U. of Chicago tells SJWs to shove it

[Crown]

Any community which abandons things like civility and kindness, and uniform standards of justice and fairness, and mutual support, for the sake of The Cause will end up devouring itself.

Which is largely beside the point.

The point is that while there is a small, tempest-in-teapot minority of people who DO turn on each other, who ARE obsessed with comparing each other's pain and oppressed-ness, they are insignificant.

Are you aware of the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal?

They serve only as an excuse to pretend that they represent a larger category of people who have very real problems, for purposes of discrediting them. It's a form of ersatz red-baiting.

Well the irony of this whole scenario is that SJW excel at red-baiting; don't buy into the BLM narrative? Racist. Don't buy into the gender pay gap narrative? Misogynist. Don't think video games promote violence towards women? Double misogynist! Don't believe that women in western colleges suffer a rape epidemic equivalent to that of the war-torn Congo? Rape apologist!

You see where I'm going with this right?

[Crown]

Your inflammatory wording aside, Crown, it's not that people deny there has been or ever will be people who overreach (hell, I've acknowledged that a few times already in this thread). People deny the exaggeration, the supposed prevalence of these types over the entire activist community. And as such, this "prevalence" supposedly justifying the label of literally anything of activist causes "SJW".

It depends in which ponds you tend to swim, I'll admit. You still at university? Wear a 'Make America Great Again' hat on campus for me and then tell me what happens. Just as an experiment.

I can't take the term, nor the people who use it, seriously at all because it's used for so many situations that it's completely lost its meaning. From my anecdotal perspective, 90% of the people who throw the term around tend to be the sort of shitbags that want to banish all Muslims or think rape threats over the Internet are just the Internet's way of saying hello. I tend to actively think less of people using it, unless proven otherwise. Sorry, way too many bad experiences.

Ooh, I missed the Islamophobia label in my response to Simon above, but thank you for reminding me; if you are rational non-religious person who has a long history of criticising Christianity, the second you criticise Islam (using all the same metrics), you're pounced upon as an Islamophobe. See Richard Dawkins.

For the record, I don't like what's being described in the article you linked either. However, I wouldn't nearly attribute this to being the entire activist cause "eventually eating their own". Such isolated examples being used to paint all of activism just shows a person is out for their own agenda rather than an honest conversation.

It's not an isolated incident, there are dozens of examples this was the first one that came to mind, it's the natural end game of an ideology that abandons rationality and logic for feelings and marxism oppression matrices to make decisions.

[Dragon Angel]

It depends in which ponds you tend to swim, I'll admit. You still at university? Wear a 'Make America Great Again' hat on campus for me and then tell me what happens. Just as an experiment.

Nope, but I'll wager wearing that hat anywhere in a community that is not red-leaning would lend you many ... raised eye-brows.

Ooh, I missed the Islamophobia label in my response to Simon above, but thank you for reminding me; if you are rational non-religious person who has a long history of criticising Christianity, the second you criticise Islam (using all the same metrics), you're pounced upon as an Islamophobe. See Richard Dawkins.

When you have him pulling shit like literally invoking Godwin's law on Islam, I very much question his motivations.

It's not an isolated incident, there are dozens of examples this was the first one that came to mind, it's the natural end game of an ideology that abandons rationality and logic for feelings and marxism oppression matrices to make decisions.

"Marxism oppression matrices"?

The error in your statement (besides something something Marxism) is believing rationality and logic are abandoned at all.

[Crown]

It depends in which ponds you tend to swim, I'll admit. You still at university? Wear a 'Make America Great Again' hat on campus for me and then tell me what happens. Just as an experiment.

Nope, but I'll wager wearing that hat anywhere in a community that is not red-leaning would lend you many ... raised eye-brows.

Fair point. Better example would have been to have dreadlocks as a white kid, tell a bad dad joke or have a hula doll in your car.

But all these are comical compared to when the nutjobs actually get any kind of influence, I've asked Simon and now I'll ask you; are you familiar with the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal?

Ooh, I missed the Islamophobia label in my response to Simon above, but thank you for reminding me; if you are rational non-religious person who has a long history of criticising Christianity, the second you criticise Islam (using all the same metrics), you're pounced upon as an Islamophobe. See Richard Dawkins.

When you have him pulling shit like literally invoking Godwin's law on Islam, I very much question his motivations.

Did you question them when he called out Christians who raise their kids as Christians as being guilty of child abuse and brain washing? Did you question his motivations when he told the Catholic Church that Hitler was a Catholic?

It's not an isolated incident, there are dozens of examples this was the first one that came to mind, it's the natural end game of an ideology that abandons rationality and logic for feelings and marxism oppression matrices to make decisions.

"Marxism oppression matrices"?

The error in your statement (besides something something Marxism) is believing rationality and logic are abandoned at all.

Of course they are, you just demonstrated it with Dawkins. Rather than let it go you had to raise the spectre of Islamophobia (read fear of brown people) as his motivator rather than he just really hates religion and he's done kicking Christianity.

But anyway, I tried editing the post to include the below which is what I should have closed off with, but missed the cut off time;

EDIT :: Shit sorry, hope this makes it in the edit window, what I mean by the above is that SJWism incentivises people 'to race to the bottom'. I'll get to what I mean by this by giving an example of the truly brilliant (yet evil) way the Tories under Cameron fucked over poor people on the doll.

They set up the regional looking for work offices with incentives for staff that got the most people off the program. Not for staff that got the most people into a job but off the program. So naturally, without any need to explain, co-opt, indoctrinate, intimidate, bully or conspire the helpless staff they just 'naturally' started looking for reasons to cut people off the doll so they could maintain their KPIs.

As an example of truly social machiavellism it is a work of art; you just set up a system where people's own natural tendencies lead to the desired outcomes.

Similarly SJWism is the exact same thing. It's set up where the adherents of this cult are involved in a race to the bottom because it provides status and power. So you get an increase in fraudsters and charlatans in their ranks; not because SJW are inherently dishonest, but they're human in a system where they are rewarded for being a victim.

[Dragon Angel]

Fair point. Better example would have been to have dreadlocks as a white kid, tell a bad dad joke or have a hula doll in your car.

Regardless of one's opinions on those people, they're still blips in the sea of millions. I can't honestly consider them a mounting negative trend within the whole.

But all these are comical compared to when the nutjobs actually get any kind of influence, I've asked Simon and now I'll ask you; are you familiar with the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal?

I've not heard of that and will not comment until I know more.

Did you question them when he called out Christians who raise their kids as Christians as being guilty of child abuse and brain washing? Did you question his motivations when he told the Catholic Church that Hitler was a Catholic?

1. Depends on if you asked me 10 years ago versus now. 10 years ago, I wouldn't have. Now? I would. Frankly that seems like a completely trollish comment on his part.
2. I don't know if Hitler truly believed in Catholicism in his heart (very doubtful). It would depend on if this was a statement of fact or just another embellishment.

Point 2 is undefined, but point 1 and him comparing Islam to Nazism are blatant appeals to emotion. The first, evoking images of child abuse, the second evoking the Holocaust. So much of Islamophobic propaganda in the western world relies on appeal to emotion, like the ever-looming threat of an ISIS Dawn. As a man of supposed "rationality" I would expect a lot better of him.

