Social Justice vs Internet Activism

Samaris

Alright, so we all hear the term "SJW"/"social justice warrior". It's a negative thing, implying a useless bit of debate from someone that loves getting offended on behalf of other people and making it all about them.

However, there's a very real social movement that many of us are part of in one way or another, whether we feel strongly about gay marriage, or interracial marriage or mental illness or rape. How is it that it's so easy to divert the message away to accusations of SJWism (is that a word?) of the person giving it?

I think it is muchly down to Internet Activism. Where there are no physical gestures and no real work involved, just clicking and commenting and then wandering off back into the real world and our own lives.

Personally, I don't think that the ideals of Social Justice should be condemned in the way that they often are, although I do have a problem with internet activism (yet I do comment in arguments, go figure).

My thoughts and arguments aren't very clear at the moment, so I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts. Might help me clarify my own position!

Fr_Dougal

I'll sign your petition.

Akrasia

Social justice is good.

Morons who don't understand the complex nature of human society trying to shut down free speech are bad

SJWs on the internet have combined with the woolly liberals of dinner party lore to aggravate the 'It's political correctness gone mad' brigade.

Links234

When I first started hearing the term "social justice warrior" it was kinda in reference to the type of facebook, twitter or tumblr clicktivism, the folks who'd retweet the Kony 2012 kind of stuff and never actually do anything. But whatever 'SJW' used to refer to, it's pretty much lost any meaning and is used as a catch-all term for anyone who's politics lean to the left or are liberal, etc. It's as useless as hipster has become.

MadsL

Having been involved in environmental and historical preservation activism and in particular the planning process, it is really noticible how difficult it is to translate sentiment into concrete action. In an age where most interactions are simple clicks online, trying to help people to translate their concerns and opinions into the language that needs to be used when speaking to local government can be a real challenge.

Conversely, local government needs to respond to the changing way citizens communicate their social concerns.

One eyed Jack

Social justice is one thing.

Social justice warriors are an entirely different breed of the most useless narcissist with a persecution complex.

the evasion_kid

Whatever about their causes, I absolutely detest there penchant for censorship.the whole your entitled to your opinion as long as its the same as mine. the political correctness that is marring the Western world has brain-washed people into the misguided belief that all people and all cultures are the same. They’re not and while there should be no shame in stating the obvious, those bold enough to speak out will be branded with all sorts of ridiculous names designed to control their thought process and if they don't confirm, ostracise them. It is ridiculous that it is considered seriously bad form to make negative comments about another group of people or culture when in fact the comments being made are factually correct and as such entirely valid!

MadsL

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Whatever about their causes, I absolutely detest there penchant for censorship.the whole your entitled to your opinion as long as its the same as mine. the political correctness that is marring the Western world has brain-washed people into the misguided belief that all people and all cultures are the same. They’re not and while there should be no shame in stating the obvious, those bold enough to speak out will be branded with all sorts of ridiculous names designed to control their thought process and if they don't confirm, ostracise them. It is ridiculous that it is considered seriously bad form to make negative comments about another group of people or culture when in fact the comments being made are factually correct and as such entirely valid!

Someone call you out for stereotyping did they?

What type of comments are "factually" correct when applied to an entire group/culture? Care to give an example?

the evasion_kid

MadsL wrote: »

Someone call you out for stereotyping did they?

What type of comments are "factually" correct when applied to an entire group/culture? Care to give an example?

Oops did i offend you..And here we go.....

Samaris

I suspect the main issues with such comments, the_evasion_kid is that they are often phrased in a way that condemns an entire group just because of where they were born, their parents culture or their skin colour.

If I'm black, I don't want to hear that all blacks are criminals, when I've never gotten so much as a speeding ticket.
If I'm gay, I don't want to hear homosexuality equated to paedophilia when I have not the remotest sexual interest in children.
If I'm a woman, I don't want to hear that certain jobs or colours or hobbies are "for me" or "not for me" because I have ovaries.

