3 ms·

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

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
    Sorry, that last line was from a song, "Sweet Home Alabama," that briefly mentions Gov. Wallace. It's decently well-known in the US, but my mistake in expecting everyone would recognize it. :) Anyway, nobody's talking about shooting or terrorizing anyone. But the Civil Rights Act in the US compelled private business owners not to discriminate in their clientele, and that compulsion was behind the (implicit) threat of police response, as with just about all government compulsion. That is way more of a response than anyone's discussing in this thread; the worst that's happening is people losing their jobs and livelihoods, which is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad. But it's not a particularly common belief today that the Civil Rights Act was evil, or that its ends did not justify the means of government compulsion. (It was a somewhat common belief then, and some US politicians did oppose it on those grounds, though who can say if they also privately objected to its substance.)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

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
  Sorry, that last line was from a song, "Sweet Home Alabama," that briefly mentions Gov. Wallace. It's decently well-known in the US, but my mistake in expecting everyone would recognize it. :) Anyway, nobody's talking about shooting or terrorizing anyone. But the Civil Rights Act in the US compelled private business owners not to discriminate in their clientele, and that compulsion was behind the (implicit) threat of police response, as with just about all government compulsion. That is way more of a response than anyone's discussing in this thread; the worst that's happening is people losing their jobs and livelihoods, which is pretty bad, but not nearly as bad. But it's not a particularly common belief today that the Civil Rights Act was evil, or that its ends did not justify the means of government compulsion. (It was a somewhat common belief then, and some US politicians did oppose it on those grounds, though who can say if they also privately objected to its substance.)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]