SJWs And Those Always On The Wrong Side Of History

[JustWorthlessMe]

My friends and I had just finished watching Doctor Who 11x3 "Rosa" (yes, I know the insecure sexists are already butthurt over just that) when I was asked by my best friend's 6yo son: "Why are those people so bad?"

A simple but obvious truth finally occurred to me then. Bad people are just that...bad people.

Let's consider one of the groups these people hate: "The Social Justice Warrior"

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics.

Include a caption for your image…&am

Now it stands to reason that anyone who hates the views of SJWs logically are openly hating civil rights, equality, and would feel perfectly at home in a time where women and minorities were treated as inferior. The time they think of when they say they want to make America "great again"

As much as people like to joke how dumb racists and sexists are, they are not so dumb that they don't realize, no matter how much they spin it, that they are bad people. This is why the only "debate" they are capable of is hostility. They know they are on the losing side of history and that America is becoming a place they hate.

This is why they whine and impotently rage. About the population of the country. About interracial relationships (still a classic) About women's rights. (ditto)

When Trump was elected, these people thought their time had come. Idiots came out in force, violently attacking innocent people and proving what asses they are.

Then it happened.

To their horror, the country recoiled at the true face of the alt-right.

Their fantasy of America going back to that time of bigotry had shattered.

This is why they are so hostile and hateful here and elsewhere...all they can do is impotently rage.

[goaded]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjQTiD3tzAk

Nice take. Unless people are hurting other people, leave them alone!

[ADFSDF1996]

This is a false dichotomy and strawman. Just because someone doesn’t agree with radical liberalism or as they are most commonly called “SJWs”, doesn’t mean the person is “sexist, racist, homophobic etc”. The term SJW is mostly used to define extremist groups like “Antifa” who attack anyone that disagrees with them and arbitrarily. https://www. google. com/amp/s/www. washingtonpost. com/amphtml/news/local/wp/2018/08/13/antifa-protesters-couldnt-find-any-fascists-at-unite-the-right-and-harassed-the-press-instead/ The acronym “SJW” is used to define extremist individuals like Anita Sarkeesian, Julie Bindel and Clementine Ford who openly spout misandry.

It’s also worth noting that it’s not just the alt right who don’t like radical liberals, there’s people on all sides of the political spectrum including moderate liberals that consider them too extreme. That’s why I often say that politics aren’t black and white.

I personally am not an “alt righter” I’m independent registered as libertarian but I don’t associate myself with any other political faction and especially not the radical liberals because being part Asian myself, I can tell you that the radical liberals have failed the Asian-American communities. The strained relations between Asian-Americans and liberals explained ↗

[NerdInDenial]

You mean they don’t care about Asians because Asians don’t need anyone

[goaded]

As far as I know, Anita Sarkeesian said, basically, men, please don't make passes at women you don't know in places they don't have an escape route from.

A young woman just got murdered in New Zealand probably by a guy she just met; it's not an unreasonable fear.

[NerdInDenial]

@goaded Anita sarkeesean is an idiot.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded You’re cherry picking.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded What of all the men that are victims of crime, do their lives not matter?

[goaded]

Cherry picking? It was just the only name I recognised. I call it pointing out that you're calling someone reasonable "extremist" because you disagree with them.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded “Reasonable”?

[cipher42]

I would pretty strongly disagree that "SJW" is mostly used to describe extremists. The way it appears to me, the extremists become the excuse for calling everyone with a similar but less extreme ideology SJWs as well. It's a problem that exists on pretty much every side- picking the craziest, most radical version of the belief you oppose and presenting it as the norm for that belief, but it is something that I see happening an awful lot among "anti-SJWs", and especially anti-feminists. It is also something liberals do, though from what I see they do less of the picking extremists and presenting them as the norm and more misinterpreting conservatives arguments/the underlying logic conservatives are following. But point here is, don't try and claim anti-SJWs aren't doing this- from what I see they're one of the groups most guilty of it.

[ADFSDF1996]

@cipher42 When people use phrases like “SJW” and “radical liberals”. They are usually referring to the fringe groups, not so much the moderates. Politics aren’t black and white.

[cipher42]

Again, that's not how I've seen it used. I agree that politics isn't black and white, but the fact that you say that means to me that you understand how many people don't. Those people who don't are the exact ones who use "SJW" to describe anyone who has liberal views that oppose their own, and there's an awful lot of those people (as again, you should be able to understand since you know how many people do make black and white generalizations).

[cipher42]

It's kind of like the term "political correctness". Supposedly about instances of liberals being overbearing with their policing of terminology, but practically speaking gets applied to pretty much any instance of liberals suggesting a shift in language or more sensitive treatment of minority groups.

[ADFSDF1996]

@cipher42 Political mudslinging goes both ways, yes there are people specifically those on the far right who refer to all liberals as “SJWs” and “Radicals”. But there are also many individuals on far left that think all conservatives are “Nazis” and “racists”.

On a side note. I’ve also heard liberals calling the fringe groups “SJWs” as well. And there are many conservatives who disavowed individuals of the far right for being too extreme. www.google.com/.../...k-Little-kicked-12890730.php

[ADFSDF1996]

@cipher42 Sensitive treatment of minority groups contradicts equality and I’m saying this as someone who is a minority. The main reason is that it doesn’t benefit all minorities or everyone. it’s often used at the expense of those people that are often times deemed “privileged” such as Asians, whites, Christians, males etc.