See what I mean there? X are Y is just rarely to ever a true or helpful comment on a situation, I reckon. And yeah, I've seen all those sweeping comments multiple times, although I'll make it clear that I'm not accusing you of having said any of them!

That one can swing both ways. I don't agree with excessive censorship, but I do try to self-censor my own comments for the internet, which is totally without context of me as a person and without any tone to help get across what I'm trying to say.

conorhal

It's like they have some kind of superpower, as if their SJW senses collectively tingle whenever sombody somewhere on the internet is offended by something completely effin' trivial, then they all put down their copies of the Irish Times and lumber to their keyboards to right the wrongs of the world by furiously down voting them.

pmasterson95

Its just eejits jumping a bandwagon. Search a few links on google to be an expert and then away you go.


Its normally always the same people offended that you see complaining. Then they forget their last crusade when a newer shinier one comes along.

MadsL

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Oops did i offend you..And here we go.....

Your post seems like a defence of tarbrushing/stereotyping a particular group of people. I'm just wondering what facts you are "bold" enough to speak as you haven't been "brain-washed"? Do you have an example?

eviltwin

Links234 wrote: »

When I first started hearing the term "social justice warrior" it was kinda in reference to the type of facebook, twitter or tumblr clicktivism, the folks who'd retweet the Kony 2012 kind of stuff and never actually do anything. But whatever 'SJW' used to refer to, it's pretty much lost any meaning and is used as a catch-all term for anyone who's politics lean to the left or are liberal, etc. It's as useless as hipster has become.

This.

Its easy for people to assume that those sharing things on social media are just doing it to look good or because its something all their mates are doing and they don't want to be left out. Like it or not social media is a huge platform to raise awareness and get support quickly and easily, its a handy tool to share information and recruit people to a cause. I've met so many people in activism who says they are only at a meeting, protest, whatever because of something they saw on FB or Twitter. You'll find a huge proportion of people don't take it beyond the one post or whatever it is but if it gets even a handful of people involved in helping out a cause then its a good thing.

RayM

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

MadsL

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its just eejits jumping a bandwagon.

Do you mean bandwagons like posting memes in response to seriously discussed topics?

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

conorhal

eviltwin wrote: »

This.

Its easy for people to assume that those sharing things on social media are just doing it to look good or because its something all their mates are doing and they don't want to be left out. Like it or not social media is a huge platform to raise awareness and get support quickly and easily, its a handy tool to share information and recruit people to a cause. I've met so many people in activism who says they are only at a meeting, protest, whatever because of something they saw on FB or Twitter. You'll find a huge proportion of people don't take it beyond the one post or whatever it is but if it gets even a handful of people involved in helping out a cause then its a good thing.

That entirely depends on the cause it's getting them involved in.
Not SJW's I know, but look at the anti-vac crowd. They are a prime example of how the internet and social media has facilitated nutty, conspiracy laden groupthink that has penetrated the mainstream. These are people that would previously have been confined to some tin foil hat nuttery in their mother’s basement, but now thanks to the internet all those basements have been connected to each other, creating a silo of self-reinforcing groupthink that tolerates no dissent or common sense. This they have in common with the SJW's.

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

Do you mean bandwagons like posting memes in response to seriously discussed topics?

Yawn

jimgoose

I couldn't agree more. As ever, Mr. Godfrey Elfwick has the right of it:

White people don’t decide what’s racist
Straight people don’t decide what’s homophobic
Law-abiding people don't decide what's a crime

Say it, brother. Mind you he also says:

I can't fully support the #KillAllMen tag until my Dad finishes paying off my credit card bill.

MadsL

DeadHand wrote: »

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

I guess if your position is challenged by
a) Some facts on the economic benefits of immigration and population growth
b) Evidence of the chicken and egg position some travellers find themselves in through no fault of their own (defacto discrimination)

then you have the comfort of dismissing those who demonstrate the flaws with your position as SJWs "weeping tears of blood". In fact, you could simply be wrong.