Of course they are, you just demonstrated it with Dawkins. Rather than let it go you had to raise the spectre of Islamophobia (read fear of brown people) as his motivator rather than he just really hates religion and he's done kicking Christianity.

Aren't you now being presumptuous, telling me how I thought and how I reached my conclusions? It's easy for you to attack how I and others see Dawkins by stripping us of our credentials to reason. No, either we are children or it's all purely because of our lizard brains!

Do give me the personal agency to reason, and don't think I missed your comments on BLM and that unexplained insert of Marxism either.

But anyway, I tried editing the post to include the below which is what I should have closed off with, but missed the cut off time;

EDIT :: Shit sorry, hope this makes it in the edit window, what I mean by the above is that SJWism incentivises people 'to race to the bottom'. I'll get to what I mean by this by giving an example of the truly brilliant (yet evil) way the Tories under Cameron fucked over poor people on the doll.

They set up the regional looking for work offices with incentives for staff that got the most people off the program. Not for staff that got the most people into a job but off the program. So naturally, without any need to explain, co-opt, indoctrinate, intimidate, bully or conspire the helpless staff they just 'naturally' started looking for reasons to cut people off the doll so they could maintain their KPIs.

As an example of truly social machiavellism it is a work of art; you just set up a system where people's own natural tendencies lead to the desired outcomes.

Similarly SJWism is the exact same thing. It's set up where the adherents of this cult are involved in a race to the bottom because it provides status and power. So you get an increase in fraudsters and charlatans in their ranks; not because SJW are inherently dishonest, but they're human in a system where they are rewarded for being a victim.

The assumption being social justice communities harbor power structures that encourage Klingon-esque promotion?

Well, you would need to prove that social justice is mostly filled to the brim with all these ego-tripping con-artists, hmm?

I'll grant you, certain sections do have a number of these, and I've had my run-ins with them. Again, though, saying all branches do is a far-reaching judgement. It assumes either all social justice communities are the same, or more, the very concept of social justice inherently enforces cattiness. The former requires an examination of all social justice communities compared against one another, of which I don't believe a study even exists yet. The latter makes no sense considering the point of social justice.

If anything is less "rationality" and more "feelings", it's these. There is very little empirical evidence if any that shows a significant fraction of social justice is toxic to that degree.

It helps not to think of the social justice "community" as a singular community but factions of very different people. I've seen it transpire myself, especially post-GamerGate with some circles I talk to. On the topic of GamerGate, it provided a unifying point between them that ended up splitting because of vast differences between the circles. In the end, these circles retained the idea of social justice, but had cataclysmic differences they could not resolve. Some of the remainders could be described as Klingon-esque, others much looser and more peer-to-peer, not relying on top figureheads for their message.

This is one of the greatest fallacies with generalizing all of social justice as inherently toxic: You make the assumption all of them believe lockstep in the exact same ideology, when in truth several of them couldn't be further from each other if you divided them into planets.

I honestly find that "rewarded for being a victim" quip to be repugnant, because like the term SJW the moniker "professional victim" has been abused over and over as an ad hominem tactic. "Playing the victim" can mean so many utterly meaningless things, and to 80% of the people out there it seems interchangeable with "I don't like you personally, so I believe you don't deserve anyone's support".

[Crown]

Fair point. Better example would have been to have dreadlocks as a white kid, tell a bad dad joke or have a hula doll in your car.

Regardless of one's opinions on those people, they're still blips in the sea of millions. I can't honestly consider them a mounting negative trend within the whole.

Well now we need to present numbers.

But all these are comical compared to when the nutjobs actually get any kind of influence, I've asked Simon and now I'll ask you; are you familiar with the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal?

I've not heard of that and will not comment until I know more.

Grim reading; Wiki. Read it, think about it and then we'll discuss. Probably best to let me get the conversation started on that one though so we can cut out a lot of the distractions.

Did you question them when he called out Christians who raise their kids as Christians as being guilty of child abuse and brain washing? Did you question his motivations when he told the Catholic Church that Hitler was a Catholic?

1. Depends on if you asked me 10 years ago versus now. 10 years ago, I wouldn't have. Now? I would. Frankly that seems like a completely trollish comment on his part.
2. I don't know if Hitler truly believed in Catholicism in his heart (very doubtful). It would depend on if this was a statement of fact or just another embellishment.

1. It's not, it's just an obvious fact; a child is born just a child. It only becomes a 'Christian' child or a 'Hindu' child or a 'Muslim' child when it gets indoctrinated by its parents.
2. That wasn't his point; he was telling the Catholic Church that they couldn't have their cake and eat it too. They couldn't claim there were X amount of Catholics in England (based solely on being logged as baptised) while at the same time distancing themselves from Hitler (who was baptised Catholic).

Point 2 is undefined, but point 1 and him comparing Islam to Nazism are blatant appeals to emotion. The first, evoking images of child abuse, the second evoking the Holocaust. So much of Islamophobic propaganda in the western world relies on appeal to emotion, like the ever-looming threat of an ISIS Dawn. As a man of supposed "rationality" I would expect a lot better of him.

Well, you're wrong on all accounts. He basically said 'water is wet' in regards to point 1. As for the rest; are you now referencing his tweet you posted or the Catholic Church one I posted?

Of course they are, you just demonstrated it with Dawkins. Rather than let it go you had to raise the spectre of Islamophobia (read fear of brown people) as his motivator rather than he just really hates religion and he's done kicking Christianity.

Aren't you now being presumptuous, telling me how I thought and how I reached my conclusions? It's easy for you to attack how I and others see Dawkins by stripping us of our credentials to reason. No, either we are children or it's all purely because of our lizard brains!

This would have been a far more impressive rebuke if you hadn't just muddled the above point regarding 'Islamophobic propoganda', but a rebuke none the less.

Do give me the personal agency to reason, and don't think I missed your comments on BLM and that unexplained insert of Marxism either.

Sure, the cult of SJWism takes the Marxist eternal struggle of the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoise" and substitutes "minority" and "white male". Of course the problem is when they start to break down the minorities in race, gender, sexuality, able body, etc, etc and then assign a progressive weighting to each category (intersectionality). Which is what leads to instances of people who 'qualify' for minority (i.e. gay white men) but get expelled because white and male privilege trumps gay.

Here's a handy video so we're comparing apples to apples.

The assumption being social justice communities harbor power structures that encourage Klingon-esque promotion?

Nope, an analogy doesn't have to satisfy all the criteria to illustrate how the thing it's being used to explain satisfies some of the criteria.

Well, you would need to prove that social justice is mostly filled to the brim with all these ego-tripping con-artists, hmm?

No, I would have to show that social justice would encourage such behaviour simply because of the way it is set up.

I'll grant you, certain sections do have a number of these, and I've had my run-ins with them. Again, though, saying all branches do is a far-reaching judgement. It assumes either all social justice communities are the same, or more, the very concept of social justice inherently enforces cattiness. The former requires an examination of all social justice communities compared against one another, of which I don't believe a study even exists yet. The latter makes no sense considering the point of social justice.

If anything is less "rationality" and more "feelings", it's these. There is very little empirical evidence if any that shows a significant fraction of social justice is toxic to that degree.

