Why do so many "anti SJW's" resent disabled people?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Avnger:

jademunky:

Erbauen Ze Vall:
The Jewish Telegraph Agency claims there are over 200 active antifa cells within the US which I consider pretty worriesome and far from a group of "nobodies". However I personally believe the group is bigger than 200 cells due to the afforemented source downplaying their numbers in order to continue with the Big Lie.

The Big what now?

It's one of those "Jews control the world" conspiracy theories IIRC.

He mentioned it because he knows there's no data to support his actual fantasies. However, including some sort of source makes his fairy tale seem closer to believable than including nothing.

Oh phew, that's all? For a second I thought it was another name for out-and-out holocaust denial, and I didn't wanna click the wiki link to find out.

aegix drakan:

Oh phew, that's all? For a second I thought it was another name for out-and-out holocaust denial, and I didn't wanna click the wiki link to find out.

If you ask him about the holocaust, I don't think his answer would be surprising.

rederoin:

aegix drakan:

Oh phew, that's all? For a second I thought it was another name for out-and-out holocaust denial, and I didn't wanna click the wiki link to find out.

If you ask him about the holocaust, I don't think his answer would be surprising.

Yeah, I don't think I'd be surprised, TBH. >_>

erttheking:
I'll have to look around for it, it's been years since I read about it. Hold on...here. Worth mentioning that when I dug this up I found some things that I don't remember from the first time so I'm gonna reread this along with you.

https://www.spring.org.uk/2007/09/war-peace-and-role-of-power-in-sherifs.php

EDIT: And it turns out that the experimenters might have interfered with the results to get what they wanted. Well there's the validity of THAT experiment gone.

Have to disagree with you on that one, the fact that we, as a species, can't seem to go great periods of time without being shit heads to each other over the most petty reasons kind of makes it hard for me to accept that. To clarify, I think people can be changed, I just think that it takes a shit load of work and that it's a slow and painful process that's taken thousands of years to get where we are now and there's probably a few more thousand years to go. The point of the study is that you can get people away from these asinine views and behaviors, but it takes a shit load of work.

Well, you said it yourself. Not only did they interfere, I'd also say that yes, if you put a bunch of young boys in a competitive situation they will become competitive. If anything I'd say this experiement SUPPORTS my optimistic view:

1) In all 3 cases the groups got along fine among themselves apparently. It would be interesting to know whether the members knew each other before hand but thats quite encouraging, is it not?

2) In the competitions the points were counted and the winning team was awarded with a trophy at the end. (Lack!!! Lack!!! Everything was running smoothly and happily until the boys were convinced they needed something shiny in addition; in this case that something is a trophy which is pretty worthless in most objective terms, but there you go.)

3) This only happened in one of three identical experiments. The other two had totally different results. These lads had to run the experiment 3 times to get the result they wanted. Once, the two groups teamed up to give the finger to their overlords. Vive la r?volution!

Really the result of the study is the opposite of what you're saying: it takes a shitload of work to get people into those asinine views and behaviours. It took them 3 bloody tries, and thats with gullible kids!

Regarding the second point, I'd remark carefully that I can see where you're coming from, but its still a limited view. History is of course filled with conflict and the European mentality especially is dictated by angst but theres still an absolute shitload of people who just peacefully farmed their land or peddled their wares or fixed their shoes and died of old age, pneumonia or whatever that we're blending out here because that shit is boring.

evilthecat:
Why not both though?

I mean, isn't the idea that we can only "tackle" one "issue" at a time kind of itself indicative of this mentality of lack which you claim is the big issue.

I mean, the status and acceptance of gay and bi people has changed completely in the past few decades. How do you think that happened? Did many people just lack less and therefore unlock the next level of personal security required to extend tolerance to another minority group, or does it have something to do with the increasing public visibility of gay people and of gay rights.

Urgh, no, its not about only being able to tackle one issue at a time, its that tackling this one issue specifically head on is useless. Explained why I believe that further up.

Concerning gay rights: I think two things allowed that to happen. Firstly, yes, we did experience a long period where wealth and job security improved for the majority of people which is a great way of increasing tolerance. I'd also say that broadly speaking we were - or in the case of some groups, still are - drifting away from discrimination due to skin colour or sexuality or place of birth and going toward classism again. This trend is pretty clear on the left wing (ironically) of politics in Western countries; there is a lot of disdain and looking down upon the working class. In tandem with that class inequality is no longer viewed as critically as it once was, instead we see bargains which fulfill the need for progressive politics as well as an other to tread down upon. For example: corporate structures are by and large fine as they are (treading down), but only if different races and genders are represented evenly throughout(progressive).

