Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next >
InvisibleHobozen
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc: Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23725771 - 10/10/16 04:55 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

akira_akuma said:
notice: a handful of people  'd Qman's post. why? the answer is simple: there is a handful of people, whom have dissenting coalition views with another coalition of a handful of people, on this site, whom they don't like; awfully convenient that Qman makes a post in this thread, very simple stuff, and then there's a handful of the same people, as usual...seems like a simple case of pointing the finger -- the users that "are SJWs" are probably within that coalition of people Qman (and others) don't like, personally, and whom are considered "lefties", so are thus associated with SJWs as a means of dissuasion, clearly.

now, they are also probably not very small-time users here, nah, probably some more well-known ones. so let's have them pointed out.

why not? i mean really, why not? this is a dangerous thing, SJWs, *gasp*, must be handled in due course.

or could it be that when Qman points these figures out they are none other than common users whom people don't necessarily see as SJWs?

oh i wish i could know for sure whom he was talking about, instead of it being all on the sly...seems like pandering to me to just say "there are some here on this site" and then you get like 5-6  'ing your post. seems conspicuous...i mean, if there are SJWs SURELY they should be excoriated, expunged, done away with, or at the very least, warned about.


so why won't Qman do it?




post wasn't for you, then, obviously.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
people who rail against anything daily are also being SJWs, just with different "stances" than your usual SJW.

take Qman for example:

"they blacks need to CLEAN UP THEIR ACT!"

constant railing about social justice on the internet...isn't that an SJW? according to knowyourmeme, an SJW is just another word for keyboard warrior, oddly enough. so anytime someone is railing about something (hint hint, c'mon HINT) you can call them an SJW. only it might not mean the type of "SJW" that you see on collage campuses, and more just like anyone who rails against or for a particular stance, consistently, on the internet.

TL;DR?

too bad.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i am merely giving people the opportunity to (see things how i do).

i am also absolutely certain nonsense of "SJWs" is a sad and indeed fruitless one...one that merely consists of dissidents whom want to berate and stultify discussion...any "SJW" that does that is being just another idiot to me.

fair enough. what is the SJW mentality? does it apply across the board to all people, or just a subset? which subset?

anything? or are you not discussion this particular issue? just curious.
Quote:

Repertoire89 said:
Very ironic post, you come in here insulting everyone, accusing everyone else of doing the same while complaining that no one is specifically insulting anyone.

Why are you taking this thread so personally?




insulting everyone? that's ironic. i never insulted anyone.

people can have differing opinions of people, even dislike them, without insulting them.

accusing everyone? nah. i am only pointing out that Qman poops in a completely irreverent post insinuating that the "evil SJWs" are even here, *gasp*, and i not only don't buy it, but i can see what he is doing...instigating people whom he can dissuade other's into looking at as an "SJW".

first off, i'm here to talk. just talk. i said "some people might have a mental disease"

i was gonna say too, maybe certain people with borderline or histrionic disorders are prone...but i digress....

i asked Qman to confirm what he was saying...knowing full well he won't. clearly he wants to insinuate people, i'm just asking him to go 100%. :shrug: i see nothing wrong with that, when he's the one saying there are "SJWs here". it's a legitimate question, which he won't answer...and nor would anyone else whom claims to be against "SJWs".

frankly, aside from the Social Justice Coarse activists, SJWs are really just people "whom take certain stances" or "have a certain mentality"

which, i agree, could be seen across the board, in the mentality of those whom fight against one another to make a point about a political ideal. :shrug: now we just have more crass words to level at each other, for doing that.

does that clarify anything for you? PS: i took nothing personally. i am asking Qman to not bullshit anyone and just come full-out with his theory of the SJWs on this board. i'd wager it's an attempt to stifle certain users with certain views, and to staple them as outliers in the sense that they should be looked at like the worst of the worst, and as not only fools, but also as those not to be trusted. it's underhanded. not only that, but it's based on biased bullshit, not ACTUALLY SJWs like the one described in Shroomism's first post in this thread.

no one LIKE THAT is actually here, that anyone knows about...because no one has identified themselves as such. there are only political ideologies here...and that's why Qman is bringing up "SJWs that are 'here'" at all. :shrug:

