Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

kunst nugget

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what 90s you were living in, but in my home country (Germany) at the time people were burning down accommodations for asylum seekers and houses of Turkish families - including the people inside them.

There is currently a massive trial going on for a group of right-wing terrorists who have been killing non-nationals in Germany for killing (by shooting or bombing) between 2000 and 2007

That's because mullets were still fashionable in Germany at the time. Mullets have a profoundly negative effect on the psyche of a country. We had left them behind in the 90s and had entered a new era of spiritual awakening and a zen state of oneness with our fellow man. Well, a state of oneness with everyone except Travellers. And Nigerians. And Protestants.

Dave_The_Sheep

20Cent wrote: »

... sticking up for themselves more now ...

I think OPs point is that there's sticking up for yourself and your beliefs and there's shutting down any and all reasonable debate by declaring someone to be racist/misogynist/whatever as soon as they disagree with you on something.

Something I find hilarious is just how much people feel triggered when you start talking about something that doesn't fit into their individual narrative, especially when this is done purely to get a rise. It is too damned easy. I'm sure these posters know exactly who they are and, really, probably shouldn't be spending as much time online if they get that into it.

It's the internet, for f*cks sake.

silverharp

Shenshen wrote: »

Sorry, I don't follow - you claimed that racism was going down at a time when it was showing its most nasty side right across Europe - from minorities being killed in relatively moderate Germany to genocides in the Balkans to the Front National in France actually running their first presidential candiate.

I don't honestly see what the US class system has to do with that?

they are very insular groups, they are really only interested in internal issues in the US or UK. its very rare they involved with issues like women in Islam, Saudi Arabia and the rest. Im just looking at this from the world of English language social media, which even if the people are British, their focus is still the US.
this all kicked off either helped by social media and timed with the economic crash so had nothing to do with the politics of the last year or two. Im just curious why it appeared out of nowhere?

kunst nugget

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I think OPs point is that there's sticking up for yourself and your beliefs and there's shutting down any and all reasonable debate by declaring someone to be racist/misogynist/whatever as soon as they disagree with you on something.

Same as shutting down a debate by declaring someone to be a SJW/Left Wing Libtard/Cuck...

20Cent

I think this whole snowflake sjw thing is getting old very fast and will go the same way click bait did. People just stop paying attention to it.

Can we all just agree that anyone who identifies as "Left" or "Right" can be as bad as each other when it comes to shutting down "rational discourse"? Everyone is a wanker. Everyone is an eejit.

super_furry

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Screaming racism when someone critiques a religion, Islam, is stifling debate.

Screaming racist because someone voted for Trump is stifling debate.

Screaming racist because someone critiques the BLM movement is also stifling debate.

Every idea or ideology should be open to criticism and not throwing out the nuclear option of stifling debate - labelling someone racist.

This is all too common amongst those that are classed as "SJWs".

Again, all online crap centred around American politics and Internet personalities. This isn't an issue in the real world.

kunst nugget

Deleted User wrote: »

Can we all just agree that anyone who identifies as "Left" or "Right" can be as bad as each other when it comes to shutting down "rational discourse"? Everyone is a wanker. Everyone is an eejit.

But then how am I going to be able to play the victim?

Dave_The_Sheep

kunst nugget wrote: »

Same as shutting down a debate by declaring someone to be a SJW/Left Wing Libtard/Cuck...

Absolutely.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

But then how am I going to be able to play the victim?

If you want to be the victim, you can be the victim. But you'd still be a wanker. And an eejit. Just like everybody else. And then maybe when we acknowledge that we're all **** & eejits, we can just get back to boards being actually fun instead of populated by uptight eejits. And back to being regular eejits.

kunst nugget

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Absolutely.

The OPs point though was that the blame for poisoned Rational discourse was only on the one side which it isn't. If you went on to any of the Trump threads on here after he won, there was an abundance of 'love the salty tears of libtards' posts and anyone who criticised Trump was told to shut up because they had lost and democracy had won. This is on a board of mainly Irish people... completely bizarre.

osarusan

The irony in the OP is amazing - starts a thread lamenting how discourse is being poisoned, and includes a term whose use on AH is overwhelmingly a pejorative label used to poison discourse.