I'd also like to point out that while correlation does not equal causation, its interesting that as our Western societies have drifted further and further toward crisis mode in the past 2 or 3 decades we've now reached the point where, for some years, homophobia and racism are now increasing in popularity again, at least in some large and influential groups.

Disregarding all of that. In any case, its clear that in the case of gay rights, the increased public visibility as you call it came from inside society and not inside a court room or parliament. To name one example, Germany is generally viewed as quite liberal. As long as you aren't in a majority Muslim neighbourhood or Bayern you can walk down the street holding hands with another man and no one will bat an eye, gay night clubs are accepted with barely a shrug, etc etc, its been like this for a while. Yet same sex marriage was only completely legalized last year with our chancellor voting against and not in favour.

Thaluikhain:
I don't think you do. Have you read what MLK had to say about "later" or "moderates"?

Yes.

Not ignoring the rest of your post, my response to Evil pretty much responds to your points too I think.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
I'd also say that broadly speaking we were - or in the case of some groups, still are - drifting away from discrimination due to skin colour or sexuality or place of birth and going toward classism again. This trend is pretty clear on the left wing (ironically) of politics in Western countries; there is a lot of disdain and looking down upon the working class.

Have you wondered if maybe making the allegation that poverty is inherently linked to bigoted or discriminatory attitudes might actually have classist overtones very similar to the ones you're alleging exist on the left?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
I'd also like to point out that while correlation does not equal causation, its interesting that as our Western societies have drifted further and further toward crisis mode in the past 2 or 3 decades we've now reached the point where, for some years, homophobia and racism are now increasing in popularity again, at least in some large and influential groups.

So wait, have people been getting richer or poorer?

Because earlier, you claimed people were less homophobic now because they'd gotten richer. How is this compatible with the idea that the past few decades have been some slow descent into crisis? I mean, you could make the case for the last decade being economically a bit tougher, but the past 2-3 decades? Really.. I mean, think of all the strides made in gay rights over that time.

Furthermore, are you sure that homophobia and racism are increasing in popularity, or do you think perhaps they've maybe become more visible through opposition to certain high profile victories by civil rights and gay rights movements. How would you tell the difference?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Disregarding all of that. In any case, its clear that in the case of gay rights, the increased public visibility as you call it came from inside society and not inside a court room or parliament.

Well, from where I'm sitting it's very clearly both.

Conflicts inside court rooms or parliament attract a great deal of public attention, and provide a focal point for national debate and reflection. They also serve to outline the specific legal protections which people enjoy, and send a strong message to those who would violate them.

I mean, if what you're saying is true, then the only meaningful place to fight the struggle for LGBT rights would be through lobbying for more and better cultural representations.. and I'm not sure that's in keeping with the spirit of what you're trying to say here.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
To name one example, Germany is generally viewed as quite liberal. As long as you aren't in a majority Muslim neighbourhood or Bayern you can walk down the street holding hands with another man and no one will bat an eye, gay night clubs are accepted with barely a shrug, etc etc, its been like this for a while. Yet same sex marriage was only completely legalized last year with our chancellor voting against and not in favour.

Do you think maybe this evidences that sometimes countries which seem "quite liberal" can actually have strong conservative lobbies or political trends which perhaps aren't visible much of the time precisely because they aren't called to action within a national debate.. and that maybe forcing these sentiments to the surface where they can be directly confronted is itself a part of changing public attitudes?

evilthecat:
Have you wondered if maybe making the allegation that poverty is inherently linked to bigoted or discriminatory attitudes might actually have classist overtones very similar to the ones you're alleging exist on the left?

That would totally be true if I was arguing that poverty led to discriminatory or backward attitudes in one specific class, but I'm not.

evilthecat:
So wait, have people been getting richer or poorer?

Because earlier, you claimed people were less homophobic now because they'd gotten richer. How is this compatible with the idea that the past few decades have been some slow descent into crisis? I mean, you could make the case for the last decade being economically a bit tougher, but the past 2-3 decades? Really.. I mean, think of all the strides made in gay rights over that time.

Furthermore, are you sure that homophobia and racism are increasing in popularity, or do you think perhaps they've maybe become more visible through opposition to certain high profile victories by civil rights and gay rights movements. How would you tell the difference?

We had this big period post WW2 where people on the whole were getting richer (also massive increases in living standards due to technological advancements) and the middle class really grew for a good 50 years or so. Thats been followed by a long period of stagnation - for example, while productivity of labour has consistently increased wages have stagnated when adjusted for inflation. Our (I'm 24) generation marks the first time in a long while where wages and wealth have not stagnated but actually regressed when compared to those before us, the only notable exception in Western countries being Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Obviously, as people realise that the stagnation isn't just temporary but likely to get worse rather than better and as the younger generation realises they're pretty boned compared to their parents everyone going to get more hot headed.

