Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

silverharp · 12-04-2017 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's be real here - a lot of the time, those that claim to want free speech don't actually want free speech, especially when it is something that might be against their own narratives. People claim they do, but then shout down any disagreeing parties.

who generally is trying to disrupt who's events and talks? its clear where the bias is. At this stage you could get Julie Bindel and Una Mullally to do a double act where they kill a man on stage at the end and the only comment would be "performance art, edgy!" (yes yes I exaggerate for effect)

12-04-2017 03:41PM

There is a large element of personality disorder along with a persecution complex in some of the fringe elements, or they have a belligerent always right type of personality.

Basically they had the personality disorder or personality traits before they found the issue.

Arghus · 12-04-2017 03:55PM

super_furry wrote: »

Your man Milo is basically the male Katie Hopkins. He has outrageous opinions for money, the only problem for him is he didn't know where to draw the line and went full gob****e with all that paedophilia stuff. He was tolerated at best by the movers and shakers on the right and that was the perfect excuse for them to cut him loose.

I think there's an element of tragedy in Milo's case. When he acknowledged/revealed he himself had been a victim of sexual abuse, it cast a different light - for me - on how to view and partially explain his fondness for victim blaming. My inner bar stool psychoanalyst saw him as an individual who had suffered a trauma and who couldn't or wouldn't internally accept the even partial status of "victimhood" or an acknowledgement that he have may have been coerced or lacked autonomy for what happened to him in the past. He was a victim. He wasn't defined by it, but he couldn't accept that and so tried to overcompensate - lashing out against those who he probably had more in common with than people thought.

WoolyJumper · 12-04-2017 03:57PM

I don't know what anyone means by SJW. It's a meaningless term. It's not a political ideology. There is no group of people that refer to themselves as SJW's. It just seems to be a term thrown at anyone who is perceived as values that are "too liberal" That could mean a lot of things. Throwing that term at someone who makes an argument from a liberal point of view will shut down rational discourse. Respond with a rational argument rather than just labelling someone a meaningless term that adds nothing to the debate.

Another thing that gets me is "snowflake" A term giving to someone that is seen as too sensitive. That complains too much about their perceived lack of rights or discrimination in society. Yet the irony is the person using that term is the one complaining about nothing. It basically boils down to them complaining about the fact that they don't have as much to complain about as other groups in society.

mzungu · 12-04-2017 04:23PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Well, to be accurate M Duchamp's "Fountain" was pure modernism, the post part hadn't been added, nor invented yet*. It was from the Great War era after all. Not in the form we'd see it now anyway, though the term had been used even before then to describe "new art" of the time. To be fair one could consider Duchamp's work(s) one of the many seeds that the postmodernist guff of today sprang from, though they usually misinterpret it.

That's a fair point.

The urinal would be in the Dadaist tradition, which is indeed modernism, although IIRC Duchamp's work is usually seen as a transitioning point between modernism and postmodernism. So, I guess it really does depend on how one views it. For example, I like Thomas Mcevilley's take on it:

I think for some sensitive westerners the postmodern attitude dawned at the time of the first world war. One can see this for example in the work of Marcel Duchamp. In 1914 Duchamp changed his artistic practice from a modernist to a postmodernist one, abjuring aesthetic delectation, transcendent ambition, and tour de force demonstrations of formal agility in favor of aesthetic indifference, acknowledgement of the ordinary world, and the found object or readymade.

McEvilley, T. (1998). What is at stake in the culture wars. Beauty is nowhere: Ethical issues in art and design, 17-36.

Then again, since this is postmodernism, sure anybody can just call it whatever they want and still be right.

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as the social/politics/philosophical wings of PM go, that sprang from the 60's and 70's counterculture and really came into sharper focus by the 1980's and was fully in play in some arenas like US universities by the 90's. The interwebs really helped it along.

Yep. For a movement that prides itself on rejecting grand narratives and places importance on individual experience as truth....well, social media was just tailor made for that kind of thing.

Laeot · 12-04-2017 04:39PM

I have a Facebook 'friend' who spouts this crap all the time. He such a SJW and is sensitive to everything that he sees as a challenge to his 'beliefs'. People power and anti this and that and not being a slave to the system blah blah .

