Great post from /r/4chan about SJWs

[–]GimletOnTheRocks130 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The common thread in all of this is: "the ends justify the means."

If bullying bullies results in less bullying then... justified!

If denying college men due process, evidence, and a fair impartial hearing results in less campus rape then... justified!

If repeating misleading and simplistic income statistics results in a misunderstanding about existence of a "gender wage gap" which then results in calls for legislation to pay women for money then... justified!

If creating a strawman of evil misogynistic gamer trolls helps some ill-defined goal of more in-game female characters and female game developers then... justified!

If creating a surveillance state reduces terrorist attacks then... justified!

If shooting some abortion doctors results in less abortions then... justified!

If hurling insults at feminists and feminism at-large will diminish some of the injustices that men experience then... justified! (see, no one is immune)

The other important thing is to realize that the end does NOT have to actually come to fruition. No, the idea that the end may eventually occur in some idealized world is good enough to keep saying... justified!

[–]RobbieGee53 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Duncan00618 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RobbieGee8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Duncan00612 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]COYAD5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RobbieGee4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DancesWithPugs1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FrostytheSnowColt3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Self-fulfilling prophecy:

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. Although examples of such prophecies can be found in literature as far back as ancient Greece and ancient India, it is 20th-century sociologist Robert K. Merton who is credited with coining the expression "self-fulfilling prophecy" and formalizing its structure and consequences. In his 1948 article Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Merton defines it in the following terms:

====

Image i

Interesting: Self-defeating prophecy | The Antioch Review | Ojo the Lucky | Confidence

Parent commenter can [toggle NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cmqdqoz) or [delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cmqdqoz). Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]mushybees2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RobbieGee3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]redgamergatepill-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]PerniciousOne1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]crankypants1515 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]COYAD5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DancesWithPugs1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OrginalCanadian9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass-10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nelsonblaha5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass-13 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gee_iwonderwhy3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gee_iwonderwhy6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass-9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuerve6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fuerve5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JackBadass4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cross_of_Coronado7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am so frustrated. This fight happens here and now. I want to participate but I can't because my native language is german. So I lack the power to express myself how I would want to.

This whole thing boils down to something. I don't know what it is. Is it the everlasting fight of Bullies against the Bullied? I see the same tacticts here. WE, Gamers, Men, name a "privilieged" group are the bullied. Yet everybody says that WE were the bullies!

You remember or know that pattern? "Why are you beating yourself? Why are you beating yourself? While the use your own hand to beat you up.

Then again: It is more than bullying. If the SJW have their way EVERYTHING is at stake. Free speech is at stake. Freedom itself is at stake.

Also: While EVERYTHING a Man or a Gamer does speaks for the whole diverse group, everything that they do comes from a big cloud that you can't fight.

Fuck, i don't know how to express myself. I'm destined to watch this whole war without being able to participate. I feel like a cripple on the battlefield.

[–]paperairplanerace2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]goodboy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UglierThanMoe2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]occupythekitchen1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]legofan0011 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lucretius0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The common thread in all of this is: "the ends justify the means."

Surely you are not saying that the ends can NEVER justify the means? That seems to be just as unreasonable if taken to the extreme:

For example, not all citizens benefit equally from government spending (such as on defense, roads, police, courts, schools, fire departments, etc... To say nothing of social programs). That unequal benefit is an injustice intrinsic to the means which is government spending and the taxation and public debt that enables it. If that means is not justified by those ends, then it's time to embrace foreign conquest, anarchy, ruin and ignorance.

No, while a simple rule like 'The ends never justify the means.' Is appealing for it's simplicity... it is nonetheless just not accurate. The truth is that we need to be aware of the danger of the argument that the ends justify the means but also of the argument that the ends can't. The dangers of these arguments are in fact a function of their uncritical and simplistic application. That uncritical application is appealing because it lets one make ethical judgements without actually having a well established and understood system of ethics and morals. In that regard, it appeals to people with the ethical methodology of a child that wants to get on with the fun part of mixing the ingredients without the tiresome and boring process of exactly measuring them and reading the recipe.

