Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

Is there? As I remember people are saying it's not as bad as the hysterics are making out. There's always going to be abuse of a system, humans can't help but find weaknesses in systems that they can exploit. But people were taking a few incidents and presenting them as average or common.

Nobody can deny that abuses take place, they happen and every effort should be made to discover and eliminate those flaws in the system. abandoning the system isn't the best course of action though.


The problem may be that the points come with some over exaggeration/simplification, and a condemnation of all refugees by people expanding your points to include unrelated issues which just hurts the original point.

That has not been my experience, tbh.

I've been asked to defend things neither I, nor anyone else, said.

I've had people enggae in whataboutery, and wordplay.

I've read assurances that the system is working very well. Frontex data would disagree.

Finally, I am responsible for what I post. Why anyone would assume that I completely agree with someone else's opinion, anymore than they would completely agree wit mine, is completely beyond me, tbh.

It's not a valid argument, imo.

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

Finally, I am responsible for what I post. Why anyone would assume that I completely agree with someone else's opinion, anymore than they would completely agree wit mine, is completely beyond me, tbh.

It's because we all keep lumping large sections of society under simple umbrella terms like left and right. everyones' guilty of it. Just about everything I've said could be said about the lefties too.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

It's because we all keep lumping large sections of society under simple umbrella terms like left and right. everyones' guilty of it. Just about everything I've said could be said about the lefties too.

Fair point. On the other hand, I for one, get very fed up emphasising the word "some" in my posts. I still do it pretty often, though.

Be that as it may, it doesn't alter the fact that some liberal posters engage in deliberately trying to shut down discussion, whether by endless demands for links that have already been posted, engaging in whataboutery, or trying to force people to defend things they never said, etc.

I've been posting on Boards for about 10 years now (You're a mod - you can check email addresses against usernames, I presume?).

In that time, discussion has become less free. There is a lot more pressure to conform to the "politically correct" narrative.

My own opinion is that it shuts down discussion. Certainly, i don't post on Boards as much as I used to, and when I do, I find it much less enjoyable. There seem to be more people around who are looking for something to be offended about than ever before - and I'm very far from a person who tries to give offense.

That's my honest opinion, for what it's worth.

ScumLord

We keep taking the bait though. I'm not accusing those people of baiting you but the discussion has been corrupted by the media who has designed a lot of the points to be antagonistic. I don't know how we can all overcome the bad data we're getting.

My problem is I'm jumping in and out of the thread and missing stuff, I try to stay out of these threads altogether but I can't resist the bait either.

Bredabe

Basically yes, I dont know how many times I've posted my truth and been disrespected/bullied for what's a known or accepted truth, then Im criticised for not getting on board their agenda. Shows a scary ability to argue for the sake and lack of comprehension of other perceptions of the same issues. The lack of real life experience and educations is frightening, as is how bad they look when they call ppl a liar and bully even when they have their photo and work details attached to their account.

dublinman1990

What I can say is that your life experience is key when having a good debate with someone else. If someone is framing an argument to connect with you in a discussion; there must be hard evidence to support the claim to make your argument look good for others to understand your position. An argument cannot be brought up when people of a certain political persuasion say supposed facts to someone when it is just lies and propaganda to suit one's agenda. That poisons debate to a whole new level of misunderstanding & confusion for everybody involved.

If you don't have an idea in what I'm talking about. I will say it in this way.

Having a discussion with somebody is not about living a lie; it is about learning to have an education.

We can become flippant in life to frame arguments to suit our own agendas at times. When we discuss things like Abortion in the public domain here; we get snapshots of how SJWs operate to suit their own agendas onto people. When we look at the recent protests from the Repeal the 8th marchers in Dublin just before Easter; we would see crowds of protestors in different swathes of formation trying to persuade massive amounts of people that their own argument that having an Abortion is the correct way to go is right and anyone else who is disagree with them is not credible of framing a proper argument on the subject (my words not theirs).

Then we look at the Pro Life protestors in recent years and see the same subject being discussed going in the opposite direction. They would go to the trouble of organizing a protest rally in Dublin having tens of thousands of people lining the streets of the capital campaigning themselves to be against Abortion. The manner in which the Pro life groups would frame their argument is that they would say it with a good bit of positive understanding & compassion to various swathes of people who can appear to have a more friendly approach when discussing it with others.

