Sjws

[Jannabear]

I take issue with one particular section of the secular community. Sjws.
Social Justice Warriors.
Now, I do want to say ahead of time that I don't hate all of them, but most of them are kind've... well..
Stupid.
When they constantly spout shit like:
"Patriarchy"
"Internalized misogyny"
"Racism is only racism if it's systematic"
"The wage gap"
The idea that you can't criticize religious beliefs, more specifically islam.
It's frustrating, even though these arguments have been refuted.
Several, fucking, times.
I'll address then one by one.
The idea that patriarchal rule, or atleast some forms of patriarchy still exist in western society:
While it is true that women still do have to deal with sexism, it is not that disproportionate to the sexism that men deal with.
Men and women deal with idiotic stereotypes involving how they are emotionally, their sexuality needing to be a certain way or with a certain gender, among other stereotypes.
Both of them have to deal with legal issues such as women having roadblocks to get an abortion, and men being less likely to get custody.
I'm welling to entertain argument on anything else related to this, but from what I've seen, there isn't any severe legal injustices on either side, just stupid debates about abortion and idiotic standards for men who want custody for their child.
Internalized misogyny.
I honestly don't even know what to say about this, it's basically bullshit that sjws spout whenever a girl disagrees with them.
It's akin to a christian saying that you're just a devil worshiper.
Racism is only racism when it's systematic.
I have multiple things I take  issue with when people say this.
First off it's completely irrelevant what the definition of the word is, I don't really give a fuck if you consider it to fall under the definition of racism, it's wrong to discriminate people for arbitrary reasons regardless of whether or not it's systemic, this is just a way for sjws to justify stereotyping white people, and people in gender wherever it suits them.
Even if the definition did matter, rather or not it's systemic isn't a factor for whether or not it is racism.
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Doesn't really seem like it matters whether it's systemic or not, all it is is when someone presupposes something about you simply because you are a certain race, all because you try to redefine it doesn't justify it.
The wage gap
They spout different statistics back and forth, typically without citation, but it's always something akin to "Women make 77 cents to the dollar to men" or something like that.
The problem with this is that it doesn't account for any other factor then gender.
Women have different ambitions then men statistically, not always, but statistically there are differences.
Women take maternity leave.
When you factor shit like that in it kind of removes the urgency, doesn't it?
And I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist at all in the workplace, prejudice of all kinds exist, but it's not near as severe for women as sjws would like to say it is, I would say it's probably more severe for transgender people, lgbt in general (Probably mostly transgender though) And heavily stereotyped minorities like muslims.
The idea that you can't criticize beliefs, specifically islam.
I never understood this, the idea that if you hate the religion, you hate the religious.
They'll say shit like, "You're racist," or "You're islamaphobic."
Why are their beliefs not subject to criticism?
I think everyone's ideas, regardless of what they are, should be subject to criticism, otherwise you aren't really standing up for the truth, and that in my mind is intellectually bankrupt, but as for the idea that you're racist.....
Islam...
Wait for it....
.....
..
IS NOT A FUCKING RACE.
Now, if someone spouts shit like "All arabs are muslims, or all arabs are terrorists, that IS racist,
but criticizing islam, is, NOT, racist.
Islamaphobic.
Criticizing islam, is not islamaphobic.
Saying shit like "All muslims are ____" IS islamaphobic.
I think islamaphobic is a misnomer, because it makes it to where people can twist the definition of prejudice to mean anything that criticizes their belief, when in reality, what the term should be is muslimphobic, or something akin to that.
And that would apply, when someone says stupid shit like "All muslims are terrorists"
THAT'S when that applys, not when someone says islam can lead to terrorism, not when someone criticizes islam, but when someone makes unfair assumptions about someone simply because they're a muslim.
So stop spreading this pc bullshit.
Now, I do want to clarify, if you want to start a women's suffrage movement in a country that needs it, feel free to, but America is not that country, we have equal rights for both genders, and the cases where people don't treat people equally due to gender, are few  when it comes to systemic issues, and typically are for both men and women.

[Atheon]

Here's some of the bogosity I've come across in my dealings with SJWs:

"All white people are racists."
"All men are sexists."
"Men can't be feminists."
"Inadvertently using the wrong pronoun with a trans individual is an act of bigotry, so you must ask everyone in the world you meet what pronouns they prefer."
"White people wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation."
"Fusion cuisine is cultural appropriation."
"Learning a foreign language is cultural appropriation."
"Gay people are transphobic."
"White feminists are transphobic and racist."
"Atheists suck."

Plus I was called a "Sith Lord" by one of them for some reason.

[drunkenshoe]

I wrote this to Jannabear as an answer to his/her post in the "How Liberals Argue" thread. I think it is more accurate here on how to look at this issue in a rational way. Other than what as individuals feel about it, pretty much limited with personal experiences.

Feminism has always been defined as 'posionous', 'toxic', 'dangerous' and 'radical'. Anything that is active in some way against the traditional norms is always defined as posionous. The first and second wave has been defined and pictured the same way before the transformation of the Western societies. Women who wanted to divorce, who wanted to work and not to get married or have children were defined as 'radicals' and 'dangerous' to society and its values just 70 years ago. Before that when they wanted to vote it was dangerous. Even some women rallied against the right for voting. Men and women in those days were sure that feminism was 'poisionous' and 'dangerous'.  Then as the result of that 'poisonous' movement, new norms were born and they are now the pillars of the society and what it is proud of against the others. After a few decades the feminists were again very 'poisonous' and 'radical' in 60s.

Without 'poisonous' feminists there wouldn't be a sexual revolution in the West in 60s. Again a cultural trait Western culture is proud of. It doesn't look posionous right now, does it? It's the general norm.  It was very radical considering the traditional norms.