It helps not to think of the social justice "community" as a singular community but factions of very different people. I've seen it transpire myself, especially post-GamerGate with some circles I talk to. On the topic of GamerGate, it provided a unifying point between them that ended up splitting because of vast differences between the circles. In the end, these circles retained the idea of social justice, but had cataclysmic differences they could not resolve. Some of the remainders could be described as Klingon-esque, others much looser and more peer-to-peer, not relying on top figureheads for their message.

This is one of the greatest fallacies with generalizing all of social justice as inherently toxic: You make the assumption all of them believe lockstep in the exact same ideology, when in truth several of them couldn't be further from each other if you divided them into planets.

You make really valid points in here, but I don't think it's to do with anything I'm trying to discuss .... I don't want to get into a War and Peace on this, so I'll be brief if you feel I haven't done it justice, then I'll respond in full but here goes;

1. I think what I've taken away from this (very ironically) is labels mean different things to different people.
2. When I use the term of SJW I'm literally talking about people having a meltdown or power trip over nonsense things (man spreading is the one that think we could all get behind).
3. I'm not making a mistake in believing that they all believe in the same ideology, if I'm making a mistake it's believing that they all use the same methodology which determines their decisions which drives their policy
4. Their policy and mine might intersect (marriage equality for instance) but the driver for that policy is completely different.

And item 4 is important. In the example of marriage equality I've demonstrated how I come to that conclusion in an earlier post, and I trust that within the context of the reply you can understand how a SJW would come to this conclusion. But lets change the issue to something else like Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the west. Now, I'm against FGM for a variety of reasons but lets pick the same one as before for consistency; I don't buy an argument to a centuries old tradition as being a valid reason for something to be done or not done.

Now, since FGM is mostly prevalent in African/Muslim communities, I as a white male being against FGM in the West (it should be illegal worldwide period if I was God Emperor) would be an example of using my privilege to oppress a minorities' culture in the eyes of SJW. What utter insanity.

I honestly find that "rewarded for being a victim" quip to be repugnant, because like the term SJW the moniker "professional victim" has been abused over and over as an ad hominem tactic. "Playing the victim" can mean so many utterly meaningless things, and to 80% of the people out there it seems interchangeable with "I don't like you personally, so I believe you don't deserve anyone's support".

It wasn't a 'quip' I'm being dead honest; as an engineer when I look at the methodology of the SJW progressive stack, the end result is that it 'encourages', 'rewards', 'incentivises', 'glamourises' (pick the word most appropriate) for someone to be a victim. I'm not suggesting that the majority of SJW do this, or that even a meaningful minority engage in it (although we obviously do know instances of it occurring).

[Dragon Angel]

Well now we need to present numbers.

The numbers would have to come from the people making the claim activism is riddled with troublemakers, like I'd been requesting Knife to provide all thread. Otherwise these isolated incidents all just look cherrypicked from the outset.

Grim reading; Wiki. Read it, think about it and then we'll discuss. Probably best to let me get the conversation started on that one though so we can cut out a lot of the distractions.

...Grim, indeed. And a complex issue that I don't even know where to begin on.

On one hand, the scumbag rapists. Left to continue violating because victims and their families feared or did not have confidence in the authorities. Enabled by the authorities themselves not taking the victims seriously at all or worried about petty politics.

On another hand, the authorities. Some afraid pursuing these cases, despite the evidence for them, would lead to a politically-inconvenient position. Some not pursuing these cases because they actively thought less of the victims.

On another, subtle hand, the surrounding culture. An effort, I'm hypothesizing, to not appear "prejudiced" but sent so far over to the other end that it became destructive. Overcompensation to an insane degree. I suspect, also, a spattering of indifference to sexual assault itself.

This is a morass all around. It's definitely one of those situations I can't think of any number of reasons that only fit onto one hand.

1. It's not, it's just an obvious fact; a child is born just a child. It only becomes a 'Christian' child or a 'Hindu' child or a 'Muslim' child when it gets indoctrinated by its parents.
2. That wasn't his point; he was telling the Catholic Church that they couldn't have their cake and eat it too. They couldn't claim there were X amount of Catholics in England (based solely on being logged as baptised) while at the same time distancing themselves from Hitler (who was baptised Catholic).

Where is the objective proof that raising a child with a religion constitutes abuse? Abuse is an extremely strong term, especially with regard to children. This is the converse of a fundamentalist making a statement that raising a child without God is sinful; ultimately, it's a melodramatic expression rooted in condemning anyone who does not follow your exact side.

It's not as if raising a child with religion by itself leads to physical or psychological trauma, unless we get into the territory of things like internalizing homophobia or pedophile priests. Homophobia being internalized and possibly preventing one from realizing if oneself is gay/trans or not is an offshoot of certain groups and interpretations of a religion, while scum like pedophile priests are criminals merely using their religion as a shield.

The Catholic Church's sneaky-ass ways of keeping people registered within the organization are something you won't get an argument from me.

Well, you're wrong on all accounts. He basically said 'water is wet' in regards to point 1. As for the rest; are you now referencing his tweet you posted or the Catholic Church one I posted?

"Water is wet" according to the subjective viewpoints of one side. (which honestly I have major problems with, but this is off-topic) I was referencing the tweet, yes. Dawkins has a real bad habit of saying Islam is the worst shit ever on the block. It would be one thing if he was trying to debunk the religion on its own grounds, but instead, I see him fighting windmills. There are ways to criticize your opponents without trying to paint them as demons.

This would have been a far more impressive rebuke if you hadn't just muddled the above point regarding 'Islamophobic propoganda', but a rebuke none the less.

Let me elaborate, I was in the grips of a sedative when I wrote that. The difference is I cannot think of any rational basis upon which to justify calling religious parents child abusers other than a blind assertion of religion being a priori abusive. Whereas, my viewpoint of Dawkins comes from seeing him frequently put his foot in his mouth regarding Islam and Muslims all too often, and listening to Muslims' points of views on him and his characterizing of their religion.

Hell, he claims in one of the tweets above that he never read the Quran, but yet he is comfortable with saying Islam is undoubtedly one of the greatest forces of evil of this day. That's quite a claim to make. The Godwin violation is merely that brought up to eleven.

I mention Islamophobic propaganda because it relies on assertions like these with little else in the way of empiricism. They're grabs at emotion aimed to convince people the Islamic Terrorist could be around you at any moment, waiting to blow you to pieces at any moment, fudging anything that shows people acting badly in the name of Islam as representative of the vast majority of billions of Islamic followers. In the meanwhile, Christian fundamentalism and far right Christian terrorists are handwaved away as mere outliers to the "good" or "better" religion. Often, the people on that end of the spectrum coopt events like the Orlando massacre to fuel their agendas, while still passing discriminatory statutes against the people they talk all about supporting but never walk it.

Dawkins may or may not be embellishing Christians (I would hope not, considering his background) but otherwise he comes off as just a propagandist. In the context of western Islamophobia, his words only reinforce a popular anti-Islamic sentiment.

Sure, the cult of SJWism takes the Marxist eternal struggle of the "proletariat" and the "bourgeoise" and substitutes "minority" and "white male". Of course the problem is when they start to break down the minorities in race, gender, sexuality, able body, etc, etc and then assign a progressive weighting to each category (intersectionality). Which is what leads to instances of people who 'qualify' for minority (i.e. gay white men) but get expelled because white and male privilege trumps gay.

Here's a handy video so we're comparing apples to apples.