Quote:

akira_akuma said:
:shrug: or you can't provide any examples of "SJWs" on this message board. definitely not any overt SJWs...see, it's only about people's "opinions" not lining up with another's, hence they are called SJW. i'd definitely like to make that distinction, and point out the most certain use of the word to attempt to ostracise certain members. originally, all i said was "point one out" and he couldn't, all he said was they are in schools and shit, which i can assure you, 90% of this forum as established that already.

this is why it's an issue with me. no one wants to address the elephant in the room. on the shroomery there are not really SJWs, just people other people don't like -- and like the rest of the internet, the term SJW, here on this site, is being used to stultify and hamper certain people's partaking in discussion here.

it's already well known. but this is a good thread to point out how this works.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i'm sure that the people who are in this thread can feel good about contributing to nothing themselves.

SJWs!

they exist!

they aren't seen much though!

one exists at my job!

that's it! they are real!

see! and they are even here on this site!


oh no!


what is this a fucking spook story?



i ask: where are they?

people say: "there are those with the mentality" and "those whom take stances" of an SJW. i ask for clarification. i get none.


this is why i find it all to be a ball of bullshit that you're all eating up. sorry for trying to make you aware of your own tomfoolery.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
it's not slander nor misquoting. it's called paraphrasing. do you seriously have no skill at polemic?

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/19842594#19842594

here is you talking about "black culture" needing "to change". which is the same thing as what i said. people are also aware of your comments. this isn't political. literally, people know what your rhetoric contains.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
is Asante an SJW, guys?





guys? simple question this time, is Asante an SJW?

but yeah, if OP or anyone would show me someone who fits the description of the OP that posts here, it'd be really insightful. nothing needs be disparaging, only insightful...what you think SJWs are just gonna stop one day out of the blue? naw, they needs be confronted, they needs be told "hey, we don't appreciate that".

so point one out. don't just point me out, either, that's cheating, surely Qman couldn't have been taking just about me. so please. this thread can then have a point other than mulling over the same useless diatribe about SJWs and how krrrazy they are, because guess what, it's old news, it's nothing new to anyone, and it can be summed up in Shroomisms first post. i hope that some pertinent discussion can arise from this thread, instead of just beating a dead horse.

do people who hold a certain "stance", are the automatically an SJW, or are they just taking on those traits? what's the difference?

all these are interesting questions put to people whom OBVIOUSLY know a whole bunch about SJWs, and that's what the thread is about...so why won't anyone discuss it?

it's easy to dissuade people about those you see in videos, or hear about...those crazy SJWs! but...when they are right in our midst, like Qman says, then why not discuss this? that's the thread! to discuss SJWs.

but it's harder to dissuade people by point out those that actually are within firing distance.

but oh well.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
when i paraphrased Qman, however, for the record, there was no slander. i basically just affirmed what you just confirmed...that Qman shares that rhetoric, plainly speaking, alot.

hence why it was referred to.

but i love his deflections though. makes it that much hard to get him to fess up that he merely thinks people are SJWs because they espouse views that claim that Qman is "racially insensitive".

oh boo hoo.

but yeah, i agree, my kneegro.

i don't see them acting like SJWs however. :shrug: i see them espousing either hippy-dippy views, transgender topics, and with Crystal...well, she is just flippant and doesn't take shit seriously.


i don't see how this makes them SJWs. i can't deny that i may have missed something...and i can't deny that i can see how you came to your conclusion. but i am just saying...i think you're merely just being rhetorical, literally speaking. that is to say, you're just calling them SJWs with them not really fitting them bill...again, they are just "lefties". and they because of that, they are termed SJW.


i rest my case. Qman is mostly, when referring to these SJWs here, is just referring those whom call any liberal an SJW. only a few sum members do so, but it's quite uncalled for, and only stultifies discussion.

now thread can presume down it's usual course of idiocy. :shrug:

yeah, i met one...like once...it was like so annoying. i walked away. the end.


