Problematic Stuff

[Forty Two]

They actually do need to be fought - in response to the threat they pose, which is miniscule. But they do need to be countered, as do all irrational sociopolitical ideas. But to claim some secret marxists conspiracy and that SJWs are a bigger threat to society than the alt-right, or even just garden variety conservatives, is utterly ridiculous.

People who hand out colouring books and create safe spaces definitely need to be fought harder than a group whose predecessors and idols committed mass genocide.

Handing out coloring books, no. That's just emblematic of the absurdity of the Leftist Progressive SJW movement. Part of that movement involves treating adults as children, and handing out coloring books and play doh to help people "cope" with Christina Hoff Somers being part of a presentation that is occuring somewhere on the same campus of the same 30,000+ student university they're attending.....well, that's pretty fucking ridiculous. IMO.

But, creating safe spaces, like Professor Melissa Click at the University of Missouri, trying to block citizens from free access to a public area on the grounds that it had been commandeered by one faction as their space, when it quite clearly is not a space owned by them, yes. When that same Professor badgers and even technically "assaults" a student journalist covering the event demanding, as a member of the school faculty that he leave, and improperly touching him when attempting to grab his camera away, and then arranging for "muscle" to surround the person and push him out of the area - that needs to be fought hard.

This isn't a contest, anyway, and there are certainly right wing groups that deserve to be fought very hard indeed, like right wing violent supremacist groups. They're the other side of the "identity politics" coin and there are some significantly dangerous characters out there.

As for predecessors and idols, the Left has a few predecessors and idols that aren't much to right home about...

[Forty Two]

They actually do need to be fought - in proportion to the threat they pose, which is miniscule. But they do need to be countered, as do all irrational sociopolitical ideas. But to claim some secret marxists conspiracy and that SJWs are a bigger threat to society than the alt-right, or even just garden variety conservatives, is utterly ridiculous.

Extreme cultural marxists are a pain in the bum, no doubt, but most progressives are more concerned with attacking real social problems, not indulging in academic wank-fests...

This is true of all parts of the political spetrum. Most conservatives are more concerned with attacking real problems, not indulging in academic wank fest. Most moderates too. Most liberals too. Etc. In any of these discussions, we are, in fact, discussing a small subset on the edges and forefronts of political ideologies.

To say that "garden variety conservatives" are a bigger threat to society than the "SJW" movement, seems to me to be based on a pretty negative assessment of what it means to be a "garden variety" conservative. I think that before we could make a comparison, we'd need to define what "garden variety" means relative to conservatives and SJWs.

[Forty Two]

Note his use of the phrase regarding "interlocking power structures" and oppression. That's the core of postmodernism,

You want to back that up?

The primary tenets of the postmodern movement include: (1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, (7) and a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge. The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples.

A central idea in postmodernism is that there is no such thing as truth, only competing truths hiding oppressive power structures. Post modernism is counter to modernism, and as such is in direct opposition to science, rationality, empiricism, dialogue, etc.

The reference to interlocking power structures is a reference to competing "truths" which all play out in an oppression/oppressor structure. There is no "truth" there are only narratives, and interpretations that reveal bias and oppression. That's foundational to SJW ideas, and it's where things like the Progressive Stack come from, and where the idea that people of color should be called on first in the classroom, then women, and other minority groups, and then maybe white men. It's the underpinning of the notion that "you're a fucking white male!" can be said and actually thought to mean something -- it's because white males are in the oppressor group.

And, to say that their philosophy is not foundationally postmodern is to not listen to what they're saying.

Can you explain how it is post-modern? I recall you saying that post-modernism rejects absolute truth, but you haven't shown how that applies to SJWs.

Because they reject truth, except as it relates to oppressor and victim classes. "My truth" -- "my lived experience" -- "listen and believe." These are concepts born of post modernism, and they say the person is to be believed or their truth/experience preferred because of their identification with an oppressed group. To respond that due process and evidence is necessary doesn't make sense to them, precisely because the notion of "evidence" is, to the SJW Progressive philosophy, itself a racist and sexist concept - reason and logic themselves are dpart of the oppressive patriarchy. We're left only with narrative and competing "truths" vying for supremacy.