So thats how its compatible; trends only last for so and so long and are succeeded by others. Shifts aren't always immediatelly after something happens either, effects can be delayed.

Your last paragraph... Well, its a possibility but not an assertion you'll ever be able to prove. Who knows what people were thinking during that time? Its impossible to tell the difference but unless you can provide some compelling evidence to hint that its valid, well, I might just as well say something like: people then had way more secret gay fantasies than now. How would you tell the difference?

Not that I think its impossible, I just don't see how you'd go about proving it. Purely speculative and thus very difficult to act upon.

evilthecat:
Well, from where I'm sitting it's very clearly both.

Conflicts inside court rooms or parliament attract a great deal of public attention, and provide a focal point for national debate and reflection. They also serve to outline the specific legal protections which people enjoy, and send a strong message to those who would violate them.

I mean, if what you're saying is true, then the only meaningful place to fight the struggle for LGBT rights would be through lobbying for more and better cultural representations.. and I'm not sure that's in keeping with the spirit of what you're trying to say here.

I would argue that going through an overbloated governmental apparatus is probably the worst way to gather public attention. I'm not sure where you took the last bit from, nothing I said suggests that.

evilthecat:
Do you think maybe this evidences that sometimes countries which seem "quite liberal" can actually have strong conservative lobbies or political trends which perhaps aren't visible much of the time precisely because they aren't called to action within a national debate.. and that maybe forcing these sentiments to the surface where they can be directly confronted is itself a part of changing public attitudes?

Mmmh, perhaps, although in this specific case the majority of the German public was in favour of fully equal same sex marriage a good few years before it was put into law. So in general? Maybe sometimes, I don't know, we'd need concrete countries and periods to look at. In Germany? No, certainly not.

Apologies for splitting your post into different bite sized parts, I hate doing that, but in this case you kind of took it out of my hands so....

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
That would totally be true if I was arguing that poverty led to discriminatory or backward attitudes in one specific class, but I'm not.

Right, but poverty and class are kind of related aren't they?

I mean, what do you think this "prejudice" against the working class actually references if it's not based on the stigma of poverty? If it's cultural, then many extremely popular and important left wing figures in politics, journalism and academia would count as "working class". Many of the kids I've taught in university, and who will probably go on to get graduate jobs, were "working class". Most of the people you'll meet if you go to a demo or left wing protest will be "working class". Most of the population is "working class". Your typical working class person works in an office now, not in a factory. In developed countries, around half the population will go on to some form of further education, many of them working class.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
We had this big period post WW2 where people on the whole were getting richer (also massive increases in living standards due to technological advancements) and the middle class really grew for a good 50 years or so. Thats been followed by a long period of stagnation - for example, while productivity of labour has consistently increased wages have stagnated when adjusted for inflation. Our (I'm 24) generation marks the first time in a long while where wages and wealth have not stagnated but actually regressed when compared to those before us, the only notable exception in Western countries being Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Obviously, as people realise that the stagnation isn't just temporary but likely to get worse rather than better and as the younger generation realises they're pretty boned compared to their parents everyone going to get more hot headed.

Okay, but wouldn't this have lead to a consistent trend of people becoming less prejudiced from the 40s to the 90s, and then suddenly becoming more prejudiced again? Because, having grown up in the 90s, I don't really think that's what happened..

I mean, in the 80s, supposedly the point at which everyone was most rich and should have been most tolerant (according to this model) anti-gay prejudice was much, much worse and more preeminent than today, with witch hunts against gay public figures in the mainstream press and AIDS panic at its peak. How does that work? Shouldn't everyone have been too rich to worry about all that?

Furthermore, if you look at the distribution of homophobic and transphobic attitudes across the population today, you'll overwhelmingly find it's older people who are more prejudiced, and yet they're the ones with the wealth, they're the ones compared to whom your earnings have regressed. How has your poverty magically made them prejudiced?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Your last paragraph... Well, its a possibility but not an assertion you'll ever be able to prove. Who knows what people were thinking during that time?

I mean, you could look at attitudinal survey data over time..

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/public-attitudes-nov-2014.pdf

Check out table 5 in particular. I'm not sure it really illustrates some kind of actual hard swing against LGBT acceptance among the population, or that the most recent generation is generally less accepting than previous ones.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
I would argue that going through an overbloated governmental apparatus is probably the worst way to gather public attention.

What makes you think so?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
I'm not sure where you took the last bit from, nothing I said suggests that.

Well, okay, let's assume I want to advocate for the LGBT community.