His latest thing is 'direct democracy' which effectively means no government. Here's the funny bit : He works while also claiming the dole, gets some of his mortgage paid and every other entitlement for him and his children from ...... the government.

Bhlarrrgghhh

silverharp · 12-04-2017 04:55PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Another thing that gets me is "snowflake" A term giving to someone that is seen as too sensitive. That complains too much about their perceived lack of rights or discrimination in society. Yet the irony is the person using that term is the one complaining about nothing. It basically boils down to them complaining about the fact that they don't have as much to complain about as other groups in society.

I would disagree with that, its more to do with someone who has no sense of proportion and goes out looking to be offended. take the infamous "trigger warnings" if you want them on the cover of Shakespeare books (as students in the US seem to want), sorry but Im going to call you a snowflake. Its not dealing with discrimination but rather trying to infantalise adults and that is pretty toxic

SterlingArcher · 12-04-2017 05:13PM

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.

And who is the minority mr cent. Where does that rabbit hole end? I can make an infinite minorty with an infinite number of appalling situations, genders,victims.

I think people be much better, bettering themselves to be better people. Get their own **** together before going on crusades. Maybe the world be better one person at a time.

I mean is that not the aim for the people doing it. Better to feel sorry for someone else than look at your own sorry ass situation.

after all what has Americas " help " to the Syrian people actually done. Nothing. Made everything worse. Suppose it did help America not look at themselves for a bit longer. Not see their own sorry ass situation .

Far as I see people there are just alot of dull people. Not open to being corrected. Afraid to think about stuff that might put them in a ****ty light.Not honest.As narrow minded as the people they claim to dislike.

12-04-2017 05:16PM

Decent article on Cracked.com today (though I disagree with parts of it) about how the marginalisation of any kind of dissent from "mainstream" liberalism = racist/fascist. Plenty of Trump supporters are racist turds. Plenty are decent, hard-working people seeing their communities and towns ravaged by unemployment. They've toed the line long enough as far as they're concerned. Listen to them? Nah, just call them racist. I made this point when he'd won and still we have parts of the Left dismissing it completely. People being called the wrong pronoun is more important to some people than many more people losing their homes.

It's not a small minority who are pissed off with being told they're racist because they're not in favour of unvetted immigration from places where there a civil war. Or who think that it's odd just how wrong they were about what Arabs looked like according to immigration forms. Or how there's a baffling and somehow persisting gap in the age pyramid from 18+ for young male migrants while there's a similar but opposite bulge in the 16-17 year olds. Are we allowed to discuss that? Are we ****. Even today I saw someone talk about mandatory integration classes for refugees. Not something I'm in favour of, but it was dismissed because "how do you enforce it" along with the air of "leave them alone!". As far as I'm concerned there should be mandatory language classes for arriving refugees. Because how the **** else will they integrateor prosper if we stick them in a hotel or cram them into one apartment development and just let them at it?

What I really found hilarious about the Pepsi thing in the last week was the reaction of the Left. The Right (correctly IMO) dismissed it as virtue signalling rubbish, the kind of thing companies always do (Coke? I'd like to teach the world to sing?). The Left meanwhile (who the Left tell me don't exist) went on about how ridiculous and demeaning it was. As if being nice to people won't solve all the world's problems. Guess what? That's what the middle (and the sensible Left and Right) has been saying all along.

Irish Guitarist · 12-04-2017 05:57PM

I hate the term 'social justice warrior' or 'special snowflake'. Having said there are people that come out with absolute nonsense and bring racism or sexism into everything.

For instance when colour photography was first developed (no pun intended) it obviously wasn't as advanced as it would later become. There were some problems producing darker shades. Here's a video whining about how that was pure unadulterated racism rather than a new technology that had some flaws. It's by a channel called Vox. I actually liked the first few videos of theirs I saw until I realised what their agenda was. Some of the first videos I watched on their channel were pretty interesting but then I noticed them shoehorning sexism and racism into everything they talked about.

silverharp · 12-04-2017 06:04PM

^^
and its bastard child cultural appropriation where white people imagine what might offend other cultures with absolutely no evidence , the one below is the editor of the magazine Mother Jones after the attack on Syria, wait til she hears about the US Apache Helicopter ;-)

ceadaoin. · 12-04-2017 06:11PM

silverharp wrote: »

who generally is trying to disrupt who's events and talks? its clear where the bias is. At this stage you could get Julie Bindel and Una Mullally to do a double act where they kill a man on stage at the end and the only comment would be "performance art, edgy!" (yes yes I exaggerate for effect)

