User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 63

  1. #21
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlip View Post
    in my opinion, these people are way above those who's main cause is to consume T&A, X-Boxii, and commence dick waving without reflection.
    It's an interesting thought here.. So, to me, there is just as little thought put into their attitude and ways as those guys. They aren't so far apart to me. They cling to a real-world issue that has real importance, and they turn it and blow it up in such a way as to create hate, and resentment, and sides, and blind sweeping generalizations that typically come from dick-swinging T&A consumers.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  2. #22
    Post Human Post Qlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,483

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    It's an interesting thought here.. So, to me, there is just as little thought put into their attitude and ways as those guys. They aren't so far apart to me. They cling to a real-world issue that has real importance, and they turn it and blow it up in such a way as to create hate, and resentment, and sides, and blind sweeping generalizations that typically come from dick-swinging T&A consumers.
    I think it comes down to that age old question of what you value, intentions or the ramifications actions. To me, the world is so labyrinthian and the structure of powers secured and the effects of action are counter-intuitive. Actually doing net good seems to me a matter of intelligence and resources, or often just dumb luck, most people don't have access to those things. People as individuals just tend to have enough to spin their wheels, so I judge on where they are meaning to go.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Social justice Rorschach test | Social Justice Warrior | Know Your Meme

    I didnt think it was possible for the left to get anymore discredited but it seems to just keep getting worse.
    Here's a germaine article. It's entitled, "Not a Very PC Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism." By Jonathan Chait.

    Link: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag

    It's kind of long, goes through the whole gamut of how PC thinking is resulting in new versions of censorship and injustice, often targeted at fellow liberals. Mansplaining, trigger warnings, tone policing, microaggressions, etc.

    Here's one anecdote among many; it's pretty funny:

    ...Nearly every time I have mentioned the subject of p.c. to a female writer I know, she has told me about Binders Full of Women Writers, an invitation-only Facebook group started last year for women authors. [...] Binders was created to give women writers a “laid-back” and “no-pressure” environment for conversation and professional networking. It was an attempt to alleviate the systemic under-representation of women in just about every aspect of American journalism and literature, and many members initially greeted the group as a welcome and even exhilarating source of social comfort and professional opportunity. “Suddenly you had the most powerful women in journalism and media all on the same page,” one former member, a liberal journalist in her 30s, recalls.

    Binders, however, soon found itself frequently distracted by bitter identity-politics recriminations, endlessly litigating the fraught requirements of p.c. discourse. “This was the first time I had felt this new kind of militancy,” says the same member, who requested anonymity for fear that her opinions would make her employer uncomfortable. Another sent me excerpts of the types of discussions that can make the group a kind of virtual mental prison.

    On July 10, for instance, one member in Los Angeles started a conversation urging all participants to practice higher levels of racial awareness. “Without calling anyone out specifically, I’m going to note that if you’re discussing a contentious thread, and shooting the breeze … take a look at the faces in the user icons in that discussion,” she wrote. “Binders is pretty diverse, but if you’re not seeing many WOC/non-binary POC in your discussion, it’s quite possible that there are problematic assumptions being stated without being challenged.” (“POC” stands for “people of color.” “WOC” means “women of color.” “Non-binary” describes people who are either transgender or identify as a gender other than traditionally male or female.)

    Two members responded lightly, one suggesting that such “call-outs” be addressed in private conversation and another joking that she was a “gluten free Jewish WWC” — or Woman Without Color. This set off more jokes and a vicious backlash. “It seems appropriate to hijack my suggestion with jokes. I see,” the Los Angeles member replied. “Apparently whatever WOC have to say is good for snark and jokes,” wrote another. Others continued: “The level of belittling, derailing, crappy jokes, and all around insensitivity here is astounding and also makes me feel very unsafe in this Big Binder.” “It is literally fucking insane. I am appalled and embarrassed.”