[cipher42]

I said in my original comment that this sort of thing happens in both directions (though I still think this particular issue is more something conservatives do- liberals have other patterns of overgeneralization/misrepresenting the other side). That's not the point. The point is that SJW is not "mostly" used for extremists, and to say it is is disingenuous. People like to think in black and white, and as such broad and ill-defined terms like "SJW" and "PC" end up being used by many as meaningless insults to describe any policy regarding issues of social justice that conservatives disagree with. You seem to have basically agreed that that's the case, so can we call that specific point settled?

As for the "sensitive treatment" issue, I'd say that's another one entirely, but I'm willing to discuss it since you seem to care. First off, I don't think "equality" is worth shit in and of itself. A society with immense inequality where people are happier is to me a better one than a society with perfect equality where people are unhappy. I think the overall happiness of its citizens should be the primary end goal of any government.

That said, I disagree with your opinion anyways, sort of. I think first off it's worth making a distinction between equality as an end goal as opposed to equality as a general principle for everything. Yes, treating specific groups with more sensitivity than others is unequal. But, given that as our society currently stands, certain groups really are more "privileged" (a pretty vague term itself, but I'll just use it as an umbrella term for various kinds of advantage) we don't have equality to begin with. The only way to fix inequality is essentially with inequality that counterbalances it- treating each group differently based on their needs such that there can eventually be an equal outcome.

[cipher42]

So either way, "equality" is kind of meaningless. What I think we should be doing is striving to create a society in which no group is unfairly disadvantaged from the get go, such that all individuals are able to be maximally happy. That requires inequality in treatment. Is there some part of that that you find objectionable, or some way in which this ideology is applied practically that you see as problematic?

[ADFSDF1996]

@cipher42 I agree everyone should be treated fairly, I think the word people use to describe fair and humane treatment for everyone is “equity”.

[goaded]

Your link about the far-right candidate (a staggeringly anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi, go look at his website https://littlerevolution.us/ ) being disavowed by "many conservatives" links to an earlier article which points out he was supported by 46% of Republicans.

The equivalent candidate on the Left wouldn't be an SJW, it would be a Marxist calling for violent overthrow of the US government and confiscation of all property.

(I may have been wrong about Anita Sarkeesian, by the way, I was meaning to look her up, but I was thinking of Rebecca Watson.)

[cipher42]

Yep, it is equity, though honestly for a lot of people "equal" is used to mean "equitable", so making such a big distinction is a bit nitpicky.

[ADFSDF1996]

@goaded Not every conservative is a republican, many people who hold conservative views may associate with other political parties or are independents.

Many “SJWs” hold some level of Marxist views, specifically fringe groups like antifa who are also an anarcho-communist movement

[WalterRadio]

You have it wrong.

SJWs are the racists and bigots. Their entire existence is based on identity politics, which is "us" and "them" and their calls for diversity over merit.

In the absence of natural barriers, diversity requires racism to be maintained. Those who are not racists will intermingle their cultures and genes and the result will be that the lines between them will disappear.

The people on the right do not generally object to people of all backgrounds coming together for assimilation. What they object to is the lack of assimilation, which is the creation of racist lines.

Let's look at some real life examples. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell's wife is Taiwanese. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife is white. Donald Trumps' daughter and grandchildren are Jewish. Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott's wife is Hispanic. Republican Jeb Bush's wife is Hispanic.

On the other hand, the SJWs on the left hate when people assimilate and come together because it means they lose the ability to draw tribal lines around them for their own claiming.

[CaptainSmartass]

It's the SJWs who are the bad people. They whinge and whine at everything and shout you down. If you question transsexual privilege, they accuse you of being "transphobic". If you were transphobic, this image would render you stiff with fear:

"Ahhh, no!!! Scary van!!!"

It's OK, you can change your strides...

st. motortrend. com/uploads/sites/10/2015/09/2015-Ford-Transit-front-three-quarter-in-motion-03. jpg

Just kidding. One more for the sheer Hell of it:

Yeah, I'm a git. OK, now we've cleared "transphobia", and made them all shit their pants, SJWs also hate freedom. They don't want people doing or saying anything that offends their sensibilities.

These people are openly racist, sexist and horrible people who are the exact opposite of what the Western world stands for. They want eastern values and views forced on us.

Simples.

[ZoeAdams2]

"You disagree with me on one little thing
That means I must hate you
I must destroy you
I must kill you
Waaaahhhhh"

The above is intended as parody and satire, but at times I wonder.
I sometimes think I'm not missing anything by not going to college.

[JustWorthlessMe]

I never understood people who just want to stop other people from having rights.

[backdoorman]

The alt-right and SJWs are simply two sides of the same hateful, intolerant coin. If you really don't see yourself as being part of that hate game, you are as big a fool as any of the rest of them.

[JustWorthlessMe]

The Alt-right wants to be able to say horrible things as they're right but when the extreme SJW's do it in return, they cry like babies about how mean they are.

[backdoorman]

And anyone could say exactly the same thing with the roles reversed. Look at your take here as an example. Do you honestly not realize you are doing exactly the same thing you're accusing them of? Look in the mirror.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

add this dude to the non idiot list of this site... i think it's up to about 15

[Redstang88]

Backdoorman nailed it. The SJWs are no more tolerant than those “on the wrong side of history”

I don’t think the level of censorship and forced “equality” they’re after will be looked at very positively in the further either

[bamesjond0069]

I believe in womens rights, but women are equal to men and not helpless, therefore they should pay for their own rights. By rights im talking about abortions.

[BellumEtPacem]

SJW is as someone already pointed out is directed at individuals and certain radical groups. Disagreeing with a SJW has nothing in correlation with being against civil rights.

[Dchrls78104]

Interesting take.
Unfortunately, bigots and fools like you describe also exists in my country, e. g., racists.

[John_Doesnt]

I'm pretty sure Jesus was a Communist or gay.

[CoffeeWC]

good take

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take. .