That uncritical and simplistic application of the ends justifying the means is what is consistent in your examples. Let's take your first example: "If bullying bullies results in less bullying then... justified!" As a blanket rule, applied in an unthinking and general manner, this idea obviously doesn't pass the sniff test. But, if the bullying of bullies can be done in a limited way, in a demonstratively less damaging manner, and by trained authority figures who are subject to public oversight, then it might be reasonable... and indeed it is reasonable under those circumstances.... for-example a teacher disciplining a bully... is itself a form of bullying just by a designated authority figure acting in an official manner by invoking accepted techniques which are in-turn subject to review and accountability. See? By taking it out of the super general, and abstract, and applying context and specifics we escape from the dangers of an uncritical and simplistic approach to ethical issues. And the only cost of this solution is that we have to abandon the lure of simple easy universal answers.

[–]RobbieGee6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tammylan2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

For example, not all citizens benefit equally from government spending (such as on defense, roads, police, courts, schools, fire departments, etc... To say nothing of social programs). That unequal benefit is an injustice intrinsic to the means which is government spending and the taxation and public debt that enables it.

I can understand why you might think that minorities don't get the full benefit of some government programs, but I'd really like you to explain a bit further exactly how it is you think government spending on roads and defense in particular discriminates against anyone.

I can envisage a couple of arguments you might make, but to me they're more about wealth and class than race or gender.

ie How exactly do the billions spent on ICBMs and highways benefit a guy living in a trailer park more than they benefit an upper class woman?

[–]Lucretius1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tazzydnc1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lucretius1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tazzydnc1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Imthere1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Surely you are not saying that the ends can NEVER justify the means? That seems to be just as unreasonable if taken to the extreme:

Which is why reasonable people don't take it to an extreme.

The point that many miss is that the means helps determine the end results. If SJWs going for peace, love, and the American way, then going about it by treating people like shit is the wrong approach.

But, if the bullying of bullies can be done in a limited way, in a demonstratively less damaging manner, and by trained authority figures who are subject to public oversight, then it might be reasonable..

Psychology shows that approach is less productive than positive methods. They show that negative methods are almost always less productive than positive methods.

About the only "negative" method that's product is self-defence. It can be violent (even death-dealing). But it's still less problematic than the alternative: letting yourself be hurt and/or killed.

And the methods of self defence stop with defence. As soon as you start beating the crap out of someone who attacks you, your methods are no longer productive.

for-example a teacher disciplining a bully... is itself a form of bullying just by a designated authority figure acting in an official manner by invoking accepted techniques which are in-turn subject to review and accountability. See?

No.

The use of authority is very different than the use of force.

[–]theobonnevier-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]COYAD2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomsought-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elronhubbardmexico5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Tilting_Gambit1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomsought1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mel_Gibsons_Sanity45 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ctlawguy40 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is great!

Social justice used to be a noble concept. It used to be about lifting up people who were truly oppressed and discriminated against. It used to be about uniting people and emphasizing our common humanity. There wasn't this pernicious concept of "privilege," mainly because it wasn't necessary.

It's not about that anymore. Now it is about attacking the so-called "privileged" classes. The problem is no longer that minorities don't have it good enough, now it's that white cis-het males have it too good. It's not about working hard to change truly discriminatory laws, policies, and attitudes, it's about doing nothing other than being offended by everything that could possibly be construed as offensive, without any consideration of other alternatives. It's not about emphasizing similarities, it's about emphasizing differences and splitting people into discrete warring camps (see for example the concept of "cultural appropriation").

Does someone have an ignorant opinion? Don't try to reason with them. Call them names and get them fired from their job (though sometimes that may be necessary if they are someone like Donald Sterling who has authority over people's careers).

Does someone disagree with you? Call them privileged as if that makes them automatically wrong.

Are there multiple reasonable interpretations of what someone said? Pick the least charitable one. Did the person have neutral or even noble intent? Who cares. Did the person apologize? Not good enough, doesn't matter what the apology is.

Basically, as Internet Aristocrat said, an SJW is someone who feels entitled to everything without having to work for it. They blame their failures and unhappiness on other people. Why am I not happy? Patriarchy! Racism! Anything but my own actions. They do nothing other than form mobs to attack people on social media.

