What's with Social Justice Warriors?

[yeghor]

When I’m unsure someone’s gender, I tend to use “they” just to avoid being rude or making them feel shitty.

I know quite a few transgender people, from a cousin in law to casual acquaintances. I’ve never had a problem using preferred pronouns. Not sure why this is hard for some people. It’s not worth obsessing over when we have bigger problems like an insane housing market, rising sea levels and the looming threats of the Russian and Chinese empires to worry about.

True libertarian minded people should respect the personal liberty of others to live as a he, she or whatever other of the numerous labels exist. If you can’t do that, then you’re not doing libertarianism right. You don’t have to like it, you just have to respect it. If you want to talk about the online pc mob, that’s a completely different issue, IMO. The trans people I’ve met IRL aren’t like the idea right wingers have of them based on interactions with Twitter mobs

That's your personal preference.

It's not even an issue in my country because we already use the same pronoun for he/she/it.

 

[EcK]

Are you being serious? Because it rather seems like you're looking for exceptions to exceptions and making the assumption that trans people commit suicide as part of our natural state as opposed to being due to having to live being constantly invalidated, misgendered and their basic human rights outright denied; just because some people are afraid they wont be able to talk like they did before.

It seems like you are misunderstanding me. What I said is that encouraging children to be trans is, overall (as in, statistically) not a good thing given the very high pre and post op suicide rate in that population.
I assume we agree that suicide is not a good thing yes? I'm not mocking you, just explaining what I meant by 'not a good thing' - I meant the suicide rate not whether someone identify as one gender or another is the bad outcome. I have no animus what so ever against transpeople either way.

I didn't make a value judgment as to why or who is the cause or pointed fingers at anyone, just said that on the whole, parents who do not wish their children to be at a much higher risk of suicide should not encourage their children towards transgenderism.
I didn't say that kids should be told transpeople are evil and that fathers should go nuts the second their boy looks at a Barbie doll. And as to adults, they can do whatever they want, i don't care. I was just talking about not pushing it on kids.

Not saying these numbers are exactly precise but at least as a rule of thumb - from what i've seen they don't seem to change much post-op.
I wouldn't call 25-40% attempted suicide as an 'exception to an exception' to quote you.

My point is that if transgenderism is not 100% biologically defined (and I haven't seen any evidence so far that it is strongly biologically predetermined so far), then children should not be pushed in that direction by adults.
In terms of life outcomes I don't think it would be excessive to at least compare parents proactively pushing transgenderism on children to a form of child abuse :

TLDR: transgenderism isn't reprehensible imo and adults can be and do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others. But pushing it on children is objectively a bad idea given the very high attempted suicide rates in the transgender community & assuming that transgenderism is not strongly biologically predetermined (and i haven't seen any evidence that it is so far)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

So there’s like two or three separate topics in relation to transgenderism being discussed here and I think people are just conflating them all, as seems typical in any discussion about trans people

On the first, no, parents shouldn’t push it on kids. They really shouldn’t push any gender roles though. Just encourage your kid to be a critical thinker and find their own path.

On the second, adults are free to choose whatever roles they want.

On the third, people are free to say whatever they want on these topics (free speech), up to the point where it becomes harassment or incitement to harm or violence. Unfortunately, determining when it is or isn’t harassment isn’t always clear to some. I suppose I would say that when it becomes personal attacks/insults then it’s definitely crossed over a line and can no longer be considered a harmless discussion of ideas. Of course, even in a supposedly harmless discussion of ideas, it isn’t always easy to determine actual intent of one or more participants. In that case, I would encourage all people to work on developing thicker skins—This of course isn’t to be taken as a dig at “lefty snowflakes”, as I would also encourage the righties to develop a thicker skin when approaching these sorts of discussions.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Okay, I thought that at first this was sort of, or perhaps maybe a dig at anyone sort of caring or having concern for the greater world and the prevailing social issues and causes; but in actuallity it feels like it's kind of an elevated sense of caring and more then anything a term to describe people who are really self rightious and have a sense of being holier then thou kind of thing? and indignatly not only preach but use the same measuring stick to size everyone else up that doesn't fit their mandate of future change? (whatever that may be) Seriously, I was talking to this vegetarian and he wouldn't even associate with people who ate meat and if you had anything to do with big business (shopped at them ever or happen to work at one) then he wouldn't again associate and actually despise and dislike you. (or just any company that doesn't support organic/fair trade etc all that stuff) if you didn't happen to know but then assuming based on how you speak or talk. It seems really hypocrtical as well.

The guy OP is describing sounds more like someone with mental illness. I would not consider this to be synonymous with a person who voted for Bernie or supports ending qualified immunity and police misconduct.

So define what we mean by SJW and I’ll tell you how I feel on the subject.

 

[Luminous]

You don’t have to like it, you just have to respect it.

It's exactly this. Well said.

You don't have to agree it's right, you can be courteous anyway, because you're not losing anything by being courteous.

You don't have to agree or understand, but you can respect people's basic humanity and their right to control their own bodies.