The question that I would ask here is that would those people in the Pro Life groups in the Abortion debate be SJWs in their own right so they go against their opposition who are in favour of Repealing the 8th Amendment?

me_right_one

The only SJW's in the abortion debate are the repealers. The term SJW comes with a massive dose of irony, in that their causes, or at least the way they go about promoting them, are anything but socially just. Abortion is actually a good example. If these people really cared about their fellow man, they would be on the pro-life side.

Bredabe

dublinman1990 wrote: »

What I can say is that your life experience is key when having a good debate with someone else. If someone is framing an argument to connect with you in a discussion; there must be hard evidence to support the claim to make your argument look good for others to understand your position. An argument cannot be brought up when people of a certain political persuasion say supposed facts to someone when it is just lies and propaganda to suit one's agenda. That poisons debate to a whole new level of misunderstanding & confusion for everybody involved.

If you don't have an idea in what I'm talking about. I will say it in this way.

Having a discussion with somebody is not about living a lie; it is about learning to have an education.

We can become flippant in life to frame arguments to suit our own agendas at times. When we discuss things like Abortion in the public domain here; we get snapshots of how SJWs operate to suit their own agendas onto people. When we look at the recent protests from the Repeal the 8th marchers in Dublin just before Easter; we would see crowds of protestors in different swathes of formation trying to persuade massive amounts of people that their own argument that having an Abortion is the correct way to go is right and anyone else who is disagree with them is not credible of framing a proper argument on the subject (my words not theirs).

Then we look at the Pro Life protestors in recent years and see the same subject being discussed going in the opposite direction. They would go to the trouble of organizing a protest rally in Dublin having tens of thousands of people lining the streets of the capital campaigning themselves to be against Abortion. The manner in which the Pro life groups would frame their argument is that they would say it with a good bit of positive understanding & compassion to various swathes of people who can appear to have a more friendly approach when discussing it with others.

The question that I would ask here is that would those people in the Pro Life groups in the Abortion debate be SJWs in their own right so they go against their opposition who are in favour of Repealing the 8th Amendment?

My boss wrote a flippant comment about how the free the weed protest should make sure the ppl around them wouldn't suffer from a contact high, the amount of pro pot ppl saying other ppl cant get a contact high from a joint or how much a person has to inhale to get bronchitis from a cigarette, essentially arguing with a stranger about THEIR medical history! what a waste of time and energy. One went as far as saying that NO ONE has an effect from a joint for 12 hours after they smoke it! I dont know about pot, but Im fairly sure no one would be smoking it if there was such a time lag, one way or the other, boss had our 5 pregnant staff off on the day, they had notes from their gynies's stating the exposure to pot would be bad for the women/babies.
The posing went on for days, and each time she was shown a link where scientists argued the pro weed point, but a note from a specialist about the exposure to pot was "false news", how is this not bullying? How is anyone going to learn anything from any discussion if no one is prepared to listen with an open mind? Correct me if im wrong, has anyone organised a mass smoke in the city centre of the pot that helps symptoms but doesn't give a high?

southstar

dublinman1990 wrote: »

What I can say is that your life experience is key when having a good debate with someone else. If someone is framing an argument to connect with you in a discussion; there must be hard evidence to support the claim to make your argument look good for others to understand your position. An argument cannot be brought up when people of a certain political persuasion say supposed facts to someone when it is just lies and propaganda to suit one's agenda. That poisons debate to a whole new level of misunderstanding & confusion for everybody involved.

If you don't have an idea in what I'm talking about. I will say it in this way.

Having a discussion with somebody is not about living a lie; it is about learning to have an education.

We can become flippant in life to frame arguments to suit our own agendas at times. When we discuss things like Abortion in the public domain here; we get snapshots of how SJWs operate to suit their own agendas onto people. When we look at the recent protests from the Repeal the 8th marchers in Dublin just before Easter; we would see crowds of protestors in different swathes of formation trying to persuade massive amounts of people that their own argument that having an Abortion is the correct way to go is right and anyone else who is disagree with them is not credible of framing a proper argument on the subject (my words not theirs).

Then we look at the Pro Life protestors in recent years and see the same subject being discussed going in the opposite direction. They would go to the trouble of organizing a protest rally in Dublin having tens of thousands of people lining the streets of the capital campaigning themselves to be against Abortion. The manner in which the Pro life groups would frame their argument is that they would say it with a good bit of positive understanding & compassion to various swathes of people who can appear to have a more friendly approach when discussing it with others.