Social Justice and Internet Activism amounts to nothing and shouldn't amount to anything. But, for some reason, it does and can destroy people's lives, because, 9 out of 10 times, it's absolutely unnecessary and a case of people jumping the gun/having trigger responses.

Off the top of my head -

Tim Hunt - a guy who made an offhand remark that had no bearing and yet his career was destroyed by these SJW
The scientist that was behind the Rosetta mission, wore a shirt featuring semi-naked women which was made by a female friend of his was forced to come back, in tears, and apologise, without doing anything wrong.
After the Boston Marathon Bombing, when the SJW and amateur detectives of Reddit destroyed the reputation of a guy that had been dead when it happened and destroyed his family's life. His sister received death and rape threats.

To me, and I have said this before, the only Internet Activism that matters a damn is the Hacktivists - Anonymous, LulzSec, and, most recently, The Impact Team, who all actually do something towards what they believe in and tackle things that deserve it.

One eyed Jack

DeadHand wrote: »

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

I think Ray means it's just become as meaningless an identity as any other social movement. The reason I leave out the word justice there is because now the language has changed and it's all about "equality" and "privilege". Utterly nonsensical.

I don't think either of the above would have SJW types weeping at all really. There's a hierarchy of "issues" as opposed to viewing people as people. Tighter immigration for example if you're talking about Muslims would split SJW's because they don't particularly care for religion, but they support multiculturalism as long as they integrate into the lowest eochelons of society and out of the way.

Travellers, well, equally will split SJW's - some would wholeheartedly agree with you, some would trip over themselves to take you to task for such blasphemy! :pac:

anncoates

I'm as guilty as anybody for laughing at people whose sole contribution to issues is from the keyboard.

Like people critiquing international charity when the fact remains that if even one person survives as a result, it's one more person than your gaseous pub-snug rhetoric ever saved.

That said, maybe it's harsh to hold people to account simply for having an opinion, as that's all it really is.

tiro

jimgoose wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. As ever, Mr. Godfrey Elfwick has the right of it:

White people don’t decide what’s racist
Straight people don’t decide what’s homophobic
Law-abiding people don't decide what's a crime

That last one is really excellent for being so fantastically dumb. We totally should let convicted murderers decide on the elements of murder. They clearly have more experience of it and a better understanding than anyone else.

We really do have to worry about suffocating another culture's way of life with our own oppressive social norms, sometimes. Some settle disputes in courthouses, others with machetes. But who are we to say any method is preferable?

conorhal

tiro wrote: »

That last one is really excellent for being so fantastically dumb. We totally should let convicted murderers decide on the elements of murder. They clearly have more experience of it and a better understanding than anyone else.

We really do have to worry about suffocating another culture's way of life with our own oppressive social norms, sometimes. Some settle disputes in courthouses, others with machetes. But who are we to say any method is preferable?

It's actually all completely dumb. But that's one of the key ways to identify SJWs, their unswerving attachment to identity politics.

RayM

DeadHand wrote: »

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

If a person disagrees with your assertion that all Travellers are responsible for the sheer hatred that some people feel towards them, does that make them a 'Social Justice Warrior'?

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

After the Boston Marathon Bombing, when the SJW and amateur detectives of Reddit destroyed the reputation of a guy that had been dead when it happened and destroyed his family's life. His sister received death and rape threats.

Bwuh? I think this is great example of why the term has become meaningless. SJW have nothing got to do with the small crew of people on Reddit who attempted to identify the Bost bomber in the wake of the attack.

It is now merely a pejorative term, no longer descriptive in any meaningful way, like Feminazi, hipster, fascist, "nice guy"; overused and blunted to the point of uselessness.

RWCNT

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Social justice is one thing.

Social justice warriors are an entirely different breed of the most useless narcissist with a persecution complex.

Yet any thread about a typically SJWish subject is always full of people with a persecution complex arguing against the "SJWs". Any thread about sexism against women will be full of men having a cry at how hard life is for them and that nobody cares, for example.