Hande hoche!

20Cent wrote: »

By "screaming" you mean tweets? So what if someone does that.
It's always been the way just that now its amplified due to social media. Minorities are sticking up for themselves more now and have access to new platforms. Thats all.

A lot of the screaming is done by members of the same race/ sexual orientation/etc. Wouldn't simply write it off as empowerment of groups by technology.

kunst nugget

Hande hoche! wrote: »

A lot of the screaming is done by members of the same race/ sexual orientation/etc. Wouldn't simply write it off as empowerment of groups by technology.

I'm not sure what the screaming is... Do you shout out loud tweets you don't agree with when reading them?

Hande hoche!

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not sure what the screaming is... Do you shout out loud tweets you don't agree with when reading them?

Depends on how much stimulants I have had at that stage.

infogiver

20Cent wrote: »

By "screaming" you mean tweets? So what if someone does that.
It's always been the way just that now its amplified due to social media. Minorities are sticking up for themselves more now and have access to new platforms. Thats all.

If by "sticking up for themselves" you mean shouting and pointing and accusing anyone who isn't apologising to them for being white male and straight of being a racist misogynistic homophobic bigot who needs to "check your privilege" instead of making a reasoned argument on a point to point basis the, yes, that's all.
Check out on YouTube any of the SJW protests on US university campuses to lectures from the likes of Ben Shapiro or Milo Yannoupolis to get a real flavour.
Instead of attending the lectures and standing up to argue his right wing policies with him, the very strong very vocal left wing students (supported in the main by the faculty) use "all means necessary" to prevent the lecture from going ahead.
If it does go ahead they will disrupt and shout down the speaker simply because they don't have any ability to debate and Ben Shapiro in particular will win ant debate every time with his facts and reason.

JupiterKid

osarusan wrote: »

The irony in the OP is amazing - starts a thread lamenting how discourse is being poisoned, and includes a term whose use on AH is overwhelmingly a pejorative label used to poison discourse.

I used the term SJW to get the discussion flowing. There are also plenty of perjorative terms used for those who hold right wing views. Also, my appeal is for critical, independent thinking and reasoned debate, which sadly seems to very lacking at times as posters become entrenched in their views and attack each other. And the hard left is just as guilty of doing it as the far right. I am centrist in my political views.

What saddens me is that people don't seem to read up various differing viewpoints in the wider media, even ones that they may not like or agree with and form an informed opinion. They prefer to reinforce their prejudices and world views by reading material and opinions that agree with their own to gain a sense of smug self-satisfaction. That, to me, is not critical thinking. If a student of mine submitted an assignment where they asserted a certain view without any data or facts to back it up I would fail them. And a left wing orthodoxy without adequate counter arguments has infected the postmodernist discourse in academia - in the humanities disciplines - to an alarming degree. Like a type of absolutist orthodoxy. This has polarised opinion between right and left and that is regrettable.

You see, I believe informing oneself is about reading up the facts and engaging in proper debate, not resorting to infantile reactionary retorts.

20Cent

infogiver wrote: »

If by "sticking up for themselves" you mean shouting and pointing and accusing anyone who isn't apologising to them for being white male and straight of being a racist misogynistic homophobic bigot who needs to "check your privilege" instead of making a reasoned argument on a point to point basis the, yes, that's all.
Check out on YouTube any of the SJW protests on US university campuses to lectures from the likes of Ben Shapiro or Milo Yannoupolis to get a real flavour.
Instead of attending the lectures and standing up to argue his right wing policies with him, the very strong very vocal left wing students (supported in the main by the faculty) use "all means necessary" to prevent the lecture from going ahead.
If it does go ahead they will disrupt and shout down the speaker simply because they don't have any ability to debate and Ben Shapiro in particular will win ant debate every time with his facts and reason.

Lectures are different to debates. If the audience had equal time to challenge Milo and Shapiro's "ideas" it would be ok but they don't they arrive at the campus expecting to be able to attack and humiliate minority students at will they cry censorship if anyone protests this.

The_Valeyard

Is it echo chambers? People surround themselves with those who share their views, and find themselves, shocked, horrified and offended that someone else could have a different point if view.


It's possible that internet discussion forums are a principle cause of this a d have helped lower the tone and pander to any attention seeking moron.

osarusan

JupiterKid wrote: »

I used the term SJW to get the discussion flowing. There are also plenty of perjorative terms used for those who hold right wing views. Also, my appeal is for critical, independent thinking and reasoned debate, which sadly seems to very lacking at times as posters become entrenched in their views and attack each other. And the hard left is just as guilty of doing it as the far right. I am centrist in my political views.

You used a term that is almost always used in AH as a pejorative to poison discourse -deliberately- as a way to 'get the discussion flowing' on a debate about poisoning discourse in AH, while not using any of the the pejorative terms use to describe their ideological opposites, while looking for balanced and reasoned debate?

That makes no sense to me at all.

JupiterKid

JupiterKid wrote: »

I used the term SJW to get the discussion flowing. There are also plenty of perjorative terms used for those who hold right wing views. Also, my appeal is for critical, independent thinking and reasoned debate, which sadly seems to very lacking at times as posters become entrenched in their views and attack each other. And the hard left is just as guilty of doing it as the far right. I am centrist in my political views.

What saddens me is that people don't seem to read up various differing viewpoints in the wider media, even ones that they may not like or agree with and form an informed opinion. They prefer to reinforce their prejudices and world views by reading material and opinions that agree with their own to gain a sense of smug self-satisfaction. That, to me, is not critical thinking. And it has infected the postmodernist discourse in academia to an alarming degree. Like a type of absolutist orthodoxy. This has polarised opinion between right and left and that is regrettable.

You see, I believe informing oneself is about reading up the facts and engaging in proper debate, not resorting to infantile reactionary retorts.

TBH, I think it's been proven that 99% of the time people don't actually look into the facts, JupiterKid.

How many times have shared images of people, who have been proven to be innocent afterwards? How many times have people sprouted stupid statistics, which were proven incorrect? And how many times have those that ask for proof been labelled as being a libtard, or an SJW, or whatever else?

And, also, how many times have people been ganged up on, just because they refuse to jump on to any sort of a bandwagon and, I dunno, wait for the facts?

Quite a lot. It's all a little silly.

Dave_The_Sheep

kunst nugget wrote: »

The OPs point though was that the blame for poisoned Rational discourse was only on the one side which it isn't. If you went on to any of the Trump threads on here after he won, there was an abundance of 'love the salty tears of libtards' posts and anyone who criticised Trump was told to shut up because they had lost and democracy had won. This is on a board of mainly Irish people... completely bizarre.

For sure. Don't get it myself either.

I personally didn't take the OP (don't know his/her post history or anything) as blaming it just on SJWs. Sure, the thread is focused on them, but it's not an exclusive club. Far right and left are just as bad as each other at this point (which I think OP mentioned). I could be wrong, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to be honest.

I don't bother arguing with either 'type' online, since it's entirely pointless.

infogiver

20Cent wrote: »

Lectures are different to debates. If the audience had equal time to challenge Milo and Shapiro's "ideas" it would be ok but they don't they arrive at the campus expecting to be able to attack and humiliate minority students at will they cry censorship if anyone protests this.

Ben Shapiros lectures are followed by a question and answer session where lecture attendees actually queue to get their opportunity to challenge him.
I've watched hours of it live. I don't know what you've been watching.

20Cent

infogiver wrote: »

Ben Shapiros lectures are followed by a question and answer session where lecture attendees actually queue to get their opportunity to challenge him.
I've watched hours of it live. I don't know what you've been watching.

