Why does everyone who complains about SJWs routinely demonstrate both a desire to be a smug intellectual while simultaneously just signaling to anyone that knows dick about shit that they're just parroting things from dishonest shills?
-
-
-
SJWs believe that things like racism and patriarchy exist because society is saturated with cultural signifiers that shape us into racists and sexists, and that the corrupting influences of oppressive institutions trick us into perpetuating various systems of oppression. (1/3)
-
This implies that in the absence of those signifiers and institutions, we would not necessarily have racist patriarchal societies, and that the existence of systems of oppression is due to the manner in which we are socialized rather than anything that innately disposes us (2/3)
-
towards the development of societies where inequality and injustice exist. This all presupposes that humanity's default state is either that of a Blank Slate, or a Noble Savage. That SJWs themselves don't think this through to its logical conclusion is no fault of mine. (3/3)
-
"I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, let me throw in some buzzwords I've heard that make me look like a complete dumbass or dishonest asshole"
-
"I have no rebuttal to sourced descriptions of Intersectional ideology, so I'm gonna shit all over the chessboard and strut away victoriously."
-
Conspicuously absent in this presentation: sourcing.

-
Then you haven't been paying attention to the thread. I specifically mentioned works by Collins, hooks, Delgado, and others.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, first you'd need to define social justice activists.
-
I advocate for social justice. People shouldn't get away with harming or taking advantage of other people, and I find it reasonable to legislate based on this moral apprehension.
-
I share your apprehension at the prospect of people being harmed and taken advantage of. Ought there limitations, however, to the extent to which the state is allowed to redress grievances? Ought the state be given carte blanche? If not, what are the limitations of state power?
-
The "carte blanche" slippery slope --can you understand why I think that's being used fallaciously?Legislation is not edict, at least in the US democracy (yet).I'm sticking my neck out and saying legislating to make a more just and fair society is essentially the goal of society.
-
One man's idea of justice and fairness is another man's idea of injustice and tyranny. How can we decide whether legislation is just and fair, if someone somewhere ends up worse off?
-
I would argue that the veil of ignorance is an excellent tool here
-
It is not obvious to me that justice is synonymous with fairness, though, which is what the veil presupposes. It is possible for circumstances beyond anyone's control to be cruel without justice having been abrogated, and vice versa.
-
Are you talking about nature being cruel, as if it had intentions to be that way?
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, I saw this. Do you recognized the loaded question? It assumes "confused" so there's a proportion of people out their who don't share your assumption about "confusion," and thus reject this premise.
-
Yes it's loaded, I directed it at people who agree with me already. Nevertheless, I would invite advocates of social justice to consider their views on human nature, and whether their programs take into account the limitations imposed by it.
-
People are smart. They consider human nature in any well thought out legislation. They consider the limitations, evaluate the cost / benefit ratio, debate, and then come to at least a simple majority.
-
My experience with social justice advocacy differs from yours, as many of its attendants- perhaps unknowingly- seem to attribute infinite flexibility to the extent to which people can be socialized.
-
Could you be wrong about this belief?
-
I could be wrong about all my beliefs. I assign a greater probability of correctness than wrongness to this proposition, however, because my experience extends beyond the personal; my views of social justice are principally informed by what activists in the academy have published
-
I think what I'm trying to get across (clumsily) is that there seems to me to be a propagation of the meme that SJW means addle headed, unrealistic, and uninformed, whereas the idea of "social justice" itself can be seen as noble.
-
I would agree that most people's objection to SJWs isn't the SJ part, but the W part. We are not, for the most part, cartoon villains in search of a more unjust world

- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.