    The suggestion that a call-out be communicated privately met with even deeper rage. A poet in Texas: “I’m not about to private message folks who have problematic racist, transphobic, anti-immigrant, and/or sexist language.” The L.A. member: “Because when POC speak on these conversations with snark and upset, we get Tone Argumented at, and I don’t really want to deal with the potential harm to me and mine.” Another writer: “You see people suggesting that PMs are a better way to handle racism? That’s telling us we are too vocal and we should pipe down.” A white Toronto member, sensing the group had dramatically underreacted, moved to rectify the situation: “JESUS FUCK, LIKE SERIOUSLY FUCK, I SEE MORE WHITE BINDERS POLICING WOC AND DEMANDING TO BE EDUCATED/UNEDUCATED AS IF IT’S A FUCKING NOBLE MISSION RATHER THAN I DUNNO SPEND TIME SHUTTING DOWN AND SHITTING ON RACIST DOUCHE CANOE BEHAVIOUR; WHAT ARE YOU GAINING BY THIS? WHAT ARE YOU DETRACTING? YOU NEED SCREENCAPS OF BURNING CROSSES TO BELIEVE RACIST SHIT IS HAPPENING? THIS THREAD IS PAINFUL. HUGS TO ALL THE WOC DURING THIS THREAD”
    ...
    Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
    ETA: By the way, I don't intend any disrespect to the PC crowd by pointing out this article. I myself am a political moderate, so this stuff doesn't affect me. As the article says at the end, ultimately PC politics and recriminations tend to victimize PC liberals. Conservatives and moderates don't really give a crap about this stuff, so the best victims for the PC police are ultimately their fellow liberals. So whatever; they do it to themselves, which is fine by me.
    Likes Dopa liked this post

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    N/A
    Socionics
    EIE Ni
    Posts
    3,380

    Default

    I am tempted to laugh. Unfortunately, a compliant media and government have allowed their ideas to influence our culture without any scrutiny. The introduction of "diversity training" into schools is an obvious example.

    Social justice warriors are just the most obviously comical (if sincere) part of the radical left to me. They are a symptom of a far greater problem; where being a [insert -ist here] can be thought of as a worse crime than theft, rape or murder. This is the practical definition of thoughtcrime; where mental detractions from the hive become more injurious than physical damage.

  5. #25
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    I like real SJWs. And I love even more the fake-SJWs created by anti-SJWs that are mistaken to be real SJWs by anti-SJWs which continues the cycle of whining by anti-SJWs.

    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so

    Likes Bush Did 9/11 liked this post

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Here's a germaine article. It's entitled, "Not a Very PC Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism." By Jonathan Chait.

    Link: Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag

    It's kind of long, goes through the whole gamut of how PC thinking is resulting in new versions of censorship and injustice, often targeted at fellow liberals. Mansplaining, trigger warnings, tone policing, microaggressions, etc.

    Here's one anecdote among many; it's pretty funny:



    ETA: By the way, I don't intend any disrespect to the PC crowd by pointing out this article. I myself am a political moderate, so this stuff doesn't affect me. As the article says at the end, ultimately PC politics and recriminations tend to victimize PC liberals. Conservatives and moderates don't really give a crap about this stuff, so the best victims for the PC police are ultimately their fellow liberals. So whatever; they do it to themselves, which is fine by me.
    If you consider the origins of political correctness proper it was from within the marxist camp, Lenin and others seeking to ensure purity and the party line, it was a form of left wing self-lacerating and that's a common thing in the history of the left, especially the admitted authoritarian and authoritarian in denial camps on the left (which in the early nineties used to be called prejoratively "Tanks" because of the actions of the USSR and China).

    The curious thing is that there's a whole other history of loyal opponents and left wing rethinkers like Orwell which is screwed up, although I think it was one of the Hitchens brothers who wrote a book seeking to "Save" Orwell from the most recent left wing attempt to disown him and repaint him a traitorous member of the establishment.

    The left has struggled with being conscientious and wanting to effect change and emancipation since its first days, a lot of the semantic struggles and sensitivity battles could well be taken as evidence of its near exhaustion or extinction where it occurs and is most pronounced, although that doesnt mean everwhere or everywhere else even. History also has been a series of disappointments in terms of the new boss being the same as the old boss when change does happen, new problems for old.

