5 ms·

re: quality declining Source? I don't see this at all. re: sjws This is just a vocal minority demonized by certain political groups to stir up anger. Sad to se

re: quality declining Source? I don't see this at all. re: sjws This is just a vocal minority demonized by certain political groups to stir up anger. Sad to see it's convincing people.

whymauri 8y ago
The moment someone unironically uses "social justice warrior" either to refer to themselves or an opposing group I can't take them seriously.
- bko 8y ago
  Why?
  - nickthemagicman 8y ago
    It's a red flag that they're highly susceptible to social and news media propaganda and are bad at statistics.
manigandham 8y ago
Considering academia is vastly one-sided politically, influences the minds of entire graduating generations, and there has been fallout in major companies and even laws passed, the issues around "social justice" are in fact real and much bigger than you may think.
- Zungaron 8y ago
  Maybe academia would be less politically one-sided if the other side hadn't built their brand on ignoring science in all its forms.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    That's an inflammatory statement that offers nothing productive. There's no political party against science, and there's just as much non-scientific dogmatic content from both ends of the spectrum.
  - bzbarsky 8y ago
    How do you square that opinion with the fact that the parts of academia that are least one-sided politically are the parts which actually do the best job of using the scientific method in practice? https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/leftist-academia-democrats-rule-trend-increasing/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/leftist-academia-demo... is a decent recent-ish article on the topic. Note the offhand comments about blatant discrimination in hiring, which might just be a relevant thing here. And from what I've seen, non-liberals in humanities departments commonly have to deal with what is pretty much the textbook definition of a hostile work environment. It just happens that political affiliation and opinion is not a protected class, so it's not possibly to do anything about it other than leaving. Which is what people do in practice.
- notSupplied 8y ago
  "Wow, geez, the Republican party is so one sided, like, everyone there is a Republican!" That is such an utterly meaningless argument. You can use that argument to challenge literally any well established fact regardless of it's merits. It is by this argument that increasingly extreme viewpoints have entered the political mainstream. E.g., "It's a problem that everyone in this room so one-sidedly believes the Holocaust is real! It's about time us Holocaust-deniers get a seat at the table, in fact, it'd only be fair for us to have HALF the seats at the table!"
  - manigandham 8y ago
    That's not what I said though, is it? Arguing against a made-up statement is indeed meaningless. Academia is not a political party, and has all kinds of people, so being so one-sided politically is a valid concern. There's also a big difference between beliefs on issues and historical facts. Facts, by definition, cannot be debated as they are objective truths.
    - notSupplied 8y ago
      You just repeated the claim I am arguing against: that the mere one-sidedness of a group of people's beliefs is in itself a problem without discussing the merits of those beliefs, for which I constructed the example of "the mere onesidedness of Holocaust believers is problematic and equal representation from deniers should be introduced" If you've got a problem with beliefs commonly held within academia then debate them on their merits and not on the mere fact that some group of people seem to have consensus on something.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        As stated, there's a difference between beliefs and facts which you are conflating. You cannot debate facts like the Holocaust. The OP was saying SJWs were a vocal minority where I claimed otherwise. If you're also saying that they're widespread beliefs then it looks like you're just agreeing with me. The actual problems with those beliefs was not the topic of this thread.

re: quality declining Source? I don't see this at all. re: sjws This is just a vocal minority demonized by certain political groups to stir up anger. Sad to see it's convincing people.

whymauri 8y ago

The moment someone unironically uses "social justice warrior" either to refer to themselves or an opposing group I can't take them seriously.

bko 8y ago
Why?
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  It's a red flag that they're highly susceptible to social and news media propaganda and are bad at statistics.

manigandham 8y ago

Considering academia is vastly one-sided politically, influences the minds of entire graduating generations, and there has been fallout in major companies and even laws passed, the issues around "social justice" are in fact real and much bigger than you may think.

Zungaron 8y ago
Maybe academia would be less politically one-sided if the other side hadn't built their brand on ignoring science in all its forms.
- manigandham 8y ago
  That's an inflammatory statement that offers nothing productive. There's no political party against science, and there's just as much non-scientific dogmatic content from both ends of the spectrum.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  How do you square that opinion with the fact that the parts of academia that are least one-sided politically are the parts which actually do the best job of using the scientific method in practice? https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/leftist-academia-democrats-rule-trend-increasing/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/leftist-academia-demo... is a decent recent-ish article on the topic. Note the offhand comments about blatant discrimination in hiring, which might just be a relevant thing here. And from what I've seen, non-liberals in humanities departments commonly have to deal with what is pretty much the textbook definition of a hostile work environment. It just happens that political affiliation and opinion is not a protected class, so it's not possibly to do anything about it other than leaving. Which is what people do in practice.
notSupplied 8y ago
"Wow, geez, the Republican party is so one sided, like, everyone there is a Republican!" That is such an utterly meaningless argument. You can use that argument to challenge literally any well established fact regardless of it's merits. It is by this argument that increasingly extreme viewpoints have entered the political mainstream. E.g., "It's a problem that everyone in this room so one-sidedly believes the Holocaust is real! It's about time us Holocaust-deniers get a seat at the table, in fact, it'd only be fair for us to have HALF the seats at the table!"
- manigandham 8y ago
  That's not what I said though, is it? Arguing against a made-up statement is indeed meaningless. Academia is not a political party, and has all kinds of people, so being so one-sided politically is a valid concern. There's also a big difference between beliefs on issues and historical facts. Facts, by definition, cannot be debated as they are objective truths.
  - notSupplied 8y ago
    You just repeated the claim I am arguing against: that the mere one-sidedness of a group of people's beliefs is in itself a problem without discussing the merits of those beliefs, for which I constructed the example of "the mere onesidedness of Holocaust believers is problematic and equal representation from deniers should be introduced" If you've got a problem with beliefs commonly held within academia then debate them on their merits and not on the mere fact that some group of people seem to have consensus on something.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      As stated, there's a difference between beliefs and facts which you are conflating. You cannot debate facts like the Holocaust. The OP was saying SJWs were a vocal minority where I claimed otherwise. If you're also saying that they're widespread beliefs then it looks like you're just agreeing with me. The actual problems with those beliefs was not the topic of this thread.