There's definitely an extreme fringe element on the left that takes progressivism to an absurd length. I like things in neat boxes, so I'm happy to call them that. The only problem would be that nutbags like Peterson and 42 would include far more regular and reasonable progressives under the label than would someone more reasonable.

I don't think you can point to me including "regular and reasonable progressives" under the label SJW. If you can, please do. If not, please retract your statement.

I'm tempted not to point it out, just so I can tell you to bite me. But you've previously tried to argue that women don't face systemic disadvantage in our societies. And above you've ridiculed the idea that minorities can't be racist. These ideas, and the desire to address them, are pretty bog standard progressive ideas. Do you consider them to fall under the umbrella of SJW activism?

Your allegation was that I include regular and reasonable progressives under the label SJW. So, you can give me an example of that, which is what I asked for and, of course, as usual, you went on to ignore.

Now, the idea that minorities can't be racist is silly because racism is a function of the individual. Indviduals have intent and motivation, and if one believes that one race is superior to another, then one is racist. If one discriminates against people on the basis of their race, then one is a racist. The fact that a person is black does not mean that it's impossible for him or her to believe a race is superior or that it's impossible for him or her to discriminate based on race.

There is the SJW definition of racism, of course, that says that racism involves a society in which there is a dominant race and only the dominant race can be racist. Under that definition, minorities being racist is defined out of the term. However, that's not "bog standard" Progressivism, at least as far as I can tell. My concern is that such a ludicrous idea would BECOME standard Progressivism, because it is patently absurd and irration. I believe most self-identifying progressives, like those on this board, would tell you that if a black man says blacks are superior to whites as a race, then that black man is racist.

And, this is an interesting concept that does come from the postmodern notion that there is truth and that words have meanings. Under this notion that minorities can't be racist would mean that in a country like Nigeria, only the majority race there, black Africans, can be racist, and that whites are not racist there. So, if you take Louis Farrakhan here, and suggest that he cannot be racist and antisemitic here because he's a minority, but then move him to an African country, and make him a naturalized citizen, that somehow he becomes racist because he's joined a dominant group.

But, then again, logic and reason are racist tools of white males anyway, so even discussing it is pointless..

[L'Emmerdeur]

L'Emmerdeur - the article in several places says - and I quoted it - that Rodger was influenced by the alt-right. It says it. I can't do anything more than quoting it. When the article says the list is a list of those influenced by the alt-right, and Rodger is on the list, then he is someone they are saying was influenced by the alt right. When they say he was "the first alt-right killer" they are saying he's an "alt right killer." Whatever else you're arguing does not change that.

What you quoted was the sub-head. Note that what you call 'the first paragraph' is in much larger type and a different typeface than the actual body of the article. I've already explained that it's not rare for titles and sub-heads of articles to present extremely simplified and therefore inaccurate attention-grabbing statements. Despite your 'several places' claim, nowhere in the article itself does the SPLC actually say that Rodger was influenced by the alt-right. Rather the contrary, it points out that he's been adopted by many in the alt-right as one of their own.

You aren't engaging with the central point of the article, apparently because you cannot actually dispute the fact that the alt-right does indeed influence vulnerable young men to engage in murderous violence. Instead you've chosen one aspect of the article and attacked it by noting the contradiction between the sub-head and the fact that Rodger was not influenced by the alt-right as it exists today. Your ill-conceived attack on the article doesn't invalidate what it says.

I don't dispute the accuracy of Whitehead's article about Woody Guthrie, because I'm well aware of the way that print and online journalism works. I'd look just as ridiculous as you do if I were to dismiss the article merely because while the title claims that Guthrie was a 'big ol' racist,' in the body of the article it's explained that he actually evolved beyond racism early in his career and became known as somebody who strongly opposed racism.