oh and this one time there was this group nobody listened to, who screamed at everyone about oppression, and stopped this guy from making a speaking arrangement, and i was very upset, awww.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i don't consider it a cornerstone...i consider an article of faith. big difference. a cornerstone would be more like Feminism, but even then i'd still speculate that it's more along the lines of "equality" -- but the fake kind where you try to make everything in the world "right again" all while removing one's own ties, and history altogether, from the equation...like i tell black "white devil" preachers whom claim all the worlds evils are from white people...don't forget the slaying of the Albinos! don't forget the wars between your own "race" within Africa...i tell them these things to remind them they aren't exempt.

also: i'd agree with the notion that using the term is basically an insult now. and it's been thrown around so much, it's basically lost all meaning. that's why you see me making a stink about it now. it's a fucking ambiguous dumb overly used internet term once used to describe keyboard warriors....now they whom are against "SJWs" (the most ironically named insult, but i'm sure that was the point, and that made sense at the time), they level the accusation (the insult) at ANYONE they disagree with on any ONE stance. that's ABSURD. and it's because of people running with this absurd word.

PS: superiors? i don't think so. also: didn't the commies already get booted out of the school system? oh just not the Marxists? ok.

well, i don't fear indoctrination, and certainly, no one should opt for it. i quit school for that reason. shit on me, eh?

also: yes, Trump is arising due to that popular tune, i'd agree. i hope he wins. Hillary makes my skin crawl.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
you think i post this shit with the thought that people will agree with me?

LOL

that's funny just by itself.

and know, people shouldn't take things personal and then try to attack people on that front...though, most everything a person believes is personal. :shrug: to deny that is to deny your own ability to stand up for your own beliefs. so i wouldn't.

more to the point of why i wouldn't aspire to use the phrase SJW anymore than needs be. it's overused and stultifies discussion. i am plainly sick of seeing people just call someone it for disagreeing with them, or openly entertaining an idea that someone doesn't like, or when someone makes this insult as a way to denote that what the person is talking about is nonsense from the get-go, because they are "SJW". seeing as that what an SJW is "supposed to do" (target people to stifle dissenting views with tons of butt-blast), i find it even more egregious that these people (whom also EXIST, GASP!) call themselves "anti-SJWs", when they act just the same.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
that's all i am saying. :shrug:

i find it funny i get called out on simply asking Qman to name names.

he is the one that brought it up, and i find his statement to be bullshit.

i guess that's not a popular view around here, but so be it. :shrug: x2

also: it's ironic, yes. if he wants to name names, name them, don't tout that you know there are SJWs here without any evidence, it only arises suspicion of particular posters whom may share dissenting views, and only causes people to take those views and posters as just simply espousing SJW "bullshit", instead of taking a real look at what is being presented. i don't have the proper faculties to really make my point more clear, but the fact is, people are doing that here. more so then people are being "SJWs" here. eg, there are more people claiming there are SJWs here, than there are actual SJWs. it's a farce. and people are plainly falling for it, because it's what people do. path of least resistance. that's why this propaganda (which is what it is, mind you) is fucking stupid.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i'm exemplifying how crass the whole discussion is.

SJWs get brought up...and what is within the first few posts of the discussion...someone is levelling accusations at users here.

no one really expected to discuss this? well, i found it the most interesting thing that could be propounded on in this dead horse of a thread (no offence OP, but what can you learn from "SJWs are *insert diatribe here*" that you can't just learn from observation? or from this discussion. hope you've enjoyed it.).

and i'm not demanding anything. i'm not even asking anyone to do anything. all i wanted was for Qman to not bullshit people, and just tell everyone what he was talking about, instead of being all inconspicuous about it.

i don't like the term SJW because it gets thrown around too much by people who aren't levelling it at SJWs. that's doesn't mean it can't have it's place. i would be just as aggrieved if i saw anyone misusing any word or notion to aim to create dissent. in this political race, in the US, this has been a commonality...this "SJW" term, and the word "cuck". you do not, however, see all the conservatives around here being called "cuck" by alt-righters...but you do see the former...people being called SJW as simply an insult, which fuels propaganda.

great contribution. hey, do more do more.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
lol, i've seen so many users here espouse so many different things, and alot of it receiving ill-will from other users...alot of crazy shit, basically.

