Was the whole anti-SJW fad mostly fear mongering or projection on the part of the right?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

[SkipStop]

Obviously not. And it's not a fad. SJW's are very bad for the country. A rather small portion of the population attacking the majority and making the majority annoyed. All these ridiculous movements, protests, destruction of schools and colleges will all destroy the future of our country. SJW's need to be stopped to save the other 95+% of the population.
Watch "Timcast" instead. He is not biased and uses legit sources to prove what he says. Professional journalism.

[ADFSDF1996]

No offense but your linked videos don’t really prove the premise of your rhetorical false dichotomy question.

Your linked videos are Gish gallop and arguments from authority. While the content of the linked videos are strawman arguments.

[ADFSDF1996]

And by the way, I’m not part of any “neo nazi” movement.

Besides neo nazis wouldn’t accept me considering that I’m a ethnic minority.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

There isn't a "dichotomy" in the first place -_-

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

And you're just asserting it's Gish Galloping and a strawman without justifying your claims.

[ADFSDF1996]

It is a false dichotomy because you are giving only two biased conclusions in your rhetorical question. “Fear mongering” or “Projection”.

You’re Gish galloping and using an argument from authority by linking a bunch of videos that are filled unreliable biased information.

And no, David Pakman isn’t a reliable source, he’s the Alex Jones of the radical left.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. I asked if it's MORE of one or the other, not that it's not a mix of both.
2. What information is false?
3. Him not being an academic doesn't make him unreliable by default and claiming he's the Alex Jones of the left is just an Ad Hominem.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) That’s a textbook definition of a false dichotomy because you are assuming that the truth is only one or the other, with no other alternatives.

2.) The main problem with your premise is that it doesn’t seem that you actually watched the videos you’ve linked. The first video of David Pakman that you linked actually offers some criticism of Political correctness and SJWs.

3.) David Pakman’s unreliability isn’t based on his academic credentials, I actually agree with you that a source doesn’t need academic credentials to be credible. What makes David Pakman have questionable credibility is that he’s merely giving his own opinion and anecdotal evidence to support his claims much like Alex Jones. And it’s not meant to be an ad hominem, it’s just a simple comparison. Of course there’s nothing wrong with a person sharing an opinion on a subject matter but opinions and anecdotal evidence are insufficient evidence. To give credit where it’s due, David Pakman does make some valid points in his criticism of political correctness in the first video you linked but the rest is David making generalizations and jumping to conclusions without analyzing both sides of the debate.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. Asking if one of two things played a bigger role in it doesn't preclude other factors being involved.

2. I did but and he did talk about SJWs but he also talked about how the right uses political correctness.

3. OK, do you have any data to indicate if one side is worse when it comes to political correctness?

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) That’s why you need to phrase your question in a way that indicates no bias and acknowledges the possible involvement of other factors.

2.) He criticized both sides, the beginning of video was him criticizing “SJWs”

3.) There is no “academic” data like statistics that proves one side is worse than the other but considering how even liberal sources like David Pakman acknowledge that “SJW” political correctness is out of control, that’s a fairly good indicator that political correctness is more prevalent among the far left of the political spectrum.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. If I went through all the reasons I'd exhaust the character limit.

2. That was just prefacing it.

3. Him acknowledging it's out of control on the left doesn't mean the situation isn't (and hasn't been) more out of control on the right.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Not really, you could have rephrased it like this. “What causes people to be anti SJW?” Which would have been an honest unbiased question. Or if you wanted a better rhetorical question you could have asked “Is the anti SJW sentiment caused by fear mongering, projection or something else?” Which is still pretty biased but at least you acknowledge that there are possibly other causes besides fear mongering and projection.

2.) It was his way of acknowledging that the SJWs also use political correctness. He even has two videos where he focuses on SJW political correctness.

3) He’s not the only liberal source that acknowledges that the radical left uses political correctness. There are plenty other “liberal leaning” public figures who acknowledge it, among them are Christina Hoff Sommers. Not to mention that the the prevalence of political correctness is self evident, for example “antifa” is an SJW group who doesn’t respect the first amendment.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. No kidding it's a rhetorical question -_-

2/3. He also mentioned how major political figures on the right use it and when elected officials on the right use it while the examples people use to show how big of an issue political correctness is on the left is a bunch of college students it's pretty clear that it's a bigger issue on the right.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually acknowledge that your question is rhetorical and that you aren’t being sarcastic.

2.) Let’s not forget that David Pakman is a liberal so of course he’s going to try and make it seem that political correctness is prevalent on the right. That’s his biases speaking. But at least he acknowledges that the radical left/SJWs also practice political correctness. However, as I said, David isn’t the only “liberal leaning” source that acknowledges political correctness on the radical left and most radical left political correctness is self evident.