[Forty Two]

It's not an "article" by the way - it's the SPLC's statement.

First paragraph: "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) counted over 100 people killed or injured by alleged perpetrators influenced by the so-called "alt-right" — a movement that continues to access the mainstream and reach young recruits." - Among those perpetrators listed is Rodger.

"Including Rodger’s murderous rampage there have been at least 13 alt-right related fatal episodes,..." That flat out says that Rodger's rampage was an "alt-right related fatal episode," when in fact it was a psychotic nutjob out killing people for reasons having nothing to do with the Alt-Right.

"The average age of the alt-right killers is 26." And, Rodger is included among that statistic. He is one of the killers whose age was used to reach that average.

They say, "...all share a history of consuming and/or participating in the type of far-right ecosystem that defines the alt-right." Rodger did not participate in Alt Right political activities - however, saying he participated in the far right econsystem that defines the alt right is an implication that he was influenced by it.

"The timeline for alt-right killers began on May 23, 2014. On that day, college sophomore Elliot Rodger stabbed his three roommates to death ...." So, there, the SPLC is again calling him an "alt right killer." To call someone an "alt right killer" is to say that he was motivated by the alt right. Like, calling someone a white supremacist killer or a communist killer -- if they're not influenced by white supremacy or communism, they wouldn't be white supremacist killer or communist killer.

But o.k., if you think a post on the SPLC website, written by the SPLC, listing the major alt right killers, which list includes Rodger, and calling him "the first alt right killer" and saying that he was influenced by the alt-right, as were the rest on the list, is not enough to conclude that the SPLC has said he was influenced by the alt right, then that's your view of it. I think you're reaching a bit on this one -- more than a bit - and you double down by calling me "ridiculous" when i am basing my statements on exactly the words used by the SPLC. You think they really mean something else aside from what they say, but I'm the one being ridiculous.

Hooookay, man. Carry on.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's convenient for you to continue to harp on about your opinion regarding what you've apparently decided is a fatal inconsistency in the SPLC article, while ignoring the actual substance of the article. I actually agree that there is inconsistency in regard to the subhead and the body of the article, and I've explained its basis more than once, but you choose to ignore that.

[Forty Two]

It's convenient for you to continue to harp on about your opinion regarding what you've apparently decided is a fatal inconsistency in the SPLC article, while ignoring the actual substance of the article. I actually agree that there is inconsistency in regard to the subhead and the body of the article, and I've explained its basis more than once, but you choose to ignore that.

I've identified no inconsistency. The SPLC is not an objective outlet. They aren't particularly trustworthy, and what they do is basically peddle a narrative.

I did not ignore the "actual substance." I just went through and quoted it several times throughout. It's not the "subhead" and that first bolded paragraph IS NOT INCONSISTENT with the body, which as I quoted specifically says he was an alt right killer and that his killings were "alt right related" and the like. I'm not ignoring anything - you are. You choose to throw away the title, and the first paragraph (which is the bolded paragraph I refer to, and which you want to call a "subheading" which doesn't change the fact that it's still the SPLC's words - it's not a news article where an editor changed the meaning of the writer's words), and then you ignore the material quotes in the body of the article.

[pErvinalia]

Note his use of the phrase regarding "interlocking power structures" and oppression. That's the core of postmodernism,

You want to back that up?

The primary tenets of the postmodern movement include: (1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, (7) and a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge. The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples.

A central idea in postmodernism is that there is no such thing as truth, only competing truths hiding oppressive power structures. Post modernism is counter to modernism, and as such is in direct opposition to science, rationality, empiricism, dialogue, etc.

The reference to interlocking power structures is a reference to competing "truths" which all play out in an oppression/oppressor structure. There is no "truth" there are only narratives, and interpretations that reveal bias and oppression. That's foundational to SJW ideas, and it's where things like the Progressive Stack come from, and where the idea that people of color should be called on first in the classroom, then women, and other minority groups, and then maybe white men. It's the underpinning of the notion that "you're a fucking white male!" can be said and actually thought to mean something -- it's because white males are in the oppressor group.