[–]tazzydnc2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rjmk27 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Iridium7775 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EternalArchon8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gprime3129 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-16 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Here's a list of interesting examples I just found, if you're interested. These are the kind of things that SJWs do.

If you want specific examples of SJWs, then the first ones that pop up in my head, and that are often mentioned these days, would be Anita Sarkeesian (a blogger famous for her misandry, delusional articles and opportunism) and Zoe Quinn (of Gamergate fame, for making the censorship and corruption in gaming journalism, and also journalism in general, come to light for thousands of gamers and people of the public, a large number of whom were taken down by the rest of her SJW colleagues for speaking out against her).

There are many other examples, ofc. Many of them are completely no-names, but their actions are visible in new legislations and in online censorship, amongst other places. (Like in every single Wikipedia article even remotely related to gender issues, where brigades of SJWs, helped by certain moderators, make sure that Feminism always be displayed in positive lights, and that any contradictory evidence (such as correctly retelling the events of some protest with nothing but facts) is removed.)

That is why I, personally, am disgusted by these people. For their censorship of the truth, for their inconsistency in their own arguments, for their cowardly bullying tactics, and because they are a part of a hate group.

[–]cyrux-10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jeff_R17 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]lafielle6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you mean overzealous university students like the ones who picketed Warren Farrell? I consider myself a feminist as well as a MRA and these examples are all total douchenozzles who undermine equality.

Douchenozzles they may be, but there sure seem to be a lot of them who claim to speak for the social justice crowd, and who have a right to make that claim as well, by the support they receive from countless others who claim to be feminists.

Too many famous social justice warriors are exactly the douchenozzles you claim to oppose. Besides the ones mentioned, I can also refer to Rebecca Watson, Suey Park. All of those douchenozzles get funded by other social justice warriors to further spread their messages, as they voice their support for their deluded thinking and what they believe passes for arguments.

And not all of them are "students": Valory Solaris, Robin Morgan, Sally Miller Gearhart, Mary Daly, Ti-Grace Atkinson, all called for, or actively supported the call for, the extermination of men in the name of feminism and social justice.

And these aren't students, or fringe crazies! These are tenured professors in gender studies, editors of feminist magazines, presidents for chapters of the National Organization for Women. They are people who have been cited hundreds, even thousands of times by feminist "researchers" in gender studies papers. They are people of authority, who hold significant positions within the feminist community.

These "douchenozzles" are the leaders and public speakers for the feminist and social justice movement. And the people in that movement continue to give them their support!

And I wish it was just moral support, or even silent acceptance of the fact that they claim to speak for social justice! It is not!

Social Justice Warriors are actively giving money to these people, they are giving support to companies who hire them by buying their products and they are voting for the candidates they endorse, all of which empowers them to do more.

You claim that kickstarters like the ones by Sarkeesian are a "joke". Let's not confuse "a priest walks into a bar, auch" with "support my political issue campaign!", because you know very well that over $ 150.000 is not a joke that almost 7000 backers are making at the expense of the gaming community.

Anita Sarkeesian literally stood in front of a thousand people and asked them where her army was. And as she did, those thousand people burst into cheers of support.

These people aren't a few crazies or overzealous students. They are the well funded and beloved leadership of the social justice movement.

I mostly give these people passes because having an internet full of dumb COD fanboys and the like mad at you is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

You're confusing cause and effect here.

A thief doesn't get a pass for her crimes because the owner of the house she robbed beat her with a golf-club. The owner of the house was reacting to her crime, and the thief brought the beating upon herself by breaking in and stealing the television set. You might blame the owner for going overboard (I would), but the thief does not get a pass because she was beaten as a result of her own criminal activity.

Likewise, figures like Zoey Quinn don't get a pass when people call her horrible things and threaten her after she attempted to steal their money! She's a liar, a thief and a charlatan. She doesn't deserves to receive death threats, but she doesn't deserve our sympathy either.

