5 ms·

There is a difference between making observations about different political ideologies (what the parent was doing) and advocating for the establishment of racia

There is a difference between making observations about different political ideologies (what the parent was doing) and advocating for the establishment of racial, gender, etc hierarchies (what "SJWs"--for lack of a better term--do).

Diederich 8y ago
heirarchy - a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. To be clear: are you saying that you think that "SJWs" advocate for this?
- weberc2 8y ago
  Disclaimer: As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I don't particularly like the term "SJW" for its pejorative connotations, but I'll use it since it's the established term in this thread. It's not an opinion, it's true by definition†. SJWs are characterized by their propensity to group people according to their immutable characteristics (specifically race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc) and their specific†† treatments for each group (what each group is allowed to do, how negatively their group is to be portrayed, whether a group is allowed to be defined by its best members, whether a group is to be defined by its worst members, etc). I suspect SJWs would object to the term "hierarchy"--instead they would say they are fighting white supremacy or other hierarchies; however, when you press them, it becomes clear that they are merely advocating for a different racial hierarchy (e.g., "you can't be racist against $RACE people"). †Obviously there is no formal definition; that doesn't mean that there is no definition †† To be clear, I don't mean to say that SJW-ism is the only identity ideology, but rather it is a particular one which varies from the others by its specific ranking of identities and the affordances it makes for each ranking.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I see what you're saying - "you can't be racist against some people." It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? Obviously the answer is that nobody can be racist towards anybody and be pure to a positive read of the sjw cause, but humans gonna human. I will say that from a utile standpoint white vs black racism is far more harmful than black vs white, in the reality of 2019, so outside the rhetorical realm of debate of pure morals. Therefore I'm not sure even the existence of "reverse racism" (terrible term but the most universally understood to describe my meaning) SJWs does not indicate an sjw desire to create hierarchy. The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow. I believe he offers the full text for free on his website.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      > It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? It's not a question of "fairness"; it's a question of whether or not the ideology is a racial ideology, and the quoted slogan (in context) is considerable evidence that it is. Because (lawyering aside), the slogan is a pronouncement it morally permissible to treat members of one race worse than members of other races. > The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow Thank you for the recommendation; will check it out.

Diederich 8y ago

heirarchy - a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. To be clear: are you saying that you think that "SJWs" advocate for this?

weberc2 8y ago
Disclaimer: As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I don't particularly like the term "SJW" for its pejorative connotations, but I'll use it since it's the established term in this thread. It's not an opinion, it's true by definition†. SJWs are characterized by their propensity to group people according to their immutable characteristics (specifically race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc) and their specific†† treatments for each group (what each group is allowed to do, how negatively their group is to be portrayed, whether a group is allowed to be defined by its best members, whether a group is to be defined by its worst members, etc). I suspect SJWs would object to the term "hierarchy"--instead they would say they are fighting white supremacy or other hierarchies; however, when you press them, it becomes clear that they are merely advocating for a different racial hierarchy (e.g., "you can't be racist against $RACE people"). †Obviously there is no formal definition; that doesn't mean that there is no definition †† To be clear, I don't mean to say that SJW-ism is the only identity ideology, but rather it is a particular one which varies from the others by its specific ranking of identities and the affordances it makes for each ranking.
- komali2 8y ago
  I see what you're saying - "you can't be racist against some people." It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? Obviously the answer is that nobody can be racist towards anybody and be pure to a positive read of the sjw cause, but humans gonna human. I will say that from a utile standpoint white vs black racism is far more harmful than black vs white, in the reality of 2019, so outside the rhetorical realm of debate of pure morals. Therefore I'm not sure even the existence of "reverse racism" (terrible term but the most universally understood to describe my meaning) SJWs does not indicate an sjw desire to create hierarchy. The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow. I believe he offers the full text for free on his website.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    > It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? It's not a question of "fairness"; it's a question of whether or not the ideology is a racial ideology, and the quoted slogan (in context) is considerable evidence that it is. Because (lawyering aside), the slogan is a pronouncement it morally permissible to treat members of one race worse than members of other races. > The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow Thank you for the recommendation; will check it out.