3 ms·

> Why is it always that SJWs like you need to find that one joke, one excerpt and turn it into some kind of personal war/problem/argument/discussion/hate? Name

by fao_ 7y ago

> Why is it always that SJWs like you need to find that one joke, one excerpt and turn it into some kind of personal war/problem/argument/discussion/hate? Namecalling ("SJWs like you") is against the hacker news guidelines. I would suggest you read them. Also, it's worth noting that actual, self-proclaimed SJWs (I am one, I know many, and am in their communities) wouldn't have any problem with the joke in question, because it's "punching up", i.e. it is making a joke about social problems in a group that has the systemic advantage. So your name calling isn't even accurate in this case. > Instead of focusing on the VALUE brought by the author, you managed to dig up one benign joke and went on to discredit the entire thing. Please point out where the poster "discredit[ed] the entire thing". I don't see them discrediting the entire book, I see them questioning a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. > Why aren't you ashamed of yourself? Why aren't you? The poster is asking a legitimate question around the context of a line of the book, and you're insulting them and denigrating them for this.

maxymajzr 7y ago
> Namecalling ("SJWs like you") is against the hacker news guidelines But it's not against common sense to drive focus from what's important to what's personal, right? It bothers you I wrote someone's a social justice warrior? It's not name calling, it's a simple, factually correct observation. A person comes along, reads the content, decides to fight in the name of all men, completely disregarding the contribution that the post is about, deliberately missing out on a clear JOKE. I don't have to draw it for you, right? > Also, it's worth noting that actual, self-proclaimed SJWs (I know many and am in their communities) wouldn't have any problem with the joke in question Which implies that you know EVERY "SJW" because you know a few, therefore you're expert in the field? Let's not play this game. It's an insult to both our intellects. Again, I'm not name calling, it's a fact. I'm a person with access to broadband internet, I've seen way too many members like this one - or you for that matter - who are focused on bashing and discrediting and being toxic in general. There's no greater good coming out of this pointless discussion. > I see them questioning a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. No, it's not valid. That's the bit you don't get. That's EXACTLY what's wrong. > Why aren't you? The poster is asking a legitimate question around the context of a line of the book, and you're insulting them and denigrating them for this. I'm not insulting anyone, but you did take the opportunity to play that person's lawyer. Does my existence offend you by any chance? I'm a human being entitled to an opinion (just like the SJW in question is), I felt like voicing it after witnessing a toxic person online. You seem like another one. Would you, given the opportunity, shut me up because you - obviously - dislike what I've to say about someone with ill intentions? Again, it's not an insult. It's an observation. Don't turn everything into insults, it's a common way to defend your faulty opinion and justify your own toxicity. I'm sure you'll have a lot to dissect and post, perhaps to satisfy your own ego or to impress other readers, it's irrelevant - I just wanted to say that I won't read it so if you're a smart individual - you won't bother straightening me out. Have an excellent day, may you focus on learning instead of fighting other people's battles.
asjw 7y ago
> a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. It is not. The poster insinuated that there was "casual sexism" It makes people feel uncomfortable. It's micro aggression. I have a right to read the comments section without being forced to read aggressive comments out of context. Please, be more careful next time.
throwaway5d097 7y ago
Maybe this is more about outrage culture (being upset over relatively small things like microagressions rather than "real problems", often argued to be a fallacy of relative privation, unless the small things are not a problem at all or the argument is that the response is disproportional to the magnitude of the problem) than about whether an SJW is of a feminist or some other persuasion. Some disagree that SJWs are necessarily feminist or vice versa. A lot of these terms aren't exactly clearly defined. The argument could have been a lot clearer and less confrontational. At least it seems more consistent than anti-feminists being "reactionary" for the old times where we could make jokes about women but being offended by jokes about men.

by fao_ 7y ago

maxymajzr 7y ago

> Namecalling ("SJWs like you") is against the hacker news guidelines But it's not against common sense to drive focus from what's important to what's personal, right? It bothers you I wrote someone's a social justice warrior? It's not name calling, it's a simple, factually correct observation. A person comes along, reads the content, decides to fight in the name of all men, completely disregarding the contribution that the post is about, deliberately missing out on a clear JOKE. I don't have to draw it for you, right? > Also, it's worth noting that actual, self-proclaimed SJWs (I know many and am in their communities) wouldn't have any problem with the joke in question Which implies that you know EVERY "SJW" because you know a few, therefore you're expert in the field? Let's not play this game. It's an insult to both our intellects. Again, I'm not name calling, it's a fact. I'm a person with access to broadband internet, I've seen way too many members like this one - or you for that matter - who are focused on bashing and discrediting and being toxic in general. There's no greater good coming out of this pointless discussion. > I see them questioning a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. No, it's not valid. That's the bit you don't get. That's EXACTLY what's wrong. > Why aren't you? The poster is asking a legitimate question around the context of a line of the book, and you're insulting them and denigrating them for this. I'm not insulting anyone, but you did take the opportunity to play that person's lawyer. Does my existence offend you by any chance? I'm a human being entitled to an opinion (just like the SJW in question is), I felt like voicing it after witnessing a toxic person online. You seem like another one. Would you, given the opportunity, shut me up because you - obviously - dislike what I've to say about someone with ill intentions? Again, it's not an insult. It's an observation. Don't turn everything into insults, it's a common way to defend your faulty opinion and justify your own toxicity. I'm sure you'll have a lot to dissect and post, perhaps to satisfy your own ego or to impress other readers, it's irrelevant - I just wanted to say that I won't read it so if you're a smart individual - you won't bother straightening me out. Have an excellent day, may you focus on learning instead of fighting other people's battles.

asjw 7y ago

> a bit of context around the joke, which is a perfectly valid thing to do. It is not. The poster insinuated that there was "casual sexism" It makes people feel uncomfortable. It's micro aggression. I have a right to read the comments section without being forced to read aggressive comments out of context. Please, be more careful next time.

throwaway5d097 7y ago

Maybe this is more about outrage culture (being upset over relatively small things like microagressions rather than "real problems", often argued to be a fallacy of relative privation, unless the small things are not a problem at all or the argument is that the response is disproportional to the magnitude of the problem) than about whether an SJW is of a feminist or some other persuasion. Some disagree that SJWs are necessarily feminist or vice versa. A lot of these terms aren't exactly clearly defined. The argument could have been a lot clearer and less confrontational. At least it seems more consistent than anti-feminists being "reactionary" for the old times where we could make jokes about women but being offended by jokes about men.