DeadHand

MadsL wrote: »

I guess if your position is challenged by
a) Some facts on the economic benefits of immigration and population growth
b) Evidence of the chicken and egg position some travellers find themselves in through no fault of their own (defacto discrimination)

then you have the comfort of dismissing those who demonstrate the flaws with your position as SJWs "weeping tears of blood". In fact, you could simply be wrong.

My position is not one totally opposed to any immigration but on tighter controls of immigration, most especially immigration of a parasitic and potentially dangerous nature (uneducated, of cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy).

Any discrimination an honest traveller (I've known a few) would sadly experience is more due to the consistent, apalling behaviour of large swathes of their own community than any unthinking bigotry on the part of the majority.

Anyway, that's a derailment.

Now, many would disagree with those sample positions and they wouldn't all be SJWs. The disagreement wouldn't make them so, I never said it would. They are examples of arguments that would likely excite SJWs and have them shouting racist at me.

Unlike RayM, who felt able to state anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt, I wasn't generalising.

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

If a person disagrees with your assertion that all Travellers are responsible for the sheer hatred that some people feel towards them, does that make them a 'Social Justice Warrior'?

I never made that assertion.

Do you stand by your assertion that anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt?

NachoBusiness

RWCNT wrote: »

Any thread about sexism against women will be full of men having a cry at how hard life is for them and that nobody cares, for example.

You are suggesting so that the men which you refer to don't really have all that much to complain about in comparison to women (with regards to sexism) but don't you think that the fact that you referred to those men as them "having a cry" would be indicative of quite the opposite of that? Just a thought.

RayM

DeadHand wrote: »

I never made that assertion.

You said that "Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation".

DeadHand wrote:

Unlike RayM, who felt able to state anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt, I wasn't generalising.

It looks very much like you were.

MadsL

DeadHand wrote: »

My position is not one totally opposed to any immigration but on tighter controls of immigration, most especially immigration of a parasitic and potentially dangerous nature (uneducated, of cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy).

Any discrimination an honest traveller (I've known a few) would sadly experience is more due to the consistent, apalling behaviour of large swathes of their own community than any unthinking bigotry on the part of the majority.

Anyway, that's a derailment.

Now, many would disagree with those sample positions and they wouldn't all be SJWs. The disagreement wouldn't make them so, I never said it would. They are examples of arguments that would likely excite SJWs and have them shouting racist at me.

Unlike RayM, who felt able to state anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt, I wasn't generalising.

The problem is that is quite easy to see a element of racism in arguing that a "cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy" should be the basis for immigration restrictions since you simply cannot assume religious belief translates to antisocial actions. Western democracies punish the crime not the thought. If you are getting called a racist, then surely it behoves you to examine the flaws in the argument you put forth to see if there is some blanket discrimination in your argument. It can be well-intentioned but still racist in execution. There are shades of this, for example, an immigrant from Malaysia may have exactly the same religious views as the ones you object to, yet may not be seen as a person for whom immigration controls (in some's view) should be targeted at, unlike the Iranian (for example).

We either allow the notion that all are equal in the way we apply laws or we fall into arbitary distinctions between people who may not share anything in common other than the membership of a national, ethnic or cultural group. That's quite a wedge to be on the thin end of...

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

You said that "Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation".



It looks very much like you were.

Note, "Travellers" not "all travellers". It is Travellers that are doing the most to earn the poor reputation of their community- not anyone else. This isn't to say all Travellers are responsible.

But this isn't the issue.

Again, do you stand by your assertation that anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt or do you want to avoid the question again with an obvious deflection?

One eyed Jack

RWCNT wrote: »

Yet any thread about a typically SJWish subject is always full of people with a persecution complex arguing against the "SJWs". Any thread about sexism against women will be full of men having a cry at how hard life is for them and that nobody cares, for example.

Y'see, this is a lot of the problem - SJW's appoint themselves as the sole arbiter of their own particular brand of 'justice', which means that they ignore anything which falls outside their idealist view of the world. They claim to be an authority on humanity, and yet are some of the most selfish, self-interested misanthropes you're ever likely to see in front of a webcam.