but i've never once seen an SJW here. i see them on Youtube...being made fun of. and they do exist. i see them rarely ever make an address to any one internet user, as they mostly go for the broad strokes, and usually go for a wider audience; it is basically hyper-activism.

i have never even seen activism on this message board since Occupy, and i still wouldn't count it as activism, just noting events. :shrug:

if there is no activism, there is no really telling who is an "SJW". it's all presumption and speculation...and it's all for the sake of divide.

i get coming up with a name for a subset of people who fall into a certain category...but applying that name to people in broad strokes (all *insert category here* have SJW stances/views/tendencies, ect...this just seems like propaganda. and in this election race, i am not surprised by the consistent insinuations of certain members here, including Qman, yes, of people being "otherized", essentially. it creates the divide that allows just about anyone to be "otherized". i am against it even if i am guilty of it myself, otherzing people. i've had my phase, more than once, of trying to depart from that divide, but i get dragged back in discussing politics...that doesn't mean i can't acknowledge it, or say that it is basically a load crap. decrying one coalition or another, or decrying one person, or another, as *insert ideology or label here*, is being narrowminded. it's always more apt to consider that they are real people with real reasons for thinking the way they do.

people will mostly never learn though. but i know i am right in this regard. at least, this one.



Quote:

akira_akuma said:
i'd concur.

point is: Asante, Crystal G, others, all have advocated against safe spaces and the stifling of free-speech, and the behavior of people at rallies whom have stifled and/or actively worked against freedom of expression in the US. it's actually a pretty common ideal, to be able to express one's choice of clothes or what have you without getting slammed for "appropriation" (another word that is just a cancer, because it is always used to define "cultural appropriation" -- idiocy).

so i don't see how they can be SJWs, yet, among users here, they stand accused as being SJWs. and yes, i mean 'accused'.

and all because some people want to A: be political; either that or B: they are unintentionally misusing the word.

Burke is the Chief Commissioner Gordon to my Batman.

PS: here's a new slogan -- easy to consume...

how to tell someone is taking "the stance" of an SJW:

1: they shout you down as a "racist", without addressing what you're saying, directly, or because they disagree with you and want to silence your views.

2: they shout you down as an "SJW", without addressing what you're saying, directly, or because they disagree with you and want to silence your views.









Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Hobozen] * 2
    #23725906 - 10/10/16 05:31 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

that's funny, that the extent of your faculties lays in comedy Memes.

Quote:

mt cleverest said:
Anyone who gets offended and demands a ban on this forum is a sjw.



Romper Room is SJW central.

Quote:

Bodhi of Ankou said:
Alyssa is the ideal archetype of the sjw. She got so heated over pachoo not wanting to walk around her kid nude. It was ridiculous.



she is just a crazy ideologue. not an SJW. two completely different things.

Quote:

stzacrack said:
Blind sophist



nope. just opinionated. next wrong guess from the crowd?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23725919 - 10/10/16 05:35 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

I disagree. Her whole man hating bit falls under the category of social justice warrior, as in women arnt really oppressed here and her crusades a comical exaggeration of reality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 1
    #23725937 - 10/10/16 05:40 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

she might be overtly opinionated and she might not see things as clearly as she'd like, or you; but you are saying she is a man hater? where is the evidence? i'm a man. she never hated me. i don't think she hate's men, at all, or at least not without principals, and i'm sure she doesn't apply her principals to men whom do not connote to these principals being abandoned (but instead holds these same principals). she dislikes how men react and treat certain issues...she finds it uncouth, but she's never tried to ever get anyone banned, she's never tried to shoutdown anyone, nor do anything underhanded. she's always been open to discussion, and never has been one to stultify discussion by claiming "wrong talk".

this is all SJW stuff that she doesn't have, plainly.  :shrug:

everyone does disagreeable shit, from one or another parties point of view, whom is in disagreement. that doesn't mean they are SJWs. it just simply doesn't. by the standard you are using, anyone you disagree with can be called an SJW, as long as they are fighting for any kind of stance...because they "take said stance too seriously.

if that's how this works...then everyone is an SJW who isn't a blithering hands-down mean-spirited asshole that doesn't care about anything.