You think that lobbying government to combat discriminatory laws or enact legal protections is the wrong way to go about this.

So, since changing attitudes only comes from "within society" (i.e. within culture) clearly what we need to do is to change culture to increase visibility of LGBT people within it, right?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
Apologies for splitting your post into different bite sized parts, I hate doing that, but in this case you kind of took it out of my hands so....

It's okay, I'm grateful actually, as I consider that much more accessible than trying to refer to individual parts of a large post.

lionsprey:

Smithnikov:
Hell, even having a job makes you a target for them now.

https://incels.me/threads/daily-reminder-that-if-you-have-a-job-youre-a-cuck.34643/#post-602303

Daily reminder that if you have a job, you're a cuck

You go out wagecucking and pay taxes which get given to single mother roasties with Chads spawn. You're exactly like a betabux except you don't even get occasional sex out of the deal. Yes that's right, you're LOWER than a normie numale cuck.

JFL at being brainwashed into trading your time and your life away for jew tokens which won't make you any happier if you don't have a girl by your side.

NEETs are the master race. We take from the normies, so at least society has to pay for treating us like shit. If you wagecuck, you are literally providing for the society that treats you like garbage. It's like having Chad come over to fuck your wife, and then rather than getting mad, you go make him dinner as well.

NEETdom or death.

that has to be a joke. there is way to much cringe even for the Anti-SJW crowd.

Go to incel.me That's the TAME stuff.

Vrex360:
I once thought conservatives had a limit but since now they're straight up bullying teenagers who survived a mass shooting and spreading conspiracy theories and threatening them with death because they care more about their god damn TOYS then they do the lives of FUCKING CHILDREN all bets really are off.

That's nothing new. The last one they didn't even believe happened and that all those kids and parents were in on a massive gun grab scheme.

Give it time and on this very website we'll see a news story about some guy beating the hell out of a six year old girl with cerebral palsy who walks around on crutches, claiming he's sick of 'affirmative action' because she got to stand in line at an ice cream store before him.

Again, wouldn't be new. They're fine with girls getting shot in the face in Islamic dictatorships since educated women are a threat to civilization.

I only wish I was making that one up.

And I have been on this site long enough to know if that day comes, there will be people defending him for it. Even calling him a hero. And then sending out conspiracy theories that the little girl was a false flag attack from Syria.

Maybe not that, but I can already hear Status and Zontar explaining how the attack is meaningless compared to everything Antifa/Hillary did.

jademunky:

Smithnikov:
snip

What Lion said, that cannot possibly be the opinions of real human beings capable of working a keyboard.

I hold out hope that the whole Incel/MRA/PUA/Gamergate thing is just some large performance piece or something.

It's not. I can post more if you want...

Smithnikov:

It's not. I can post more if you want...

Nah, don't bother. I already dove into that rabbit hole a little bit from that link you provided earlier (in a private browser). Then I wept a little bit for humanity.

evilthecat:
Right, but poverty and class are kind of related aren't they?

I mean, what do you think this "prejudice" against the working class actually references if it's not based on the stigma of poverty? If it's cultural, then many extremely popular and important left wing figures in politics, journalism and academia would count as "working class". Many of the kids I've taught in university, and who will probably go on to get graduate jobs, were "working class". Most of the people you'll meet if you go to a demo or left wing protest will be "working class". Most of the population is "working class". Your typical working class person works in an office now, not in a factory. In developed countries, around half the population will go on to some form of further education, many of them working class.

I think you're misunderstanding me here because I have no idea how this is supposed to relate to any of my points. Hence I'm not sure how to answer it, I don't see where you're going with this. For dummies please?

evilthecat:
Okay, but wouldn't this have lead to a consistent trend of people becoming less prejudiced from the 40s to the 90s, and then suddenly becoming more prejudiced again? Because, having grown up in the 90s, I don't really think that's what happened..

I mean, in the 80s, supposedly the point at which everyone was most rich and should have been most tolerant (according to this model) anti-gay prejudice was much, much worse and more preeminent than today, with witch hunts against gay public figures in the mainstream press and AIDS panic at its peak. How does that work? Shouldn't everyone have been too rich to worry about all that?

Furthermore, if you look at the distribution of homophobic and transphobic attitudes across the population today, you'll overwhelmingly find it's older people who are more prejudiced, and yet they're the ones with the wealth, they're the ones compared to whom your earnings have regressed. How has your poverty magically made them prejudiced?

Oh yes, it absolutely should have and did. You mentioned MLK yourself earlier, and I mentioned that societal response is generally delayed by a few years to a decade. Those two things answer this bit sufficiently when put together, no need for me to write 5 paragraphs on it I think.

evilthecat:
I mean, you could look at attitudinal survey data over time..