I meant - can you back it up with an authoritative quote, not your own tailored definition.

And, to say that their philosophy is not foundationally postmodern is to not listen to what they're saying.

Can you explain how it is post-modern? I recall you saying that post-modernism rejects absolute truth, but you haven't shown how that applies to SJWs.

Because they reject truth, except as it relates to oppressor and victim classes. "My truth" -- "my lived experience" -- "listen and believe." These are concepts born of post modernism, and they say the person is to be believed or their truth/experience preferred because of their identification with an oppressed group. To respond that due process and evidence is necessary doesn't make sense to them, precisely because the notion of "evidence" is, to the SJW Progressive philosophy, itself a racist and sexist concept - reason and logic themselves are dpart of the oppressive patriarchy. We're left only with narrative and competing "truths" vying for supremacy.

That doesn't tell me anything about SJW philosophy and it's relation to objective truth. Requesting that someone not discount an SJWs view of an event is not necessarily related to objective truth.

In fact, a lot of these things relate to psychological harm of some variety, which is of course always going to be subjective. So to complain that that sort of thing is "postmodern" is silly.

There's definitely an extreme fringe element on the left that takes progressivism to an absurd length. I like things in neat boxes, so I'm happy to call them that. The only problem would be that nutbags like Peterson and 42 would include far more regular and reasonable progressives under the label than would someone more reasonable.

I don't think you can point to me including "regular and reasonable progressives" under the label SJW. If you can, please do. If not, please retract your statement.

I'm tempted not to point it out, just so I can tell you to bite me. But you've previously tried to argue that women don't face systemic disadvantage in our societies. And above you've ridiculed the idea that minorities can't be racist. These ideas, and the desire to address them, are pretty bog standard progressive ideas. Do you consider them to fall under the umbrella of SJW activism?

Your allegation was that I include regular and reasonable progressives under the label SJW. So, you can give me an example of that, which is what I asked for and, of course, as usual, you went on to ignore.

I don't understand how you do this. I don't even understand how you manage to even tie your shoelaces. There's two examples in that paragraph you just quoted, one which you definitively included under SJWism, and the other I am assuming (and asking for verification) that you do.

There is the SJW definition of racism, of course, that says that racism involves a society in which there is a dominant race and only the dominant race can be racist. Under that definition, minorities being racist is defined out of the term. However, that's not "bog standard" Progressivism, at least as far as I can tell. My concern is that such a ludicrous idea would BECOME standard Progressivism, because it is patently absurd and irration. I believe most self-identifying progressives, like those on this board, would tell you that if a black man says blacks are superior to whites as a race, then that black man is racist.

It's a shame you can't fucking read and retain anything in memory for more than about a day. The idea isn't at all controversial on these boards. The reason why is that the progressives here can understand the context of racism, and can see that while definitionally a minority can be racist, functionally they likely can't - as their actions (unless an act of violence) can't pose a threat to someone from the dominant culture with the backing of a state that systemically favours the dominant culture.

And, this is an interesting concept that does come from the postmodern notion that there is truth and that words have meanings. Under this notion that minorities can't be racist would mean that in a country like Nigeria, only the majority race there, black Africans, can be racist, and that whites are not racist there. So, if you take Louis Farrakhan here, and suggest that he cannot be racist and antisemitic here because he's a minority, but then move him to an African country, and make him a naturalized citizen, that somehow he becomes racist because he's joined a dominant group.

What effect would his words have on a white person in each country?

[Forty Two]

I meant - can you back it up with an authoritative quote, not your own tailored definition.

