4 ms·

A nice quote and it sounds true - certainly robber barons are preferable to sjws - but doesn’t tell the whole story. The sjw tyrant he’s describing forms the “u

A nice quote and it sounds true - certainly robber barons are preferable to sjws - but doesn’t tell the whole story. The sjw tyrant he’s describing forms the “useful idiot” phalanx of the ones pulling the strings. Those kind of people (sjw types) simply aren’t clever enough to orchestrate the kind of long term plots needed to take control. The ones in charge are fully aware of what they’re doing, and they exhibit a cold calculating efficiency that seems inhuman.

malnourish 9y ago
Please stop with this "SJW" nonsense
- autismo 9y ago
  Despite some questionable uses of that word, I have to admit that it's a useful classifier for what has essentially become a consolidated political movement. Everyone seems to know the ideology it's describing when they hear it, and I don't know of another term that does that. On another tangent: "SJW" was originally coined by social justice warriors as a way to describe themselves. It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it, but it's still a fair term to use given its history and original intent.
  - brokencog 9y ago
    The preferable term to "SJW" is regressive-left. These are the people who blindly espouse an idea without understanding.
    - Domenic_S 9y ago
      Preferred by whom?
      - IAmLiterallyAB 9y ago
        Let's be real, it's a more descriptive term. Plus it isn't slang like SJW (and in many circles a slur). So yeah it's a better term when discussing these things.
        esrauch 9y ago
        Calling them "regressive" seems to be intended as an insult to me.
        justAnotherNET 9y ago
        Perhaps it is insulting. One such example of “regressive left” is left wing BLM-like groups arguing for “People of Color” only dorms to protect from white oppression. It sounds crazy, but I promise you there are actual groups that are so far left they somehow end up supporting segregation. In this situation “regressive” is both politically expedient and accurate.
        cup-of-tea 9y ago
        Regression is a very well-defined concept. What would be a non-insulting way to refer to someone who advocates regression?
        esrauch 9y ago
        I don't think any SJW would characterize their position is the dictionary definition of regression, and nor would I (despite not characterizing myself as one). Do people you consider SJW really say "life was better before?", I instead hear "life was bad before and is better now but hasn't gone nearly far enough: the trajectory of political correctness and minority rights needs to progress drastically further forward on that same line drawn from 1950 to 2018". It seems very difficult to attribute that sentence to the textbook definition of "regressive". If a political position was literally "let's go back to how things were" then it would be fair to call that regressive. The closest thing I can think of is MAGA though, and for most other cases the goal of calling something regressive seems to clearly be "your politics will make things worse" not "your politics will return things to a previous state".
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it Yes, words only become slurs by being used as slurs, and many words that have become slurs were earlier terms preferred or accepted by the people it is now used as a source against.
  - malnourish 9y ago
    The problem I have with it is it appears to be generally used to describe a wide group of people that don't really exist, at least not in the numbers that "SJW-haters" claim they do. Rarely do I see people sincerely espousing what self proclaimed anti-SJWs claim they are. Rarer so do I see it in droves, as a generally promoted claim versus one person or a small group of people.
mung 9y ago
He is not describing SJWs, which is a fairly modern concept and usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power to understand issue X. He's talking about those that might describe themselves as moral majority. People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression. By contrast, oppressors will happily force their morals on others (but not always themselves) and tell you that it's for your own good. Usually backed by some religious doctrine.
- justAnotherNET 9y ago
  In my experience “SJWs” have their own religion and overwhelmingly seek out moderator positions on subreddits, forums, positions on the school paper’s editorial team, etc etc as their ideology fails when faced with the free flow of information. You can see this in just about any internet community, the only ones that are “left wing” are the ones that enforce strict moderation rules. Anything open course corrects right very fast. The “Warrior” in SJW comes from their perpetual fight to ban, shadowban, moderate, de-rank, and delist opposing views. You can deflect by suggesting these people are simply authoritarian, and not true social justice/left wing advocates. I would challenge you to investigate everything from reddit’s super mods to Wikipedia’s editor cartels. You’ll find they systematically infiltrate open communities and once in positions of power purge opposing views from leadership and begin to enforce ideological conformity. The people doing this are exclusively left wing soc jus types. Outside of the internet I’ve seen this behavior in academia as well. It’s pretty amazing how downright fascist some of them will get when they think they’re in like company.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  I think your understanding of the term "SJW" is out of date. SJW now refers to someone who forces their morals on other people and advocate silencing and censorship to achieve this. He is describing these people.
- hueving 9y ago
  >usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power Please don't sink to this level >People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression That might be your description but many also include the people going around to open source projects to change the genders of code comments while simultaneously accusing the project of being sexist at the same time. They might be against oppression but their approach is so misguided it's destructive.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
csa 9y ago
FYI, I vouched for this post that was dead. For the record, I don’t personally agree with raja’s assessment of the situation, but I think it’s important to have an open discussion around these topics rather than just silencing a dissenting view via downvotes.