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/public-attitudes-nov-2014.pdf

Check out table 5 in particular. I'm not sure it really illustrates some kind of actual hard swing against LGBT acceptance among the population, or that the most recent generation is generally less accepting than previous ones.

Right, thats interesting and all, but I don't feel it does a lot to support your argument or do anything to dismantle my beliefs for two big reasons:

1) This bit of the discussion started with my claim that changes in law are almost always a reaction to preexisting societal trends and almost never vice versa, citing Germany and its gay marriage laws as an example. The study you post shows Germans as consistently among the most liberal and tolerant toward homosexuality while it took court rooms and politicians a little while to catch up to that, as numerous votes after the year 2000 can attest. So I suppose it does hint that "this evidences that sometimes countries which seem "quite liberal" can actually have strong conservative lobbies or political trends which perhaps aren't visible much of the time", it does not however support your assertion that political and bureaucratic fuckery are in any way effective; if anything, it hints at the opposite; again I point to the number of votes on issues surrounding gay marriage which failed to rile public opinion in a major way and only started taking place after the vast majority of the population were tolerant of homosexuals already.

2) I never argued that discrimination is limited to a few small groups which remain static and unchanging, and rotates between the same 3 again and again. In fact earlier in this thread I said I believed the opposite:

I'm starting to feel like a broken record at this point because I'm now repeating this for the third time: that is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that I believe there is a greater issue which causes the smaller one, and that as such the only way to tackle the smaller in any proper way is to concentrate on the greater. Even if you could eliminate transphobia without doing so - I don't believe you could, but lets just say you can for the sake of it - the need to tread downward/to secure one owns existence as a way of coping or guarding against lack necessitates the existence of groups to be discriminated, so the grand sum of your efforts would be replacing one -ism with another.

evilthecat:

What makes you think so?

I've spent an entire thread explaining why.

evilthecat:
Well, okay, let's assume I want to advocate for the LGBT community.

You think that lobbying government to combat discriminatory laws or enact legal protections is the wrong way to go about this.

So, since changing attitudes only comes from "within society" (i.e. within culture) clearly what we need to do is to change culture to increase visibility of LGBT people within it, right?

No, I believe the elimination of lack will to a large part take care of the need to discriminate. As we've previously agreed (in a roundabout way) a period of wealth for the middle class coincided with Western societies developing into the most tolerant they have ever been, and as we would agree in any other thread - except this one for some reason - we are at a danger even sharper than usual of regressing from that now that this development has halted, with groups such as the alt-right leading the charge. Every nation has the government it deserves, every people tolerate the regime they have, etc etc, blabla.

evilthecat:
It's okay, I'm grateful actually, as I consider that much more accessible than trying to refer to individual parts of a large post.

For what its worth I'm not. I find splitting posts up like this generally pushes discussions into a direction where both sides are nitpicking several small talking points from their counterparts bigger idea which gets less and less attention. See this back and forth for the perfect example. Thats why for a while now I've started preferring to posts in full or splitting them into a maximum of two parts when possible.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
snip

Okay, so for the sake of your preference I'll deal with the "bigger idea".

Your basic theory of how societal change works is overly-simplistic, reductive and clearly politically motivated by a dislike of activism or a desire not to have to think about people who in your eyes "don't really matter", hence why you want to believe that the plight of those people can be reduced to a mere function of the economic situation of people who do matter (i.e. "normal" people).

But you're wrong, and this is where restricting yourself to "big ideas" and bracketing out any kind of deeper critique of underlying logic or premises has clearly let you down. The idea that rich people are happy and tolerant and poor people are miserable and intolerant sounds convincing only when you desperately paper over the obvious cracks, bracket out the obvious exceptions and persistently ignore the obvious factors which play a much more important role, like religion, or culture, or the public visibility of minority groups within society.

I mean, it's pretty obvious isn't it? A Saudi millionaire is not less likely to be homophobic than a member of the poorest underclass of any western-European country. Wealth does not magically make people more tolerant. I mean, even if you were to make the case that on the individual psychological level prejudices like homophobia and transphobia are the result of insecurity, there are many forms of insecurity beyond just worrying about whether or not you have enough money.

I have a feeling the unspoken model here is Nazi Germany. But here's a thing, in Nazi Germany economic problems led primarily to violent persecution of people who were directly blamed by the ruling party and its ideology for those economic problems existing. You might make the case now that this same prejudice is directed against refugees and economic migrants, and that they function as a convenient scapegoat for today's economic problems just as the Jews did for Germany in the 1930s, but trans people, really? Are people worried that if you let trans people into public bathrooms they'll steal everyone's wallets? Last time I checked, no, economic anxiety wasn't really a part of this debate.