That's ... not what intersectionality means. Intersectionality is a concept where oppressions of different axes tend to be related and intersect one another, and a critical viewpoint of one oppression must take into account other oppressions that are related to it. For example, misogyny is an oppression that may be intersected with transphobia against trans women. Given for both cis and trans women, misogyny can take quite similar, but also quite different forms. Another example would be misogyny and racism, intersecting to form the experiences of a woman of color.

It in no way is supposed to be used as some sort of "ladder". It's an informational tool that displays the differences in how everyone perceives an -ism, like sexism above. Sargon's "progressive stack" is a strawman--not even strawman, it's just plain not true. I quote myself from earlier: "Oppression isn't some scale where being black is one point or being LGBT is x points where x is how many letters you are under."

Calling everything Marxist just brings to mind old mid-20th century timers saying those dang dirty Commies are causing trouble for the rest of us. Seeing people throw "Marxist" around in places where it doesn't even make sense ("liberal arts in colleges is just a front for the cultural Marxist agenda!") reminds me the Red Scare hasn't entirely ended for a few people.

Nope, an analogy doesn't have to satisfy all the criteria to illustrate how the thing it's being used to explain satisfies some of the criteria.

When "some" turns out to be a very small percentage of all criteria, it is no longer a satisfactory analogy.

No, I would have to show that social justice would encourage such behaviour simply because of the way it is set up.

Literally any group or community of humans with a hierarchy is capable of in-fighting and power struggles. Social justice communities are far from the only example, and squarely pinning this aspect of human nature as inherent in social justice as a concept is just having an axe to grind against it.

You make really valid points in here, but I don't think it's to do with anything I'm trying to discuss .... I don't want to get into a War and Peace on this, so I'll be brief if you feel I haven't done it justice, then I'll respond in full but here goes;

1. I think what I've taken away from this (very ironically) is labels mean different things to different people.
2. When I use the term of SJW I'm literally talking about people having a meltdown or power trip over nonsense things (man spreading is the one that think we could all get behind).
3. I'm not making a mistake in believing that they all believe in the same ideology, if I'm making a mistake it's believing that they all use the same methodology which determines their decisions which drives their policy
4. Their policy and mine might intersect (marriage equality for instance) but the driver for that policy is completely different.

Right, methodology certainly differs, but there are definitely differences in ideology. Say, for example, how far one's belief in socialism travels. There are the advocates who are in full support of socialist policies built on top of today's society, but don't want to tread into full-on communism, while there are advocates who won't settle for anything less than communism and fervently believe in it.

Labels meaning different things to different people frustrates the fuck out of me because eventually a good label that is used for a specific context can be taken and twisted by different communities into something vile, and eventually new labels would have to be sought to replace the old. The cycle would then repeat anew. Using the trans community, "AFAB" and "AMAB" (Assigned [Female/Male] At Birth) were originally coined to describe one's birth gender for academic purposes, but have since devolved into slurs tossed between trans people because of stupid animosities between trans women, trans men, and nonbinary communities. Therefore, forcing us to find new ways of describing their original intent.

SJW has an origin of describing the toxic elements of activism, but since long ago has been twisted by conservative and antifeminist groups to be applied toward anyone who is progressive by any measure. It's been used that way for as long as I've paid attention to social justice, and so whatever it was originally trying to imply has long since been lost. Flagg made the suggestion of calling these people as "power tripping cunts", as they pretty much are. Currently, various phrases like "woke as shit" have pretty much replaced what SJW first meant in social justice circles and have not been entirely coopted ..... yet.

Just waiting for that to happen, and another iteration of the cycle to repeat.

And item 4 is important. In the example of marriage equality I've demonstrated how I come to that conclusion in an earlier post, and I trust that within the context of the reply you can understand how a SJW would come to this conclusion. But lets change the issue to something else like Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in the west. Now, I'm against FGM for a variety of reasons but lets pick the same one as before for consistency; I don't buy an argument to a centuries old tradition as being a valid reason for something to be done or not done.

Now, since FGM is mostly prevalent in African/Muslim communities, I as a white male being against FGM in the West (it should be illegal worldwide period if I was God Emperor) would be an example of using my privilege to oppress a minorities' culture in the eyes of SJW. What utter insanity.

Anyone who would argue FGM should remain because "it's a part of their culture" would be asinine. It'd be like excusing a mob from murdering a woman for being raped. Social justice shouldn't be blind, and should take into account humanism above all else.

If you want my personal opinion, male circumcision should also not be enforced on babies. Hey, that's valuable skin you're taking away from a potential trans woman seeking surgery!

It wasn't a 'quip' I'm being dead honest; as an engineer when I look at the methodology of the SJW progressive stack, the end result is that it 'encourages', 'rewards', 'incentivises', 'glamourises' (pick the word most appropriate) for someone to be a victim. I'm not suggesting that the majority of SJW do this, or that even a meaningful minority engage in it (although we obviously do know instances of it occurring).

Sargon is honestly attacking windmills when he describes such a "stack". Only the most straw of social justice advocates would actually try to put a hierarchy the way he describes. It's an oversimplification of a very complex idea that unfortunately is misrepresented by right wing ideologues and yellow journalists looking for clickbait.

I don't see being a victim as something that is aspired or some such. Being a victim, by the definition of the word, means suffering as a result of a crime done to you either by individuals or by a societal structure. Ideally, on an individual level one would go to the authorities to seek justice, or in society report these to your local governments to improve your living conditions, but in the real world things just don't easily work out this way. This is what activists really want to change.

Nearly every time I read randoms on social media talk about "playing the victim for victim bux" or what have you it ends up conveying a total lack of empathy. Victims of rape who do not get justice served to their rapists, victims of police brutality not having justice served to the cops, victims of swatting, insert any event that turns someone's life into Hell. Who would honestly wish to covet any of these? Who honestly wants to be raped, or be beaten or murdered by cops, or suffer at the hands of an Internet jackass? Who really wants to be a second-class citizen in society?

The supposed quote-and-quote "romanticization" of victimhood, I'll argue, is a result of people who've suffered under these coming out in bigger numbers than ever before. And of course, there is a backlash because those outside of these events feel like society has always been just, has always been close to the ideal even if acknowledging not at the ideal yet. They have absolutely no idea of what happens within the contexts of the ones who suffer.

So, as a result, the ones "outside of victimhood" start to take instantly-tainted views of the ones who have suffered. "I haven't seen cops brutalize anyone, my friends haven't had these experiences with the cops, even that black friend of mine hasn't suffered. What are these people complaining about?" "I've always had great experiences with men. I've never been touched in a weird way or drugged and raped. What are all these women afraid of?"

That I inevitably see masses of doubters piling onto stories that involve these victims in spite of any evidence those stories put forth, makes me sincerely dubious that being a victim is anything that could be romanticized. Occam's razor dictates it'd be easier to live quietly (as many victims do!) than to bring a crime that has not been served justice to the public. You wouldn't be under public scrutiny, and you wouldn't be at the hands of the hundreds of millions of vile trolls looking for a fight.

Again, who would actively wish to seek out this trouble in not only their personal lives but also their professional lives?

[K. A. Pital]

Now, since FGM is mostly prevalent in African/Muslim communities, I as a white male being against FGM in the West (it should be illegal worldwide period if I was God Emperor) would be an example of using my privilege to oppress a minorities' culture in the eyes of SJW. What utter insanity.

