5 ms·

The biggest failure of such people is that their own conduct serves as a terrible advertisement for the sort of worldview they promote. Look at these people: do

The biggest failure of such people is that their own conduct serves as a terrible advertisement for the sort of worldview they promote. Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. Are these the sort of people I'm supposed to want to emulate? They are so caught up in making me a good person that they have not made good people of themselves. And everyone suffers for it.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's actually our biggest hope of getting rid of SJW phenomenon. The underhanded methods they use means also that as they grow, they start to turn on each other. The cancer gets cancer, and dies before it can grow too much. I think the general population will slowly realize that being evil is not the best strategy for making others better people.
- lukeschlather 11y ago
  The post you replied to described "bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types." I think there are people in various leftist movements that can fairly be described in that way. But I also think it's a good description for anyone who describes a desire for social justice as a cancer.
  - pjscott 11y ago
    There's a small confusion in terms here: the "social justice movement" and "a desire for social justice" are not even close to synonymous.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Here is a good litmus test if someone is hurting the society with the participation in said society - they have seriously written or said the phrase - "I support free speech, but ..." I hear that phrase more on the left lately than right. Which says a lot ...
  - Double_Cast 11y ago
    Temporal was referencing what's remembered as the Whale Cancer post [0]. The metaphor is meant to (rather than insult) describe a social dynamic by analogy of a biological mechanism. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Yes, I was referencing that post; the phrasing of "cancer getting cancer" stuck with me. I admit that I might have sprinkled a little bit of hidden insult, because it's hard to filter out the feeling of anger at uncivil behaviour so that it doesn't show up in writing. But I mean cancer mostly in the same way Scott Alexander used it - uncontrolled growth by "all means necessary", not an insult. Cancer happens when some cells eschew cooperation and start promoting their interests at the cost to everyone else. As it grows in size it grows in complexity, and given that it's made of components who tend to disregard cooperation, Scott argues that instead of self-organizing it tends to develop a cancer of its own, which slows the overall growth. Similarly, if the group gains voice by using every dirty trick in the book and then some because it's most effective, they should not be surprised that - as their movement grows in size - they end up fighting each other at some point.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
LanceH 11y ago
And the problem now is that if you say something like that the response will range from being told to "check your privilege" to sensitivity training. You may be told your speech is violently aggressive and creates an unsafe environment.
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. And do you think that's a random sampling of everyone who believes in similar causes? From where I sit, "the butthurt minority" are such a self-selecting group, and their rage is so completely independent of their actual cause, that they don't constitute evidence for or against any particular idea, cause, or proposition.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

That's actually our biggest hope of getting rid of SJW phenomenon. The underhanded methods they use means also that as they grow, they start to turn on each other. The cancer gets cancer, and dies before it can grow too much. I think the general population will slowly realize that being evil is not the best strategy for making others better people.

lukeschlather 11y ago
The post you replied to described "bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types." I think there are people in various leftist movements that can fairly be described in that way. But I also think it's a good description for anyone who describes a desire for social justice as a cancer.
- pjscott 11y ago
  There's a small confusion in terms here: the "social justice movement" and "a desire for social justice" are not even close to synonymous.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Here is a good litmus test if someone is hurting the society with the participation in said society - they have seriously written or said the phrase - "I support free speech, but ..." I hear that phrase more on the left lately than right. Which says a lot ...
- Double_Cast 11y ago
  Temporal was referencing what's remembered as the Whale Cancer post [0]. The metaphor is meant to (rather than insult) describe a social dynamic by analogy of a biological mechanism. [0] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yes, I was referencing that post; the phrasing of "cancer getting cancer" stuck with me. I admit that I might have sprinkled a little bit of hidden insult, because it's hard to filter out the feeling of anger at uncivil behaviour so that it doesn't show up in writing. But I mean cancer mostly in the same way Scott Alexander used it - uncontrolled growth by "all means necessary", not an insult. Cancer happens when some cells eschew cooperation and start promoting their interests at the cost to everyone else. As it grows in size it grows in complexity, and given that it's made of components who tend to disregard cooperation, Scott argues that instead of self-organizing it tends to develop a cancer of its own, which slows the overall growth. Similarly, if the group gains voice by using every dirty trick in the book and then some because it's most effective, they should not be surprised that - as their movement grows in size - they end up fighting each other at some point.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

LanceH 11y ago

And the problem now is that if you say something like that the response will range from being told to "check your privilege" to sensitivity training. You may be told your speech is violently aggressive and creates an unsafe environment.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. And do you think that's a random sampling of everyone who believes in similar causes? From where I sit, "the butthurt minority" are such a self-selecting group, and their rage is so completely independent of their actual cause, that they don't constitute evidence for or against any particular idea, cause, or proposition.