Also, I think for someone who is so clearly annoyed by the fact that a debate exists over whether trans people should have legal rights to use bathrooms associated with their gender identity, it's surprising that you still seem to think that legal reform itself is the political objective here rather than the more obvious answer that that debate itself was productive. Like, do you think the decision to extend equal marriage just happened one day due to random whim, or do you think it was the result of decades of political pressure, public debate and lobbying by activists? Gay marriage has been the objective of various campaign groups for a long time now. It's been a galvanising force in LGBT activism and politics for a very long time now.

Again, to use the example of the planned review of the gender recognition act in the UK. That's been a goal of activists for years now. It's been on the political agenda for years now. David Cameron's government promised to review it years ago, and Theresa May's government broke that promise due to a really nasty campaign by sections of the British media. I won't lie, it hurts to have campaigned for that goal, to know that it would have meant so much to so many people and yet it's been postponed for what will undeniably be years again. But there was more to that campaign than actually achieving the goal, the fact that there was a national debate, the fact that a lot of people had to air the uncomfortable things they think and potentially expose themselves to criticism, the fact that people who might otherwise not be affected had to actually think about these issues and make a decision about which side they were on, that's overwhelmingly good.

The trans bathroom debate isn't about actually getting legal protections for using the bathroom, because trans people do not want to use public bathrooms. Overwhelmingly, gay people don't want to get married. The value of these debates is that it helps people to empathize with what it must be like to have to worry about using a public bathroom. That's the thing which will yield long-term change.

evilthecat:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
snip

Okay, so for the sake of your preference I'll deal with the "bigger idea".

Your basic theory of how societal change works is overly-simplistic, reductive and clearly politically motivated by a dislike of activism or a desire not to have to think about people who in your eyes "don't really matter", hence why you want to believe that the plight of those people can be reduced to a mere function of the economic situation of people who do matter (i.e. "normal" people).

But you're wrong, and this is where restricting yourself to "big ideas" and bracketing out any kind of deeper critique of underlying logic or premises has clearly let you down. The idea that rich people are happy and tolerant and poor people are miserable and intolerant sounds convincing only when you desperately paper over the obvious cracks, bracket out the obvious exceptions and persistently ignore the obvious factors which play a much more important role, like religion, or culture, or the public visibility of minority groups within society.

I mean, it's pretty obvious isn't it? A Saudi millionaire is not less likely to be homophobic than a member of the poorest underclass of any western-European country. Wealth does not magically make people more tolerant. I mean, even if you were to make the case that on the individual psychological level prejudices like homophobia and transphobia are the result of insecurity, there are many forms of insecurity beyond just worrying about whether or not you have enough money.

I read until here and won't go further because this is where it becomes obvious that you didn't read my posts or read them properly.

I'm perfectly fine with people (harshly) critising my views but if you want to engage me in a long discussion do me the honour of at least making sure you understand them properly. Of course it is obvious, Mein Gott, errtheking pointed it out 2 pages ago and we had a back and forth about exactly that. And of course there are many forms of insecurity, this is also something I pointed out ages ago. If you want to jump into the middle of a discussion take the 10 minutes to look back on what has already been said. How fucking frustrating and what a waste of time this was, I'll check out here, goodbye.

EDIT: Oh, and good job on opening your post with an ad hominem, I appreciate that. Another poster for the trashcan.

jademunky:

Smithnikov:

It's not. I can post more if you want...

Nah, don't bother. I already dove into that rabbit hole a little bit from that link you provided earlier (in a private browser). Then I wept a little bit for humanity.

At least you got out before you stared too long into the abyss.

It's..too late for me...

image

Smithnikov:

It's..too late for me...

Research shows the condition is reversible up to the point where the obscure acronyms start. Seriously, they really love acronyms on that forum.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
snip

Girl, I read all your posts. Here's the thing though. Your argument contradicts itself.

That is what I am saying to you. That is why I am making these points, even though they are points other people have made. It's because you say things which are actually pretty clear cut and definitive, and then when other people point out logical implications which stem from those very definitive statements you have made in order to show you the problem of your argument, you say "nuh uh" and then act defensively.

When you say things like "the biggest driving factors behind racism, sexism and others -isms is lack", that's a pretty hard statement. It doesn't leave anyone else much room to misinterpret what you mean. When you describe any form of minority advocacy or activism as an "ideological Verdun", it's obvious what you mean. We all know what Verdun was, right? You don't moderate these statements, you don't present them as partial truths or things we aren't meant to take literally, you present them as definitive arguments and then act hurt when that's pointed out.