Sorry, Crown, but has there been a single case of Western "SJWs" being pro-FGM due to this being a minority tradition? I mean, this is a good example where universal values clash with local Dark Age values, but are you sure there are actual people who would defend this barbaric bullshit?

[Wild Zontargs]

Now, since FGM is mostly prevalent in African/Muslim communities, I as a white male being against FGM in the West (it should be illegal worldwide period if I was God Emperor) would be an example of using my privilege to oppress a minorities' culture in the eyes of SJW. What utter insanity.

Sorry, Crown, but has there been a single case of Western "SJWs" being pro-FGM due to this being a minority tradition? I mean, this is a good example where universal values clash with local Dark Age values, but are you sure there are actual people who would defend this barbaric bullshit?

While I can't say that anyone supports FGM "because tradition", a quick Googling shows me several articles insisting that opposing FGM "may" be racist or Islamophobic, or be nothing more than an excuse to air one's racism or Islamophobia. From the first page of my results for 'fgm racism islamophobia':

I don’t defend FGM, and attempts to educate people in Africa in particular about its harms (and lack of religious merit) are to be encouraged, as well as opening channels for girls to report that they or their sisters are in danger of undergoing it, so as to prevent them being taken abroad or to facilitate the arrest of whoever may be doing it in this country. However, there is a danger of falling into racism by assuming that all girls from any country where FGM happens are at risk (they are not), by assuming that the cultures involved will not change unless given the big stick by “civilised” whites, by branding a cultural norm which is not done for anyone’s gratification “child abuse”, by throwing around words like “barbarity” as if insulting a minority community with a different culture who consider themselves perfectly civilised will bring them on side. To see several pages dedicated to this issue in a major (albeit declining) newspaper, when the evidence for it happening to any significant extent in the UK is anecdodal and the statistics hugely unreliable, does appear like an onslaught against the minority communities involved, as if this was the last acceptable way of expressing superiority over an immigrant minority from an impoverished part of the world.

While I don't think this is a mainstream opinion, I have heard similar arguments crop up elsewhere. The short version seems to boil down to "yes that's bad, but you only care because you're a racist Islamophobe, and that's worse. I will now proceed to attack you for being a horrible person, while ignoring the FGM issue." Anti-anti-FGM isn't so much a serious political position as a stick to beat opponents with.

[mr friendly guy]

While there are some who don't defend FGM per se, they do the next best thing when its association with Islamic countries are brought up. Say the association is false and imply people who point out the obvious association as bigots.

Just look up Reza Aslan. Funny thing is, Aslan and his supporters argue against this "anti Muslim" bigotry, with, wait for it... more bigotry. You see, FGM isn't an Islamic problem, its an African problem.

********************************************************************************************
David Pakman does a good take down on Reza Aslan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RmAo6XVAA

And Aslan's response boils down to. "I am not going to respond." LOL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXGWLqF32R4

And we have Aslan's apologist (who also uses the same trick with FGM criticise David Pakman). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICUVv5wiyuo

It gets better. Said apologist (who is a reporter for VICE) comes on the David Pakman show. Pakman does to her, what Germany did to Brazil in the world cup. Hilarity ensures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtM2OKt_lI8

[Simon_Jester]

The main thing this establishes is that one can find a fool following any cause.

The biggest problem with the entire "social justice warrior" category is that the vagueness of the term permits cheap, easy moving of the goalposts during a debate.

I mean, you can start a discussion like "should there be a battered women's shelter on a college campus, and is it okay to say no men allowed inside the shelter so that said battered women feel safe that no one will follow them and beat them up inside the shelter?"

And some guy can step up and say that all this talk about the presence of men 'triggering' fear in the women in the shelter is a bunch of mollycoddling nonsense from a bunch of Social Justice Warriors. That people need to toughen up. And don't get them wrong, men beating up women isn't okay, and if some crazy rowdy guy shows up at the shelter someone should call the cops. But the point is, it's still discrimination and it's wrong on general principles to say "no men allowed." And a man ought to be able to go wherever the hell he wants! Because PRINCIPLES!

And then if you take exception to them using "Social Justice Warriors suck" as a counter-argument to something practical like "women who just got beaten up by men have a reasonable need for a place where they can be sure men won't follow them..." Someone starts bringing up the very weirdest and worst excesses ever committed or even contemplated by anyone on the left in the name of equality or minority rights. The goalposts, they have moved.

After a few experiences like that, one becomes very jaded with the entire use of the term "SJW" or any variation thereof. Because when people are being vague, it's a broad category that lets them dump on a lot of people, but then when you try to make them be specific, suddenly it's a much narrower category.

...

It'd be nice if we could stop making general policy arguments like "should there be women-only places" or "are black people being killed off by the police at an alarming and disproportionate rate" suddenly mutate into an argument about the five worst things anyone's ever heard of being said or done by a minority rights advocate.

And I find that the use of the phrase "social justice warrior" virtually guarantees that this kind of mutation will happen.

That's why I earlier compared the use of the term to red-baiting; it's a great rhetorical tool for invalidating whole political movements on the grounds that at least a few of their members probably believe some obnoxious things.

[K. A. Pital]

If we argue about fringe distasteful opinions, dismissing them is fine.

So as long as it does not impact policy in the way Crown's above-linked incident (Rotherham child abuse) does.

Hence why I asked about FGM. If there are actually people whose word carries weight in politics and who could potentially make eradicating this practice more difficult, then it is a real danger. If it is just a bunch of lunatics, then it is, of course, irrelevant and not worthy of discussion.

[mr friendly guy]

If the fact that Reza Aslan gets invited onto all these news media shows including CNN and some internet shows like TYT, and he has supporters posting bullshit on YT and twitter, it might have started as a fringe opinion, but its starting to get traction. Which is why David Pakman bothered to do a take down on him. If Aslan was a nobody, I don't think many would care.

[Simon_Jester]

True, but if the biggest problem we have is a guy who's an occasional talking head on TV, and who has a fair-sized Twitter following... we have a small problem.

[Dragon Angel]

And then if you take exception to them using "Social Justice Warriors suck" as a counter-argument to something practical like "women who just got beaten up by men have a reasonable need for a place where they can be sure men won't follow them..." Someone starts bringing up the very weirdest and worst excesses ever committed or even contemplated by anyone on the left in the name of equality or minority rights. The goalposts, they have moved.

After a few experiences like that, one becomes very jaded with the entire use of the term "SJW" or any variation thereof. Because when people are being vague, it's a broad category that lets them dump on a lot of people, but then when you try to make them be specific, suddenly it's a much narrower category.

It's convenient to use to derail any conversation of progressive movements. Every time I see a video on feminism or social justice become popular on YouTube, I can almost guarantee there will be masses of comments saying FEMINISM IS CANCER, SOCIAL JUSTICE IS CRIPPLING OUR SOCIETY, FUCKING REGRESSIVE LEFTIES, LIBTARDS LOL. Same with popular tweets. Same with, well, any news article in the Guardian, or any gaming news site, or ... the list goes on. The debate shifts from whatever discussion is happening to defending the concept of feminism, of social justice, even existing in the first place.