The question that I would ask here is that would those people in the Pro Life groups in the Abortion debate be SJWs in their own right so they go against their opposition who are in favour of Repealing the 8th Amendment?

I genuinely am trying to wade through this... but with great difficulty..I'm guessing that English is not your first language.Apart from this issue you seem to havesuccessfully picked up the term 'social justice warrior', a pejorative,which already diminishes any attempt to appear reasonable.. and it suggests that you already have a dog in the race.Im not aware that such people were trying to say that "having an abortion is the correct way to go" .This simply would make absolutely no sense at all

Will I Am Not

You can see this sort of thing in action in the last few pages of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057726101

The thread gets dragged off topic by someone complaining that the thread is off topic and then a flurry of reported posts... thread locked.

Could see it happening a mile off.

NinjaKirby

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You can see this sort of thing in action in the last few pages of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057726101

The thread gets dragged off topic by someone complaining that the thread is off topic and then a flurry of reported posts... thread locked.

Could see it happening a mile off.

Not only that, you look at the people who have "thanked" the post announcing the thread is now locked and it's no surprise at all.

The problem is not "SJWs" though the problem is that people simply cannot handle being "wrong on the internet".

Skylinehead

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You can see this sort of thing in action in the last few pages of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057726101

The thread gets dragged off topic by someone complaining that the thread is off topic and then a flurry of reported posts... thread locked.

Could see it happening a mile off.

The thread was closed because it was political. This isn't.

Don't comment on moderation on-thread please.

dublinman1990

southstar wrote: »

I genuinely am trying to wade through this... but with great difficulty..I'm guessing that English is not your first language.Apart from this issue you seem to have successfully picked up the term 'social justice warrior', a pejorative,which already diminishes any attempt to appear reasonable.. and it suggests that you already have a dog in the race. Im not aware that such people were trying to say that "having an abortion is the correct way to go" .This simply would make absolutely no sense at all

I don't know where you got the idea that English is not my first language. I am an Irish person living in Dublin. I lived here since I was born. My punctuation may not be that great in writing my posts; but I do try to make debate on this site from a real world experience in the best way that I can through most of them.

This is not to give out to you in anyway. There may be a few people on this site that may or may not understand what I write in my posts. I can go overboard on some of them sometimes which goes to show that I am not perfect in my writing ability. I do try to make the posts bearable for people if that suits you.

kupus

ugh May 1st is around the corner.

=Another day where like minded people go around and trash everything in sight. cos of something, other, bah.

PhuckHugh

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/27/whooping-should-banned-beause-excludes-deaf-people-nation-union/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

The_Valeyard

PhuckHugh wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/27/whooping-should-banned-beause-excludes-deaf-people-nation-union/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

That's just stupid.

kunst nugget

PhuckHugh wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/27/whooping-should-banned-beause-excludes-deaf-people-nation-union/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

I never get enough opportunity in life to do 'Jazz Hands'! Yayyy for 'Jazz Hands'.


Ooops I think I cheered that too loudly. I think I might have compromised the safety and wellbeing of those around me!

Edit: It looks like the NUS have elected a new president that doesn't seem to be a total loolah but whether she can make any significant changes to it remains to be seen.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/26/malia-bouattia-shakira-martin-nus-national-union-of-students-president-election

L.Jenkins

Sorry for weighing in late, but I always thought SJW and Snowflake mentally went hand in hand. There's very little that can be done and said today, in fear of offending someone. I always regarded myself as a liberal, but the more extreme left I find more and more embarrassing by the day. Not that I'd go to the opposite extreme, I find myself creating personal distance from both.

And when I see the extreme left and right having a go at each other, all I can think of is...

silverharp

Eh no, I think I will


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/04/05/dont-laugh-i-have-a-serious-reason-for-raising-my-cats-gender-neutral/?utm_term=.2be9047638c5

Don’t laugh: I have a serious reason for raising my cats gender-neutral

Will I Am Not

silverharp wrote: »

Eh no, I think I will


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/04/05/dont-laugh-i-have-a-serious-reason-for-raising-my-cats-gender-neutral/?utm_term=.2be9047638c5

'Is this really the paper that brought down a president?'