Julie bindel has been repeatedly no platformed herself after being deemed transphobic for some comments she made over 10 years ago

Widdershins · 12-04-2017 06:16PM

silverharp wrote: »

^^
and its bastard child cultural appropriation where white people imagine what might offend other cultures with absolutely no evidence , the one below is the editor of the magazine Mother Jones after the attack on Syria, wait til she hears about the US Apache Helicopter ;-)

Did she just call them Native Americans?

silverharp · 12-04-2017 06:36PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Julie bindel has been repeatedly no platformed herself after being deemed transphobic for some comments she made over 10 years ago

true, she at least is willing to debate, I don't think she deserves the term snowflake :pac:

tritium · 12-04-2017 06:52PM

silverharp wrote: »

^^
and its bastard child cultural appropriation where white people imagine what might offend other cultures with absolutely no evidence , the one below is the editor of the magazine Mother Jones after the attack on Syria, wait til she hears about the US Apache Helicopter ;-)

Ah yeah these are the same clowns who complain dreadlocks on whites are cultural appropriation while blissfully unaware of the milennia old history of that particular hairstyle...

20Cent · 12-04-2017 07:17PM

Donald Trump encouraged his followers to attack dissenters at his rallies even offered to pay the legal bills for them. He banned media that he has deemed biased from press briefings. He constantly attacks media that criticises him. Dozens of journalists have been arrested and charged covering protests at his inaguration. He now says he wants to change libel laws to make it easier to sue.
He wants the passwords of people entering rhe US and to sell peoples browsing histories. He has silenced many departments from publishing their own data.

Yeah the problem with free speech and censorship is some twitter account calling someone racist.

Anongeneric · 12-04-2017 07:30PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Interestingly, I tend to make the exact opposite experiences - as soon as certain buzz words come up (vegetarianis, feminism, multi cultural, transgender, Islam, cycling infrastructure, sustainable energy ...), rational discussions become impossible as a red mist seems to descend over a number of people which is coupled with a desire to call everyone perceived to not feel exactly the same a "special snowflake", or SJW.

those 2 tend to set them off too

Ulysses Gaze · 12-04-2017 07:34PM

20Cent wrote: »

Donald Trump encouraged his followers to attack dissenters at his rallies even offered to pay the legal bills for them. He banned media that he has deemed biased from press briefings. He constantly attacks media that criticises him. Dozens of journalists have been arrested and charged covering protests at his inaguration. He now says he wants to change libel laws to make it easier to sue.
He wants the passwords of people entering rhe US and to sell peoples browsing histories. He has silenced many departments from publishing their own data.

Yeah the problem with free speech and censorship is some twitter account calling someone racist.

And Trump supporters were attacked before, during and after his election. But I guess for some that's all ok. "Bash the Fash" and all that. Even if ordinary Trump are not the "Fash" per se.

As for point number two, this is happening already. The US Government have access to all private information. As said by Snowden. And Facebook are selling private data of their users to advertisers as well.

Extremists on both sides are equally as bad as each other.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-04-2017 07:57PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I don't know what anyone means by SJW. It's a meaningless term. It's not a political ideology. There is no group of people that refer to themselves as SJW's. It just seems to be a term thrown at anyone who is perceived as values that are "too liberal" That could mean a lot of things. Throwing that term at someone who makes an argument from a liberal point of view will shut down rational discourse. Respond with a rational argument rather than just labelling someone a meaningless term that adds nothing to the debate.

Another thing that gets me is "snowflake" A term giving to someone that is seen as too sensitive. That complains too much about their perceived lack of rights or discrimination in society. Yet the irony is the person using that term is the one complaining about nothing. It basically boils down to them complaining about the fact that they don't have as much to complain about as other groups in society.

