4 ms·
I'm glad you've made me aware that the acronym "SJW" or the phrase "free speech" immediately marks the person using it as biased and therefore holding an illegi
by wyclif 9y ago
I'm glad you've made me aware that the acronym "SJW" or the phrase "free speech" immediately marks the person using it as biased and therefore holding an illegitimate opinion. Thanks!
- zimpenfish 9y ago"free speech" is a mild indicator that the person in question is almost certainly libertarian or right-wing leaning. Doesn't generally mean they're biased, though. "SJW" is a very strong indicator of right-wing leaning and generally does mean they're strongly biased against the left.
- CumfartablyNumb 9y agoI guess I'm a unicorn according to you. Reading Chomsky, Haidt, and Pinker at the same time before it was popular. SJWs are the enemies of free-thinkers everywhere, across a variety of spectrums.
- hackinthebochs 9y agoI upvoted you then read your name and almost regretted it
- comex 9y agoIt’s not about free speech in general. It’s about a specific narrative, wherein free speech on college campuses is under serious threat thanks to liberal orthodoxy, usually linked to concepts such as trigger warnings and microaggressions. This narrative is currently in vogue on the right, and thus making a fuss about campus censorship is likely to indicate a right-wing persuasion. Of course, the issue itself is very complex, and as a self-described leftist I happen to believe there’s some room to be concerned about free speech on campus (although I view the causes and nature of the issue very differently from the typical right-wing perspective) - but that’s not the point. When I called out those “free speech” references, I didn’t mean to make any statement about the merits of the issue; I was more using it as a sort of shibboleth, given the context of current trends in political discourse.
- jshevek 9y agoIt wasn't a "narrative" when hundreds of leftists physically attacked many dozens of random, innocent people over the course of 3 events in Berkeley.
- alphapapa 9y ago> I was more using it as a sort of shibboleth, given the context of current trends in political discourse. This whole situation arose because someone pointed out a lack of rational discourse, the emotional overreactions and tribalism that deter discussion of the merits of the issue. Your response is to look for shibboleths to preemptively dismiss rational arguments you don't agree with, presuming yourself to be impartial. You are exhibiting the problematic behaviors in question, but it seems like you don't even realize it.
- jshevek 9y agoThis is absolutely inconsistent with my personal experience.
- zimpenfish 9y agoWhereas it is absolutely consistent with my personal experience.
- jshevek 9y agoOnly one of us insists our experience is canonical, and an appropriated basis for advocating bigotry & prejudice based on diction.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sevnsevnsevn 9y ago> Only one of us insists our experience is canonical, and an appropriated basis for advocating bigotry & prejudice based on diction. You've missed the forest for the trees. Whether on purpose or not, lets cut this tree for once and for all. Is anecdotal evidence admissable in court? then why is not in debate? Because it's a differing opinion. So tell me, who's the bigot you are referring to? It's not rendered invalid simply because you are purposely froward to avoid concession.