It's as if the only way to satisfy these people would be to dismantle the entire progressive movement altogether. Which, I would hope people would recognize as impractical, but... The words "feminism", "social justice" are being treated like the Red Scare's usage of communist, Marxist, soci--actually wait, this pretty much is the situation isn't it.

When will the Cold War truly end, I wonder.

[Simon_Jester]

The good news is, it's only a fraction of the population treating the word 'feminism' the way nearly everyone in America treated 'communist' from the Red Scares on.

[Balrog]

Excuse me, who are you talking to here? Are you crossing my arguments with maraxus? Because I was under the impression we were speaking of a term and what rights people have in deciding its usage. Can you point to where in this conversation I was arguing about disinviting?

I can understand your confusion considering how quickly the topic diverged as people bloviated about how terrible SJW is as a term, but yes, the initial focus of this discussion was on the disinviting speaker portion of the letter. Hence why trying to contort this and my arguments as somehow a defense that cis white dudes should decide if a pejorative for transsexual people should be a pejorative was disingenuous at best.

Okay you're being intentionally dishonest now.

If you cannot speak for the experiences of a community, how can you stand in judgment about who should and should not belong to that community?

As a member of society I could speak my mind with whatever knowledge I have, but I would defer to people who have experience on the front lines. It's like someone trying to be a lawyer or doctor on the Internet but in a sociological sense. There is not much difference and to think you have as much knowledge of black oppression as a black person does when you're not black is hubris absolute.

It's not about personal experience it's about the society at large. Running with the flimsy analogy, it's saying "doctors are medical experts, so only they should be able to make medical decisions for everyone" or "only lawyers should be allowed to write laws." It's simply not a good way to run a country, at least one that stands for democracy.

Please erect your strawman properly. Are you trying to imply now that "the gays" are setting standards too high or cumbersome for you to accept?

No you idiot, I was trying to gauge how much you were willing to divest yourself of your right to participate in society in preference for those whom you believe should have more knowledge on the subject.

Your bullshit comparison matched what I said because tell me what else you can get out of "family members shouldn't be allowed on juries for murder of family members" stated in relation to activism? Which, I'll let you know, sometimes involves campaigning against murder! Did you just not realize where that would go?

I should've realized where you'd try to take it, but the point still stands, which I think others have eloquently argued since my post.

If you'd been paying any attention instead of constructing ridiculous strawman caricatures of what I'm saying you'd know I do not entirely agree with parts of this activism either. Liking the concepts does not mean I blanket like every single thing said about them.

The sooner you get this straw representation of social justice out of your head the better, yo.

Perhaps when you drop the strawman that everyone taking the opposition position isn't pining for the good ol' days when women were barefoot in the kitchen.

[Balrog]

From a moral standpoint, yes. Personally, my sympathies lie with the students. This is mainly because students don't seem to have much of an external motivation to try to block speech.

If you honestly believe that I have a bridge you might be interested in. College students if anything are just as likely to be influenced by external motivations as the administration. The administration at least is expected to be able to make decisions for the benefit of the students. It's the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy.

I don't think that speakers should be unilaterally banned from speaking on campus unless they meet specific criteria: 1. that they're engaging in hate speech, and 2. that they're using university funds or resources to do so.

So what "hate speech" had Christine Legarde or Condoleezza Rice engaged in? As far as using funds, even if the university doesn't want to directly pay a speaker, they are still paying for their appearance (providing facilities, security, etc.) in which case any and every speaker is deserving of a "second thought." This overly broad definition is as tenuous as the overly broad definition being used for some examples of what is offensive speech.

Students exercising the heckler's veto is fair game and should be expected, especially if they have "controversial" ideas.

Expected but it should not be allowed to prevail without resistance. The students can also exercise their right to simply not attend said speech; I would contend that no one showing up to hear you would be a more powerful statement than an angry crowd trying to drive you out of town.

Of course not. But you're defending the right of people to speak on campus as an absolute right. It stands to reason that you should therefore defend the absolute worst instances of speech on campus, since you don't seem to have any restrictions on who or what is fair game as far as speech goes.

No, I'm defending their right to speak, not the content of their speech. Constantly trying to tie this issue to rape apologists is disingenuous at best in terms of link tie the two together, as though the only reason people would be arguing this is so they can go around in insulting African-Americans.

I contend that there are limits on speech on campus with public resources, and I further contend that these restrictions exist outside of academia. These restrictions never seem to draw the same ire that trigger warnings, safe spaces, and disinvitations seem to bring. I contend that there is a reason for this, and that this reason is because protest mainly comes from people who stereotype student activists, and who don't give much of a shit about free speech outside of the weird culture war currently going on in universities.

You are free to have that wrong opinion. I would simply point you towards one of the Trump rallies earlier this year where protestors used violence to cause it to end early or be cancelled. Trump and many of those who support them are disgusting human beings for some of the things they've said and done, but I still believe using violence to prevent him from speaking is fundamentally wrong, not because "culture wars!" but because freedom of speech should be sacrosanct.

I would further point out that many of Trump's rallies use "public resources" as well, such as the police providing security. In fact any major public demonstration involves the use of public resources in some scope or other. Should we put any such demonstration or rally up for public vote by the community potentially affected by it?

I have no problem whatsoever with banning intentionally offensive speech, particularly hate speech. Of course people are going to wrestle with the particular notions that constitute "offensive speech," since this is a brand new subject for most universities. Of course it's going to be comically broad until the universities in question can come to some kind of consensus on the issue.

And who will be in charge of determining this consensus? The loudest voices in the room?

You're acting as though universities are proposing to make microaggressions a grave infraction with serious consequences. I see absolutely no evidence that this is the case.

When professors are being forced to resign or feel they must self-censor themselves, I would say there is evidence it could easily become a serious problem. Especially as you seem to indicate if the students themselves should be put in charge of who is allowed to speak or what topic is allowed on campus.

So then what the fuck is this letter even about? I'll tell you; it's about making alums and donors feel better about giving money to a historically conservative university. It is a publicity stunt, pure and simple, and it's a stunt that's preying on the reactionary feelings of people who left university some time ago. This does not strike me as a particularly compelling reason to issue this trivial letter.

Perhaps then you should've read the OP where I point out how the parts about 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' was just low-hanging fruit? I don't disagree with the ulterior motives, but that doesn't make it any less an important topic of debate.

The crucial difference between the Muhammad Cartoons and George Will speaking on campus is that one involved school funds while the other was private speech.

Are they? If a student made the next "Muhammad Cartoons" while attending University of Bumfuq, you can be sure they wouldn't use any school resources in the creation? If they are graded on their work or even achieve honors because of it, that doesn't involves school resources (or at least the school's tacit support)? If their work was put on display by the University, is it not using public funds to show it, protect it from the weather or vandalism?

The criteria that "if it uses public resources it requires public approval" is a whole can of worms which could easily backfire on the people arguing for it.

Nobody is seriously suggesting that professors should be forbidden from discussing controversial topics within an academic context. Certainly no school administrations are proposing to do so. But students are, and should, protesting if school administrations are using school resources to fund speakers that students find offensive.

Yes, by all means exercise their right to free speech to denounce what they deem offensive. But silencing what they deem offensive, whether as a heckler or by making it punishable offenses, is a dangerous path to tread.