Edited by akira_akuma (10/10/16 05:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23725948 - 10/10/16 05:45 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

That still falls under what I define as SJW. Most people would agree. Im also not going to trawl through a mountain of posts just to appease your idiotic desire to see the actual posts.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 1
    #23725964 - 10/10/16 05:48 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

it's a rhetorical question. wow.

your definition of SJW is just something you made up yourself. you're a fucking...sigh i don't wanna get banned. you're egregious for plopping on board this dumb train. you think you can just make up your own definitions of words, even made up internet words...boy, so in that case,  Bohdi, you've just fit the bill for SJW. listening to reason: not for you! you're gonna make up your own words, and if someone agrees with that, even if it makes no sense, while you'll go right ahead, it's your bandwagon! YAY SJW's UNITE!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23725984 - 10/10/16 05:54 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

lol all words are made up, but if you wanna split hairs hairs heres the definition as provided by a third party source.

Quote:

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, [citation needed] inclusiveness, and identity politics




Yup, shes a deadringer.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
    #23726006 - 10/10/16 06:04 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

those have been included into the phraseology. where is your source, i wish you would have posted it. yes, words are made up...but you can't just make up whatever you want, and certain not without criticism. i know it's futile. i probably won't even change your single mind, but facts are facts.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/social-justice-warrior

this is a much better definition, it's origin is explained here as well, as it's more of a meme, than anything, it's useful to know that essentially the first time the term was ever used was to define the already well defined "keyboard warriors" (people on blogs and websites). here is the first problem. there is already a well-defined word for the new term. second problem. people can add anything they want to the "definition" of the term...SJW, at first, only referred to keyboard warriors, and not the activists you see today on campuses. amazing no? but there were still social justice courses; that's where the new term derives from. now what do social justice warriors actually do -- and that which is not solely tied to any one area within Feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, which are separate movements, that have their own debates) -- inclusiveness and identity politics are literally what SJWs are about; feminism and civil rights were tagged on. basically radfems and BLM taking on with the movement. you also missed political correctness...funny that. one of the biggest ones.

quote from site:
The earliest known use of the term “social justice warrior” as a pejorative comes from the Blogspot blog Social Justice Warriors: Do Not Engage,[2] launched on November 6th, 2009, which identifies SJWs as people who “rage, mob and dox in the belief that promoting identitarianism will make a better world.”


“A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle."

Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative label applied to bloggers, activists and commentators who are prone to engage in lengthy and hostile debates against others on a range of issues concerning social injustice, identity politics and political correctness. In contrast to the social justice blogosphere at large, the stereotype of a social justice warrior is distinguished by the use of overzealous and self-righteous rhetorics, as well as appealing to emotions over logic and reason.





so now that we have SJW defined properly, and with sooth, instead of piled on movements on top of movements....

Sophist never really fit the bill. she used rhetoric based in reality, she provided sources, she engaged in DEBATE. you didn't like her debate -- you called her a name. that's literally all that amounts to the truth here.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23726009 - 10/10/16 06:06 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

I dont agree with your definition. Its too narrow, and ill defined. Mine works better.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 1
    #23726026 - 10/10/16 06:10 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

no, it doesn't. only an idiot would think so. mine has factual origination and the actual defined meaning behind it. your's is simply the thing that everyone who has something against someone else gets to tack on to, with just about anything -- feminism, don't like it? they're SJWs. Civil Rights activists, don't like them...SJW. Bob Barker, wants you to spay and neuter your pets...SJW. -- and then berate people in those positions in debate, as "SJWs", a quick fix so you don't have to think. weak.

by your retarded crassly defined definition, what you and other people have retardedly decided to co-opt as a phrase to define just about anyone you don't like hearing from, basically, the term can be applied to anyone.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma] * 3
    #23726052 - 10/10/16 06:18 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

I literally have no idea wtf a SJW even is anymore. I don't think they exist. You just have your dicks, your cunts, and your assholes, as it was in the beginning. Some of them throw tantrums because they haven't formed effective coping strategies for their sadbrainz. Some of them employ social justice language as a Trojan horse for regressive economic reforms. Others are just bored.