malnourish 9y ago

Please stop with this "SJW" nonsense

autismo 9y ago
Despite some questionable uses of that word, I have to admit that it's a useful classifier for what has essentially become a consolidated political movement. Everyone seems to know the ideology it's describing when they hear it, and I don't know of another term that does that. On another tangent: "SJW" was originally coined by social justice warriors as a way to describe themselves. It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it, but it's still a fair term to use given its history and original intent.
- brokencog 9y ago
  The preferable term to "SJW" is regressive-left. These are the people who blindly espouse an idea without understanding.
  - Domenic_S 9y ago
    Preferred by whom?
    - IAmLiterallyAB 9y ago
      Let's be real, it's a more descriptive term. Plus it isn't slang like SJW (and in many circles a slur). So yeah it's a better term when discussing these things.
      - esrauch 9y ago
        Calling them "regressive" seems to be intended as an insult to me.
        justAnotherNET 9y ago
        Perhaps it is insulting. One such example of “regressive left” is left wing BLM-like groups arguing for “People of Color” only dorms to protect from white oppression. It sounds crazy, but I promise you there are actual groups that are so far left they somehow end up supporting segregation. In this situation “regressive” is both politically expedient and accurate.
        cup-of-tea 9y ago
        Regression is a very well-defined concept. What would be a non-insulting way to refer to someone who advocates regression?
        esrauch 9y ago
        I don't think any SJW would characterize their position is the dictionary definition of regression, and nor would I (despite not characterizing myself as one). Do people you consider SJW really say "life was better before?", I instead hear "life was bad before and is better now but hasn't gone nearly far enough: the trajectory of political correctness and minority rights needs to progress drastically further forward on that same line drawn from 1950 to 2018". It seems very difficult to attribute that sentence to the textbook definition of "regressive". If a political position was literally "let's go back to how things were" then it would be fair to call that regressive. The closest thing I can think of is MAGA though, and for most other cases the goal of calling something regressive seems to clearly be "your politics will make things worse" not "your politics will return things to a previous state".
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It only became an offensive word once people started lampooning it Yes, words only become slurs by being used as slurs, and many words that have become slurs were earlier terms preferred or accepted by the people it is now used as a source against.
- malnourish 9y ago
  The problem I have with it is it appears to be generally used to describe a wide group of people that don't really exist, at least not in the numbers that "SJW-haters" claim they do. Rarely do I see people sincerely espousing what self proclaimed anti-SJWs claim they are. Rarer so do I see it in droves, as a generally promoted claim versus one person or a small group of people.

mung 9y ago

He is not describing SJWs, which is a fairly modern concept and usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power to understand issue X. He's talking about those that might describe themselves as moral majority. People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression. By contrast, oppressors will happily force their morals on others (but not always themselves) and tell you that it's for your own good. Usually backed by some religious doctrine.

justAnotherNET 9y ago
In my experience “SJWs” have their own religion and overwhelmingly seek out moderator positions on subreddits, forums, positions on the school paper’s editorial team, etc etc as their ideology fails when faced with the free flow of information. You can see this in just about any internet community, the only ones that are “left wing” are the ones that enforce strict moderation rules. Anything open course corrects right very fast. The “Warrior” in SJW comes from their perpetual fight to ban, shadowban, moderate, de-rank, and delist opposing views. You can deflect by suggesting these people are simply authoritarian, and not true social justice/left wing advocates. I would challenge you to investigate everything from reddit’s super mods to Wikipedia’s editor cartels. You’ll find they systematically infiltrate open communities and once in positions of power purge opposing views from leadership and begin to enforce ideological conformity. The people doing this are exclusively left wing soc jus types. Outside of the internet I’ve seen this behavior in academia as well. It’s pretty amazing how downright fascist some of them will get when they think they’re in like company.
cup-of-tea 9y ago
I think your understanding of the term "SJW" is out of date. SJW now refers to someone who forces their morals on other people and advocate silencing and censorship to achieve this. He is describing these people.
hueving 9y ago
>usually used idiotically by people who don't have the brain power Please don't sink to this level >People that get described as SJWs are usually arguing against oppression That might be your description but many also include the people going around to open source projects to change the genders of code comments while simultaneously accusing the project of being sexist at the same time. They might be against oppression but their approach is so misguided it's destructive.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

csa 9y ago

FYI, I vouched for this post that was dead. For the record, I don’t personally agree with raja’s assessment of the situation, but I think it’s important to have an open discussion around these topics rather than just silencing a dissenting view via downvotes.