SJW, their Politically Correct (PC) game explained - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14742374
mikema63 wrote:When we talk about SJW's I always feel like the category should be broken down into types. A lot of posters (just about all of them) talk about social justice as such a broad category that it essentially just means left-liberal. I'd be curious to see you guys try to break it down into more specific categories and tell us what you think of each of them.

Let's take gay marriage for instance, say someone is a gay marriage advocate and also get's annoyed when people say faggot. Surely he's in a different category than a college student demanding a trigger warning about war in a world history class. Which would be still different than a civil rights advocate suing a school district to desegregate.


I think most of us are referring to individuals similar to the college student in your example, who wish to silence dissent and censure speech in the interest of protecting feelings. Limiting free speech is not a classically liberal ideal, which is why I only refer to SJWs as members of the left, not 'left-liberal' or 'liberal.'
#14742375
I get called an sjw all the time and I think the college student is silly. TiG iirc has been called an sjw as well and has talked about that type of college student negatively.

All my examples are people who would regularly be called sjws. It seems to mean whatever someone means it to mean no more and no less.
#14742376
Political Interest wrote:
I've always viewed social justice as a reform movement within liberal capitalism rather than a revolutionary force that seeks a complete overthrow of the system.

It would explain why there was no revolution in the West. Instead of fighting for communism the Western left fought for social justice and ethnic politics. In the end they failed to establish socialism but were able to make their liberal capitalist democracies more equal.

In other contexts the fight was not for a reform of the old order but its total overthrow (China, Russia).
That's exactly what it is, and as a Marxist I have no problem with such a left wing movement in principle. However 50 years after the 60s when we've accomplished legal equality and capitalism is leaving behind the nation, they play a key role in splitting the working class and preventing anyone from bringing the white working class to the left. They shatter the idea that the West is a meritocratic liberal-democracy of individuals, and set it up as a playing field between competing in-groups where the majority is the oppressor. Meanwhile this is to the background of globalization which is seeing the middle class and social mobility collapse and the native working class (that also happens to be the majority) endure, to the delight of bosses, competition with cheap labor.

The result is a sense of economic zero-sum game between in-groups, a soft totalitarianism in the form of PC, and a social culture war where you have 'problematic' popular demographics being condemned by the wealthier, liberal, urban and cosmopolitan elites of the country as racist, sexist, islamophobic, and so on.

The convergence between social justice warriors and liberal-capitalism is directly setting up for nationalist reaction and rejection of economic liberalism and international finance. The far-right is completely outmaneuvering the far left in seizing on the last couple years, and it's become apparent the center-left is not only the new party of big business, but has absolutely nothing to offer the (especially white) working class.

By squeezing the native working class/middle america from two sides, one from a left establishment (creating a legitimately right wing counter-culture) and one from below, the outside in-group competing for jobs and institutional and cultural power, this directly sets up for the 'beset from two sides' siege mentality that was historically key to the rise of the third position both as opposed to leftism and capitalism

mikema63 wrote:When we talk about SJW's I always feel like the category should be broken down into types. A lot of posters (just about all of them) talk about social justice as such a broad category that it essentially just means left-liberal. I'd be curious to see you guys try to break it down into more specific categories and tell us what you think of each of them.

Let's take gay marriage for instance, say someone is a gay marriage advocate and also get's annoyed when people say faggot. Surely he's in a different category than a college student demanding a trigger warning about war in a world history class. Which would be still different than a civil rights advocate suing a school district to desegregate.


When I use the word, I use it to refer to those liberals who want capitalism with a human face and to oppose Russia and Syria, but adopt leftist rhetoric on race, gender, and immigration. These people work to the benefit of globalizing capitalism and actually make money off their political careers. They criticize Bernie and socialists as being old white males, while having a base in cities (the fruit of inequality) and campuses (the epitome of privilege). They end up, quite like Eurocrats and Russian liberals, hating their own majority demographic as the rot in their democracy and holding back progress, when in reality it's their fault for not having a unifying national narrative and giving people a sense of in-group competition, and not appealing enough to working class issues that globalization has brought to the forefront by proletarianizing the middle class.

I separate this from Marxists who recognize the intersection of the color line with class and welcome such, they are not SJWs.
#14742389
Conscript wrote:Are you serious? You started following me around the forum in various threads and sneer at how I break with left orthodoxy with a post there. You've been doing it since this election season started.

I've elaborated on my arguments many times, telling me I didn't support them without explaining how or pointing out which don't make sense to you is your failure, not mine. Try challenging me on things instead of quoting a whole post and saying none of this applies and I didn't support it enough to your satisfaction (and you never say what you don't understand), neither of which is an argument. Occasionally you'll throw in other irrelevant stuff, like how my writing is bad. You're basically a troll at this point.

These 'debates' are one sided because they consist of elaborated points on my part and then one liners on yours that try to poke holes, but really suggest intellectual laziness and a sense of aghastness at what I'm saying that you follow with mockery and shaming.

It's hard to believe you're one of the older members here and this is all you can give us:


Yet another post where you talk about how smart and better you are, and no evidence.

This is boring.

Please provide evidence to support the claim that social justice movements are a tool of capitalism. If not, please ignore this post.

-----------------

Political Interest wrote:I've always viewed social justice as a reform movement within liberal capitalism rather than a revolutionary force that seeks a complete overthrow of the system.

It would explain why there was no revolution in the West. Instead of fighting for communism the Western left fought for social justice and ethnic politics. In the end they failed to establish socialism but were able to make their liberal capitalist democracies more equal.

In other contexts the fight was not for a reform of the old order but its total overthrow (China, Russia).


There have been revolutions in the west. Fidel Castro, whose death is mourned today, was perhaps the most famous western revolutionary.

If you are discussing why there was never a socialist revolution in Europe or North America, I think the reasons are complex and have to do with colonialism. If you wish, I can explain further, but suffice it to say that social justice movements are far too young to have had any impact on labour history. Militancy in the labour movement began in the 1910s while social justice only became a thing for white people since the 1990s.

------------------

Conscript wrote:.....

...they play a key role in splitting the working class and preventing anyone from bringing the white working class to the left. They shatter the idea that the West is a meritocratic liberal-democracy of individuals, and set it up as a playing field between competing in-groups where the majority is the oppressor.


I would say that racism and sexism do far more to divide the working class than social justice.

The Communist Party of Canada agrees with me. http://communist-party.ca/chapter-5-the ... s-struggle
They are not the only ones: http://newsocialist.org/761-colonialism ... -in-canada
#14742405
mikema63 wrote:When we talk about SJW's I always feel like the category should be broken down into types. A lot of posters (just about all of them) talk about social justice as such a broad category that it essentially just means left-liberal. I'd be curious to see you guys try to break it down into more specific categories and tell us what you think of each of them.

Let's take gay marriage for instance, say someone is a gay marriage advocate and also get's annoyed when people say faggot. Surely he's in a different category than a college student demanding a trigger warning about war in a world history class. Which would be still different than a civil rights advocate suing a school district to desegregate.


But should it be a category at all?

I like this look at it:

The problem is, that’s not a real category of people. It’s simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists. It’s awfully convenient to have a term at the ready to dismiss women who bring up sexism, as in, "You don’t really care. As an SJW, you’re just taking up this cause to make yourself look good!"
#14742417
Sure, dismissing it entirely is a point if view. It's also one that many on logo will completely dismiss. At least this way they can be more specific.

So far I've seen three distinct ways of using the term, for those of you who might consider developing the concept to be more specific.
#14742422
Since anna brought up feminism as an example, an SJW "feminist" to me is someone who dismisses the rape culture of MENA men by pointing at white men and the supposed "rape culture" allegedly rampant in the Western world.

Latest example of this were the sexual assaults and rapes by North Africans on NYE, of which Cologne is only the most notorious example (while in reality, these attacks happened at the same night in almost all big cities in the Western part of Germany). "Feminists" not only didn't adress this mass assault on their supposed sisters, they immediately tried to deflect from it by discussing at great length the rapes that allegedly had been happening every year on Oktoberfest - in reality, group sexual assault where a pack of attackers surrounds the woman and the members then assault the victim one by one or simultaneously, is a phenomenon that was completely unknown in Germany before that night. In MENA country, this sport is known as taharrush gamea, in Germany, we don't even have a word for this.

Here, race topped gender by several miles. Apparently, rape is not a problem if your attacker is not a white man. Feminism lost all legitimacy for me on that day.
#14742424
Frollein wrote:Since anna brought up feminism as an example, an SJW "feminist" to me is someone who dismisses the rape culture of MENA men by pointing at white men and the supposed "rape culture" allegedly rampant in the Western world.


What are MENA men? I haven't seen that before.

Latest example of this were the sexual assaults and rapes by North Africans on NYE, of which Cologne is only the most notorious example (while in reality, these attacks happened at the same night in almost all big cities in the Western part of Germany). "Feminists" not only didn't adress this mass assault on their supposed sisters, they immediately tried to deflect from it by discussing at great length the rapes that allegedly had been happening every year on Oktoberfest - in reality, group sexual assault where a pack of attackers surrounds the woman and the members then assault the victim one by one or simultaneously, is a phenomenon that was completely unknown in Germany before that night. In MENA country, this sport is known as taharrush gamea, in Germany, we don't even have a word for this.

Here, race topped gender by several miles. Apparently, rape is not a problem if your attacker is not a white man. Feminism lost all legitimacy for me on that day.


Feminists? German feminists? How many feminists? A representative and significant percentage of German feminists?

I don't know about there, but here, a rape is a rape no matter who the attacker is.
#14742426
mikema63 wrote:Sure, dismissing it entirely is a point if view. It's also one that many on logo will completely dismiss. At least this way they can be more specific.

So far I've seen three distinct ways of using the term, for those of you who might consider developing the concept to be more specific.


I wouldn't self-identify with that label, it doesn't interest me either as validation or pejorative (although I'd be interested in seeing how it might be broken down).
#14742457
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yet another post where you talk about how smart and better you are, and no evidence.

