@Plinz @umruehren I won't
-
-
Replying to @cupe_cupe
@cupe_cupe@umruehren I just means all rules have to be justifiable by stating shared preferences and evidence for rationality of policy1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
@Plinz@umruehren thanks for elaborating. I have two answers. Answer 1 is, ironically, "not all SJWs!"1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cupe_cupe
@Plinz@umruehren 2: It is a derogative used by GG/redpill, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior … - Use without reappropriation implies sharing belief3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cupe_cupe
@cupe_cupe@umruehren Note the positions on free speech, dress codes, self-expression in choice of games, innocence until proven guilty...2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @cupe_cupe
@cupe_cupe@umruehren SJW; seems to be mostly 3rd wave feminists with intersectionality extensions, using identity/privilege tropes1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
@Plinz@umruehren again, using that word is like trying to appear unprejudiced while saying "world jew conspiracy" debating finance ethics2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cupe_cupe
@cupe_cupe Please don't pull a Godwin on me. You know that ATTAC has been called antisemitic for criticizing finance ethics?@umruehren1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
@Plinz@umruehren Was meant as an Illustration of the unintended effect the usage has, no other comparison intended.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@cupe_cupe SJWs, Marxists, Maoists and Neoliberals are vilified by bad people, but all honestly believe in their truths. @umruehren
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.