DeadHand

MadsL wrote: »

religious belief translates to antisocial actions

Imported cultural and religious beliefs have already inspired the most serious acts of anti-social behaviour in the West. Whether you want to talk about Rotherham, the Swedish rape statistics or the now regular acts or attempted acts of Islamic terrorism the examples are concrete and numerous.

Anyway, I apologise again as I keep getting dragged into separate issues.

I'm only here because someone implied I was a c unt.

RWCNT

NachoBusiness wrote: »

You are suggesting so that the men which you refer to don't really have all that much to complain about in comparison to women (with regards to sexism) but don't you think that the fact that you referred to those men as them "having a cry" would be indicative of quite the opposite of that? Just a thought.

I wasnt suggesting that in this instance although I may very well think it. To answer your question, no, I wouldn't think that would be indicative of that at all.

NachoBusiness

RWCNT wrote: »

I wasnt suggesting that in this instance although I may very well think it. To answer your question, no, I wouldn't think that would be indicative of that at all.

Apologies. The question was rhetorical. I already know the answer, hence the 'just a thought'.

RayM

DeadHand wrote: »

Note, "Travellers" not "all travellers". It is Travellers that are doing the most to earn the poor reputation of their community- not anyone else. This isn't to say all Travellers are responsible.

Some Travellers, then, are responsible for the reputation of the entire Travelling community. Obviously that's what you meant when you said they're "the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation". Grand, so. Glad we've got that sorted.

DeadHand wrote:

Again, do you stand by your assertation that anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt or do you want to avoid the question again with an obvious deflection?

See, if I felt the need to engage in a deflection exercise right now, I could be really pedantic and point out that I never asserted that anyone who isn't an 'SJW' is a cunt. But I'm not going to obtusely pretend that I don't know what you mean...

I stated that the term has been devalued to the point where it's basically just shorthand for anyone who isn't (what I would regard as) 'a cunt'. By all means, view the term 'Social Justice' as some kind of slur, but don't be surprised if people view you negatively for it.

jjC123

I think one of the problems with some of the "activism" on the internet is that it makes serious movements look farcical to people who haven't been involved in said movement.

Feminism is a prime example - feminist organisations who advocate for very sensible things like decent maternity leave, trying to break down gender stereotypes and equal opportunity for promotion start to get serious hate because some tumblerinas don't get the concept of feminism and get offended by inane and irrelevant things that have nothing to do with gender equality.

Which means that when people hear a whisper of the word 'feminism' no matter how valid the point, it gets equated with a bunch of "feminazi" women who exist on social media to harass men and promote a reign of female-supremecy.

The same thing happens (more so in the US) with anti-racism campaigns. Organisations campaigning for equal employment opportunities and an end to police brutality are plagued by minor issues like 'Iggy Azealia is appropriating black culture', diluting the credibility of honest and intelligent anti-racism activists.

One eyed Jack

RayM wrote: »

By all means, view the term 'Social Justice' as some kind of slur, but don't be surprised if people view you negatively for it.

Ever so slightly disingenuous there though - the term is "social justice warrior' as opposed to "social justice". Social justice warriors are insincere people who appropriate "causes" more often than they change their underwear.

They claim to "represent", and "raise awareness", but all they're actually interested in is self-promotion.

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

Some Travellers, then, are responsible for the reputation of the entire Travelling community. Obviously that's what you meant when you said they're "the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation". Grand, so. Glad we've got that sorted.



See, if I felt the need to engage in a deflection exercise right now, I could be really pedantic and point out that I never asserted that anyone who isn't an 'SJW' is a cunt. But I'm not going to obtusely pretend that I don't know what you mean...

I stated that the term has been devalued to the point where it's basically just shorthand for anyone who isn't (what I would regard as) 'a cunt'. By all means, view the term 'Social Justice' as some kind of slur, but don't be surprised if people view you negatively for it.