This is boring.

Please provide evidence to support the claim that social justice movements are a tool of capitalism. If not, please ignore this post.

I would say that racism and sexism do far more to divide the working class than social justice.

The Communist Party of Canada agrees with me. http://communist-party.ca/chapter-5-the ... s-struggle
They are not the only ones: http://newsocialist.org/761-colonialism ... -in-canada


You can stop projecting, I didn't mention anything about me, just your intellectual laziness and one liners.

Also in the same post, in reply to someone else, you tacitly admit social justice is non-revolutionary and a movement of white people. You basically called it petty bourgeois liberalism.

And that's what it is. It's no coincidence Soros went from sponsoring anti communist movements to anti-nationalist ones. He's been supporting the same bourgeois conception of an open society the entire time, the left liberals are just useful idiots in that regard. It's all liberal internationalism and its material basis for it (profiting) versus international socialism and, now, reactionary nationalism. In terms of class struggle, it's still a bourgeoisie and its middle class ideologues fighting the working class (just in the second case they fight under a reactionary populist guise).
#14742461
From what I can see, any conservative people who call anyone liberal a SJW should in turn be called a Nazi, since it's the same damned thing: Stupid and inaccurate.
#14742466
Godstud wrote:From what I can see, any conservative people who call anyone liberal a SJW should in turn be called a Nazi, since it's the same damned thing: Stupid and inaccurate.

That's right. The difference is that this caricature of the right/conservatives has been going on for a long time and even moved into mainstream discourse. I don't quite understand why I should make a distinction and try to be fair when it comes to the left/liberals. Lumping them all into the SJW group is actually pretty mild in comparison. There is nothing profound going on here. For the most part it is just funny/ironic to see many of them getting worked up about it and insisting that it's an unfair generalisation or "simplistic". Well, welcome to the club!
#14742471
No, it has not been going on for a while. People rarely, if ever, call a Conservative a Nazi simply because he wants to be pro-life, or against homosexual marriage. I guess if it fits your narrative, you can believe this, though.
#14742474
The most popular charge is obviously racism, but there are a variety of them that can be used liberally to stereotype the right/conservatives. As far as I'm concerned it's just the same method, although being called an SJW is really in no way comparable in terms of seriousness and consequences. Just more evidence how thin skinned SJWs are I guess.
#14742475
When people demonstrate racism(through word of deed), they are called racist. SJW is a very broad and vague term(derogatory) for anyone willing to take up any cause. Few SJWs exist as they are the people who even normal liberals find absolutely dimwitted.

I suppose the next time I am called a SJW by some mentally challenged person who simply disagrees with me, I'll immediately jump to racist Nazi to describe them. That's only fair to the thin-skinned conservative fucktards. It has the same seriousness and consequences(laughably none, since we're on an internet forum).
#14742480
Godstud wrote:When people demonstrate racism(through word of deed), they are called racist.

When people demonstrate that they are social justice warriors, they are called SJWs. It's me who is the judge who is an SJW and who is not. You have no say in it. Please, make yourself familiar with the rules.

Godstud wrote:SJW is a very broad and vague term(derogatory) for anyone willing to take up any cause. Few SJWs exist as they are the people who even normal liberals find absolutely dimwitted.

Oh, it's unfair and simplistic to call all liberals SJWs? You don't say.

Godstud wrote:I suppose the next time I am called a SJW by some mentally challenged person who simply disagrees with me, I'll immediately jump to racist Nazi to describe them. That's only fair to the thin-skinned conservative fucktards.

Only an SJW would think that calling people Nazis would be an appropriate response.
#14742483
Are we now arguing that characterization is okay? Why? Cause they did it first?

I would expect at least some on PoFo to be more interested in discussion than clinging to a term just because some generalized political bloc was mean first.
#14742485
Well, Kaiserschmarrn, you racist Nazi, I guess then maybe you should just stop using SJW whenever you don't agree with someone. I am applying the same logic you are, in labelling someone(you, in this case) inappropriately.
#14742492
mikema63 wrote:Are we now arguing that characterization is okay? Why? Cause they did it first?

I would expect at least some on PoFo to be more interested in discussion than clinging to a term just because some generalized political bloc was mean first.

The question is not whether it's okay or not. It's about putting people into a defensive position and watch them trying to distance themselves from a minority within their own group. That's fair game as far as I can see.

I'm actually amused that so many people (not on this board) react so strongly to it.

Godstud wrote:Well, Kaiserschmarrn, you racist Nazi, I guess then maybe you should just stop using SJW whenever you don't agree with someone. I am applying the same logic you are, in labelling someone(you, in this case) inappropriately.

Well, Godstud, now you've proved yourself to be an SJW. It wasn't necessary though; we knew it all along.
Election 2020

If anything, they justify their fanatical view be[…]

So how deadly is it?

Yeah, the death count has been wildly inflated, t[…]

synagogue discipline? One can see you are not a […]

You and I don't agree here. Putin is making the […]