Do SJWs hate America?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I guarantee you that you're wrong. One need not be an activist-'progressive', social-liberal internet denizen who is self-righteous and probably has problems with normal social interaction (which is the specific type of person to which the derogatory term 'SJW' typically refers) to recognize this.

Mirror mirror on the wall....

I'm dismayed with activism, hate the word and, frankly, concept 'progressive', and am increasingly not really socially liberal as such. I know that we don't like each other but I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to look past the has-been-on-tumblr-for-three-and-a-half-years mannerisms and acknowledge that what I actually think is in some ways pretty far removed from what we're discussing here.

Self-righteousness and problems with normal social interaction I'll grant I'm guilty of. I'm an SJW (in this sense) in the same way that I'm a hipster--I share some of the traits but am actually really embarrassed about it.

[Maxwell]

I don't care about nationalism or pride for nation, thus, I don't REALLY care if SJWs hate America. But if they are going to comment about the evils of this country and ignore the evils of Europe, then they are woefully ignorant or hypocritical.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't care about nationalism or pride for nation, thus, I don't REALLY care if SJWs hate America. But if they are going to comment about the evils of this country and ignore the evils of Europe, then they are woefully ignorant or hypocritical.

One of my friends used to think France was a pacifist, anti-racist utopia because Jacques Chirac opposed the Iraq War. She's...she's matured a lot since then.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I guarantee you that you're wrong. One need not be an activist-'progressive', social-liberal internet denizen who is self-righteous and probably has problems with normal social interaction (which is the specific type of person to which the derogatory term 'SJW' typically refers) to recognize this.

Mirror mirror on the wall....

Dude, Maddy is a freaking saint and the conscience of this forum. Knock it off.

[Cory]

I'm dismayed with activism, hate the word and, frankly, concept 'progressive', and am increasingly not really socially liberal as such. I know that we don't like each other but I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to look past the has-been-on-tumblr-for-three-and-a-half-years mannerisms and acknowledge that what I actually think is in some ways pretty far removed from what we're discussing here.

Self-righteousness and problems with normal social interaction I'll grant I'm guilty of. I'm an SJW (in this sense) in the same way that I'm a hipster--I share some of the traits but am actually really embarrassed about it.

Fair enough, fair enough.

[SNJ1985]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is fully, really, not-even-just-technically true insofar as 'privilege' is a meaningful or useful framework. Which is to an admittedly limited extent.

''White privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. naturally appear to be real if one cherry-picks information that seems to confirm their existence and ignores information that doesn't.

Privilege theory as a whole is based on subjective - and selective - analysis. In other words, it is not objectively true that ''white privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. exist.

Of course, to many SJWs (if not most), people denying their existence automatically serves as proof of their existence (e.g. ''the fact that you can deny your privilege proves that you have privilege!''). This is an example of a logical fallacy known as ''kafkatrapping''.

[ingemann]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is fully, really, not-even-just-technically true insofar as 'privilege' is a meaningful or useful framework. Which is to an admittedly limited extent.

''White privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. naturally appear to be real if one cherry-picks information that seems to confirm their existence and ignores information that doesn't.

Privilege theory as a whole is based on subjective - and selective - analysis. In other words, it is not objectively true that ''white privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. exist.

Of course, to many SJWs (if not most), people denying their existence automatically serves as proof of their existence (e.g. ''the fact that you can deny your privilege proves that you have privilege!''). This is an example of a logical fallacy known as ''kafkatrapping''.

Privilege exist, and it's a useful thing to think ones privileges through, of course the big mistake of some people are too think that other people being made aware of their privileges will make them change opinion. Also one of the least helpful thing you can do in a discussion is dismissing other people views, by claiming they're a result of privileges.

So I think people should internalise the whole privilege thing rather than externalise it.

[Col. Roosevelt]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This part is fully, really, not-even-just-technically true insofar as 'privilege' is a meaningful or useful framework. Which is to an admittedly limited extent.

''White privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. naturally appear to be real if one cherry-picks information that seems to confirm their existence and ignores information that doesn't.

Privilege theory as a whole is based on subjective - and selective - analysis. In other words, it is not objectively true that ''white privilege'', ''male privilege'', etc. exist.

Of course, to many SJWs (if not most), people denying their existence automatically serves as proof of their existence (e.g. ''the fact that you can deny your privilege proves that you have privilege!''). This is an example of a logical fallacy known as ''kafkatrapping''.

