalent is but when the right talks about "de-platforming" or whatever it is, or rage about trannies who want to use the opposite sex's toilets, or are absolutely furious about stupid pronouns... Is it really such a big problem that it's worth getting so angry about?

Like, I've heard stories of traditional labour voters suddenly voting tory because the left has apparently 'gone crazy'? As if a dude wanting to take a piss in a female toilet is cause enough to vote to defund the NHS?

Regardless of whether he calls himself a socialist, or a democratic socialist, he is a social democrat because he's not trying to abolish capitalism.

Bernie supporters follow him for his policies, not because he calls himself a democratic socialist. You're also ignoring the fact that he didn't win democratic nomination, which happened in part because he's considered "too socialist" by the layman, among other things he did wrong (he also did a lot of things well but it wasn't enough to overcome the establishment). So I really don't see how your quote contradicts what I said.

This is honestly just gibberish. You lazily string random opinions together without a modicum of logic to support your claims. What exactly defines a progressive in your eyes? Is it the overemphasis on identity politics? Is it intersectionality without balanced, sustainable solutions? I just think that's SJW behavior and I don't think you yourself can even define the thing you don't like or assign it to any particular political group/party other than you simply just don't like SJWs.

Here is the issue I have with those I consider SJWs. I have a problem with the hypocritical nature of some of their arguments, when they desire not balance or equality but to tip the scales of power in their or others favor or when they force others to not only act a certain way but to believe something that they don't want to believe. For example, calling Bernie supporters sexist while labeling them as "bros" is hypocritical. Or it's not good enough for a person to call someone by their preferred pronoun, they also have to believe that they are their preferred pronoun, or it's not ok for a person to only be pro gay marriage legally, they also have to accept it personally as well. I accept gay marriage personally but I understand if someone else doesn't accept it for religious reasons. I don't feel the need to change their opinion as long as they accept it legally. And to say you can't even have a conversation with these people or to label them homophobic on those accounts alone is toxic SJW behavior and doesn't do anything good for anyone. I would also distinguish between SJW behavior and being a hardcore SJW4lyfe. Sometimes people exhibit SJW behavior but aren't actual SJWs most of the time in their everyday lives. I guess you could call it an SJW spectrum.