    The right wing has engaged in some better thinking, if it can be treated as sincere, I'm talking about the right at their best here, not the rest if you know what I mean. There was an American conservative, who I think does a lousy job of trying to reconcile capitalism with early conservatism, but he considered the idea of a reflective conservatism, which sought to accept and integrate change rather than react and reject it wholesale, that sort of thing rather than knee jerk defensiveness and recriminations is a good thing in any quarter.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    617

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    If you consider the origins of political correctness proper it was from within the marxist camp, Lenin and others seeking to ensure purity and the party line, it was a form of left wing self-lacerating and that's a common thing in the history of the left, especially the admitted authoritarian and authoritarian in denial camps on the left (which in the early nineties used to be called prejoratively "Tanks" because of the actions of the USSR and China).

    The curious thing is that there's a whole other history of loyal opponents and left wing rethinkers like Orwell which is screwed up, although I think it was one of the Hitchens brothers who wrote a book seeking to "Save" Orwell from the most recent left wing attempt to disown him and repaint him a traitorous member of the establishment.

    The left has struggled with being conscientious and wanting to effect change and emancipation since its first days, a lot of the semantic struggles and sensitivity battles could well be taken as evidence of its near exhaustion or extinction where it occurs and is most pronounced, although that doesnt mean everwhere or everywhere else even. History also has been a series of disappointments in terms of the new boss being the same as the old boss when change does happen, new problems for old.

    The right wing has engaged in some better thinking, if it can be treated as sincere, I'm talking about the right at their best here, not the rest if you know what I mean. There was an American conservative, who I think does a lousy job of trying to reconcile capitalism with early conservatism, but he considered the idea of a reflective conservatism, which sought to accept and integrate change rather than react and reject it wholesale, that sort of thing rather than knee jerk defensiveness and recriminations is a good thing in any quarter.
    Basically, I agree with what you're saying here.

    I'm fine with actors on either end of the political spectrum seeing a genuine wrong or imbalance and trying to redress it. As a political moderate, I think good ideas can come from any sector; I welcome thoughtful spokespeople of all viewpoints.

    The bad stuff is the holier-than-thou arguments that the ideologues get into. And you can find that on any end of the spectrum. Jingoists argue amongst themselves who is the most patriotic and beat up on anyone who criticizes their country. Feminists argue who is the purer in ideology. Religious figures literally try to argue who is holier. And so on.

    It's like a priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk arguing in a corner about who among them is the holiest. I'm an atheist, so I don't care. Even if those religious authorities argue until they come to blows, I don't care. Even if they run up and tell me that they're all holier than me, I'll just agree and then tell them to go fuck themselves. Because I don't care; "holiness" just isn't something I care about. As long as they don't try to claim that I'm the devil and burn me at the stake, then I don't give a shit what they say.

    That's how I feel about the PC police. As long as they don't try to make me out some kind of rapist and hang me, then I don't care what they say. It just doesn't register on my scale of what's important.

    You seem to like tracing the historical debates of the Left and Right as political philosophy. And certainly this stuff has real consequences (religious wars, political revolutions, etc.) But I'm not a philosopher. I pay lip service to the reigning ideology if I have to, for example acting appropriately patriotic if I'm in the miitary or whatever. But otherwise it's just hot air to me. If I regret anything about jingoists or priests or PC police, it's the waste of energy and resources wasted on their respective causes that could be put to better uses. But other than that, who cares. /cranky old man

  8. #28
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Are you sure?

    I'm sincerely asking, if there's any truth in what you're saying then the opposite thing entirely happened in the UK, in the UK the labour party dealt with its militant tendency and dispensed with it, although it took a couple of generations to disappear entirely, and the conservative party became its militant tendency instead, integrating most of the "hang Nelson Mandela" (yeah) going on to become central in successive governments and leading figures in the financial wing of the party (conservative banksters in the UK can effectively pull the strings of government regardless of who is in government).
    Not sure if I agree with that : at least looking from 'across the pond'.

    I'd like your take on the the following two items, which are related.

    1) Britain's Labour Party deliberately encouraged mass immigration to change British society and culture --

    a) Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.
    source: Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser - Telegraph

    b) Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson
    source: Lord Mandelson: Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them in and made it hard for Britons to get work | Daily Mail Online

    c) Labour's open door policy let in more immigrants in a decade than the previous 40 years
    source : Labour's open door policy let in more immigrants in a decade than the previous 40 years | UK | News | Daily Express

    d) The former home secretary Jack Straw has admitted that dropping immigration restrictions on eastern European migrants was a "spectacular mistake" on Labour's part.
    source: Jack Straw: Labour made mistake letting Poles in early | Politics | The Guardian

    (Note I picked four completely different sources, since as an American, I have no idea about the leanings of any Brit newspapers, except that there's one that has topless girls in it...and since it's not Playboy, I assume people aren't "reading it for the articles.")

    So these sources agree Labour deliberately threw the doors open to immigrants.

    Which kinda goes hand-in-hand with this:

    The Rotherham scandal --

    a) Police officer accused of having sex with underage girls in Rotherham
    Fresh claims emerge as the long-awaited findings from an independent inspection of the local authority are due to be published

    Source: Police officer accused of having sex with underage girls in Rotherham - Telegraph

    b) Groups of men are still targeting young girls for abuse in Rotherham, town's Labour MP claims

    Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...MP-claims.html

    c) South Yorkshire Police had "a lack of understanding" of the risk posed by offenders who target vulnerable children while officers showed an inconsistent response to child sexual exploitation, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) said.

    The report was carried out in May - just months before Professor Alexis Jay's report revealed that at least 1,400 children were abused in Rotherham over 16 years.

    Officers come under fire for "regarding many child victims with contempt".

    Source: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/517...dal-criticised

    d) In August Alexis Jay, a professor and former social worker, found that gangs of mainly Asian men had groomed, terrorised and abused 1,400 girls, some as young as 11, in Rotherham over a 16-year period. Jay said police often disbelieved the young girls when they contacted the forces about their experiences.

    There have also been concerns raised over the response by police in similar child exploitation cases that occurred in Rochdale, Barnsley and Doncaster.

    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...g-police-chief

    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

    The connection being, in this case:

    a) In the Rotherham scandal, the girls were systematically targeted and sexually abused by (mainly) Pakistani men
    b) These men were immigrants, not natural-born citizens
    c) The authorities not only looked the other way, but arrested the *father* of one of the girls when he went to complain
    d) This seems to conflict with the dual SJW themes of "it's for the CHILDREN" and "don't objectify womyn"

    So it looks from over here like a group of SJWs run amok at the expense of ordinary citizens -- and, for that matter, the goals of *other* SJWs. Ironic, too, to use the word "militant tendencies" since one of the core roles of the military (ultimately) is to protect the women of a country from sexual assault by foreigners...
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.
    Likes Kullervo liked this post

  9. #29
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kullervo View Post
    I am tempted to laugh. Unfortunately, a compliant media and government have allowed their ideas to influence our culture without any scrutiny. The introduction of "diversity training" into schools is an obvious example.

    Social justice warriors are just the most obviously comical (if sincere) part of the radical left to me. They are a symptom of a far greater problem; where being a [insert -ist here] can be thought of as a worse crime than theft, rape or murder. This is the practical definition of thoughtcrime; where mental detractions from the hive become more injurious than physical damage.
    SJWs are using Orwell's 1984 as an instruction manual. Remember Newspeak, e.g., "crimethink" ?
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YUI View Post
    Basically, I agree with what you're saying here.

    I'm fine with actors on either end of the political spectrum seeing a genuine wrong or imbalance and trying to redress it. As a political moderate, I think good ideas can come from any sector; I welcome thoughtful spokespeople of all viewpoints.

    The bad stuff is the holier-than-thou arguments that the ideologues get into. And you can find that on any end of the spectrum. Jingoists argue amongst themselves who is the most patriotic and beat up on anyone who criticizes their country. Feminists argue who is the purer in ideology. Religious figures literally try to argue who is holier. And so on.

    It's like a priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk arguing in a corner about who among them is the holiest. I'm an atheist, so I don't care. Even if those religious authorities argue until they come to blows, I don't care. Even if they run up and tell me that they're all holier than me, I'll just agree and then tell them to go fuck themselves. Because I don't care; "holiness" just isn't something I care about. As long as they don't try to claim that I'm the devil and burn me at the stake, then I don't give a shit what they say.

    That's how I feel about the PC police. As long as they don't try to make me out some kind of rapist and hang me, then I don't care what they say. It just doesn't register on my scale of what's important.

    You seem to like tracing the historical debates of the Left and Right as political philosophy. And certainly this stuff has real consequences (religious wars, political revolutions, etc.) But I'm not a philosopher. I pay lip service to the reigning ideology if I have to, for example acting appropriately patriotic if I'm in the miitary or whatever. But otherwise it's just hot air to me. If I regret anything about jingoists or priests or PC police, it's the waste of energy and resources wasted on their respective causes that could be put to better uses. But other than that, who cares. /cranky old man
    I dont believe that "I dont care" or some sort of defensive apathy is really a supportable position, at least not in my experience.

    Atheism isnt that good an example for what I'm thinking about because, frankly and I dont mean to offend here, most people of religious faith dont care, there is a small and vocal but dwindling minority of people who care to try and influence people to their way of thinking when it comes to religion but most religious people dont care about atheism at all, the fact that you're referencing witch burning as a form of religious persecution which you think may have applied to atheists sort of highlights what I'm talking about.

    Instead I'd probably choose any of the religious or ethno-nationalist struggles which are erupting around the world or which have erupted in recent years. You could fence sit as much as you wanted in Rwanda, the split up of the former Yugoslavia/Bosnia or the Arab Spring but if one or the other of the protagonists took you for an antagonist you would know about it. That's why I feel that no matter how much you dislike it personally its important to be aware at the very least, maybe it only means getting out of dodge because you know what way the wind is blowing.

    Sanctimonious is perhaps a better word or more fitting praise than holier than thou, there is sanctity and sacredness attributed to may secular things, they take on a political and cultural importance consequently.

    I dont consider myself a moderate at all but having read a lot in history and politics I've been intrigued by the shifting sands of politics, its more than the simple sayings about conservatives using ideas when radicals have exhausted them or talking like a conservative and thinking like a radical, there is a cross permeation between different creeds and even when conflict reigns that in itself can be a useful and a good thing rather than anathema.

    There's unhealthy aversions to conflict alive in the world, particularly within liberal and left wing circles or cultural scenes, which leads to a myriad of bad things, it gets buried or repressed and re-emerges like the ghost in hamlet or the spot in Macbeth.

    Returning to the cross cultural or political cultural cross permeation there's a lot within cultural conservatism which was once a societal norm or which no political ideology could consciously lay claim to, certainly not uncontested and not exclusively, like work ethics to choose a fairly simple example, although, I would suggest, also traditionalism and many of the associated values but conservatism was allowed that ground and other political contenders just left the field.

    Its become very important because people who wouldnt dream of supporting fiscal conservatism wind up supporting it because they cant stomach the cultural norms, values and expectations which, almost by agreement of friends and foes alike, constitute the alternative. In the end I think its the fiscal matters which prove most important.

Similar Threads

  1. [SJ] SJ's, what do you think about most of the time?
    By NewEra in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-17-2017, 09:20 PM
  2. What do you think about the massive tax evasion story out of Panama?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-15-2016, 07:32 PM
  3. What do you think about the Spanish-American War?
    By poppy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-30-2015, 07:59 AM
  4. What do you think about the is ought problem?
    By Robopop in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:30 PM
  5. What do you think about most of the time?
    By Sacrator in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-01-2009, 04:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO