[ckaihatsu]

I don't consider all BLM protestors to be SJWs (I'm using SJW in the pejorative/stereotype form). I'm sure some/many are, but not all.

But BLM is primarily *anti-police-brutality*, so all protestors / participants are *necessarily* *progressive* in their politics, since they're challenging police civil (extra-legal) hegemony.

Why would you want to *stereotype* people as a component of your politics -- ? (Who *deserves* stereotyping and being-condescended-to, based on a stereotype, and for what reasons?)

Isn't being against police brutality a *valid*, real-world politics -- ?


---

My point here is that the psychological mechanisms that govern how zealots behave, left or right, is the same.

You're mischaracterizing *politics* with this label of 'zealot' -- the term describes those of the make-believe / imagined realm of *religion*. Politics tends to be about real-world events, pertaining to power relations and economics.

Since you're indicating political events of *large-scale* importance, the *psychological* approach is an *inappropriate* one -- it's not just one or a few people who are "SJW"s, or BLM protestors, it's an *international* movement, currently, that's addressing the real-world social ill of police brutality and killer cops, particularly in the U.S.

Your use of the term 'SJW' is politically *slanderous*, *because* you're being vacuously perjorative and stereotyping, and self-admittedly, too.

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism.[1][2][3] The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[3][4]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased usage over-shadowing its earlier origin.[1][2]

Pejorative meaning

According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism.[6][1][2] Scott Selisker, writes in New Literary History that the SJW is often criticised as the "stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing".[6] Use of the term has also been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".[3][4] Allegra Ringo in Vice writes that "in other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."[4]

The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate controversy where it emerged as the favored term of Gamergate proponents and was popularized on websites such as Reddit, 4chan, and Twitter. Gamergate supporters used the term to criticise what they saw as unwanted external influences in video game media from progressive sources.[7][1] Martin states that "the perceived orthodoxy [of progressive politics] has prompted a backlash among people who feel their speech is being policed".[1] In Internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with a wider culture war that also included the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards.[2][8]

In August 2015, social justice warrior was one of several new words and phrases added to Oxford Dictionaries.[1][9][10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

[ckaihatsu]

[T]hey are being irresponsible to their own very body in the first place.

With this statement, you're ascribing personhood to the womb itself. You don't see this as being *problematic* at all -- ?

"ascribing personhood to the womb itself" is a false accusation

No, it's not -- you're saying that the fault lies with the woman being 'irresponsible' to her own body, as if such conceivable "self-harm" is *criminal*, to the point where society would have to *intervene*, in the interests of 'responsibility' over the womb.

In other words you're creating a *false dichotomy* -- one in which the womb is an entity separate from the woman herself, with its own legal interests distinct from the woman's personhood and her own self-treatment.

Sure, people may require *health care* at times, for their bodies, but the clinical procedure of abortion should be considered *to be* health care, so that the woman herself is *in charge* of her womb and her body, with no separate 'womb interests' being necessary.

and also reflects the poster's wrongfulness in recognising pregnancy itself and, by extension, women.

The majority of the pregnancy progresses in the womb, but it takes much more than the organ itself to sustain it. This is why Member Godstud and many others see the issue with respect to the whole body (and, by extension, person) in concern.

I am afraid that people who are not aware of the above poster's usual knowledgeable manner might see this tag question as trolling.

It wasn't a "tag question" on my part, whatever that means, so it wasn't trolling -- I *was* asking a question. It wasn't rhetorical.

In this part you're effectively *agreeing* with my position, but initially you said the woman was being 'irresponsible' to her own body, meaning her womb. These are *contradictory* positions.

In other words is there a valid *social* / societal concern with the woman's purported 'responsibility' / 'irresponsibility', or isn't there? Does the woman have the civil right to be 'irresponsible' over her own treatment of her own body, or doesn't she?

[Patrickov]

No, it's not -- you're saying that the fault lies with the woman being 'irresponsible' to her own body, as if such conceivable "self-harm" is *criminal*, to the point where society would have to *intervene*, in the interests of 'responsibility' over the womb.

In other words you're creating a *false dichotomy* -- one in which the womb is an entity separate from the woman herself, with its own legal interests distinct from the woman's personhood and her own self-treatment.

Sure, people may require *health care* at times, for their bodies, but the clinical procedure of abortion should be considered *to be* health care, so that the woman herself is *in charge* of her womb and her body, with no separate 'womb interests' being necessary.

I did not say someone needs to intervene.

For your interest, #15117103 was a specific response to #15116916, and my main point in that post was very simple:

1. "seeing (some) abortion as murder" is NOT "misogyny"
2. Member Godstud was oversimplifying things in post #15116916.

The rest of your accusation is bullshit, mainly because I have made it very clear that I do not see a woman's womb separate from the rest of her body and person.

I am afraid you are being too imaginative in interpreting my words, to the point that I think you are effectively putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Being annoyed, I think your position right now is simply to pick a fight with me for no apparent reason.

[ckaihatsu]

I did not say someone needs to intervene.

For your interest, #15117103 was a specific response to #15116916, and my main point in that post was very simple:

1. "seeing (some) abortion as murder" is NOT "misogyny"
2. Member Godstud was oversimplifying things in post #15116916.

The rest of your accusation is bullshit, mainly because I have made it very clear that I do not see a woman's womb separate from the rest of her body and person.

I am afraid you are being too imaginative in interpreting my words, to the point that I think you are effectively putting words in my mouth.

EDIT: Being annoyed, I think your position right now is simply to pick a fight with me for no apparent reason.

So are you saying that *you* consider some abortion to be murder?

[Rancid]

But BLM is primarily *anti-police-brutality*, so all protestors / participants are *necessarily* *progressive* in their politics, since they're challenging police civil (extra-legal) hegemony.

Why would you want to *stereotype* people as a component of your politics -- ? (Who *deserves* stereotyping and being-condescended-to, based on a stereotype, and for what reasons?)

Isn't being against police brutality a *valid*, real-world politics -- ?

The term SWJ predates BLM. They are not the same in my eyes.

Yes police brutality is a real problem, but that's besides the point.

BLM is also besides the point of SJW wackiness.

As for stereotypes, they are born out of labels, and everyone uses labels. Including you, since you are using the labeling *BLM*.

[ckaihatsu]

The term SWJ predates BLM. They are not the same in my eyes.

Maybe we can agree that all BLM are SJWs, but not all SJWs are BLM. (Although ideologically I think all SJWs *would* be BLM, and the only variation would be a matter of individual *focus* and activity.)

Yes police brutality is a real problem, but that's besides the point.

BLM is also besides the point of SJW wackiness.

As for stereotypes, they are born out of labels, and everyone uses labels. Including you, since you are using the labeling *BLM*.

Sure, everyone uses labels, but the question is always about whether any given label, or category, is *accurate*.

Semantically the problem is a matter of *mixing scales* -- we can talk about black people *in general*, in that they're all *oppressed*, and we can talk about *individuals*, if we know them well enough, but the problem is in saying that *all* individuals of a type are 'this' or 'that'.

Semantically that's an *overgeneralization*, and thus is a *stereotype*, because in any given population, or subculture, individuals themselves will vary *widely*, and *won't* conform to any arbitrary overgeneralized stereotypical description.


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show

[Rancid]

Maybe we can agree that all BLM are SJWs

Not for me.

SJW is a pejorative in my mind, and I'd be surprised if people proudly call themselves SJWs, that term is tainted at this point. It's a term for left leaning moral grand standers. The type of people that want to defund the police (and are intentionally vague about what defund actually means). The type of people that think cancel culture is good. The type of people that want to get professors fired for making a controversial statement while claiming University is a place for free expression. The type of people that call the slightest of things racist. The type of people that obsess over so called cultural appropriation. The type of people that cried when Trump was elected (I didn't vote and don't like Trump for the record, but just making the point here). etc. etc.

All BLM supports do not fall into this category. Lots of BLM supporters don't give a fuck about all that stuff above, they just want to address the singular issue of police abuse. They just want justice for the people that have fallen at the hands of bad/nasty cops, they just want to see reforms were police become a part of communities, and not an occupation force. It's a shame that people equate BLM with SJWs now, however, this happened because the BLM protests have no leaders and no visionaries (i.e. no MLK figure, no Malcolm X figure, etc. etc.) to keep it on the rails.

The BLM movement lost its legs once young white SJWs co-opted it. Unfortunately. What BLM really needed was great/strong/smart black leaders, not a bunch of white kids.

[Rancid]

double post

[Patrickov]

So are you saying that *you* consider some abortion to be murder?

Yes.

[ckaihatsu]

Not for me.

SJW is a pejorative in my mind, and I'd be surprised if people proudly call themselves SJWs, that term is tainted at this point. It's a term for left leaning moral grand standers. The type of people that want to defund the police (and are intentionally vague about what defund actually means). The type of people that think cancel culture is good. The type of people that want to get professors fired for making a controversial statement while claiming University is a place for free expression. The type of people that call the slightest of things racist. The type of people that obsess over so called cultural appropriation. The type of people that cried when Trump was elected (I didn't vote and don't like Trump for the record, but just making the point here). etc. etc.

Okay, thanks for the description / elaboration -- offhand, I'd say that 'radicals' like these are mostly concerned with *civil society* (not necessarily anti-capitalist), and that's why the manifestation of their politics looks the way that it does.

From *my* perspective on the far-left the radicals / liberals / reformists *do* look wishy-washy and inconsistent in principle, especially in addressing structural *power* dynamics, but I also know that they happen to be *closer* to the ground, and are more influenced by the drama of the status-quo, meaning the state, basically.


Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

Spoiler: show

Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show

Without specific instances on your part, to flesh-in the abstractions you're making, I can't say much more.


---

All BLM supports do not fall into this category. Lots of BLM supporters don't give a fuck about all that stuff above, they just want to address the singular issue of police abuse. They just want justice for the people that have fallen at the hands of bad/nasty cops, they just want to see reforms were police become a part of communities, and not an occupation force. It's a shame that people equate BLM with SJWs now, however, this happened because the BLM protests have no leaders and no visionaries (i.e. no MLK figure, no Malcolm X figure, etc. etc.) to keep it on the rails.

Well, aren't the BLM protestors basically operating within the context of *civil society*, as well, in addressing matters of government / police brutality -- ?

It's sad that such a principled and relevant movement would necessarily *need* a leader / figurehead, as you're contending -- ultimately it should be *comfortable* with its own *mass* base, and simply stick to the *issues*, as all political people should.

The BLM movement lost its legs once young white SJWs co-opted it. Unfortunately. What BLM really needed was great/strong/smart black leaders, not a bunch of white kids.

I think this would be *specialization* and *tokenism*, though -- a mass movement *should* be multiracial and, hopefully, working class in interests, and at this point in things I don't think that a leader personage / figurehead would be a *necessity*, due to current many-to-many forms of communication over the Internet medium.

Any comment on this fairly-recent event:


March on Washington: On 57th anniversary, many issues still the same

https://www.ajc.com/news/march-on-washi ... XYITDPGFI/


Thousands rally at the March on Washington: 'Just stop killing us'

---

So are you saying that *you* consider some abortion to be murder?

Yes.

Which kinds of abortion?

[skinster]

Basically just ask yourself whose womb it is, and then take it from there.

The term SWJ predates BLM. They are not the same in my eyes.

SJW as a pejorative came to be a thing around the same time BLM became a thing, around 2011.

[Rancid]

SJW as a pejorative came to be a thing around the same time BLM became a thing, around 2011.

Sure, but correlation doesn't equal causation .

[skinster]

[Wellsy]

Sure, but correlation doesn't equal causation .

My dick correlates with orgasms. Could there be a causal relationship? Stay tuned for an interview with all your mothers!

[Patrickov]

Which kinds of abortion?

For example...
1. Someone were not careful to take the necessary precautions (e.g. contraception) before / after having sex (and having full consent, not forced like rape), and then get pregnant
2. Rather than taking up the responsibility of raising the new life, she chose to have abortion

P.S. I find your endless questioning irritating. It looks like you are actively seeking whatever you can refute from others' mouth.

[Godstud]

So, @Patrickov you'd force a young woman to have an unwanted pregnancy because birth control failed? You do now it's not 100%, right?

Would you also force a 17 year old girl to have a child that she is completely unprepared for, and where the father doesn't want responsibility?

It all comes down to you FORCING a woman to have a pregnancy, and that's why it is misogynistic, no matter your perceived moral dilemma about the life of an wanted fetus. Once the fetus is born, you won't pay for the child's education, upbringing or anything. in fact, you are likely against such things as Welfare, free education, and a living wage, right?

People without answers do not like questions.

[Patrickov]

So, @Patrickov you'd force a young woman to have an unwanted pregnancy because birth control failed? You do now it's not 100%, right?

My example involves the person not doing birth control at all. Failure of birth control is not in the scope.

Would you also force a 17 year old girl to have a child that she is completely unprepared for, and where the father doesn't want responsibility?

The father needs to be held accountable of course. Admitted I omitted something in part 2: Capability of raising the child is a point of concern here.

It all comes down to you FORCING a woman to have a pregnancy, and that's why it is misogynistic, no matter your perceived moral dilemma about the life of an wanted fetus. Once the fetus is born, you won't pay for the child's education, upbringing or anything. in fact, you are likely against such things as Welfare, free education, and a living wage, right?

This is putting words into my mouth. I have never advocated forcing anyone to do something, but I have full freedom to have my opinion / belief on certain action under different scenarios. Seeing some kind of abortion as murder is my belief, but that does not mean I have to (nor I have rights to) ask anyone to follow my belief, especially when the event has zero business with me.

My concern of unnecessary abortion is that the person in concern is not respecting her own body, but forcing the woman to do some other actions (say, carry on the pregnancy) will be equally disrespectful if not more. Sometimes what's done cannot be undone.

My main point is I disagree with your statement that "thinking abortion is murder = misogyny". I think this is an overly arbitrary statement that has not taken all circumstances into account. It is unnecessary and dubious to try to expand my example's coverage -- even one very specific exception is enough to defeat that statement.

People without answers do not like questions.

No one knows everything, so there is always somewhere where one will be out of answers. There are people who would ask questions just to trigger their "no answer point".

I believe that Member ckaihatsu has both reason and capability to trigger my "no answer point" here:
1. I am in a debate with him, and we take opposite sides (or at least he believes so -- I think abortion is a very broad topic and there should not be only one kind of response).
2. He is a very knowledgeable, resourceful and intelligent poster.

[Rancid]

P.S. I find your endless questioning irritating. It looks like you are actively seeking whatever you can refute from others' mouth.

This is a common technique on pofo. I call it the fishing for something to disagree with approach.

You know, sometimes I think it's a valid approach, especially if the person asking the questions is genuinely trying to understand your position. However, there are many cases where it's just the person wanting to disagree with you, so they prance around words waiting for something to be able to say "Ah ha!! you're wrong! I got you!".

[Godstud]

Admitted I omitted something in part 2: Capability of raising the child is a point of concern here.

Almost all abortions can be down to validated by this argument, you know.

I have never advocated forcing anyone to do something, but I have full freedom to have my opinion / belief on certain action under different scenarios. Seeing some kind of abortion as murder is my belief, but that does not mean I have to (nor I have rights to) ask anyone to follow my belief, especially when the event has zero business with me.

If that's the case, then you can't have an argument against abortion, unless you are involved. This is as it should be.

My concern of unnecessary abortion is that the person in concern is not respecting her own body, but forcing the woman to do some other actions (say, carry on the pregnancy) will be equally disrespectful if not more. Sometimes what's done cannot be undone.

This has nothing to do with respect, but the rights of the individual to control their own body.

My main point is I disagree with your statement that "thinking abortion is murder = misogyny". I think this is an overly arbitrary statement that has not taken all circumstances into account. It is unnecessary and dubious to try to expand my example's coverage -- even one very specific exception is enough to defeat that statement.

When your belief would force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy, and take away that woman's rights to her own body, it is misogyny.

[ckaihatsu]

For example...
1. Someone were not careful to take the necessary precautions (e.g. contraception) before / after having sex (and having full consent, not forced like rape), and then get pregnant

And how should the government *handle* this kind of situation, according to you?

2. Rather than taking up the responsibility of raising the new life, she chose to have abortion

Ditto.

P.S. I find your endless questioning irritating. It looks like you are actively seeking whatever you can refute from others' mouth.

Well, I can't read minds, so I often have to *ask* for specific information from others, on their own perspectives, so that I can respond appropriately within the thread's topic.

I can't *guarantee* that I will be in agreement with whatever the other person has to say.

You *sidestepped* a prior question of mine, one that encapsulates the 'crossroads' that you're at, regarding this issue:

Does the woman have the civil right to be 'irresponsible' over her own treatment of her own body, or doesn't she?

viewtopic.php?p=15117136#p15117136

---

2. He is a very knowledgeable, resourceful and intelligent poster.

Thanks. (I can't think of any way to be a smart-ass off of this.) (grin)