Wasn't that conflation written in to the core principles?

This explanation is far to simple. Greece and also Italy(not sure about Spain) have a huge issue with their government. Greece employed far too many clerks and paid them very well. They paid them much more than they could afford and then you have a widespread mentality of tax evasion. Italy also has huge issues with their government and also corruption which makes it difficult to be successful.
Its also not the debt to Germany its a debt to different banks. If everything would have run its course the claims and liabilities should have been written off. Instead the EU decided to sent money there so that Greece could pay off banks which should have paid for the risk they took.
The fun(worse) part is that Germany saved so much money because the interest on German government loans went down and lots of people still used their money on them because they were pretty safe. In the end Germany saved more money during the crisis then it would have to pay if Greece cant pay their debt anymore.

Doesn't really clear it up does it? Unless you mean to say that the term is highly specific and barely covers anyone at all.

what is actually written? there's something about it in the section on symbols (after the anthem, before the motto!) but it seems like pretty minor stuff. a third of the full members do fine without it.

That is a stunningly silly post.

Lord JvK cringed then wiped it from his memory..

The reason it's used pejoratively is that SJWs only take such a stance because they think it paints them as a better person. The same as people on Facebook who never get tired of telling us how much charity work they are involved in, or showing off their latest status symbol.

However, the vast majority of people don't believe they should be paid more because they are white and male, and certainly don't need people sharing memes and articles to remind us what it is to just hold normal, rational views.

How could you know what people's motivations are? How could you tell the difference between that and just being really passionate about racial/sexual equality?

I have been on many marches and protests. I certainly never went because I thought I would get some kind of street cred. The direct opposite in fact: people who are passionate about politics are generally viewed with some suspicion and mistrust by others.

You have a very vivid illustration of the very low level of intelligence on the right here.

People clad in black who vandalize things are anarchists. They are a clearly identifiable group. You can tell who they are because they engage in anarchic behaviour. It is a simple thing to understand.

Anarchists tend to attach themselves to otherwise peaceful demonstrations and cause trouble. Their actions generally run counter to the protest organization for the simple reason that anarchists oppose any kind of organization, and they also cause the organizers a headache.

While anarchists are consciously anti-social, let's put this in perspective here. This was petty vandalism. The fringes of the far right this poster belongs to produce actual terrorists worse even than ISIS. There's no millenial anarchist who murdered hundreds of kids in cold blood like the far right hero Anders Breivik.

.

^ People who are sticking to that analysis are so badly out of touch. Keep doubling down.

Are you really of the belief that no-one is genuinely against social injustice and honestly considers it worth fighting against?

Surely the people you are describing are fake social justice warriors.

Forget about the labels. If anyone has ever bugged you by being too self-righteous, that's who people are talking about. If you have never been bugged by that, you are one.

It also raises why people would think it paints them as better people if they don't think social justice is important.

The definition of "virtue signalling" gets to the heart of the matter. If you still don't get it, you never will probably because it's talking about you.

No it doesn't. You are ignoring why people consider some signals virtuous and not others.

I don't care about that. It lies at the heart of why the illiberal people that I am talking about are widely disliked and mocked.

If you want to talk about values, it comes down to this:



The people we are talking about only really focus on Care / Harm and often at the expense of liberty.

They do not understand how anyone could hold the other values just as you can't explain to a child who doesn't like coffee why some people like that taste.

Incidentally, this is also the reason why leftist protest and activism is doomed to fail ultimately, while the those on the right were more successful with theirs: they hit on more of those values and more people instantly get them.

The left push too hard on one and insodoing unite everyone else against them.

When a Trump supporter or a Brexiteer thinks about a leftist, all he thinks about is this:



All he hears is that. All he sees is that.

Your arguments, your messages, your protests, don't mean a thing. All he processes is that person crying into the ether because he didn't get his own way. He sees a snowflake. And then just mocks them.

This is what you are up against, keep on doubling down and down. You will lose and lose hard.

I don't really care if you call me a troll, a secret alt right-ist, a Tory, whatever, the truth is the truth. And this is the truth.

EU people still haven't woken up to that. You guys still don't seem aware of it, or you choose to ignore it, or you double-down thinking that your screaming is going to change it.

Think again. Regroup. Come at it in a new way.

I'm not sure how that's a response to my post.

Last time I got called a SJW was for expressing the sentiment that I did ngaf what gender the lead was in TFA.

The people who throw around the term SJW are the ones being judgemental hysterical and irrational.

I think this is consistent with recent posts itt.

Lordliars post is predicated on reducing anyone who expresses an opinion of a certain type to the most extreme examples of anyone who might express a similar opinion.

Its a simple pejorative reductionist generalisation.

I wonder what else works on that principle?

Elsewhere he has been kind enough to give away the entire SJW playbook as he sees it while also being clearly guilty of employing all of the plays in it, there are only 3, which makes him a SJW. Such levels of self hate have probably got to him.

" judgemental hysterical and irrational."



The bottom line: keep being like that, and you lose the higher ground to call anyone else out for being like that.

OAFK11 has the same moral authority in my eyes as the leader of a witch hunt because he's peddled wild conspiracy theories and generally behaved like a paranoid McCarthyist at the height of the cold war.

If you make yourself look ridiculous people will mock you for it. And by the same token, they will not give a flying **** about what you think of them. I mean, I could not care less what OAFK11 thinks on any matter because of the way he has approached discourse. The feeling might be mutual, but since I am still generally on the side of the adults in any room, that's where his side always loses. And will always lose. I could be on his side if he was different -- more sane, more rational, less of a moron -- but he will see to it that I can't be. And that's how you lose and lose again. Keep doubling down.

yeah story checks out

Well keep your friend in check, tell him to be less mental. Basic.

This is just simple reverse snobbery.

Its the exact same modality as when someone accuses someone of not really likeing something and that they only like it to look cool. When often the reason for the accusation is the limited development of the tastes of the accuser and their insecurities thereby.

There are of course try hards in any sub culture, but there also plenty of genuine people who genuinely think or like X.

You cant possible know their motivations without being highly familiar about the individual under discussion. No one is a soul reader.

Its different if we are judging someone in way that that is a judgement about an explicit known statement. Like in the linked Youtube above, where the guy says leaving the EU is all about stopping the Muslims. If I call that guy an idiot xenophobe, its based on an explicit known statement, I dont have to read their soul.

Even then, if we take your statement as true, so ****ing what? For some people the whole SJW thing is a big deal when its an absolute non issue of the highest order.

There are some allegedly try hard self righteous people who do some crazy protest every month or so, wgaf, the idea that they control the narrative/discourse via the media is total bull****, as I was discussing with SK, basically no one buys or reads the one paper that could be considered SJW, and millions of people can and do walk into a newsagent everyday and read papers that are highly aggressive and anti towards might be considered the SJW agenda.