4 ms·

>Maybe if you look outside your bubble aka in the internet you can come to realise in the real world this isn't nearly a big and widespread of a problem as some

>Maybe if you look outside your bubble aka in the internet you can come to realise in the real world this isn't nearly a big and widespread of a problem as some people make it out to be. Ah, but it was in meatspace that I became alarmed by them. I saw them ruin my alma mater, go after freedom of association, smear everyone who dared oppose them racist. I saw the spinelessness of leaders who instead of fighting back would just capitulate. I saw the Obama administration embrace their cause and turn college sexual assault tribunals into modern Salem witch trials, where a mere accusation is enough to ruin a life forever. This has spread beyond academia. I saw what they did to Brendan Eich in Mozilla, I saw the chill that has set in among my conservative friends, who dare not speak their opinions lest they be outcast from their industries. Maybe it's you who needs to step out of whatever bubble you're in.

breatheoften 10y ago
You suggest that the mechanism by which honesty is removed from debate is by dishonest application of a highly sensitive mechanism for measuring social missteps. This does occur in real life scenarios but you are wrong to attribute SJWism as the cause for the lack of honesty in debate. The dishonesty did not get applied to the situation as a result of the existence of social justice causes -- it got added because of the nature of tribal political blocks. Removing social justice issues won't remove the effects of tribal motivations from the debate. Furthermore, your position is self inconsistent -- any attempt to wield your highly sensitive SJWism sensor will lead to the same variety of dishonesty that you claim of others holding similar sensors for other social topics. You are right that there are specific instances where tribally motivated groups explicitly misuse social arguments in a way that disadvantages their opponents -- you are wrong to imply that all occurrences of disadvantage based on this pattern are misuse.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  You've attributed a lot to me that I never said. I do not call for a purge of SJWs, as you seem to imply that I do. I'm happy with winning the argument. I see no need to try to ruin people's personal and professional lives.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

breatheoften 10y ago

You suggest that the mechanism by which honesty is removed from debate is by dishonest application of a highly sensitive mechanism for measuring social missteps. This does occur in real life scenarios but you are wrong to attribute SJWism as the cause for the lack of honesty in debate. The dishonesty did not get applied to the situation as a result of the existence of social justice causes -- it got added because of the nature of tribal political blocks. Removing social justice issues won't remove the effects of tribal motivations from the debate. Furthermore, your position is self inconsistent -- any attempt to wield your highly sensitive SJWism sensor will lead to the same variety of dishonesty that you claim of others holding similar sensors for other social topics. You are right that there are specific instances where tribally motivated groups explicitly misuse social arguments in a way that disadvantages their opponents -- you are wrong to imply that all occurrences of disadvantage based on this pattern are misuse.

marcoperaza 10y ago
You've attributed a lot to me that I never said. I do not call for a purge of SJWs, as you seem to imply that I do. I'm happy with winning the argument. I see no need to try to ruin people's personal and professional lives.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]