Never heard of him.
Milo on the other hand is vile.

super_furry

If you're throwing around terms like SJW, snowflakes, cucks and the rest, you're clearly identifying with one side of a certain argument. Same deal if you're telling people to check their privelage or waffling on about patriarchy nonsense.

Like it or not starting a debate where you blame 'SJWs' for poisoning rational discourse paints you as being on a certain side with a certain agenda.

Shenshen

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

For sure. Don't get it myself either.

I personally didn't take the OP (don't know his/her post history or anything) as blaming it just on SJWs. Sure, the thread is focused on them, but it's not an exclusive club. Far right and left are just as bad as each other at this point (which I think OP mentioned). I could be wrong, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to be honest.

I don't bother arguing with either 'type' online, since it's entirely pointless.

I'd take it a step further (and have been labeled both SJW and snowflake for that in the past) - I think that whole notion of types is counter-productive and utterly misleading, as once you think along those lines you have a tendency to assume things that weren't even said.

To give an example: a poster is giving an opinion that is pro-life. You won't have to wait for long before the first reply pops up accusing the poster of being brain-washed by religion and being an apologist for child abuse that happened in church-run institutions in the past.

Another example: a poster states that they feel that there is something amiss with pigeon-holing toddlers into a pink group and a blue group, and maintaining that throughout the child's formative years as it's stifling both girls and boys. Within minutes you'll have someone ranting at them for being a man-hating, child-abusing feminist wanting to force everyone to be trans-gender and with an agenda to destroy Western civilisation.

I think those are called straw-men arguments, and as far as I can tell they invariably spring from mentally grouping people into "types"

King George VI

infogiver wrote: »

Ben Shapiros lectures are followed by a question and answer session where lecture attendees actually queue to get their opportunity to challenge him.
I've watched hours of it live. I don't know what you've been watching.

Same, Ben Shapiro is one hell of a speaker. He backs up his claims with facts, stats, reason, logic and published studies. Very entertaining to watch him.

20Cent wrote: »

Never heard of him.
Milo on the other hand is vile.

I used to like Milo when his stance was mainly against SJWs, freedom of speech, political correctness and campus feminism.

Then it went very white supremacist and I stopped watching him.

Widdershins

kunst nugget wrote: »

Same as shutting down a debate by declaring someone to be a SJW/Left Wing Libtard/Cuck...

I have intervened in Facebook discussions where a friend has called another friend an SJW. The fact is that the one being called SJW was providing nothing at all, not even the basis for her own views, and she expected the other friend to automatically accept what she was saying because she felt it was self evidently ''right'' and ''good''. At least on Boards, people are talking and debating and there's not a lot of the ''SJW'' or ''Cuck'' nonsense. I still gravitate to the side that is saying there is a heavy influence of what is labelled SJW. I find the ones who go to the most effort to explain their viewpoint on Boards are almost always the ones who get labelled Right Wing, despite no evidence of their political persuasion. When people get over their fantasy of being antiracist antifacist warriors and stop looking for identifying views and political positions to show them who is on the right and wrong side we might get somewhere.

Widdershins

Shenshen wrote: »

I'd take it a step further (and have been labeled both SJW and snowflake for that in the past) - I think that whole notion of types is counter-productive and utterly misleading, as once you think along those lines you have a tendency to assume things that weren't even said.

To give an example: a poster is giving an opinion that is pro-life. You won't have to wait for long before the first reply pops up accusing the poster of being brain-washed by religion and being an apologist for child abuse that happened in church-run institutions in the past.

Another example: a poster states that they feel that there is something amiss with pigeon-holing toddlers into a pink group and a blue group, and maintaining that throughout the child's formative years as it's stifling both girls and boys. Within minutes you'll have someone ranting at them for being a man-hating, child-abusing feminist wanting to force everyone to be trans-gender and with an agenda to destroy Western civilisation.

I think those are called straw-men arguments, and as far as I can tell they invariably spring from mentally grouping people into "types"

This..really good, common sense post