Privilege exist, and it's a useful thing to think ones privileges through, of course the big mistake of some people are too think that other people being made aware of their privileges will make them change opinion. Also one of the least helpful thing you can do in a discussion is dismissing other people views, by claiming they're a result of privileges.

So I think people should internalise the whole privilege thing rather than externalise it.

No privilege or original sin here

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think you may be confused about original sin actually is.

[Col. Roosevelt]

I think you may be confused about original sin actually is.

Definitely not confused on not having privilege considering I'm struggling in the lower class in American society. Don't see my sinful, shameful white privilege, commie.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Do you understand Christianity?

[Col. Roosevelt]

Do you understand Christianity?

Comrade, I know that is the next thing we, and our useful idiots, the SJWs, will attempt to outlaw.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So, you're saying ... you don't understand Christianity?

[Col. Roosevelt]

So, you're saying ... you don't understand Christianity?

Comrade, it provides morality, traditional morality, one of the greatest evils in history and a cause of the bourgeoisie. There can be no morality that does not come from Marx! Comrade, comrade, we must outlaw it! For that is what we Communists do.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

k

[DavidB.]

This poster is best to be ignored. Probably a sock. A waste of time regardless.

[Cory]

Dude, Maddy is a freaking saint and the conscience of this forum. Knock it off.

Nonsense.

[Green Line]

No, they don't.  They just constantly need something to be outraged about, no matter what.  America just happens to be their favorite target.  Although they do have some sacred cows that they won't touch no matter what.  (Islam)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Why are we discussing this?

[Famous Mortimer]

I know a lot of 20 something hipster girls in New York who post articles from Everyday Feminism to their Facebook walls everyday.

Yes, they hate America. I know this because they admit to it. It is not something they deny.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This thread really is all over the place.

I'm dismayed with activism, hate the word and, frankly, concept 'progressive', and am increasingly not really socially liberal as such. I know that we don't like each other but I'd appreciate it if you'd be willing to look past the has-been-on-tumblr-for-three-and-a-half-years mannerisms and acknowledge that what I actually think is in some ways pretty far removed from what we're discussing here.

Self-righteousness and problems with normal social interaction I'll grant I'm guilty of. I'm an SJW (in this sense) in the same way that I'm a hipster--I share some of the traits but am actually really embarrassed about it.

Fair enough, fair enough.

Madeline's pretty solid in that while she shares some of the same preconceptions with the social justice warrior types, when confronted with a good enough argument, she can be swayed. When I think of the typical activist that really gets on my nerves, it's the ones that stubbornly do not listen to any evidence that they are clearly wrong about one thing or another, or are clearly engaging in fallacious reasoning.

[Gustaf]

The term SJW seems to mean "progressive person who is extreme and unreasonable" with the definition of extreme and unreasonable depending on how progressive the person using it is. Which makes it a pretty pointless term.

[Free Bird]

The high school third wavers are just misguided. The Anitas and Zoes have an agenda.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The term SJW seems to mean "progressive person who is extreme and unreasonable" with the definition of extreme and unreasonable depending on how progressive the person using it is. Which makes it a pretty pointless term.

Is calling someone an evangelist or a fundamentalist a pointless term?

SJW just means a person who takes social justice and equality politics so far that their belief system evolves into being uncomfortably dogmatic. Whose beliefs become almost faith-based to the point that almost no evidence can sway them from their conclusions and they see the devil problematic microaggressions everywhere. Jessica Valenti is a good example of this kind of person.

The real reason there's such rage from some people (and it's usually conveyed very poorly by most commenters) is because these types of people are often given cover by larger organizations who want cheap PR points about how much they care about ~*diversity*~ and are rarely called out by anyone of influence for the many often insane, illogical, and dangerous ideas they advocate because nobody wants to hurt their feelings. And as we know, that's the most important thing.

In many ways it is not unlike how difficult it was for a long stretch of time to get mainstream condemnation of religious folks because nobody wanted to offend anyone, and please think of the children, etc.

This thread really is still a mess, though.

[ingemann]

SJW just means a person who takes social justice and equality politics so far that their belief system evolves into being uncomfortably dogmatic. Whose beliefs become almost faith-based to the point that almost no evidence can sway them from their conclusions and they see the devil problematic microaggressions everywhere.

A quite good description. Through I blame the internet, it allow the aberrants to find their kind, and leave them to discuss their thoughts in a echo chamber without other views. That kind of room results in self-radicalisation. Most of these people wouldn't be so bad if they had to deal with the real world, you also see a fast normalisation of them when they enter the work force (if they avoid academia).