True! Doesn't seem to have much of a chilling effect though. Alice Walker's banning didn't chill Palestinian solidarity movements on college campuses, and I'd seriously doubt that it had much of an impact on the famously left-wing Michigan campus.

The point being that it's not just rape apologists that are getting caught in this net of offensive speech and speakers.

I categorically disagree. Disinviting people doesn't signal that those opinions are taboo or forbidden, just that you're not allowed to disseminate them using public resources.

And that as I've noted above is a dangerous standard to use when determining free speech.

We've seen far worse than disinvitation as a direct consequence of having anti-Israeli political opinions. Norman Finkelstein was chased out of American academia because he picked so many fights with powerful supporters of Israel. They made an example out of him that was far more severe than anything we've seen to date. Did that have a chilling effect on me or my fellow SJP members? Hell no! If anything, it only made us more determined to organize.

Thank you for a perfect example of the type of serious consequences which occur when people are not allowed to express their opinions freely without fear of reprisal.

Which is fine, provided it's within an academic setting. You're acting like students are constantly engaged in academic discourse and experiences with each other.

No, but arguable inviting someone to speak is intended to being academic in nature (you're not having them over for small talk over some tea and biscuits), which is the whole purpose of the institution. Running with the movie theater analog, it would be if a theater ran a film the local community found offensive, so they should be allowed to break in and try to stop it from playing.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

That's your assumption.

Hate crime laws are actually a pretty solid parallel to hate speech laws.

I would strongly disagree. Hate crimes are not about making it illegal to be hateful in and of itself, but acting on that hate to target specific groups of people. Being robbed or assaulted or killed are already serious offenses punishable by law for good reason, but in the same way motivation matters in deciding between manslaughter and first-degree murder, so too when you do it for racial or xenophobic or gender-based reasons. However, "being offended" is not a criminal offense, and for good reason, when what constitutes offense can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder.

Injurious to the community in that the speech itself, or the speakers themselves, do nothing except provoke conflict on campus. I have elaborated on this above.

So the community should have veto over who gets to speak and on what subject?

Who is saying that you should be punished for being rude to someone? Who is saying that microaggressions should be a punishable offense? Your stereotypes are showing.

The numerous previous links showing people in favor of banning offensive speech. If you are arguing something should be banned, then you're arguing that someone who breaks that ban should be punished.

If you can demonstrate a professor who was terminated because they discussed a controversial subject within an academic context, I will concede the entirety of my argument. Until then, I suggest you find something more productive to worry about.

Norman Finkelstein.

[Balrog]

Thing is... that change of the public's opinion resulted in anti-Semites experiencing, well... a chilling effect. People who, in 1935, would have publicly trashed Jews and blamed them for all sorts of social problems, know that if they do so today, they will become pariahs. They will lose the respect of the community, they will lose opportunities socially and professionally, and they will gain little or no sympathy when all this happens to them. Because trashing Jews is no longer a socially acceptable act, and people who do that are thought of as among the lowest of the low.

Yes, but as you point it was a matter of "social acceptability." There was no government-mandated drive to force people to lose the respect of anti-Semites, no laws which said "if someone says something anti-Semitic you should stop being their friend." It was people freely deciding they weren't going to buy from your business and it going under because enough of them disagreed with your views, not you losing your business by formal decree. You might think it nitpicky but I believe it vitally important to protecting freedoms we take for granted. I agree it would be great if it became equally socially unacceptably for people to pick on gay people or rape victims, but not through the methodology being argued about in this thread.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is... that change of the public's opinion resulted in anti-Semites experiencing, well... a chilling effect. People who, in 1935, would have publicly trashed Jews and blamed them for all sorts of social problems, know that if they do so today, they will become pariahs. They will lose the respect of the community, they will lose opportunities socially and professionally, and they will gain little or no sympathy when all this happens to them. Because trashing Jews is no longer a socially acceptable act, and people who do that are thought of as among the lowest of the low.

Yes, but as you point it was a matter of "social acceptability." There was no government-mandated drive to force people to lose the respect of anti-Semites, no laws which said "if someone says something anti-Semitic you should stop being their friend." It was people freely deciding they weren't going to buy from your business and it going under because enough of them disagreed with your views, not you losing your business by formal decree. You might think it nitpicky but I believe it vitally important to protecting freedoms we take for granted. I agree it would be great if it became equally socially unacceptably for people to pick on gay people or rape victims, but not through the methodology being argued about in this thread.

This isn't government-mandated either. It's private organizations deciding they do not want to support individuals who behave in certain ways regarding certain subjects that are under ideological debate.

This is exactly the sort of thing that inevitably happens as society stops putting up with a form of bigotry or hostility towards others. Someone has to be the first guy to lose his opportunities for speaking tours by claiming black people are genetically inferior, or that women should be kept pregnant in the kitchen where they belong.

And that person will inevitably claim discrimination, injustice, oppression... all the things they used to being able to casually inflict on others.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Thing is... that change of the public's opinion resulted in anti-Semites experiencing, well... a chilling effect. People who, in 1935, would have publicly trashed Jews and blamed them for all sorts of social problems, know that if they do so today, they will become pariahs. They will lose the respect of the community, they will lose opportunities socially and professionally, and they will gain little or no sympathy when all this happens to them. Because trashing Jews is no longer a socially acceptable act, and people who do that are thought of as among the lowest of the low.

Yes, but as you point it was a matter of "social acceptability." There was no government-mandated drive to force people to lose the respect of anti-Semites, no laws which said "if someone says something anti-Semitic you should stop being their friend." It was people freely deciding they weren't going to buy from your business and it going under because enough of them disagreed with your views, not you losing your business by formal decree. You might think it nitpicky but I believe it vitally important to protecting freedoms we take for granted. I agree it would be great if it became equally socially unacceptably for people to pick on gay people or rape victims, but not through the methodology being argued about in this thread.

Well, there are several arguments in this thread. You may have missed it, so I will toss this at you again.

Balrog, you are making an error. You are conflating "free speech" with "free speech while acting as a paid speaker".

Anyone can say whatever the ever-loving monkey-wangles they want on a university campus. At ASU, we used to get absolutely vile street preachers like clockwork, and there was sweet fuck-all anyone could do about it. Except of course for the Hecklers Veto (which you can see me about to enthusiastically utilize here), which you have decried in this thread if I remember properly.

Yeah, one takes place before the speech starts, the other takes place during the middle of the speech. Same effect.

There it is...

Protip: Free speech is not consequence-free speech. If you want the free and open exchange of ideas, heckling and ridicule of vapid or vile ideas goes with the territory.

Anyway, on the to the rest of the argument.

This is different from an "anything goes" approach to university-arranged speeches. Those talks are curated, they are arranged at great expense, and the speakers are being paid for their time. When you object to a disinvitation on the grounds of free speech, the argument you make is equivalent to a free-speech based objection to the university never inviting them in the first place. Why that is completely ridiculous should not require elaborate explanation. Simply: the university has limited slots and funds, and narrow the pool of speakers to a few based on any number of criteria. Typically, they bring in some luminary or another as part of their educational purpose. Are you seriously going to argue on free-speech grounds that any one person is entitled to that slot?