I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you last year regarding the term snowflake, however since then many people have started acting very snowflakey

infogiver · 12-04-2017 08:04PM

20Cent wrote: »

Donald Trump encouraged his followers to attack dissenters at his rallies even offered to pay the legal bills for them. He banned media that he has deemed biased from press briefings. He constantly attacks media that criticises him. Dozens of journalists have been arrested and charged covering protests at his inaguration. He now says he wants to change libel laws to make it easier to sue.
He wants the passwords of people entering rhe US and to sell peoples browsing histories. He has silenced many departments from publishing their own data.

Yeah the problem with free speech and censorship is some twitter account calling someone racist.

You think this justifies the personal physical attacks on Trump supporters and the destruction of property both public and private?
And no, if it was just "some twitter account" then no one would give a damn.
Your demonstrating here what a lot of posters here are complaining about. Total hypocrisy.
alt right supporters behave badly = bad
Liberal left behave badly = good
Your so blinded by your own predujuices that you can't even see.

20Cent · 12-04-2017 08:23PM

infogiver wrote: »

You think this justifies the personal physical attacks on Trump supporters and the destruction of property both public and private?
And no, if it was just "some twitter account" then no one would give a damn.
Your demonstrating here what a lot of posters here are complaining about. Total hypocrisy.
alt right supporters behave badly = bad
Liberal left behave badly = good
Your so blinded by your own predujuices that you can't even see.

No need for the transphobia and anti semitism dude.

WoolyJumper · 12-04-2017 08:29PM

silverharp wrote: »

I would disagree with that, its more to do with someone who has no sense of proportion and goes out looking to be offended. take the infamous "trigger warnings" if you want them on the cover of Shakespeare books (as students in the US seem to want), sorry but Im going to call you a snowflake. Its not dealing with discrimination but rather trying to infantalise adults and that is pretty toxic

But that's the thing about these terms, they are pretty meaningless. That might be how you use the term and I'd agree people can be oversensitive these days but at the same time many people (usually confined to the internet) use it to refer to those who complain about genuine problems they face in society. As an example I saw the term thrown around the comment section on a journal article this morning. It was simply an article saying the government plan to set up a strategy to deal with the problems many LGBT youth face. It's a fact that LGBT youth have a disproportionate amount of suicide, self harm and drug use....but gay marriage exists so they are just being sensitive little snowflakes according to some.

pickarooney · 12-04-2017 09:32PM

professore wrote: »

You're both wrong. Tennis players "earning" the same makes no sense. If I play a thrilling 3 set encounter in the local tennis club with my work colleague, should I "earn" as much as Tim Henman who can attract millions of viewers? Tennis players and their agents should demand to be paid based on how successful they are attracting viewers, not the number of hours they put in - but this is a typical leftist position - or equally what gender they are - which is a typical 3rd wave feminist position. That's why female fashion models get paid far more than male fashion models for the same work.

It's a ludicrous metric. A marathon runner should earn 750 times more than a sprinter by that logic. Even in tennis itself, beating someone in three sets would cost you money!

12-04-2017 09:41PM

... I've no idea why we're suddenly talking about tennis player's earnings..

Ulysses Gaze · 12-04-2017 09:47PM

20Cent wrote: »

No need for the transphobia and anti semitism dude.

?????????

20Cent · 12-04-2017 10:03PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

?????????

Makes as much sense as his reply to my post.

hatrickpatrick · 12-04-2017 10:03PM

In my view it's not remarked upon often enough that the alt-right and the Trump movement are consequences of the SJW movement, to a large extent. Their bullsh!t is causing people to radicalise in the opposite direction. They've unleashed forces they seem to have no understanding of, and it's pretty terrifying.

Simple example: Transgender people. Most moderates are perfectly ok with transgender people. I mean it must suck feeling like you've been born into the wrong body and being stuck with that, or having to get surgery to change it if you're well off enough to do so. It would in times gone by have only been the far right which would have had any issue in this regard, or any animosity towards these people.

Enter the SJW left. Enter concepts like "genderfluid", "non binary", "otherkin", "genderqueer", etc. Enter the idea that it's a good idea to give reassignment surgery to pre-teens, knowing full well that they may horribly regret it later in life because nobody is equipped to make decisions like that at their age. Enter the argument that peoples' self-chosen gender identity should override things like gender segregation in sports due to advantage differences, gender based privacy in changing rooms, etc. Enter the ridiculous and seemingly never-ending push to add more letters to the term "LGBT", so that literally anybody with the slightest individual difference to anybody else gets their own special label (honestly, I know people who are legitimately transgender who regard the latter as insufferably attention-seeking and credibility-robbing). Etc etc etc.