If I say the Irish have earned their reputation as heavy drinkers I take it as given that people won't take that to mean I'm asserting that all the Irish are heavy drinkers.

I should have been more careful in my language in that people are always lurking here with an agenda to paint posters as something they're not in some attempt to display how wonderfully tolerant they are.

Social justice is no slur and is obviously a good thing. A social justice warrior is different in that it describes a smug, hypocritical windbag that likes to toss whatever "ism" or "phobia" is currently in vogue at anyone who doesn't subscribe to their own narrow dogma. In the same way a keyboard is a neutral thing while a keyboard warrior is a wretch.

Anyways, thanks for confirming you really meant that all non-SJWs are c unts.

Charming that you would use ugly, sexual language to tar the entirety of humanity that doesn't share your opinions.

DeadHand

See, if I felt the need to engage in a deflection exercise right now, I could be really pedantic and point out that I never asserted that anyone who isn't an 'SJW' is a cunt

Oh...

RayM wrote: »

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

What's this then?

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ever so slightly disingenuous there though - the term is "social justice warrior' as opposed to "social justice". Social justice warriors are insincere people who appropriate "causes" more often than they change their underwear.

They claim to "represent", and "raise awareness", but all they're actually interested in is self-promotion.

You're right that it is rather disingenuous, and it's the title I used for the thread, so anyone else using it, that can probably be traced back to me!

I used Social Justice because I wanted to aim for a distinction I was trying to work through in my head. I think a lot of the stereotypical "SJW" activities could be considered Internet Activism. "Warriors" is just pretty sarcastic in its usage, so I was trying to make it a bit less provocative. SJW is used fairly liberally to apply to anyone trying to make a point, usually as regards more left-leaning issues. But that does mean that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, when it can go straight to insulting the messenger rather than the message.

I do, mind you, entirely agree that there is a subsection of the population that are passionate about aspects of social justice that are incredibly unhelpful to their own arguments. Most of 'em seem to be on the internet, and a lot of them tend to go for the clickbait and hot button topics that often have little research beyond their own opinion.

But overall, I am trying to find the difference between people that passionately care about a topic, who read and research on it, and who go out and DO things in regards to it, and click-and-move-on one-second-activism.

RayM

DeadHand wrote: »

Oh...



What's this then?

A bit of a petty afterthought there, no? A poor attempt at some sort of 'GOTCHA!' moment. If I reject the validity of the term 'SJW' in the first place, I'm hardly going to call anyone who isn't one 'a cunt', am I?

RWCNT

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Apologies. The question was rhetorical. I already know the answer, hence the 'just a thought'.

The answer being that my use of the word "crying", and more than likely my overall tone, suggests men in fact do have more to complain about than women in terms of sexism?

DeadHand

RayM wrote: »

A bit of a petty afterthought there, no? A poor attempt at some sort of 'GOTCHA!' moment. If I reject the validity of the term 'SJW' in the first place, I'm hardly going to call anyone who isn't one 'a cunt', am I?

Alright, I now accept your original musing was just an attempt to look edgy and appeal to a certain section here by branding people with violent language.

osarusan

DeadHand wrote: »

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

The real question is - are you a social justice warrior? You do have your own positions on what constitutes the society you want to live in - you have your own position on social justice.

Just like those lads down in Kerry opposing the building of a mosque, or this Identity Ireland party - they are literally campaigning for their own versions of social justice, yet the term would never be applied to them - this demonstrates how completely empty the term is.

pmasterson95

I love when these noble crusaders start doing exactly what they are trying to criticise others for.


You cant tar all travellers like that and if you do you're all *****.

You cant not find this sign offensive or else your a bigot.

You cant discriminate against anyone unless they disagree and then you can discriminate away.

If you dont agree with gender quotas you're sexist.


You either agree with the bandwagon 100% or you get the hip labels thrown at you while they blame others for labelling. And of course this viewpoint is strictly flexible and depends on the tone of the thread.

darkpagandeath

Back slapping and high fives are the order of the day. The more likes you get the more right you are, Regardless of reason or argument.