---

Now for Knife

Which is why you are too close to the subject. I'm not saying you should not have a problem, or a solution, or an opinion. Advocate as much as you can. But, accept you have a bias in this. The cure/solution/fix to the situation will affect everyone and by that the affects should be noted that can happen to everyone. Shit, I don't know, they might be minuscule. Depends on the fix, but in a free society everyone gets to weigh in on it but if we're smart, only an unbiased third party should put into affect the solution to make sure it is the most fair solution.

Ok. Here is the thing, and I am going to be as nice as possible about this.

People with privilege can cause harm to the under-privileged without knowing it. They carry around biases they dont know they have, stereotypes about gay people that cause them to act in ways that harm us, and stereotypes about black people that can do things like cause police officers to rate black people as a higher threat category than facts indicate and shoot them more frequently. It is not malicious. They dont know they are doing it. That is a problem.

Saying that cis/het white dudes including you are part of a problem is not a personal attack on you. Your heart can and probably is in the right place and you still carry a bunch of trash inside your head. So do I. The first step to getting rid of the trash is to recognize it is there, and for that, yeah, we (minorities) have been trying to convince you (plural) of the problem (with varying degrees of success) for a long damned time. Sometimes it is going to sound personal, but most of us try not to make it personal (until it becomes that way, in any case).

Your argument here, however, is paternalistic and condescending as fuck. We are "too biased" to make our own determinations. Of course we are biased, we are talking about our own lives here, we have a stake in the matter that you don't have--and we have information in the form of life experience that you simply lack. You (plural for majority population) are simply not in a position to tell us what is and is not hurtful, what the cost to us actually is, because you have not been in our shoes and are not telepaths. We are biased in the same way that reality has a liberal bias with respect to climate change.

And while yes, any solution is going to require lawyers and economists etc, bluntly, my opinion on the problems faced by gay people and their solutions carries more weight than yours (or anyone without a PhD in a relevant subject speaking within that particular area like an economist discussing the costs of a given initiative. Though even such PhDs are going to have to be gay themselves to actually perform the cost-benefit. Case in point, it took MDs and other scientists decades to figure out being gay is not a choice or result of trauma/neglect, which we had been telling them for decades before they even fucking bothered to do research) because I am gay and because I have had those problems literally beaten into me. I know precisely how much damage homophobic bullying does to kids, because I've been there. Done that. Got the chipped tooth and suicidal ideation.

And when it comes to what we want to do internally and what we find acceptable--which is what you originally argued about with respect to what labels people find acceptable--that kinda has to be just us. Because, you know...we are the ones being called things and having to decide what we actually want. Straight people swamping the proverbial vote on whether or not we consider the F-Bomb to be a slur is the result of the logic train you used.

If you want to dispute that, by all means do. I will break you, and you know it.

You were a marine if I recall yes? Assume for a moment that I am an interested and well-intentioned civilian (which has the benefit of being a correct assumption) with no particular education (which isn't in this case due to a fuckton of psych courses) engaged in a discussion with you about the experience of boot camp, and how it can be made to serve its function while also reducing the psychological phenomenon known as moral injury during and post combat deployment.

What I have to say is only going to be useful by accident or along a very narrow avenue of inquiry, because I have no god damned clue what boot camp is actually like, what it does etc beyond what I can find in a google search and reading books like On Killing that discuss the training of soldiers from a functional perspective (but unlike the actual me, fictional me wont even academically understand the material very well). I simply have no context to evaluate what it is I am reading. You've been there, done that, you have information about the subject not in the public record that I could not conceivably obtain evidence about. It is the whole reason The Mess exists, so you can talk about that sort of thing among people who Get It.

It is in fact a Safe Space, now that I think about it.

[Dragon Angel]

I can understand your confusion considering how quickly the topic diverged as people bloviated about how terrible SJW is as a term, but yes, the initial focus of this discussion was on the disinviting speaker portion of the letter. Hence why trying to contort this and my arguments as somehow a defense that cis white dudes should decide if a pejorative for transsexual people should be a pejorative was disingenuous at best.

Except we, the two of us, weren't discussing disinvitation, so don't even try sleazing out like that.

If you cannot speak for the experiences of a community, how can you stand in judgment about who should and should not belong to that community?

I learn from them? I look at their background histories? I mean, what other answers did you expect?

Also, since you missed this.

It's not about personal experience it's about the society at large. Running with the flimsy analogy, it's saying "doctors are medical experts, so only they should be able to make medical decisions for everyone" or "only lawyers should be allowed to write laws." It's simply not a good way to run a country, at least one that stands for democracy.

Except that's not what's happening and never will happen, as long as marginalized people, you know, stay marginalized. Simon explained this already. As long as the majority power base has the reins, marginalized people are forced to deal with them.

Internal policy matters, how to bring forth activism to one's government and society, deciding what is best for the marginalized group? That's what is up to the people part of it. As a corollary to what I've requested from Knife and told Crown, show how marginalized people will have absolute power in dictating to the whole of society while they are within their marginalized status.

If you wish to continue this argument, then you're going to have to back it up.

No you idiot, I was trying to gauge how much you were willing to divest yourself of your right to participate in society in preference for those whom you believe should have more knowledge on the subject.

I'm willing to help, as I've been attempting to in this thread, spread what I've learned. This is "divesting myself" of my right to participate in society? What an utterly useless hyperbolic statement.

I should've realized where you'd try to take it, but the point still stands, which I think others have eloquently argued since my post.

If you're gonna go the way of Knife with this then there's no hope for you dude.

Perhaps when you drop the strawman that everyone taking the opposition position isn't pining for the good ol' days when women were barefoot in the kitchen.

Where the fuck did you get that from? Are you even trying anymore?

[Flagg]

I think it's clear that Balrog is arguing in bad faith based on the thread title alone. I mean where exactly should the mythical SJW "shove" "it".

[Flagg]

To expand, SJW is a term used by people to define a group they oppose in an insulting manner and the rest of the title was gleefully saying they were told to "shove it".

So to change things a bit and make a post more than just those with empathy will be insulted by: "Stupid Pig Drives Too Fast, Hits Tree & Dies, People Mourn For Tree"

[TithonusSyndrome]

There's a right and a wrong way to critique the evils of the "SJW" phenomenon; and the right way begins with an acknowledgement of how relatively contained, minor and powerless a handful of outspoken people who have maybe endured past traumas that compromise their objectivity are. In fact, the more about the critique you get right, the more you realize that they are simply not worth all this spilled ink; I compared them to "White Russians, Juggalos and Posadists" earlier for a reason.

In fact, when you really hit the ball into the pocket and start really getting your critique exceptionally well-honed, your critique turns inward and you find yourself asking, "why am I so incensed over the behavior of young and/or traumatized people whose conduct is mostly imperfect and at worst obnoxious on occasion? Why am I insisting on standards of conduct that few, if any organizations or movements can realistically uphold? Why am I holding them accountable for inequities in daily life that by rights are the doing of the empowered and the wealthy, if anyone is?"

Maybe privilege theory has shortcomings, but they're not going to be fixed by hovering over every little thing that can be tied into the movement and playing "gotcha!" at every opportunity. Constructive criticism doesn't start with hyperbolic and jejune rants about violations of "free speech" that suggest you've never heard of laws against libel, slander or defamation of character written into law for centuries to accommodate the wealthy. It definitely doesn't consist of sneering snarl-word slogans in a sarcastic tone and de facto defenses of the status quo that take the form of an implied implied Just World Fallacy.