On top of all this, enter the argument that if you don't 100% subscribe to the most radical of ideas around gender identity, you are clearly a conservative trolling bigot who deserves to have his or her life ruined through online harassment, petitions to your place of work to have you fired, the spamming and doxxing of all social media accounts you hold, and even potentially the targeting of your place of residence in real life, and those of your family.

Got all that so far? Right, now consider the argument that the internet should be regulated and policed so that anybody who disagrees with these people is muzzles. Consider the argument that one shouldn't be welcome to speak in college unless you subscribe 100% to all of these ideologies. Consider the argument that media companies should actively censor those whose opinions deviate from the SJW sacred cows. Consider the argument that hate speech against certain groups is fine, but hate speech against others should be severely punished. Consider the fact that amazingly, this latter ideology is specifically constructed to give the SJWs a free pass to harass and insult anybody they like, but to entirely embubble them from receiving any such harassment in response.

Is it honestly any wonder that even people like myself (I consider myself left wing - even far left - and I personally find these morons on my own side of the political aisle more gratingly irritating than the Trumpeteer muppets) are utterly fed up with them and regard them as genuinely dangerous, a threat to the free society we've all grown up in, in which you cannot be persecuted for your beliefs?

Seriously, the Trumpeteers are completely honest about this - their utter disgust and impatience with radical PC culture is one of their reasons for their gleeful support of Trump. They're happy that somebody is deliberately "triggering" all of the SJW types because they've been so incredibly irritating about their perceived invincibility to opposition.

infogiver · 12-04-2017 10:30PM

20Cent wrote: »

No need for the transphobia and anti semitism dude.

Ok. Your out of your league. Again.

silverharp · 12-04-2017 10:48PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

But that's the thing about these terms, they are pretty meaningless. That might be how you use the term and I'd agree people can be oversensitive these days but at the same time many people (usually confined to the internet) use it to refer to those who complain about genuine problems they face in society. As an example I saw the term thrown around the comment section on a journal article this morning. It was simply an article saying the government plan to set up a strategy to deal with the problems many LGBT youth face. It's a fact that LGBT youth have a disproportionate amount of suicide, self harm and drug use....but gay marriage exists so they are just being sensitive little snowflakes according to some.

there is always going to be word inflation or take the term "generation snowflake" which can mean whatever you want it to mean, feel free to pick it apart or use it as a jumping off point to break it down. But if there are people out there that have a neurotic sense of what offense is or go down a rabbit hole of stupid "causes" there will be push back because nobody wants their neurosis to become the social standard.

12-04-2017 11:05PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Ha I'm turning 41so it's probably part of it!

Pfft! You're only a young lad/lassie!:D

silverharp wrote: »

but its ok to call this individual a snowflake and make "triggered" jokes? call it a positive form of social shaming if you will :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyEXV5fZTrY

I've no idea what that was about. It certainly seems hysterical, but without context, it's actually impossible to make any judgement, one way or the other.

end of the road wrote: »

i feel the same way about those who throw out terms like "sjw/pc/snowflake"
i disagree with your view that the people you complain about will turn people to the far right. i believe that those who would turn to the far right would eventually do so anyway, as ultimately they agree with their policies, or because they are brainwashed. i don't believe most people suddenly change their viewpoint from a centrist or slightly left or right viewpoint to a far right viewpoint.

My viewpoints tend to be pretty centrist, but I'll admit to frequently feeling distinctly irritated by those who seek to frustrate debate on issues.

In my experience, the more extreme left tend to obfuscate, or throw around the "isms" accusations more readily than the extreme right.

Or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that the extreme right are more readily identifiable, and therefore more easily dismissed.

There are a few on the left here, though, that are expert at whataboutery, accusations of racism, demanding people defend positions they never espoused to begin with, etc.

I don't believe such people can ever sway someone from a centrist position - but I do believe they can frustrate people to the extent that they will vote for someone more right wing than would usually be their choice, to swing the balance back into a more centrist position.

Whether that is the eventual outcome, or not, is, of course, debatable - but if people are sufficiently frustrated by having one viewpoint forced on them, then they will naturally reject that viewpoint.

In that sense, it is valid to say they are "forced" towards the right, in the absence of a more centrist position to choose from.

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh I think the poster would be referring to professional tennis where people get paid, rather than comparing you to a professional.

In Wimbledon 2015 the winner of both the ladies and mens singles got
Â£1,880,000 each and the runners up Â£940,000 each

Now in the men's final were Novak Djokovic (winner) and Roger Federer.

In the women's final were Serena Williams (winner) and GarbiÃ±e Muguruza.

Novak Djokovic played 24 sets in total working out per set at 78,333
Serena Williams played 16 sets in total working out per set at 117,500
Woman better paid by 50%.

Roger Federer played 23 sets in total working out per set at 40,869
GarbiÃ±e Muguruza played 17 sets in total working out per set at 55,294
Woman better paid by 35%.

Now sets are not as precise as actual hours, but it is an indication of sorts of how more the man has to work to earn the actual same prize money as the woman.

It is not equality at all.

That would be true if both sexes didn't engage in equal amounts of training, (which I assume they do), thus making the actual number of sets played almost negligible in the grand scheme of things.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view it's not remarked upon often enough that the alt-right and the Trump movement are consequences of the SJW movement, to a large extent. Their bullsh!t is causing people to radicalise in the opposite direction. They've unleashed forces they seem to have no understanding of, and it's pretty terrifying.

Simple example: Transgender people. Most moderates are perfectly ok with transgender people. I mean it must suck feeling like you've been born into the wrong body and being stuck with that, or having to get surgery to change it if you're well off enough to do so. It would in times gone by have only been the far right which would have had any issue in this regard, or any animosity towards these people.

Enter the SJW left. Enter concepts like "genderfluid", "non binary", "otherkin", "genderqueer", etc. Enter the idea that it's a good idea to give reassignment surgery to pre-teens, knowing full well that they may horribly regret it later in life because nobody is equipped to make decisions like that at their age. Enter the argument that peoples' self-chosen gender identity should override things like gender segregation in sports due to advantage differences, gender based privacy in changing rooms, etc. Enter the ridiculous and seemingly never-ending push to add more letters to the term "LGBT", so that literally anybody with the slightest individual difference to anybody else gets their own special label (honestly, I know people who are legitimately transgender who regard the latter as insufferably attention-seeking and credibility-robbing). Etc etc etc.

On top of all this, enter the argument that if you don't 100% subscribe to the most radical of ideas around gender identity, you are clearly a conservative trolling bigot who deserves to have his or her life ruined through online harassment, petitions to your place of work to have you fired, the spamming and doxxing of all social media accounts you hold, and even potentially the targeting of your place of residence in real life, and those of your family.

Got all that so far? Right, now consider the argument that the internet should be regulated and policed so that anybody who disagrees with these people is muzzles. Consider the argument that one shouldn't be welcome to speak in college unless you subscribe 100% to all of these ideologies. Consider the argument that media companies should actively censor those whose opinions deviate from the SJW sacred cows. Consider the argument that hate speech against certain groups is fine, but hate speech against others should be severely punished. Consider the fact that amazingly, this latter ideology is specifically constructed to give the SJWs a free pass to harass and insult anybody they like, but to entirely embubble them from receiving any such harassment in response.

Is it honestly any wonder that even people like myself (I consider myself left wing - even far left - and I personally find these morons on my own side of the political aisle more gratingly irritating than the Trumpeteer muppets) are utterly fed up with them and regard them as genuinely dangerous, a threat to the free society we've all grown up in, in which you cannot be persecuted for your beliefs?

Seriously, the Trumpeteers are completely honest about this - their utter disgust and impatience with radical PC culture is one of their reasons for their gleeful support of Trump. They're happy that somebody is deliberately "triggering" all of the SJW types because they've been so incredibly irritating about their perceived invincibility to opposition.

Well said. Anyone adhering to a blind ideology seems entirely unaware of just how irritating that blind adherence can be to those who only partially adhere to it. Or how it can harden the attitudes of those who don't adhere to that ideology at all.

It would be fair to say, imo, that such people do more harm to their "cause" than the most vehement of their critics.

Social Justice Warriors - poisoning Rational Discourse?

Comments