 

[Tellenbach]

These appear to be very angry people who lead empty lives and believe they can fill the void through virtue signaling and yelling at complete strangers. They act a lot like Sam Kinison - only not funny at all. I don't think they can engage people who believe differently in a rational manner, so they resort to yelling down and trying to cancel people. I blame our lousy public school system for this unfortunate phenomenon.

 

[prplchknz]

If you are so bothered by someone's pronouns that you have to complain online about it lock yourself in your home and never come out. Guess what another person's pronouns doesn't effect you as much as you think and it's not fucking hard to use someone's correct pronouns. In short grow the fuck up and stop making things that aren't about you. About you. /end rant

 

[Lark]

These appear to be very angry people who lead empty lives and believe they can fill the void through virtue signaling and yelling at complete strangers. They act a lot like Sam Kinison - only not funny at all. I don't think they can engage people who believe differently in a rational manner, so they resort to yelling down and trying to cancel people. I blame our lousy public school system for this unfortunate phenomenon.

More likely to consumerism and capitalism.

Its terrible either way though.

 

[Coriolis]

When I’m unsure someone’s gender, I tend to use “they” just to avoid being rude or making them feel shitty.

I know quite a few transgender people, from a cousin in law to casual acquaintances. I’ve never had a problem using preferred pronouns. Not sure why this is hard for some people. It’s not worth obsessing over when we have bigger problems

Indeed. I am enough of a grammar nazi to bristle at calling a singular specific person of any gender identity "they", but I know some people prefer it and do my best to accommodate. It's not that hard, folks. We bother to learn people's names (I hope), and there are alot more of those in play to remember.

 

[yeghor]

Indeed. I am enough of a grammar nazi to bristle at calling a singular specific person of any gender identity "they", but I know some people prefer it and do my best to accommodate. It's not that hard, folks. We bother to learn people's names (I hope), and there are alot more of those in play to remember.

Because it is patronizing to decide or impose how other people should act to accommodate someone else and then say it is no big deal for the former. That is subjugation.

You should let people decide for themselves. That's what liberalism means. Making decisions for others under the name of liberalism is a paradox in itself.

 

[Coriolis]

Because it is patronizing to decide or impose how other people should act to accommodate someone else and then say it is no big deal for the former. That is subjugation.

You should let people decide for themselves. That's what liberalism means. Making decisions for others under the name of liberalism is a paradox in itself.

Is it patronizing or subjugation to expect someone to call you by your actual name, or by the form of it you prefer (e.g. Daniel instead of Dan)? Pronouns are no different. What you are espousing would allow others to decide for you how you should be referred to and addressed. I have heard many interpretations of liberalism, but none has encompassed that.

You are welcome to your convoluted theories and personal perspective. All we can insist upon is that your interactions here abide by forum rules - and we will. That includes referring to people by their preferred names and pronouns, whether you like it or not.

 

[Lark]

I dont think they are still around, if they ever where around, the social justice warriors that is.

 

[yeghor]

Is it patronizing or subjugation to expect someone to call you by your actual name, or by the form of it you prefer (e.g. Daniel instead of Dan)? Pronouns are no different. What you are espousing would allow others to decide for you how you should be referred to and addressed. I have heard many interpretations of liberalism, but none has encompassed that.

You are welcome to your convoluted theories and personal perspective. All we can insist upon is that your interactions here abide by forum rules - and we will. That includes referring to people by their preferred names and pronouns, whether you like it or not.

You and the other mods if any are entitled to your convoluted worldviews too. It is sad that the moderation is heavily skewed towards a certain worldview, it leaves the decision making system unbalanced.

As for nonbinary pronouns I don't need to use them. I can just refer to them as "you" or by their username, which are genderless substitutes. First person interaction does not require any adjustment anyways. I don't see when it will be actually necessary to refer to them as they.

 

[yeghor]

Regarding SJWs, woke and cancel culture, I haven't read this book but the excerpts below and the link seem to align with my views.

The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left

A former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State and currently a Distinguished Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Kim R. Holmes surveys the state of liberalism in America today and finds that it is becoming its opposite—illiberalism—abandoning the precepts of open-mindedness and respect for individual rights, liberties, and the rule of law upon which the country was founded, and becoming instead an intolerant, rigidly dogmatic ideology that abhors dissent and stifles free speech.

Tracing the new illiberalism historically to the radical Enlightenment, a movement that rejected the classic liberal ideas of the moderate Enlightenment that were prominent in the American Founding, Holmes argues that today’s liberalism has forsaken its American roots, incorporating instead the authoritarian, anti-clerical, and anti-capitalist prejudices of the radical and largely European Left.

The result is a closing of the American liberal mind. Where once freedom of speech and expression were sacrosanct, today liberalism employs speech codes, trigger warnings, boycotts, and shaming rituals to stifle freedom of thought, expression, and action.

It is no longer appropriate to call it liberalism at all, but illiberalism—a set of ideas in politics, government, and popular culture that increasingly reflects authoritarian and even anti-democratic values, and which is devising new strategies of exclusiveness to eliminate certain ideas and people from the political process.

Although illiberalism has always been a temptation for American liberals, lurking in the radical fringes of the Left, it is today the dominant ideology of progressive liberal circles. This makes it a new danger not only to the once venerable tradition of liberalism, but to the American nation itself, which needs a viable liberal tradition that pursues social and economic equality while respecting individual liberties.

How the Left Became So Intolerant | The Heritage Foundation

Author

"I’m a Christian. I love Christian civilization. But please please don’t try to create a Christian state. If you mandate it through the power of the state, you lose the point of choosing to be a Christian." Kim R. Holmes.

Also: why-liberals-arent-as-tolerant-as-they-think

Spencer Greenberg, a mathematician who runs a website for improving decision-making, found that the one of the biggest predictors of voting for Trump after party affiliation was the rejection of political correctness—Trump’s voters felt silenced...

...But more recent psychological research, some of it presented in January at the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP), shows that it’s not so simple. These findings confirm that conservatives, liberals, the religious and the nonreligious are each prejudiced against those with opposing views. But surprisingly, each group is about equally prejudiced. While liberals might like to think of themselves as more open-minded, they are no more tolerant of people unlike them than their conservative counterparts are.

...As predicted, conservatives were more discriminatory than liberals toward liberal groups, and liberals were more discriminatory than conservatives toward conservative groups. Conservatives’ discrimination was driven by their higher traditionalism and by liberal groups’ apparent violation of their values.

Liberals’ discrimination was driven by their lower traditionalism and by conservative groups’ apparent violation of their values. Complicating matters, conservatives highly valued self-reliance, which weakened their discrimination toward liberal groups, perhaps because self-reliance is associated with the freedom to believe or do what one wants. And liberals highly valued universalism, which weakened their discrimination toward conservative groups, likely because universalism espouses acceptance of all.

But these differences didn’t affect the larger picture: Liberals were as discriminatory toward conservative groups as conservatives were toward liberal groups. And Brandt’s findings have been echoed elsewhere: Independently and concurrently, the labs of John Chambers at St. Louis University and Jarret Crawford at The College of New Jersey have also found approximately equal prejudice among conservatives and liberals.

Newer research has rounded out the picture of two warring tribes with little tolerance toward one another. Not only are conservatives unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than liberals, but religious fundamentalists are to some degree unfairly maligned as more prejudiced than atheists, according to a paper Brandt and Daryl Van Tongeren published in January in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Why liberals arent as tolerant as they think

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

You and the other mods if any are entitled to your convoluted worldviews too. It is sad that the moderation is heavily skewed towards a certain worldview, it leaves the decision making system unbalanced.

As for nonbinary pronouns I don't need to use them. I can just refer to them as "you" or by their username, which are genderless substitutes. First person interaction does not require any adjustment anyways. I don't see when it will be actually necessary to refer to them as they.

For all your grandstanding and hand waving, you ultimately settle back on a solution similar to what I proposed—simply using gender neutral pronouns to avoid the trouble of guessing. That’s really all you have to do. So why all of the fuss to begin with?

 

[yeghor]

For all your grandstanding and hand waving, you ultimately settle back on a solution similar to what I proposed—simply using gender neutral pronouns to avoid the trouble of guessing. That’s really all you have to do. So why all of the fuss to begin with?

The fuss is explained in my previous post. #94

 

[Coriolis]

You and the other mods if any are entitled to your convoluted worldviews too. It is sad that the moderation is heavily skewed towards a certain worldview, it leaves the decision making system unbalanced.

As for nonbinary pronouns I don't need to use them. I can just refer to them as "you" or by their username, which are genderless substitutes. First person interaction does not require any adjustment anyways. I don't see when it will be actually necessary to refer to them as they.

Well, that would be whenever you would otherwise use he or she. Most people I know, myself included, use "they" all the time when they don't know the identity of the person in question. As in, "They finally fixed the clock in the break room", or "Find the person who parked here and tell them to move their car."

Fortunately most people don't consider common courtesy to be convoluted. Some people simply find it too hard to demonstrate.

 

[Frosty]

Indeed. I am enough of a grammar nazi to bristle at calling a singular specific person of any gender identity "they", but I know some people prefer it and do my best to accommodate. It's not that hard, folks. We bother to learn people's names (I hope), and there are alot more of those in play to remember.

Funny thing you may or may not appreciate that I saw a little while ago online

Singular 'They' | Merriam-Webster

Idk if it changes your opinion or if you were already aware

 

[Coriolis]

Funny thing you may or may not appreciate that I saw a little while ago online

Singular 'They' | Merriam-Webster

Idk if it changes your opinion or if you were already aware

I am aware of this. It does not change my opinion, just represents a codification of what I still consider to be sloppy usage. Unfortunately we don't have any better alternative as the only genderless single pronoun in English is too objectifying ("it"), so I will use they/them when someone prefers.

 

[prplchknz]

You and the other mods if any are entitled to your convoluted worldviews too. It is sad that the moderation is heavily skewed towards a certain worldview, it leaves the decision making system unbalanced.

As for nonbinary pronouns I don't need to use them. I can just refer to them as "you" or by their username, which are genderless substitutes. First person interaction does not require any adjustment anyways. I don't see when it will be actually necessary to refer to them as they.

then you don't respect the person, and that's sad