It's just impossible to imagine TODAY that this was the case just roughly a life time ago, because now most people are born after all that was established and transformed the society. And people very often believe, the period they live in is the epitome of everything good and bad.

If not for the angry screaming feminists; SJWs, there wouldn't be MRAs. If angry feminists do not attack left and right, they wouldn't get a reaction from orthers and there wouldn't be a new future balance. Men Rights Actvism as reactive as feminism and it has the same character. It's just less disturbing, because people in general -men and women- do not like angry women, talking in an angessive patriarchal style. It's also an attack to the 'city hall'. It's a no-no by its nature.

Progress doesn't come with perfect, dignified arguments. It's accomplished with ugly conflict. Men and women will strangle each other, the often oppressed an persecuted groups will attack viciously untill they will get rid of that identity and the society will keep transforming under that. They have to have their peak.

---The reason the whole thing looks so 'loud' and 'extreme' right now -besides that people are living in the time period of 'now' that it's happening-  is that because for the last decade and a half the social media platforms are almost the sole power in shaping people's opinions, and NOW individuals can scream their head off to a cam and put somewhere available for everyone in their society to see it if they are interested. Considering the gender issues are the basics of social life in human culture everywhere on the planet, everyone is bound to be interested more than once in it in their life times, in some way or another. People even have become vloggers/bloggers to make unbelievable profit and fame from this as well as other issues. Everybody is angry about something, why not make a profit of it?

Technology gave everyone a voice and that's been giving its results. I guess, it is almost impossible for the most of young generations to imagine that a very short time ago, there were no medium(s) to do this. So nothing is actually different than before. Modern feminism is the same feminism that has been all along. The mediums changed, the language canged. Women and men are doing this, because NOW they can.

And they will do it until some sort of a balance has been reached. Then after transformation of the society, it will calm down for some time, lose its heat and people will start doing it again. Then this 'modern feminism' which was defined as 'posionous' will look like a very ordinary wave born like the previous ones, but the future one will AGAIN be very 'posionous' and different for the ones living in it.


I love my freaking species. Anyone can say a tons of bad things about us and they would be right, but we are never actually dull. 

[drunkenshoe]

Here's some of the bogosity I've come across in my dealings with SJWs:

"All white people are racists."
"All men are sexists."
"Men can't be feminists."
"Inadvertently using the wrong pronoun with a trans individual is an act of bigotry, so you must ask everyone in the world you meet what pronouns they prefer."
"White people wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation."
"Fusion cuisine is cultural appropriation."
"Learning a foreign language is cultural appropriation."
"Gay people are transphobic."
"White feminists are transphobic and racist."
"Atheists suck."

Plus I was called a "Sith Lord" by one of them for some reason.

I agree with you.

But most of the ones I encountered around where I live -they are just called 'activists here- were highly secular or right out atheists. I am really curious about the 'religious influence' on these groups and how they justify it. At some point they are bound to realise it is the very thing they are supposed to be fighting.

Most feminists -and groups- have a very patriarchal language-jargon and style of argument. The irony is alarming as much the conflict it bears.

[Baruch]

Jannabear - you wrote a lot.  I hope you feel better, having got that out.  Rinse and repeat as necessary.

Athena and Shoe - SJW to me is just another form of self-righteousness.  And if someone really doesn't like "normal" society, but was of course raised in it ... it would be very hard for such Progressives to use concepts and language divorced from those norms.  But then I find anarchism like this too ... like it is from a different sentient species that is not "human".  Humans do what they do "naturally" ... and species don't defy their own nature.  And secular folks can't imagine "transcending" their own nature except is a quasi-religious way like Teilhard De Chardin.

[stromboli]

Think of this as the bastard offspring of an evolving internet.

[drunkenshoe]

Think of this as the bastard offspring of an evolving internet.

I like your expression. But it existed before.

It's more like Alice drinking the magical potion that made her a giant in the Wonderland.

[stromboli]

Your Alice isn't the same as my Alice

[spoiler][/spoiler]

:57:

[drunkenshoe]

Well, yours look far more 'dangerous' and more likely to rule over het men according to patriarchal current rules. She doesn't need a potion, she'll get away with anything and never even declare herself as a SJW or a feminist or scream her head off with anger. She'll eat you alive in flocks and you won't even see her coming.

[stromboli]

Well, yours look far more 'dangerous' and more likely to rule over het men according to patriarchal current rules. She doesn't need a potion, she'll get away with anything and never even declare herself as a SJW or a feminist or scream her head off with anger. She'll eat you alive in flocks and you won't even see her coming.

Let me put it this way, Shoe. That picture attention getting-wise for het men is the equivalent of a stun gun followed up with a softball bat. The Aluminum ones, not those wimpy wooden jobs.

[drunkenshoe]

Let me put it this way, Shoe. That picture attention getting-wise for het men is the equivalent of a stun gun followed up with a softball bat. The Aluminum ones, not those wimpy wooden jobs.

That's exactly what I meant, strom. Stun guns are also used to slaughter animals so they wouldn't feel pain.

[Baruch]

50 Shades of Abattoir?  Not my kind of kink.

[drunkenshoe]

50 Shades of Abattoir?  Not my kind of kink.

Just kidding, Baruch. I was trying to explain -in a colourful way- that women -esp. good loking ones- have a very good idea about their effect on het men contrary to the common belief. And that at most times, het men are helpless even when they think they are conscious about all this. So, that's as much as harmful to females as it is to males in social construct.

[Baruch]

And I was imply the femme fatale preying mantis/black widow thing.

[drunkenshoe]

And I was imply the femme fatale preying mantis/black widow thing.

Errr...I don't think anyone attempted to go that far among our species yet.