SJW's aren't real???

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

Who the **** are these idiots then?

 

[Punk Hazard]

Aren't SJWs people who advocate for what is classified as progressive views for the sake of validity from their peers rather than a true conviction for these views? So...where is the evidence that these people did this for validity, and weren't actually convicted and just horribly misguided?

 

[slimreaper]

Aren't SJWs people who advocate for what is classified as progressive views for the sake of validity from their peers rather than a true conviction for these views? So...where is the evidence that these people did this for validity, and weren't actually convicted and just horribly misguided?

the term only implies that they have no conviction.


there can't be a real definition as social justice can't actually be defined

 

[YowYan]

What an absolute eyesore. I'd have bought myself a baseball bat and open an path through that peanutbrained crowd.

 

[Punk Hazard]

the term only implies that they have no conviction.


there can't be a real definition as social justice can't actually be defined

Okay, and what indicates that these people don't have conviction, and aren't just really stupid?

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Aren't SJWs people who advocate for what is classified as progressive views for the sake of validity from their peers rather than a true conviction for these views? So...where is the evidence that these people did this for validity, and weren't actually convicted and just horribly misguided?

I think you're confusing it for white knight. SJWs are people who annoyingly pursue social justice to a point where it's no longer progressive, I think...

 

[Punk Hazard]

I think you're confusing it for white knight. SJWs are people who annoyingly pursue social justice to a point where it's no longer progressive, I think...

A white knight is basically someone who comes to a female's aid as an attempt to get validation from her.

SJWs do it, with or without offering aid, for anyone's validation.

 

[Оdin]

A white knight is basically someone who comes to a female's aid as an attempt to get *** from her.

SJWs do it, with or without offering aid, for anyone's validation.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

A white knight is basically someone who comes to a female's aid as an attempt to get validation from her.

SJWs do it, with or without offering aid, for anyone's validation.

I don't think validation is important for SJWs.

 

[Amazeballs]

It's worth noting that the Federalist is a very right-leaning site that definitely cherry-picks straw man examples in its critique of the "SJW" stereotype. It's not a very compelling discussion of typical SJW convictions or arguments, it's just a circle-jerk among like-minded libertarians laughing at a particularly misguided instance of SJW-ism at its extreme. Even then, I'm guessing these examples were chosen very "selectively."

 

[slimreaper]

It's worth noting that the Federalist is a very right-leaning site that definitely cherry-picks straw man examples in its critique of the "SJW" stereotype. It's not a very compelling discussion of typical SJW convictions or arguments, it's just a circle-jerk among like-minded libertarians laughing at a particularly misguided instance of SJW-ism at its extreme. Even then, I'm guessing these examples were chosen very "selectively."

it's only a strawman if noone actually believes it. Kids on college campuses actually believe there is a need for Colored safe spaces

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

That website is cancer, tbh.

 

[Amazeballs]

it's only a strawman if noone actually believes it. Kids on college campuses actually believe there is a need for Colored safe spaces

It's a straw man by proxy. It's not being used just to show an example of SJW-ism gone wrong, it's being used to discredit SJW causes in general. It's being portrayed as "everything wrong with the SJW culture" as if these radical and highly illogical examples are the norm, as if all SJWs are idiots.

Essentially, the article is using this particularly weak example to "confirm" everything that The Federalist's base believes about SJW-types, citing a particularly indefensible example so as to avoid the effort of actually mounting a serious critique of SJW principles. It takes the shortcut by simply painting the movement as entirely illegitimate/misguided.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

There's extremes on every side and all deserve a good slap. Thank god I don't live on one of these bizarro campuses.

 

[kimb]

It's a straw man by proxy. It's not being used just to show an example of SJW-ism gone wrong, it's being used to discredit SJW causes in general. It's being portrayed as "everything wrong with the SJW culture" as if these radical and highly illogical examples are the norm, as if all SJWs are idiots.

Essentially, the article is using this particularly weak example to "confirm" everything that The Federalist's base believes about SJW-types, citing a particularly indefensible example so as to avoid the effort of actually mounting a serious critique of SJW principles. It takes the shortcut by simply painting the movement as entirely illegitimate/misguided.

Do the actions in the video done by social justice warriors in this video not represent the social justice warrior movement? Do you believe they're misrepresenting SJWs?

 

[Wabbit]

Why are they fighting for segregation, did not they had it once upon a time?

 

[slimreaper]

It's a straw man by proxy. It's not being used just to show an example of SJW-ism gone wrong, it's being used to discredit SJW causes in general. It's being portrayed as "everything wrong with the SJW culture" as if these radical and highly illogical examples are the norm, as if all SJWs are idiots.

Essentially, the article is using this particularly weak example to "confirm" everything that The Federalist's base believes about SJW-types, citing a particularly indefensible example so as to avoid the effort of actually mounting a serious critique of SJW principles. It takes the shortcut by simply painting the movement as entirely illegitimate/misguided.

" Cosmic justice is one of the impossible dreams which has a very high cost and very dangerous potentialities.
What is cosmic justice and how does it differ from more traditional conceptions of justice-- and from the more recent and more fervently sought "social justice"?
Traditional concepts of justice or fairness, at least within the American tradition, boil down to applying the same rules and standards to everyone. This is what is meant by a "level playing field"-- at least within that tradition, though the very same words mean something radically different within a framework that calls itself "social justice." Words like "fairness," "advantage" and "disadvantage" likewise have radically different meanings within the very different frameworks of traditional justice and "social justice."
John Rawls perhaps best summarized the differences when he distinguished "fair" equality of opportunity from merely "formal" equality of opportunity. Traditional justice, fairness, or equality of opportunity are merely formal in Professor Rawls' view and in the view of his many followers and comrades. For those with this view, "genuine equality of opportunity" cannot be achieved by the application of the same rules and standards to all, but requires specific interventions to equalize either prospects or results. As Rawls puts it, "undeserved inequalities call for redress."
A fight in which both boxers observe the Marquis of Queensberry rules would be a fair fight, according to traditional standards of fairness, irrespective of whether the contestants were of equal skill, strength, experience or other factors likely to affect the outcome-- and irrespective of whether that outcome was a hard-fought draw or a completely one-sided beating.
This would not, however, be a fair fight within the framework of those seeking "social justice," if the competing fighters came into the ring with very different prospects of success-- especially if these differences were due to factors beyond their control.
Presumably, the vast ranges of undeserved inequalities found everywhere are the fault of "society" and so the redressing of those inequalities is called social justice, going beyond the traditional justice of presenting each individual with the same rules and standards. However, even those who argue this way often recognize that some undeserved inequalities may arise from cultural differences, family genes, or from historical confluences of events not controlled by anybody or by any given society at any given time. For example, there was no way that Pee Wee Reese was going to hit as many home runs as Mark McGwire, or Shirley Temple run as fast as Jesse Owens. There was no way that Scandinavians or Polynesians were going to know as much about camels as the Bedouins of the Sahara-- and no way that these Bedouins were going to know as much about fishing as the Scandinavians or Polynesians.
In a sense, proponents of "social justice" are unduly modest. What they are seeking to correct are not merely the deficiencies of society, but of the cosmos. What they call social justice encompasses far more than any given society is causally responsible for. Crusaders for social justice seek to correct not merely the sins of man but the oversights of God or the accidents of history. What they are really seeking is a universe tailor-made to their vision of equality. They are seeking cosmic justice."


Just in case you wanted a more straight foward argument