[–]marswithrings2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i don't know a whole lot about Quinn TBH, that was too much of a mess and I didn't have time to sort through it all, but Sarkeesian is a flat out liar.

she intentionally manipulates and misrepresents the games she talks about to the point at which many of her claims are factually wrong. Then she goes and tries to make a sort of "concept video" for a game that's "done right" and breaks literally every single one of her own rules...

she's not bad at masking her "points" under the guise of intelligence so i guess i can see how she snares some people but i never see anything she says hold up under real scrutiny.

there are different brands of people who identify as feminist and certainly some are more reasonable than others but Sarkeesian is definitely on the list of crazies for whom i have no respect.

[–]BigDamnHead1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaosOpen0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Gamergate was not about Quinn, no matter how much anti-GG crowd wants it to be. It was about how the journalist closed ranks and 10 articles by 10 different journalist across various magazines all wrote the same article declaring "gamers" dead and calling everyone sexist; that was the point at which GG truly kicked off. Quinn was quickly forgotten about, sure she was made fun of like any other SJW, however, GG is bigger than Quinn and her crappy game. The problem is journalist keep trying to label GG as sexist who are attacking Quinn, who wasn't that important.

It is like the Scopes trial, in which the issue wasn't about whether John Scopes broke the law, but whether the law requiring the teaching of Creationism was constitutional.

Though, considering the "dumb COD fanboys" got that and you didn't says a lot...

[–]RobbieGee-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look, you're all putting me in the position of having to defend them simply because I have some common sense.

The majority of their claims of threats are most likely forged

You have no basis to claim that. That's called talking out of your ass. And even after you talk out of your ass, you accept that some of the threats were genuine. So why bother talking out of your ass and looking like a clown in the first place?

And the others are groundless

No basis again. Out of your ass again. I know how the internet works, but you still can't simply dismiss multiple death threats as baseless.

Do you honestly believe anyone would be stupid enough to make them become martyrs?

I don't think most people think about it so tactically. This isn't 3D chess or some thought out battle plan. This is hot headed idiots sending threats of death that could likely be traced back and land them in prison for a long time. These people are already idiots, so yes, I do think it's at least possible that one of them might do something extra dumb. Even if I didn't, you would have to take these threats seriously, and consider the impact that even a baseless threat would have on your nerves and the rest of your life. How would your mother feel if she heard you were getting death threats? Isn't that at least shitty enough on its own?

They are not unique

Never said they were. And what does that matter anyway? A death threat is a serious thing.

You know, you could still hate Sarkeesian and Quinn's guts and not wish death threats on them or be dicks about it when they happen.

[–]RobbieGee3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah I didn't want to go into this topic but I can't just let it slide when people justify death threats. Again, I started off by saying I have no love for these people, but wtf guys can't we just be human about this?

On your theory: I think Sarkeesian probably took the negative attention and death threats as a vindicating sign that she was actually going in the right direction and stirring things up in the gaming community. I don't think that's necessarily wrong: if I was doing a set of youtube videos about racism and I got death threats from stormfront or neo nazis or something then I would take that as a sign that I was doing something right. I may even go public with them and start a kickstarter to spite them.

Look, you can't ever defend people who make death threats. They are bad people, and if you piss off bad people then you could easily extrapolate it's because you are doing good things.

Anyway, with this logic you could interpret her decision to not stay quiet as courage rather than dishonesty or whatever. I do think she's courageous (or naive) for standing up for what she believes in in the face of adversity, even if I don't agree with her fully. And you've got to have some sympathy for her for being in the eye of the storm: things might look different from where she is standing.

Did she want or relish the attention? Probably. Doesn't really matter to me. When she's dealing with death threats, she's justified. If the gaming community doesn't like it, then we should always denounce idiots who make death threats or whatever.

On Quinn: you can't say she wanted the attention she's got, so a whole chunk of the argument for Sarkeesian is unnecessary. She may be a shitty person but she doesn't deserve death threats or such vicious vitriol from the whole gaming community. And you know what, depression quest was a nice idea. At least a part of her heart is in the right place.

We should hold these women accountable for whatever wrongdoings we all think they've done by all means, but a relatively large amount of the community is being too nasty about it. There's a level of excessiveness that's fine over voice chat in a game of DOTA or COD, but you can't stand for that shit irl.