I love that comment, a sign of the times

Buffman

PhuckHugh wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/04/27/whooping-should-banned-beause-excludes-deaf-people-nation-union/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_fb_tmg

Hmm, but by being pro-deaf like that are they not then excluding the blind?

Anyway, forget clapping and cheering, according to Oxford University it's racist to not look at someone!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39692673

Staff at Oxford University have been told avoiding eye contact with students could constitute "everyday racism".
It is included in a list of "racial micro-aggressions" that has been published in a newsletter by Oxford's equality and diversity unit.
It described micro-aggressions as "subtle, everyday racism" which can be alienating.

Ralf and Florian

Buffman wrote: »

Hmm, but by being pro-deaf like that are they not then excluding the blind?

Anyway, forget clapping and cheering, according to Oxford University it's racist to not look at someone!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39692673

Jaysus :pac:

Hande hoche!

Buffman wrote: »

Hmm, but by being pro-deaf like that are they not then excluding the blind?

Anyway, forget clapping and cheering, according to Oxford University it's racist to not look at someone!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39692673

In my experience often people choosing to avoid eye contact may be due to social anxiety etc. rather than racism.

Bredabe

Hande hoche! wrote: »

In my experience often people choosing to avoid eye contact may be due to social anxiety etc. rather than racism.

That's true and in my case I was so shortsighted in my growing years that I never learned the habit of looking at ppl at all. Nothing to do with them personally, to me, its was more important to follow what the pinkish blob was saying.

Buffman

Hande hoche! wrote: »

In my experience often people choosing to avoid eye contact may be due to social anxiety etc. rather than racism.

Never fear, the SJWs have that one covered! This story just keeps giving the LOLs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39742670

Oxford University sorry for eye contact racism claim

Oxford University has apologised for saying that avoiding eye contact could be "everyday racism" after it was accused of discriminating against autistic people.
The claim was included in a list of "racial micro-aggressions" in an equality and diversity unit newsletter.
But the university was criticised for being "insensitive" to autistic people who can struggle making eye contact.
It said it had made a mistake and not taken disabilities into account.

somefeen

The idea of 'micro-aggression' is really just a way of making simple social faux pas or social ineptness into ammunition.

Imagine having social anxiety, in a place where microagressions are considered a real thing. Imagine that and then having to talk to a racially diverse group of people. **** that.

Buffman

Buffman wrote: »

Never fear, the SJWs have that one covered! This story just keeps giving the LOLs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39742670

Do these people have anything to do with their time, apart from actively searching for something that "might" offend someone?

somefeen wrote: »

The idea of 'micro-aggression' is really just a way of making simple social faux pas or social ineptness into ammunition.

Imagine having social anxiety, in a place where microagressions are considered a real thing. Imagine that and then having to talk to a racially diverse group of people. **** that.

If anything, that would actually make a lot of people avoid any situation where they had to talk to a socially diverse group - making the whole thing counterproductive!

I have quite a few "socially diverse" friends and acquaintances. We accept that we have some cultural differences, and get on with it, minus the big long rule book.

It works. Any relationship where one person has to do all the compromising doesn't work.

It's completely beyond me how that can be so hard to understand for some people.

infogiver

These are angry angry people, and such a lot of them, all stoking one another's anger and resentment all day long.
The anger is a by product of the over inflated sense of entitlement, which leads inexorably to to a feeling of having been short changed by life, even at quite a young age. Of course there's no personal responsibility, I am a victim of others lack of consideration and selfishness, always.
I do think it's just a passing phase and that the ridiculousness will become apparent when they start to literally devour one another in the war about who is the biggest victim.

Call Me Jimmy

Buffman wrote: »

Never fear, the SJWs have that one covered! This story just keeps giving the LOLs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39742670

Before I saw this, I was going to post that it's all just going to eat itself soon, no need to worry. Then you post that

southstar

infogiver wrote: »

These are angry angry people, and such a lot of them, all stoking one another's anger and resentment all day long.
The anger is a by product of the over inflated sense of entitlement, which leads inexorably to to a feeling of having been short changed by life, even at quite a young age. Of course there's no personal responsibility, I am a victim of others lack of consideration and selfishness, always.
I do think it's just a passing phase and that the ridiculousness will become apparent when they start to literally devour one another in the war about who is the biggest victim.

Sounds most like Trump and his slaves