Political correctness among College students is frequently talked about because college students are supposed to be the “nation’s future”, so of course it’s concerning when a bunch of young college students show intolerance towards opposing views. “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

In regards to “political correctness” on the right, most of it isn’t actually “political correctness” most of it is simple criticism of SJWs misinterpreted as political correctness. Political correctness in essence is a type of censorship, something that the right of the political spectrum is against. Hence many right wingers frequently talking about how political correctness is censoring free speech. Even David Pakman who’s a liberal talked about political correctness being used as censorship. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dK2KnUKKZe4

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Actually the political correctness by the right I was talking about wasn't related to SJWs, it's claims that those on the right make that if you don't support X policy, then you hate America and conservative elected officials (let alone college students) regularly engage in this kind of rhetoric. And that people conservatives elected to represent them engage in PC dialogue is more telling about whether or not political correctness is a bigger issue on the right or left than leftist political pundits discussing how political correctness is used by extremists on their side.

[ADFSDF1996]

That’s sounds more like a simple hasty generalization than political correctness. For example...

“So and so doesn’t support having troops stationed in foreign countries therefore said person is anti American.”

But that’s still a bit of a strawman argument considering that many republicans don’t consider a person as being “anti American” just for not supporting a certain policy, they simply just agree to disagree with the person. It’s the more fanatical ones who use that type of hasty generalization to censor opposition.

Political correctness is also filled with hasty generalizations but it’s applied more broadly than simply calling a person “anti American” for not supporting a certain policy, political correctness is almost it’s own proto totalitarian ideology.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

It could be a hasty generalization or it could also be a way to silence opposition to right wing policies just like someone calling someone a racist for opposing left wing policies could be a hasty generalization or a way to silence opposition but both are forms political correctness. The main difference is that individuals conservatives elected into office to represent them engage in this kind of behavior.

[ADFSDF1996]

As I said, both sides use hasty generalizations but radical left wing political correctness is more dominant and is applied more broadly since it’s used by radical left wing movements to incorrectly label opposition as “racists”, “sexists”, “homophobes” etc even without a liberal in office. There have even been people who’ve gotten their careers ruined and reputation tarnished because of said political correctness.

And it’s not just republicans who like to throw around the “anti American” label. radical left wingers do it as well. For example, FDR himself was a “democratic socialist” yet he supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII because he suspected them of being “anti-American” just for being of Japanese descent. He even barred Japanese-Americans from enlisting in the military, it wasn’t till 1943 when he decided to allow Japanese-Americans to once again enlist in the military as the 442nd rct, MIS and 522nd field artillery battalion.

In regards to “right wing political correctness”, It’s the more fanatical republicans who use the hasty generalization of incorrectly labeling opposition as “anti American”, such occasions are much rarer than the former and don’t usually cause people to lose their jobs or have their reputations tarnished. You can debate with hundreds of republicans and only a few may resort to calling you “anti American”.

Your idea of “right wing political correctness” is more in line with political correctness in the 1950s, especially during the McCarthy era. But that type of “right wing political correctness” isn’t as relevant today in 2020. The McCarthyism of today is radical left wing in nature that involves incorrectly attaching all kinds of prejudice labels onto people.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

-It's only widely used by a radical fringe on the left while it's used by elected officials (the mainstream) on the right hence it's a bigger issue on the right.

-Try using more contemporary examples to make your case.

-These "fanatical republicans" are the people who were elected to office by their constituents while the same can't be said of SJWs on college campuses.

-Conservatives are still calling people like AOC "communists" to this day; sounds a lot like McCarthyism.

-

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) The only reason why you notice it being used by elected republican officials is because republicans have been dominating in recent years. We’ve mostly had republican presidents in office for the past 4 decades.

2.) Except that these elected republican officials aren’t trying to censor your right to free speech. Do you think the communist party USA would still be active if McCarythism was still a thing? Of course not. The communist party USA hosts protests yet nobody tries to censor them.

3.) And democrats are still calling trump “Hitler”, while also calling trump supporters “Nazis”.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. A 16/24 year ratio can't explain away the discrepancy.

2. They tried covertly with the patriot act and overtly with the flag desecration amendment

3. Did they call him/them Hitler/Nazis or compare them?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Comparisons to the Nazis cannot just be written off as political correctness unless you want to render educating people about their crimes as a cautionary tale utterly pointless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8UzmLsXGRU&t=40s

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) It’s a simple Majority vs minority in regards to Republicans vs Democrats, you’ll notice the prevalence of a certain behavior in a majority than in a minority, then again it’s cherry picking to assume that a few politicians in office can speak for an entire political demographic.

2.) And it was a Democratic Socialist who enforced executive order 9066.