[–]TreyWalker2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L3SSTH4NTHR333 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]L3SSTH4NTHR330 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetiePieJonas11 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeekofFury7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]US_Ranger8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeekofFury1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trthorson1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gee_iwonderwhy6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GeekofFury1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trthorson2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What exactly is the point you're trying to make here, because you're an obvious Liberal on a witch hunt trying to pigeon hole someone else with a label, which is very illuminating about your personality and beliefs. You can call me what you want, but making observations about peoples' behavior and conversing with individuals and using adjectives to describe them doesn't make me anything. The fact that you are on a hunt to label me a Faux News presenter shows that you are incapable of subtlety when it comes to argument and thought.

This all stems from me saying that you'll find lots of SJWs in Liberal towns/colleges. You will. That's not false at all. That's not partisan. That's not me trying to make this movement partisan. Go around a conservative area and tell me how many SJWs you run into, or have you never been around the world at all?

[–]VoodooIdol-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dateskimokid-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dateskimokid0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dateskimokid0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]US_Ranger0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMightyMrM0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cyrux10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SJWs exist primarily in Liberal towns/Liberal schools/Liberal areas was the obvious point I was making. There's really no such thing as a Conservative SJW, at least not socially Conservative.

I don't think the MrM is Liberal or Conservative. Many of the things the MrM fights against are very recent changes in culture brought about by the far left. Kangaroo courts in colleges. False rape accusations and their prevalence and lack of due process. Reactions to modern day Feminism. the MrM also does fight against traditional gender roles as you said, but I don't consider it Liberal or Conservative, nor was I trying to make it either.

The fact exists that SJWs are 99% Liberal/Leftist. That's the point I was making, and it's quite easy to see when living in a Liberal town or going to a Liberal school.

[–]cyrux9 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You know, I don't disagree. The point about kangaroo courts in colleges is solid: it's a misapplication of liberalism that infantilises women in my view, but that doesn't change the fact that it is motivated by people who consider themselves liberal, and certainly campaigned for by them. The same with other problems in family court etc. I'm not going to pull a no true scotsman or attempt to defend idiocy.

These people do make me sad to call myself a liberal, because obviously it isn't a detailed enough word to distinguish between us. I'm actually a vegetarian as well, and there are some crazies in that camp as well.

The weird thing is, I consider myself more liberal than them because it seems obvious to me that babying or overprotecting women is just as sexist as oppressing them. I don't know how to convey that in one word, though, it's the same difference between feminists who are women's advocates and feminists who are equality advocates. Anyway, I'll take your point. I'm sure you appreciate that not all liberals are like that, though.

[–]Null_zero1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheMightyMrM1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trthorson1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetiePieJonas0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DancesWithPugs2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetiePieJonas2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SweetiePieJonas2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]FallingSnowAngel0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, I like John Oliver. I was watching John Stewart's show fairly regularly a few years back. So although this issue is such a ridiculous mess, I'm glad it was at least presented with a touch of humour.

It's no secret to Men's Rights Activists that the justice system of practically every western nation (all of them, as far as I know) needs major improvements. They are more likely to convict men, men's sentences are longer than women's for literally the same crime, men in jail are more likely to be raped than women convicts (by other prisoners or by their jailors), they are more likely to be killed, etc.

The entire thing is nothing but a cesspool of problems. I honestly don't even know how we could go about for fixing these issues. Petitions? Doing a fundraising? Sending letters to some governor? The first is practically useless and is nothing short of whining without providing solutions, the second would collect nowhere near enough money to change anything (and any change that gets done would probably be done badly), and the third... well, that's probably the best solution of the lot, even if anything we send them will probably be ignored anyhow.

The United States are in such a horrible hole right now. The country has so much debts that only paying the interests already requires a major amount of funding from the government. The only way it could get out of that situation would be either by spending an even larger percentage of its revenue to pay the debt, or by raising taxes. But just looking at how that government is currently spending its money, I can easily sympathize with anyone who's hesitant to hand over more of their hard-earned wages, if it's just going to be wasted anyhow.

And then we come to the changes in the justice and jailing systems. An area that, for the most part, won't get any more votes for politicians than what they already receive, and that will bring in no revenue whatsoever to the State. Why should they spend more in such an area? The large majority of people being neglected by the State are men, after all. And furthermore, they're convicts! They deserved it!

My response is becoming much too long already. There is too much to change. John Oliver said nothing about the bill you mentioned, about decreasing the number of rapes. I don't know how that bill would work, what it would imply (if this increase in security means that the privacy of the convicts would be reduced to even more subhuman levels, for example) or if it would be efficient at all. Knowing what I know of the American Government, my first instinct would also be to say: "The large majority of that money will simply be wasted in manglement long before it ever reaches the jails, where it will be used in all the wrong ways and create issues where previously there were none."

If I am being too much of a cynic, and that the proposed bill is actually a good one, then I would be inordinately happy to be contradicted. It would actually, finally, be a step, however how small, in the right direction.

[–]headless_bourgeoisie3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]US_Ranger2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BullyJack1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Hallucinosis1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Blindocide1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaosOpen4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry, but SJW's are from the liberal tradition. SJW's are pro-actively in peoples' faces about issues. This is way more of a Liberal thing than a Conservative or Right wing thing. The Tea-Party or anti-abortionists or anti-gays or whatever are generally just out there telling you why something is wrong ie. gay is a Sin, abortion is a sin or is murder, or voicing their economic views like everyone else without an education.

SJWs have an appeal to morality concept on EVERYTHING in order to try and convert the world to their thinking, not just on specific issues, but on everything. SJWs are the ones who guilt you simply for being white, for having 'white privilege,' for being a 'cis male,' for not having HIV, for eating meat. SJWs do harm under the guise of doing good. They parade around preaching nice values, equality, etc. etc., while using horrific tactics to promote their views and get what they want. The difference between a SJW and an anti-gay activist, is that the anti-gay activist is up front with their beliefs and their views and what they want to say -- the SJW is not. The SJW will walk up to you and smile and tell you they're all about equality for all races and genders etc., and if you don't agree with them, they will then do everything in their power to shut you up, shut you down, end your career, ruin your life, etc. Anti-Gay activists or Tea Partiers don't go around smearing peoples' career's for believing things they don't believe. They may say some despicable things and do some despicable things, but that's not the same thing as an SJW.

Simply BEING CONCERNED with SOCIAL issues does not automatically an SJW make. Social Justice Warriors come from the Liberal tradition. They are born out of the privileged white Liberals and go around calling everyone else that as some sort of weird method to validate their own beliefs/movement/selves while belittling anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. They parade around as a movement filled with love and equality, but are filled with hate and ignorance and anti-intellectual arguments, and are the most likely people to accuse and smear and ruin peoples' lives and careers for not agreeing with them. You can't boil down anyone who has an opinion on society to being an SJW, that's just being overly reductive for the sake of trying to appear non-partisan, when you're clearly partisan as it pisses you off when someone conflates the word Liberal and SJW. Sorry, SJW was born from the Liberal tradition and you will run into them at every Liberal school you go to, every Liberal town, etc. and will have a fucking hard time finding them in any Conservative areas.

[–][deleted]5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Salient0ne8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]vakerr7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]US_Ranger2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]khriskruel1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341128 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cojath5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341123 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]that_all_you_got4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gadgetfairy2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]that_all_you_got1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since I was a child I do not get easily offended. Do you know why? Because words don't hurt me, attitudes do. I consider this to be an essential part of not being a blind, stupid animal.

I might get angry when I think someone is actually trying to hurt me or humiliate me. I am hurt at their unfair attitude. Words do not hurt me.

Do you get cut by the word "cut"?

By using "cursed" words without bad intentions, their hurtful content dilutes (Australians using the word cunt) and is replaced. Replaced with comical or even endearing meanings. I am sad Spanish don't have a derogative term my mates can call me.

It's all about intention and even then it's only words. Noise. I have always tried to be above this.

When I call my partner or myself a faggot, am I hurting the gay community? Even though I don't dislike men myself and don't hide it? It's all about the F word?

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bla341121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakelove123 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What? Why exactly is not calling suicide victims "fags" a problem? Why is having a problem with his homophobic and hateful (yes, hateful) language related to "white/straight/men" not having a voice in these discussions? What are you implying? Are you saying that not calling people "fags" is something white/straight men are incapable of doing..? I'm confused.

This sub can be full of such hypocrites sometimes. If a woman wrote a big long rant about her place in muslim culture and how she was oppressed for not being allowed to drive or go out in public without getting stoned to death or whatever, completely legitimate issues, and then ended it with "male tears lol", you guys would throw a fit over it.

Which if you really think about it, using "fags" to describe someone who kills themselves is really just a rewording of "male tears". Belittling and ridiculing men who dare show capacity for emotion. Or he's specifically referring to homosexuals who kill themselves, which is really the same thing.

His speech about "bullying" really falls completely apart when you take into account that he is ridiculing people who are effected and bullied by the same exact attitude that he is unapologetically expressing. The irony is lost on him apparently.

[–]-Fender-8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BullyJack3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakelove121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm well aware of "4chan lingo".

Ask yourself why the use of "fag" exists like that. 4chan doesn't exist in a vacuum. But anyway, he's not saying fag in a sort of endearing way that 4chan users use to refer to each other. He's literally calling somebody a fag.

His statement is, "when a million straight white male nerds get bullied, no one cares, but the minute one fag hangs himself, suddenly bullying matters". First off, bullying has always mattered. Always. Second, look into why people are being bullied. Are they bullied because they are straight? You see, anti bullying campaigns are usually about one of two things: bullying in general (things like peer pressure, confrontation, violence, abuse, etc) that generally effect all people, or about specific issues (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) that only effect certain individuals. In the case of "fags hanging themselves", that is bullying because of sexual orientation. When people start charities to end bullying against homosexuals, transexuals, minority groups, whatever, that's because people of these groups experience bullying because they are people of those groups. The anti-bullying campaigns are targeting the specific issue that results in bullying.

Straight people don't get bullied because they are straight. We don't need a campaign to "end bullying against straights". It doesn't exist.

Anti-bullying in general, types of things that do effect straight people, already exist. And I'd go on a limb to say that they're more prevalent in our society than any anti-homophobia attitude is. Weren't you taught in elementary school that if you were angry at someone, punch a pillow instead? Count to ten in your head until you aren't angry any more? Write an angry letter and then never send it? "Hugs not drugs"? "Don't let peer pressure effect you"? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me"? "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"? Ring any bells?

Anti-bullying is part of each and every one of our upbringing. Is it enough? Does bullying against straight/white/male people all of a sudden not matter? Absolutely not. But his statement gives a feeling of bitterness that manifests itself in petty homophobia, and is completely uncalled for. It most certainly hinders his argument, and makes him look like a complete tool. "Damn those fags gettin attention. Who's looking out for straight guys?" Fucking please.

[–]Cojath3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Mokizulem1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]phySi01 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cojath0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]phySi01 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cojath1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wilson_at_work1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cojath1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakelove12-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaosOpen4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jakelove121 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]paperairplanerace6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]King_Achelexus10 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TJett696 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Meistermalkav4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Totsean3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vietnom3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BitcoinFinance3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vergil3873 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

i love what that individual said in the first replied, i think he/she ripped them a new asshole to shit out of. i agree 100% with his/her replied as i think sjw are indeed making the internet more worst than what it has been by trying to fight the fire with fire.

i also think that is really hypocritical for them to be even be fighting for battles that have nothing to do with them in the first place. this also supplements the fact that they are the real problem in the internet, like who are they to judge, discriminate or oppressed those who they think appear "hateful" from their point of view.

i think sjw are trying to do what the nazis once tried to do to the world back in ww2. they are basically trying to force their views on us while taking away our ability and freedom to express ourself which correct me if im wrong but i think this is the main purpose for the internet's existence.

anyways i wish every body here in reddit could read this post as i think 90/100 people here on reddit are true SJWs. correct or judge me if i'm wrong but i been here in this site for over a year yet its safe for me to say that this is the site were most of the online brawls i have take place

[–]sockmess1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vergil3872 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]crazymusicman2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DancesWithPugs2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]elronhubbardmexico1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cross_of_Coronado1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]conspiracy_thug1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sockmess1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Charlie-Bean-14 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ChaosOpen12 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Charlie-Bean-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What he is saying is common knowledge

If it's common knowledge than why are so many people unaware of it? If it were truly common and accepted, there'd be little issue to discuss, and people here wouldn't be railing on about raising awareness of it by posting such screenshots. Why does the media overwhelmingly take the side of SJWs over MRAs. These factors, and more, suggest that it's not common knowledge, though you may wish it so.

if you want to say the sky is blue you don't have to first present the results of a spectroradiometer test, because the sky being blue is common knowledge.