Obviously, social justice issues don't exist until they are dreamed up in a neoliberal think tank and released into the wild, where they spontaneously generate viral epidemics and the illusion of inequality in once-prosperous ghettoes across the world.

My GF is a SJW by many accounts, and she wants Trump elected. How do you account for that? I'm pretty sure it's a bullshit buzzword made up to dismiss people you disagree with regardless to the quality or urgency of their arguments.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23726054 - 10/10/16 06:18 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Well if we're just going off whatever we google whats it matter lol. Do you want us to create a safe space for you where no one can use that word?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 2
    #23726068 - 10/10/16 06:24 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

nope. just want you to admit that when you use the word, you have no idea wtf it means as per it's definition. just admit it: you use to hurl at people you disagree with, for the most part. there are no SJWs here. :shrug:

you people are fucked up, and literally invent them in your head...go to youtube...THERE is tons of SJWs...i'd wager most places have SJWs...if they are on the Shroomery, they are the least SJW-y SJWs that can ever be, because i don't see them railing about. i don't see anyone making any threads about Social Justice topics...not even critique. you literally don't even rarely see a movie review in this fucked up place.

but that's fine...just that inventing people as SJWs just because they hold a position that you don't like, and they try and bust your balls for it, that's just asinine. anyone can do that shit...you can disagree with me about how females shouldn't be smacked, unless they hit you back (agreeable no?), but if i bust your balls, or you bust mine, for our disagreement, this does not automatically make us fucking SJWs.

goddamn. how much more does this need to trickle on your head?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma]
    #23726076 - 10/10/16 06:26 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

I've literally never done that. I invite you to find a single instance where I used the term as an argument. You cant because you're projecting all over the place and assuming everybody does that. Which is idiotic. your entire argument is based in a generalization that isnt even a realistic approximation of anything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
    #23726112 - 10/10/16 06:36 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

i never said you used it as an argument. i don't deny that you can either be cunning, or somewhat unambiguous and straight-forward (i mean, could i really tell the difference?) and simply avoid using the term due to it's hackle raising tendencies...but that's besides the point; i never said you argued by simply hurling the term, but i did say that you just use the term, itself, to hurl at people you disagree with...if not maliciously, then with the aim that they still be defined as such, because they essentially said something you inherently disagree with.

for example. both Asante and Blind Sophist have decried the SJW movement. yet, they are still called SJW. you don't find anything odd about that at all? if you don't, i'd reason you aren't really doing any thinking.

SJWs are OPENLY SJW. there's no two ways about it. if you're some kind of secret spy SJW then jesus fucking christ, there ain't really a point to being called it, if it's absolutely not evident at all. :shrug: the point of the SJW movement is to be loud and proud...remember? not decry the movement, and secretly be an SJW, or consider yourself one (like some idiots do) just because you are, say, a feminist.

being a feminist, even a radical one, doesn't mean you are an SJW. SJW has a specific definition, that has come to include those that viably aim to protest, do walks-in, and stifle dissenting views in public.

it's went off the online world and into the RL world, but that doesn't mean the definition should include everyone and anyone who is just simply a proponent of one or another type of social movement (no matter how egregious the movement -- because the conflation sets the same precedent as the SJWs want to make!)

they are not all the fucking same...people like you are trying to make them all the same. it is stultifying. it's also just as bad as what the SJWs do, which is paint everyone in broad strokes and attack them for it.

it's literally the same functionality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 1
    #23726131 - 10/10/16 06:42 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Oh wow, I just noticed that you guys have been talking about me! My ears must have been burning.

Ok, here is what I find infuriating about being called an SJW: the implication that my arguments are insincerely made, when I make all of them based on own experiences and relationships with other people. I find social justice a fascinating subject, but it's not my area of expertise. If there are flaws in my arguments it has more to do with the limitations of my perspective, or underdevelopment of ideas, than with trying to score "PC points" or whatever.

I'm mainly known as an SJW because of "the trans stuff" which is fucking obviously important to me for fucking obvious reasons. For example, I like not getting tortured, and I like my friends who are trans not getting tortured, too. But if any of us goes to jail, we'll almost definitely get tortured there, because of misgendering. Is that not being personally invested enough in an issue to escape the stigma of SJW? Not wanting to get tortured is what makes me an SJW?

Shit is fucking retarded. The expression "social justice warrior" is just an alt-right slur on the warm-blooded.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: akira_akuma] * 1
    #23726136 - 10/10/16 06:43 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

being a feminist, even a radical one, doesn't mean you are an SJW. SJW has a specific definition, that has come to include those that viably aim to protest, do walks-in, and stifle dissenting views in public.




Yes it does, thats exactly what it means. Why is this such a difficult thing to wrap your head around. Its baffling. Nobody ever uses it as an argument either,at least form what Ive seen, and it definitely isnt on the level of liberal or socialist. Which are americans go too whenever politics are involved. If you were arguing the same points with either of those terms Id agree, because thats something I see all the time. People using SJW to exact the same effect? Not so much. I see concise arguments against their over reactions far more often then I see single word write offs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
*alternate opinion blocks path*
Other

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 24,778
Loc: Soviet Canukistan Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: Sophistic Radiance]
    #23726147 - 10/10/16 06:45 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sophistic Radiance said:


I'm mainly known as an SJW because of "the trans stuff" which is fucking obviously important to me for fucking obvious reasons. For example, I like not getting tortured, and I like my friends who are trans not getting tortured, too. But if any of us goes to jail, we'll almost definitely get tortured there, because of misgendering. Is that not being personally invested enough in an issue to escape the stigma of SJW? Not wanting to get tortured is what makes me an SJW?





It was your consistent baiting and playing the victim. Shit stirring. That got you labelled as that. Even Ythair got fed up with it, to the point where he had to personally address you over it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHobozen
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc: Flag
Re: SJWs [Re: Sophistic Radiance] * 1
    #23726201 - 10/10/16 06:56 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Sophistic Radiance said:
, here is what I find infuriating about being called an SJW: the implication that my arguments are insincerely made, when I make all of them based on own experiences and relationships with other people. I find social justice a fascinating subject, but it's not my area of expertise.




It's your area of expertise but you don't know it. You've been in school for too long to be able to recognize your indoctrination. You're straight out of the cookie cutter.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSophistic Radiance
Free sVs!
Female


Registered: 07/11/06
Posts: 43,135
Loc: Center of the Universe
Re: SJWs [Re: Bodhi of Ankou] * 3
    #23726204 - 10/10/16 06:57 PM (7 years, 4 months ago)

I was trying to raise awareness and trying to have my voice heard over the constant background noise of every two-bit "that's a man" punchline in pop culture. The issue registers as a joke to most people who don't have to deal with it and most people who DO have to deal with it aren't inclined to discuss it, so I felt the need to speak the fuck up.

Fat fucking lot of good that did, now hate speech is allowed in the Pub to a greater extent than it ever was, even celebrated, all just to teach me a lesson. This place is fucking twisted.


--------------------
Enlil said:
You really are the worst kind of person.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Next >

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* what makes a SJW bad?
( 1 2 all )
tryptkaloids 760 33 07/19/17 08:44 PM
by Fathwell
* Joe Rogan laughing at retarded SJWs
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Patlal 1,294 60 03/06/17 09:18 AM
by Webster10
* New Pendulum
( 1 2 all )
noticeofeviction 3,357 24 07/16/10 07:44 PM
by My Heart
* Pendulum
( 1 2 all )
2Cents 1,197 20 02/06/11 02:00 AM
by 2Cents
* Pendulum in NYC this Sunday Gumby 998 19 10/26/08 07:11 PM
by Gumby
* Pendulum's new album - Immersion Shins 628 15 10/02/10 07:18 PM
by Shins
* Pendulum just finished playing two miles from where I live Visionary Tools 613 7 06/29/08 01:25 PM
by Psy Baba
* Can you imagine the amount of SJW meltdowns we'll see on YouTube if Trump wins???
( 1 2 3 all )
Patlal 1,278 45 11/09/16 04:45 PM
by moonrockmushy

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
3,395 topic views. 4 members, 41 guests and 75 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 14 queries.