3.) They are pretty much calling him “Hitler” as a form of mudslinging. Comparisons are rendered null if they can’t be substantiated. You can call and or compare Richard Spencer to Hitler and nobody would care. But calling a person Hitler just cause you don’t agree with them is known as reductio ad Hitlerum. Oddly enough, a Republican convention kicked out a neo nazi named Patrick little that long ago. www.sandiegouniontribune.com/.../...htmlstory.html

On the contrary Antifa are frequently compared to communists but those comparisons can be substantiated by the fact that antifa actually endorses communism and use communist insignia.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. It's a far worse case of cherry picking to think a few whiney college students speak for an entire demographic than elected officials. I'm not saying those who engage in political correctness are representative of the majority of the people on the right, I'm saying that the near ubiquitous use of it by politicians on the right (which can't be explained away by sampling bias) is a better indicator of whether it's more prevalent on the right or left. You're just straw-manning.

2. While I won't justify what he did, the steaks were very different at the time (we were attacked and our territories were invaded by a foreign power) so it's not comparable to the SJW situation now.

3. Labelling people like Sanders and AOC as "Communists" is mudsling (in the 1950s and now) making those comparisons is heading the lessons of history.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Except that it’s not just a “few Whiney college students” it’s also social movements like “metoo”, “Green party”, “communist party USA”, “Antifa” “BLM” and many other groups who seek to divide via political correctness rather than unite the country.

2.) Downplaying an injustice is no different than trying to subtly justify it. There is no excuse whatsoever for executive order 9066, no circumstance makes it justifiable. Things most people don’t know about Japanese-American internment during WWII and the aftermath ↗ What FDR did was profile and round up loyal American citizens on the basis of ethnicity, even the infamous “one drop rule” was in effect. Post war investigations discovered that no Japanese-American actually conspired with the empire of Japan. Only 10 Americans were busted for their collaboration with imperial Japan and ironically all of them were Caucasian. Furthermore, over 20,000 Japanese-Americans enlisted in the US army during WWII in order to prove their loyalty. Tribute to the 442nd RCT and MIS (Memorial Day tribute) ↗

3.) I’m not denying that that the GOP does mudslinging against Democratic candidates but it’s no different than the mudslinging that the Democrats use against GOP candidates.

What we are debating are two sides of the same coin. One side is the Democrat party, the other side is the Republican Party.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. And how many people are members of those units out of everyone on the American left; those social movements weren't elected to represent the constituency of the American left so you're just cherry picking.

2. Saying that it's not comparable to the modern situation isn't "downplaying" it.

3. Having two sides doesn't imply symmetry and conservatives have used this tactic far more often.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) The “American left” isn’t it’s own political party or a single ideology, it’s a group of different ideologies ranked from moderate (liberalism) to radical (anarchy). And some of these ideologies like socialists and communists don’t get along even though they are on the same side of the political spectrum. I’m not cherry picking, I’m differentiating the different ideologies that make up the American left.

2.) “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

3) It’s your opinion that conservatives use mudslinging more often. But the fact is both sides use mudslinging evenly depending on who’s in office. When there’s a Democrat in office the republicans mudsling more often, when there’s a republican in office the democrats mudsling more often.



images.forwardcdn.com/.../...o1-400-1488298886.jpg

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

1. You are but the problem is that many have tried to portray SJWs as representative of the American left.

2. Saying a threat we faced in the past and the responses (justified or unjustified) aren't comparable to what we're faced with now isn't saying we should just ignore the lessons of history.

3. "But the fact is both sides use mudslinging evenly depending on who’s in office." That's your opinion.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Also, are you trying to insinuate Hitler was a leftist?

[ADFSDF1996]

1.)”You are” I’m assuming that’s a typo? Only some people assume that SJWs represent the left in it’s entirety. Most people know that SJWs do not represent the left it’s entirety. Same way how the neo nazis do not represent the right in its entirety.

2.) I know that current issues are not comparable to order 9066. But that’s not the point, the point is that while republican politicians have made some questionable laws, so have democrat politicians.

3.) Well, we can agree to disagree on that.

And no I’m not saying Hitler was a “leftist”, those two pictures are examples of mudslinging from both Republicans and Democrats.

Besides, nobody knows for sure where Hitler stood on the political spectrum, there's an ongoing debate as to where Hitler and the Nazis stood on the political spectrum considering that Hitler attacked both sides of the political spectrum.

[Marriedwith2]

"Anti-SJW" pretty much translates to "I am a manbaby who cries about other people not sharing the insecure prejudices that I'm not man enough to own up to."

Ever notice the stuff they get upset over? when people oppose racism, sexism, LBGTQ hate... etc they get triggered. They're too dumb to realize that this shows EXACTLY where their morals are... It's pretty obvious what type of people get angry at anti-racism folks

And, honestly, does anybody cry and whine more than the "Anti-SJW" crowd?

[EnglundUberAlles]

The whole thing is an internet meme and should be treated as such.

[duanemc86]

When you buy tampons, do you buy the value pack? You big bitch.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

When you post an opinion, so you try to add substance to it or just throw out ad hominins?

[SpiderManFan2002]

Yep, it sure was :P

[Agape93]

Yeah

[Anonymous]

Wow. Delusions of grandeur on the highest level.