And again, this is the problem with only looking at "bigger ideas", because it allows you room to be intentionally vague. You can say things and then roll back on them because obviously you didn't mean them that way (i.e. in a way which can be criticized or which exposes the weaknesses of the argument). I read your posts. Now you read them. Read them back to yourself and ask yourself "can I actually square what I've said" and if you can't then roll back and try to explain what you actually meant better. It's not that hard.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Well, you said it yourself. Not only did they interfere, I'd also say that yes, if you put a bunch of young boys in a competitive situation they will become competitive. If anything I'd say this experiement SUPPORTS my optimistic view:

1) In all 3 cases the groups got along fine among themselves apparently. It would be interesting to know whether the members knew each other before hand but thats quite encouraging, is it not?

2) In the competitions the points were counted and the winning team was awarded with a trophy at the end. (Lack!!! Lack!!! Everything was running smoothly and happily until the boys were convinced they needed something shiny in addition; in this case that something is a trophy which is pretty worthless in most objective terms, but there you go.)

3) This only happened in one of three identical experiments. The other two had totally different results. These lads had to run the experiment 3 times to get the result they wanted. Once, the two groups teamed up to give the finger to their overlords. Vive la r?volution!

Really the result of the study is the opposite of what you're saying: it takes a shitload of work to get people into those asinine views and behaviours. It took them 3 bloody tries, and thats with gullible kids!

Regarding the second point, I'd remark carefully that I can see where you're coming from, but its still a limited view. History is of course filled with conflict and the European mentality especially is dictated by angst but theres still an absolute shitload of people who just peacefully farmed their land or peddled their wares or fixed their shoes and died of old age, pneumonia or whatever that we're blending out here because that shit is boring.

Yeah, but the problem is that, at the end of the day, while they worked together, they were boys that had a lot in common, white, same age group, probably around the same class too. And considering this whole mess started with a talk over the cause of isms, well, it doesn't exactly give me a lot of optimism. And while it's true that plenty of people in history sat around minding their own business, things almost universally turn to shit when they come into contact with outside groups. Sometimes it takes awhile, but it almost always happens. Because, despite your claim, it isn't about lack. People have a tendency to prioritize themselves over people they see as "the other" and it takes a lot of effort to get them out of that mindset. I was a homophobic little cunt when I was younger, and it took me a lot to get away from that mindset, and I still haven't fully shaken it off and sometimes it works its way into my thinking in little ways. And I lived a perfectly comfortable, middle class life with two working parents, one who pulled in a six figure salary.

I get your idea of wanting to think that people would generally be better to each other if they did better in society, but I seriously don't get how it works that way. In another post, you brought up the growth after WWII and how we haven't seen something like that since. Except the period right after WWII in America was one of its most well known periods for how utterly sexist, racist and homophobic it was. If you tried to suggest any kind of equality, you were a communist, and therefore you hated America. Women who had been working in factories during WWII were all kicked out when the soldiers came back home so that they could have the good jobs instead. Segregation was legally enforced in the south and more subtly enforced in the north, and being a politician and being gay could ruin your career because there was a possibility that your homosexuality could be used to blackmail you.

Growth and wealth do not have an impact on reducing isms. Americans really like to romanticize the post-WWII period in America, but if you really stop to look at it, it was a cruel, bitter and hateful period where, if you weren't a straight white male, you were second banana.

TiaTia:
The vast majority seem to be very pro capitalist. I've seen a lot of people like this refer to themselves as leftists or "centrists", but then say they support the free market, making cuts to welfare and referring to people who can't work/are limited with work they can do as burdens. To me it's shocking that people who promote themselves as social/political commentators will focus on crap like people thinking there's more than 2 genders, or the 10 feminists in the world who genuinely hate men, meanwhile say little to nothing about the huge amount of damage the money system does to people's lives in so many ways. I knew someone who was denied an organ transplant because of their disability, and the hospital didn't want to waste funds on them. That's what happens with capitalism, money is put before people, especially the ones not "contributing" enough. The fact that a lot of anti SJW's repeatedly use autism and Down syndrome as insults can be telling too, as it looks as though they view them as sub human. I you are a capitalist/"anti SJW" who doesn't feel this way, that doesn't change the fact that these things are still very specific to capitalists.

I'm anti-SJW and I don't resent disabled people.

Your OP seems to hinge on:

a. You can't talk about X when Y is going on. You could easily flip this the other way around: why do these feminists want to talk incessantly about their feminism when the [opioid crisis / ocean acidification / the obsolescence of human labor from automation] are [ongoing / impending].

b. Anti-SJWs are "pro-capitalist". I don't think many of them would call themselves "capitalist" or "pro-capitalist" although it is also obvious that few if any are Marxists. I thinking you are tagging them with that label because that is the most salient feature for you. But most of them don't seem to be focused on economics, it is not the most salient category for them.

c. Anti-SJWs are mean. People are often mean. It feels it bit tedious to point out something in plain sight, but every side of this argument is mean. If the SJWs know one thing for certain it is that they people criticizing them are neckbeard virgins that collect swords and fedoras.

