The overwhelming majority of the top sprinters and marathon runners in the world are black. By your logic, it would be totally acceptable to insult an athlete by saying, "Haha, he runs like a white guy!" You wouldn't have a problem with that insult or think that it was racist because it's just playing on the fact that black people tend to run faster than white people, right?
No, of course you would think that comment is racist because it absolutely is, just like calling the Sedins "sisters" is totally sexist. By all means mock them, but be more creative with your trash talk than using lame gendered insults.
Not really the same though. Black and white men compete against each other already in every sport out there, and have since there was actual racism that prevented it. Men and women do not compete against each other in any sport I'm aware of. Why do you suppose that is? Is it sexism to segregate men and women from each other in regards to competing in sports or is there perhaps a different reason?
Not to say the Sedin sister jokes aren't sexist and offensive to some but really, are we going to pretend that women can play sports to the same level men can and to claim otherwise is sexist? Not to say you personally are claiming that but I do know that some hold that opinion. I wouldn't make a Sedin sister joke because they're not funny and some find them offensive but I can't go along with line of thinking that flies in the face of reality. Men in general are bigger, stronger and faster than women... ie) generally more suited to playing competitive sports. Is this not a true statement? You can't make that statement to nearly the same degree (not even close) when comparing people of different races. That's why your example doesn't work in a sexism debate.
Sometimes I wonder why "social justice warriors" is treated as such a pejorative.
If you were going to be a warrior (or wizard, or druid, or paladin, etc.) about anything . . . wouldn't social justice be a damn good cause to support?
Not only that, but what would that make an opponent of an SJW, a social injustice warrior? Intolerance soldier? Bigotry beret?
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
Sometimes I wonder why "social justice warriors" is treated as such a pejorative.
If you were going to be a warrior (or wizard, or druid, or paladin, etc.) about anything . . . wouldn't social justice be a damn good cause to support?
Nominally, yeah, but what it's meant to represent is outrage hobbyists whose reaction to social justice issues, regardless of their severity, is to assemble the PC equivalent of a lynch mob to attempt to crucify the offender and ruin them to the greatest degree possible.
In other words, it's meant to describe people taking the right basic sentiment to an absurd extreme and without any sense of proportion, for entirely the wrong reasons.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Nominally, yeah, but what it's meant to represent is outrage hobbyists whose reaction to social justice issues, regardless of their severity, is to assemble the PC equivalent of a lynch mob to attempt to crucify the offender and ruin them to the greatest degree possible.
In other words, it's meant to describe people taking the right basic sentiment to an absurd extreme and without any sense of proportion, for entirely the wrong reasons.
If so, that's a shame, because to be honest it's becoming a bigger problem than casual sexism, racism and homophobia. Those things are hurtful and should all be eliminated, but calling the Sedins a couple of girlie men or implying they're gay doesn't ruin anyone's life.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The overwhelming majority of the top sprinters and marathon runners in the world are black. By your logic, it would be totally acceptable to insult an athlete by saying, "Haha, he runs like a white guy!" You wouldn't have a problem with that insult or think that it was racist because it's just playing on the fact that black people tend to run faster than white people, right?
Most racist movie of all time!
The Following User Says Thank You to Winsor_Pilates For This Useful Post:
If so, that's a shame, because to be honest it's becoming a bigger problem than casual sexism, racism and homophobia. Those things are hurtful and should all be eliminated, but calling the Sedins a couple of girlie men or implying they're gay doesn't ruin anyone's life.
That's a bit much. I agree the shaming culture and widespread bullying in the name of social justice needs to stop.
If so, that's a shame, because to be honest it's becoming a bigger problem than casual sexism, racism and homophobia.
If by bigger problem you mean a bunch of socially stunted 29-year old shut-ins on 4Chan and Reddit have been making a big deal about it for the last few years because of ethics in video game journalism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
To the extent that casual racism perpetuates institutional racism, for example, or creates an environment hostile to certain people, it's overtly harmful. Same logic applies to any sort of bigotry. But I dunno, there's just something that's so beyond the pale for me when it comes to self-righteous outraged mob justice of the sort described in that times article. Anyway, that's a de-rail.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Sometimes I wonder why "social justice warriors" is treated as such a pejorative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube
It's one of those terms that's lost its meaning because of how often racists and sexists apply it to dismiss instances of bigotry and injustice.
I'm the kind of jerk who challenges unfounded assumptions and fuzzy logic wherever I see them. Right, left, doesn't matter to me.
I've gotten far more grief from those on radical left (usually on issues of identity politics) than I've gotten from conservatives. The radical left are anti-liberal at heart. They are hostile to the liberal (in the classical sense) values of skepticism, empiricism, and tolerance of the widest freedom of expression. And if you do challenge an irrational or unfounded statement by a social justice warrior, the only possible explanation in their mind is that you're a bigot, so any attempt at a rational discussion is quashed with the classic tactic of poisoning the well.
And I say that as someone whose beliefs on all of the core left/right issues falls in line with the left. Being an atheist in favor of gay marriage, gun control, pro-choice, and public health care hasn't stopped SJWs from leaping on me like the pack of hounds from Animal Farm when I demonstrate a troubling skepticism about some article of leftist dogma.