This is basic shit, pErv. https://quizlet.com/6266751/8-tenets-of ... ash-cards/

Here are 8 pillars of postmodernism:

Social Constructivism: Meaning, morality, and truth do not exist objectively. They are constructed by society. [Example from SJWs: "It's a social construct!!!" to everything, even things that are not social constructs, like biological sex]

Cultural Determinism: Individuals are shaped by cultural forces. Language in particular determines what we can think, trapping us in a "prison house of language" [SJW example: The attempts to control language through political correctness]

The Rejection of Individual Identity: People exist primarily as members of groups. Identity is primarily collective. [SJW Example: This is at the heart of SJW-ness, and is infecting the minds and zeitgeist of the young these days -- everything is groups, and categories of people -- individuals are no longer important]

Rejection of Humanism: Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their placer with other planetary species. [SJW Example: Demands that we not criticize other cultures, even when they throw people off buildings and oppress others.... it's not their culture that's the problem, it's white racism]

The Denial of the Transcendent: There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them since we are bound to our culture and imprisoned in our language.

Power Reductionism: All institutions, human relationships, moral values, and human creations are expressions and masks of the primal will to power. [SJW Example: It's all about power play among groups -- marginalized vs oppressor]

The Rejection of Reason: Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power. [SJW example: science, reason, logic, are all white male social constructs of oppression]

Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order
Modern society with its rationalism, order, and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced by a new world order. The old order must be put away to be replaced by a new, as yet unclearly defined, mode of communal existence. [SJW Examples: destroy western civilization (like what's happening in universities) -- all traditional "norms" must go, etc.]

[

[Forty Two]

What effect would his words have on a white person in each country?

Depends on the person, doesn't it? Some black people and some white people aren't much effected by words. Others have conniptions over a rude comment.

But, again, doesn't matter - racism is an individual thing. It's not a question of what upsets other people, or what upsets anyone, actually. To be racist is a function of the mind of the racist person, not how other people react or the harm it causes. Someone might be a raging racist, but keep it to herself completely. She's still a racist if she judges based on race or discriminates based on race, or thinks people are inferior or superior because of race.

This is another thing that SJWs do -- they view people in group terms, not as individuals (and that comes from post modernism, which discounts the individual). A person might not be effected at all by some words, but if the stereotype is that people in that person's racial group are effected then use of that word by a non-group member is now racism (as long as it's the oppressor group that is doing the effecting -- if it's the marginalized group, then it doesn't matter, even if the individual from the majority group is being effected).

[Forty Two]

It's a shame you can't fucking read and retain anything in memory for more than about a day. The idea isn't at all controversial on these boards. The reason why is that the progressives here can understand the context of racism, and can see that while definitionally a minority can be racist, functionally they likely can't - as their actions (unless an act of violence) can't pose a threat to someone from the dominant culture with the backing of a state that systemically favours the dominant culture.

Here, your unreasonable anger evinces your SJW nature. You go straight to the insult, because to you disagreement is insult or offense. It upsets you.

And, the next bit after you mention what you say is not "controversial" (which is completely irrelevant, because we're not talking about what's controversial), the next bit is one of those things that is a direct result of postmodernism. You are referring to people as groups, and taking the generalization and applying it to the specific, and of course, your underlying assumption is that racial groups are interlocking oppressor/oppressed systems, and you assign one to oppressor and the other to oppressed.

Logic and reason are out the door for you, because the question was CAN a minority be racist, and at first the answer was no, but now you say they technically can be racist. So, we agree, but you continue to disagree saying that they can be racist but, well, you don't think their racism is as bad, because they're in the oppressed group, so it's not really racism anymore.

Whether someone "poses a threat" is not relevant to whether they are racist. Racism is a thought process. It's an attitude. It's a viewpoint or an opinion. People who pose a threat CAN be racist, of course, and many racists pose threats. But, posing a threat is not part of the definition of being a racist.

If the meekest, mildest, quadraplegic, semi-retarded 1/4 black, 1/4 Amerindian, 1/4 Aboriginal Australian and 1/4 south pacific islander believes that white people are superior or inferior because they are white or the like, then he's a racist. It doesn't matter how little a threat he poses. And a white person who is 6 foot 5, 200 pounds of ripped iron, with a 150 IQ, born with $1 billion in the bank, and two parents who stayed together, and who has been handed everything in life, but who has no animus or judgment based on race, is not racist just because he's white.

That's not what SJWs say, thought. The "rationale" of the SJW is that the "effect" is the determining factor. All whites are racist because they are in the white group. They are the beneficiaries of the "privilege" of the group, no matter what - their individual situation or lack of privilege or hardship doesn't matter. It's the group that matters. All white people are racist, all CIS people are transphobic, all men are misogynistic.

Now, you should be able to connect the dots of those thought processes back to the core tenets of postmodernism. I know you don't want to. I know you want sit there and play insult games, and do your little dance. But, this is not "controversial" my friend. LOL

[laklak]

Anybody who calls themselves a "warrior" is a douchebag. Prayer Warriors, for instance. That's a thing, you know. "Calling all Prayer Warriors!" Social Justice Warriors is another.

Except Klingons. They can call themselves whatever the fuck they want. Who's gonna call them on it?

[Animavore]

Anybody who calls themselves a "warrior" is a douchebag. Prayer Warriors, for instance. That's a thing, you know. "Calling all Prayer Warriors!" Social Justice Warriors is another.

Except Klingons. They can call themselves whatever the fuck they want. Who's gonna call them on it?

Except "social justice warriors" (if you can pin down what that is) don't call themselves that. Their detractors do.

[laklak]

I've seen people call themselves that. Could be ironic, though. Most of the ones around here fancy themselves ironic. But I do live smack in the middle of two universities, one of which is a liberal arts school. That might skew the stats. On the plus side there are a lot of good pubs with craft beers.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's convenient for you to continue to harp on about your opinion regarding what you've apparently decided is a fatal inconsistency in the SPLC article, while ignoring the actual substance of the article. I actually agree that there is inconsistency in regard to the subhead and the body of the article, and I've explained its basis more than once, but you choose to ignore that.

I've identified no inconsistency. The SPLC is not an objective outlet. They aren't particularly trustworthy, and what they do is basically peddle a narrative.

The subhead is inconsistent with the body of the article in regard to the point of contention here whether you're willing to admit it or not. The subhead makes a broad statement about 'alleged perpetrators influenced by the so-called "alt-right,"' while in the body of the article it is made clear that Rodger's inclusion in the list is based on other factors which have been previously listed in this thread.

I did not ignore the "actual substance." I just went through and quoted it several times throughout.

Your entire argument is based on the overbroad statement in the subhead. If there were any claim made in the body of the article that Rodger was influenced by the alt-right you'd have quoted it by now. There's a very simple reason that you haven't; the article itself doesn't make that claim.

It's not the "subhead" and that first bolded paragraph IS NOT INCONSISTENT with the body, which as I quoted specifically says he was an alt right killer and that his killings were "alt right related" and the like. I'm not ignoring anything - you are. You choose to throw away the title, and the first paragraph (which is the bolded paragraph I refer to, and which you want to call a "subheading" which doesn't change the fact that it's still the SPLC's words - it's not a news article where an editor changed the meaning of the writer's words), and then you ignore the material quotes in the body of the article.

It's not just bolded, it's in a completely different font which is also significantly larger than that used in the body of the article. It clearly isn't part of the body of the article and may have been written by an editor, as titles and subheads often are.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I agreed previously that the article refers to Rodger as an alt-right killer. What it doesn't do is make a claim specific to Rodger that he was influenced by the alt-right. You're taking the broad statement in the subhead and trying to discredit the article based on the fact that Rodger wasn't influenced by the alt-right. It's explained why Rodger is included in the list; nowhere in that explanation is there a claim that he was influenced by the alt-right.

I'm going to take it as read that you agree that the alt-right has influenced vulnerable young men to engage in murderous violence. I've pointed out more than once that that is the central point of the article and rather than dispute it, you've continued to focus on your overblown and irrelevant quibble about Rodger's inclusion in its list. We could throw out the first three entries and it would still count 60 people injured and killed by members of the alt-right since January of 2017. The title of the article, 'The Alt-Right is Killing People,' is unquestionably true.