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

c. Anti-SJWs are mean. People are often mean. It feels it bit tedious to point out something in plain sight, but every side of this argument is mean. If the SJWs know one thing for certain it is that they people criticizing them are neckbeard virgins that collect swords and fedoras.

No SJW ever called me a cuck

Or a race traitor

Or a Jew shill

Or a soyboy

Or a faggot

Smithnikov:

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

c. Anti-SJWs are mean. People are often mean. It feels it bit tedious to point out something in plain sight, but every side of this argument is mean. If the SJWs know one thing for certain it is that they people criticizing them are neckbeard virgins that collect swords and fedoras.

No SJW ever called me a cuck

Or a race traitor

Or a Jew shill

Or a soyboy

Or a faggot

Your point exactly? I've never been called a racist, nazi, uncle tom, on the wrong side of history, oppressor, or evil by the Anti's.

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

c. Anti-SJWs are mean. People are often mean. It feels it bit tedious to point out something in plain sight, but every side of this argument is mean. If the SJWs know one thing for certain it is that they people criticizing them are neckbeard virgins that collect swords and fedoras.

Yeah, it's true that both sides of this fling shit at each other, but if you actually look you'll find that one side is more aggressive with their mockery and hate.

Smithnikov:

SOCIALCONSTRUCT:

c. Anti-SJWs are mean. People are often mean. It feels it bit tedious to point out something in plain sight, but every side of this argument is mean. If the SJWs know one thing for certain it is that they people criticizing them are neckbeard virgins that collect swords and fedoras.

Or a Jew shill

Or a soyboy

Or a faggot

No SJW ever called me a cuck

Or a race traitor

No anti-SJW ever called me a racist

Or a sexist

Or a CIS White Pig

There is horrendous bullying from both sides of the coin, you aren't special :)

(this is where you say "you probably are" and prove the person above's point ; ) )

Redryhno:
Your point exactly? I've never been called a racist, nazi, uncle tom, on the wrong side of history, oppressor, or evil by the Anti's.

ErrrorWayz:
No anti-SJW ever called me a racist

Then you're not listening very hard.

Milo Stewart, a youtuber, made a little internet video about subconscious biases, in which he argues that everyone has subconscious biases against societal groups to which they do not belong by virtue of growing up in society. He argues that we should see these biases as a form of racism, sexism etc rather than reserving these terms only for conscious, intentional hatred. Thus, all white people (even woke, progressive white people) will be racist in some sense due to having internalised biases caused by growing up in a white-dominated society. In essence, it's an argument that we all need to face our own subconscious biases and work to overcome them.

Now, not everyone's going to agree are they, and it's not one everyone has to agree with. But that's not a particularly terrible line of thinking. It is one I've sided with myself at various points, and forms the basis for a lot of solid academic theory and experimentation into how subconscious biases affect people in everyday life.

The result was an immense barrage of "anti-SJW" abuse calling Milo a racist against white people or, because Milo was white himself, pointing out that he must be a self-hating white person. In addition, there were the ever present death threats, rape threats (Milo is trans, something a lot of abuse drew upon).

Anti-SJWs will happily call people racist. They will call anyone who talks about racism "racist" because talking about racism is drawing attention to the fact that race "exists" as a sociological, if not physical, reality. They will accuse people of being self-hating. They will shout about people oppressing them (for example, declaring that SJWs are all champagne socialists oppressing the working class). They constantly refer to people as being on the wrong side of history because they often see their side as currently winning both politically and culturally, see the alt-right's adoption of the slogan "tomorrow belongs to us" (and if you understand that reference, you will know why that's frightening). Ultimately, they call people evil all the time, in literally everything they do. That's why they exist, it's why they are "anti" SJWs and not "pro" something else. To them the opposition is very literally evil, that's why it's okay to hate them so much. That's why it's okay to send them messages saying you want them to get raped, or threatening to kill them. That's why you don't have to listen to or consider their arguments as individuals, just establish that they are "SJWs" and then mock their appearance or call them out for being women or for being LGBT or because you believe (probably incorrectly) that they have low testosterone, or just compare them to someone else who you think is the same as them.

Like, if you live in such a sheltered world that you think calling someone "racist" is just a generic, meaningless slur, then I can see the equivalence here. Otherwise, no.

Yup, this thread is done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked