Greenpeace damages ancient Peruvian Nazca lines in ad stunt

[mr friendly guy]

I was under the impression that the term was used to describe white/straight/male/christian/first world people who get off on fainting outrage and "fighting in the name of various oppressed groups"* that they do not belong to or understand, mindlessly going so far as to do harm to the group in question (The old "how are you not offended by this!" argument.) just so that they can get their high of self righteous smug. And thus bringing a bad name to people who actually care about social justice.


* note the "". They don't actually fight for those people or even care about them. They just pick a group to "defend" as an excuse to get off on berating everyone else how horrible the are and get a kick out of it.

It might have originally meant that. Now it has come to be used as a derogative term for every feminist, gay activist, or civil rights worker on the internet.

I wouldn't have a problem if people used that term as Purple described it. However Greenpeace clearly isn't like SJWs. They actually don't confine their stupidity on the internet, as this thread demonstrates.

[Simon_Jester]

As a practical matter, "social justice warrior" has become a slur for everyone who argues for a civil rights or minority rights cause, in a manner displeasing to Internet people that disapprove of civil rights or minority rights."

As such it's at best a useless term now, and at worst one that is actively suspect because of what it may say about its users.

Now, if someone just wants to come out and say "I think Greenpeace are a bunch of publicity-whoring bozos who cause more damage out of recklessness than their cause is worth," fine by me. But comparing them to other terms that are in practice used mainly so that cretins have a handle by which to sneer ath people opposed to cretinism... not good.

[Purple]

It might have originally meant that. Now it has come to be used as a derogative term for every feminist, gay activist, or civil rights worker on the internet.

Well if that's true this is the first time I've heard of it.

You posted in the GamerGate thread, wherein several people used it to refer to Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu, along with their other preferred slur, "professional victim".

Just because I post on a thread does not mean I have to read the whole thing, let alone remember it. Especially if it's a topic that I generally don't care too much about.

EDIT: I just looked the thread you mentioned up and basically I entered it and engaged in a rather irrelevant to the topic tangent about the quality of characters in Borderlands. And given my lack of memory of the whole GamerGate thing I believe that I did not even read the OP. I just saw a post on the last page that mentioned a game I liked and I responded to that. I do that a lot.

[Elheru Aran]

You posted in the GamerGate thread, wherein several people used it to refer to Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and Brianna Wu, along with their other preferred slur, "professional victim".

Just because I post on a thread does not mean I have to read the whole thing, let alone remember it. Especially if it's a topic that I generally don't care too much about.

EDIT: I just looked the thread you mentioned up and basically I entered it and engaged in a rather irrelevant to the topic tangent about the quality of characters in Borderlands. And given my lack of memory of the whole GamerGate thing I believe that I did not even read the OP. I just saw a post on the last page that mentioned a game I liked and I responded to that. I do that a lot.

...Uh, it *is* advisable to read the whole thread. Not only do you need to read the OP to get some idea of the subject at hand, you should note what prior posters have stated or argued in order to avoid pointless repetition unless you're trying to confirm some point or other. Randomly entering a thread to "engage in rather irrelevant tangents" is unproductive and does not accomplish anything other than making you look like an ass. If that was your objective, well, you succeed admirably...

[Purple]

...Uh, it *is* advisable to read the whole thread. Not only do you need to read the OP to get some idea of the subject at hand, you should note what prior posters have stated or argued in order to avoid pointless repetition unless you're trying to confirm some point or other. Randomly entering a thread to "engage in rather irrelevant tangents" is unproductive and does not accomplish anything other than making you look like an ass. If that was your objective, well, you succeed admirably...

It accomplishes me passing time in a reasonably boredom free way. This might come off as a surprise to you but not everyone in the world is a hardcore debater with no life who takes every single conversation far too seriously.

[Elheru Aran]

If you can't comprehend why it's a bad idea to just randomly post in a thread without reading more than the title, then you shouldn't be on the Internet. This is something I shouldn't have to explain.

[Purple]

If you can't comprehend why it's a bad idea to just randomly post in a thread without reading more than the title, then you shouldn't be on the Internet. This is something I shouldn't have to explain.

If you can't comprehend why it is perfectly acceptable to join an ongoing conversation on a thread even if said conversation is a tangent that is related to but not directly linked to the original topic and thus requires no knowledge or understanding of said original topic to participate in without knowledge of said topic as it is unnecessary, than you need to learn a thing or two about human conversation works in the real world.

[shadowdevil502]

If you can't comprehend why it's a bad idea to just randomly post in a thread without reading more than the title, then you shouldn't be on the Internet. This is something I shouldn't have to explain.

If you can't comprehend why it is perfectly acceptable to join an ongoing conversation on a thread even if said conversation is a tangent that is related to but not directly linked to the original topic and thus requires no knowledge or understanding of said original topic to participate in without knowledge of said topic as it is unnecessary, than you need to learn a thing or two about human conversation works in the real world.

This is a message board that does things in a particular way, and has been doing so for quite some time now, not the real world.

[Purple]

If you can't comprehend why it's a bad idea to just randomly post in a thread without reading more than the title, then you shouldn't be on the Internet. This is something I shouldn't have to explain.

If you can't comprehend why it is perfectly acceptable to join an ongoing conversation on a thread even if said conversation is a tangent that is related to but not directly linked to the original topic and thus requires no knowledge or understanding of said original topic to participate in without knowledge of said topic as it is unnecessary, than you need to learn a thing or two about human conversation works in the real world.

This is a message board that does things in a particular way, and has been doing so for quite some time now, not the real world.

And yet you just did what he was complaining about. You entered into our tangent conversation that has nothing to do with the original topic. And you are participating productively. So answer the following questions for me if you will. (Or not, they are pretty much rhetorical)

1. Is this a tangent conversation or is it in compliance with the original topic?
2. Does meaningful participation in it require you to have understanding of the original topic or the contents of this thread beyond those directly referring to the conversation in question?
3. Is you posting as part of said conversation evil or unacceptable?

4. Or maybe is this something that happens on this forum all the time and everyone does it. No one just cares enough to take notice unless it literally derails the threat and turns it into a shitfest so much that people can't fix it any more, something that is very rare?

[Thanas]

Purple, quit being an idiot before I have to start knocking you down.

[Purple]

Purple, quit being an idiot before I have to start knocking you down.

I honestly do not know how the F I am the one in the wrong here. But I can't argue with this sort of evidence. So fine. You win.

[Lonestar]

Likewise, if I go into an ancient cave with cave paintings, find a wall the cavemen didn't paint, and scrawl obscenities on it in bright neon orange... I have defaced the cave paintings. Even if they're not physically covered with paint.

Not according to some of the winners in the park vandalism thread.

[Simon_Jester]

Would you mind expanding on that please?

[TimothyC]

Would you mind expanding on that please?

Again, show me the actual damage. If she just painted on rock with acrylics, there is nothing that says to me "prison term" no matter what anyone thinks of her ego or art. And how is wilderness not being preserved? Those Indians drew on the rocks a couple thousand years ago and the wilderness is doing just fine.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah.

Very well, then let me simply say that the people who said that are not, in my opinions, authoritative sources on what constitutes defacement of archaeological sites and of historical relics. I disagree with them, that's that.