This is a false analogy, unfortunately, and belies poor logic. The sky is, itself, evidence. It is common knowledge and doesn't need to be cited because practically every person on earth has seen the sky. As such it's not comparable to assuming everyone knows that SJWs are corrupt or obnoxious or misandric or however you want to put it. Over 1/5th of Americans, and the president, identify as feminists, of which SJWs are a subset. You can't expect to be taken seriously by claiming that these people, known for being champions of equality, are actually da bad guys and only show a snapshot of a hateful rant from 4chan.

I will give you points on being brave(or stupid) enough to assert that he gives no backing evidence then 2 words later describe and dismiss the backing evidence he does give.

I said, "virtually no backing evidence other than anecdotes.". That sentence means that he does give backing evidence, but it's of the nigh poorest quality - uncited anecdotes. In addition to 4chan rants, poor reading comprehension also hinders progress and this subreddit being taken seriously.

Secondly, the medium in which information is exchanged does in no way change its validity.

The issue is not whether or not it's true. A tabloid may print a true story once in a while, but if you show it to people as an example of reality, you will not be taken seriously. You will probably even be thought of as a fool, especially if you insult them for not accepting your "common knowledge". However true something is, people will consider the source, and then they will consider you accordingly.

[–]TheMightyMrM2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Arakin1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Charlie-Bean-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-Fender-6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Or they will realize that not everything they are told is the truth. Posts like these prove to many people that 4chan is not the place that many Tumblr users and SJWs claim that it is.

As for the sources, there are hundreds to choose from for basically every point he made. He was summarizing what he stood for, and nothing more, because he was asked why he, personally, hated SJWs. He wasn't trying to prove anything, because he didn't care what the person he was replying to would take out of this conversation. If there are specific things you disagree with in his post, I could try to find references to would support his claims. It probably won't be hard. For the most part, I'll probably just have to look at what else is in this subreddit.

Saying "It's shit because 4chan" is an ad hominem fallacy. It is the kind of dishonest crap that many of our detractors regularly resort to. As much as possible, I would like for us to avoid resorting to such shameful argumentative techniques. (Yes. Twice the same link. Because I really like that picture, and I'd like everyone everywhere to go over it at least once in their lives.)

[–]Charlie-Bean-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

He wasn't trying to prove anything, because he didn't care what the person he was replying to would take out of this conversation. If there are specific things you disagree with in his post, I could try to find references to would support his claims.

The problem isn't with whether or not he was trying to prove anything to anyone; the problem is that it's not proof, and people who come here and see it may think we see it as such. That will turn off a lot of people, especially since MRA's are already so maligned as extremists and angry. If anything, many people could look at a post like this and see it as evidence that what people say about this sub and the movement isn't far from the truth.

Saying "It's shit because 4chan" is an ad hominem fallacy

You seem to think that pointing out the fallacy to me means that the vast majority of people will take that into consideration before making judgments. Think about it pragmatically. It doesn't matter if it's a fallacy on paper. That will not change how most people perceive it - an angry post from an internet cesspit.

It is the kind of dishonest crap that many of our detractors regularly resort to.

Agreed. Let's not give them ammunition.

[–]VoodooIdol-18 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]wutangis4thechildren7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Charlie-Bean-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]VoodooIdol1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Great post from /r/4chan about SJWs
Author	-Fender-
Upvotes	747
Comments	244
Date	December 9, 2014 4:42 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2ornia/great-post-from-r4chan-about-sjws/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/great-post-from-r4chan-about-sjws.1623755 https://theredarchive.com/post/1623755

Comments