If SJW has become a slur, it's a well-earned one. Zealots have a way of turning on even those who should be their natural allies.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 04-14-2015 at 03:47 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
They are hostile to the liberal (in the classical sense) values of skepticism, empiricism, and tolerance of the widest freedom of expression.
I don't think you'd find many people on the radical left that would disagree with this, save for your assertions on skepticism.
Quote:
And if you do challenge an irrational or unfounded statement by a social justice warrior, the only possible explanation in their mind is that you're a bigot, so any attempt at a rational discussion is quashed with the classic tactic of poisoning the well.
Yep, I'd say this is pretty common on both sides of the spectrum though. On the left, you're a bigot or a Big [insert industry] shill. On the right, you're a naive, bleeding-heart, socialist, who doesn't understand how the REAL world works.
Quote:
And I say that as someone whose beliefs on all of the core left/right issues falls in line with the left. Being an atheist in favor of gay marriage, gun control, pro-choice, and public health care hasn't stopped SJWs from leaping on me like the pack of hounds from Animal Farm when I demonstrate a troubling skepticism about some article of leftist dogma.
Maybe in your experience that's the case, but the type of dogpiling from the left pales in comparison to the outright criminal harassment feminists, PoCs, queer-advocates, etc., receive from radical right-wingers and libertarians.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I'm the kind of jerk who challenges unfounded assumptions and fuzzy logic wherever I see them. Right, left, doesn't matter to me.
I've gotten far more grief from those on radical left (usually on issues of identity politics) than I've gotten from conservatives. The radical left are anti-liberal at heart. They are hostile to the liberal (in the classical sense) values of skepticism, empiricism, and tolerance of the widest freedom of expression. And if you do challenge an irrational or unfounded statement by a social justice warrior, the only possible explanation in their mind is that you're a bigot, so any attempt at a rational discussion is quashed with the classic tactic of poisoning the well.
And I say that as someone whose beliefs on all of the core left/right issues falls in line with the left. Being an atheist in favor of gay marriage, gun control, pro-choice, and public health care hasn't stopped SJWs from leaping on me like the pack of hounds from Animal Farm when I demonstrate a troubling skepticism about some article of leftist dogma.
If SJW has become a slur, it's a well-earned one. Zealots have a way of turning on even those who should be their natural allies.
You're such an open minded curmudgeon you even believe that Left and Right actually exist and the political spectrum is a straight line!
You're such an open minded curmudgeon you even believe that Left and Right actually exist and the political spectrum is a straight line!
Fair point. It's more like a horseshoe open at the top, where the vertical axis is authoritarianism, and the far left and far right come close to meeting.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Fair point. It's more like a horseshoe open at the top, where the vertical axis is authoritarianism, and the far left and far right come close to meeting.
Pretty much. Hippies are as equally annoying as theocratic fundamentalists, but for different reasons.
When Trevor Noah's offensive tweets blew up, CNN had a panel of talking heads debating what makes a joke too mean. In response, the conservative blogosphere blew up with a fresh wave of articles making the same old points: "stop being so thin-skinned" and "stop pretending to be offended." And every single one of those articles completely misses the point, because this was never about feelings.
When one comedian makes a joke about women as sex objects, it doesn't matter. When every comedian, and every movie, and every video game treats women as sex-prizes to be earned by strong, assertive men, then it contributes to a culture that doesn't value women as human beings. A culture where police officers don't believe female rape victims when their stories don't match what they've seen in movies and on TV. Then you have to call out the one comedian, because he or she is part of something far bigger and more evil than themselves.
It's the same with racism. No one calls out racist comedy because no one's allowed to make fun of black people -- they call it out because black men are killed by police at comically higher rates than white men, and studies have shown that we instinctively believe that black people are violent, emotionless killing machines. That's ####ing weird, and pop culture seems like it might be part of the problem.
Hahahah I forgot about CancelColbert. That was hilariously dumb.
I agree with that article.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If SJW has become a slur, it's a well-earned one. Zealots have a way of turning on even those who should be their natural allies.
I'm actually with you on this one. Some might remember my thread on internet shaming culture. Very much related to SJW:s. It has really gotten to a point where I don't really associate Social Justice with anything positive. It's a rallying call for internet bullies, and has very little to do with anything positive anymore.
To put it bluntly, "Social Justice" is a license to be #### to other people and get applauded for it.
The worst of that phenomenon seems to be over though. People have caught on to what's been going on, and that's taking the largest audiences from the bullies.
One thing I have taken from that SJW/internet shaming discussion is that I try to be more a lot more picky about what I turn into "a big deal". Like this joke. Yeah, I think it's dumb, lame, offensive and sexist, and I'm somewhat glad somebody bothered to talk about it.
But I would not have bothered. At the end of the day it's just a joke.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
If so, that's a shame, because to be honest it's becoming a bigger problem than casual sexism, racism and homophobia. Those things are hurtful and should all be eliminated, but calling the Sedins a couple of girlie men or implying they're gay doesn't ruin anyone's life.
Wait, what? Isn't that kind of a homophobic comment?
That the making of ill-considered homophobic comments doesn't in itself directly cause major harm? I think anyone with a sense of proportion understands that using these slurs is bad, it should be discouraged and hopefully gradually extinguished, but is not catastrophic (thankfully, because it continues to happen).
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
