4 ms·

but really what we see with these crusades by SJW's is just an opportunity for bullying, usually by people who were once bullied and now want to get their own b

but really what we see with these crusades by SJW's is just an opportunity for bullying, usually by people who were once bullied and now want to get their own back. A lot of it is bandwagon jumping by the majority of people, who may or may not have a dog int he fight, but just want to cause a fuss. It is these people that call the employers, DDOS employers websites etc and then everyone lumps them all together as SJW's, giving everyone a bad rep. Doing things quietly would bring about better change, not chnage through fear (as it is now) but change through education. Explain to eople why they are wrong, get them to conciously change their behaviour as opposed to reactively change it to protect themselves and not because of an understanding of where they went wrong. Reasd the article and everyone involved still thinks that what they said was a joke and was blown out of all proportion. No minds were changed here, people just batten down the hatches to protect themselves and their families.

geofft 12y ago
That would be extremely nice, if it worked. Then the entire question about distasteful means wouldn't come up, which would be better for everyone, because distasteful means are still distasteful. Unfortunately, that's not how changing minds works, in practice. http://www.contralbum.com/blog/2015/2/5/political-correctness-is-more-reasonable-than-jonathan-chait http://www.contralbum.com/blog/2015/2/5/political-correctnes... See the section starting "The second great flaw...." (And yes, I get the irony of trying to convince you of this by cordially linking you to some random blog post that lists research.)
- protomyth 12y ago
  So, looking at your link and I find and interesting line. "42% of Americans still believe we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" is presented as 42% of Americans are stupid and uniformed. It would seem those "informed" people are not readers of the New York Times as they have an article[1] detailing the WMDs found and the effects on our soldiers. Perhaps these "correct" people don't have friends who served or never served themselves? I suppose they can go with the Mother Jones approach and say there was no "active WMD program". But, that probably wasn't the question asked and I sure families of those veterans would say some were found. Seems if you only have 140 characters, a short conservation snippet, or a single data item then you might not get the whole story. Summing up the article as "the end justifies the means" seems appropriate and, to me, is still the simplest definition of evil. 1) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea... 2) "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
- celticninja 12y ago
  So your go to alternative is bullying. Well I would prefer to effect no change than to have to force it through with threats and intimidation. SJW is more of a pejorative term these days, I don't know anyone who uses it in a positive way and you are perhaps the first person I have seen that indicates they themselves are an SJW. My experience of those who the term applies to is generally negative and I cannot think of one positive action that has come from these SJW's. I won't even wish you luck as I think it is a retarded idea that they preach. Yes I disagree with sexism, racism, homophones etc, I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal but there seems to be no redeeming qualities to the SJW movement it is juts bullying, hatred and damaging their own agenda (on the rare occasions when that agenda can be loosely agreed upon).
  - geofft 12y ago
    What would you do about George Wallace in 1963? Leave aside the question of whether social justice today is comparable to the anti-segregation fight 50 years ago (reasonable people can disagree), and let's just think about segregation. The governor of Alabama literally says in his inauguration speech, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." You have the option of going to Congress and passing a federal law, going over the governor's head, that makes segregation illegal. As a federal law, backed by the federal law-enforcement apparatus, this is the very incarnation of threats and intimidation. And Alabama certainly isn't about to integrate voluntarily. Does your conscience bother you?
    - celticninja 12y ago
      If the government making laws is "the very incarnation of threats and intimidation" then you have never really been subjected to threats and intimidation. I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone is from the states, so it is difficult for me to comment knowledgeably on your reply. From what I can see George Wallace was a politician, if you don't like what a politician says you vote against them. I would not condone shooting him or terrorising his family to force a change when there is a legitimate route to address the problem. Why would my conscience bother me?

geofft 12y ago

That would be extremely nice, if it worked. Then the entire question about distasteful means wouldn't come up, which would be better for everyone, because distasteful means are still distasteful. Unfortunately, that's not how changing minds works, in practice. http://www.contralbum.com/blog/2015/2/5/political-correctness-is-more-reasonable-than-jonathan-chait http://www.contralbum.com/blog/2015/2/5/political-correctnes... See the section starting "The second great flaw...." (And yes, I get the irony of trying to convince you of this by cordially linking you to some random blog post that lists research.)

protomyth 12y ago
So, looking at your link and I find and interesting line. "42% of Americans still believe we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" is presented as 42% of Americans are stupid and uniformed. It would seem those "informed" people are not readers of the New York Times as they have an article[1] detailing the WMDs found and the effects on our soldiers. Perhaps these "correct" people don't have friends who served or never served themselves? I suppose they can go with the Mother Jones approach and say there was no "active WMD program". But, that probably wasn't the question asked and I sure families of those veterans would say some were found. Seems if you only have 140 characters, a short conservation snippet, or a single data item then you might not get the whole story. Summing up the article as "the end justifies the means" seems appropriate and, to me, is still the simplest definition of evil. 1) http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea... 2) "In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act."
celticninja 12y ago
So your go to alternative is bullying. Well I would prefer to effect no change than to have to force it through with threats and intimidation. SJW is more of a pejorative term these days, I don't know anyone who uses it in a positive way and you are perhaps the first person I have seen that indicates they themselves are an SJW. My experience of those who the term applies to is generally negative and I cannot think of one positive action that has come from these SJW's. I won't even wish you luck as I think it is a retarded idea that they preach. Yes I disagree with sexism, racism, homophones etc, I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal but there seems to be no redeeming qualities to the SJW movement it is juts bullying, hatred and damaging their own agenda (on the rare occasions when that agenda can be loosely agreed upon).
- geofft 12y ago
  What would you do about George Wallace in 1963? Leave aside the question of whether social justice today is comparable to the anti-segregation fight 50 years ago (reasonable people can disagree), and let's just think about segregation. The governor of Alabama literally says in his inauguration speech, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." You have the option of going to Congress and passing a federal law, going over the governor's head, that makes segregation illegal. As a federal law, backed by the federal law-enforcement apparatus, this is the very incarnation of threats and intimidation. And Alabama certainly isn't about to integrate voluntarily. Does your conscience bother you?
  - celticninja 12y ago
    If the government making laws is "the very incarnation of threats and intimidation" then you have never really been subjected to threats and intimidation. I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone is from the states, so it is difficult for me to comment knowledgeably on your reply. From what I can see George Wallace was a politician, if you don't like what a politician says you vote against them. I would not condone shooting him or terrorising his family to force a change when there is a legitimate route to address the problem. Why would my conscience bother me?