Worst of Social Justice

[Svata]

Eh, no sweat. I see where you're coming from, and you have a point. And Mellen made it clearer. Poor communication/word choice happens.

[Even Then]

I see where you're coming from

I guess that's all I ask for in the end. And it's not that I can't see your perspectives; it's that I can't agree with them.

[pyro]

Not exactly.  For one thing, the Catholic Church teaches that all humans are sinners.

As if that's better.

[niam2023]

I agree with pyro - casting humans as damned from the get go by some crime committed eons ago creates a narrative that quiverfulls and dominionists are happy to extrapolate upon.

That humans are without the ability to redeem themselves by themselves, and that they should surrender their worth as individuals to a higher power.

[Even Then]

My main issue with Christianity, summed up pretty nicely.

[I am lizard]

Translation: "Edgy jokes are a Big Fucking Deal^TM and you should call out your friends for doing something that doesn't hurt anything except the feelings of people who may not even be present.  Also, jokes with friends are morally equivalent to sexual harassment."

Where does she say the jokes are just between friends? If your friends are making these jokes and don't do so recognizing their wrong then it clearly a sign of a bigger problem.
 

Translation: "It's unreasonable to expect us to present our arguments in a rational, civilized manner.  And if we can't win hearts and minds by shrieking like barn owls with megaphones, it's society's fault.  Besides, we don't need the support of the masses for change to take hold.  It's not like public relations are important or anything."

I'd post some MLK, but to be honest his Birmingham letter is a bit of a cliche at this point, so Im going with Will Loyd:

I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the resurrection of he deed.

And the inescapable fact that it is still guilt by association. And the article itself comes off less like "here's how to help the cause" and more like "your opinions don't matter so sit down, shut up and listen to your vaginal overlords." Acting like a misandrist is not the way to combat misogyny.

Would a particle physicist be wrong to tell a non particle physicist their opinion in particle physics is less valuable?

Would someone who's experienced racism all their life be wrong to tell a white person their opinion in racism is less valuable?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Translation: "Edgy jokes are a Big Fucking Deal^TM and you should call out your friends for doing something that doesn't hurt anything except the feelings of people who may not even be present.  Also, jokes with friends are morally equivalent to sexual harassment."

Where does she say the jokes are just between friends? If your friends are making these jokes and don't do so recognizing their wrong then it clearly a sign of a bigger problem.

 
Except there are a lot of rape victims who tell rape jokes as a coping mechanism.

Translation: "It's unreasonable to expect us to present our arguments in a rational, civilized manner.  And if we can't win hearts and minds by shrieking like barn owls with megaphones, it's society's fault.  Besides, we don't need the support of the masses for change to take hold.  It's not like public relations are important or anything."

I'd post some MLK, but to be honest his Birmingham letter is a bit of a cliche at this point, so Im going with Will Loyd:

I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hand of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the resurrection of he deed.

I have no clue who Will Loyd is.

More to the point, there's a difference between being passionate and being needlessly offensive.  It's not "tone policing" to ask somebody to be less hateful.  What I'm talking about is content, not tone.  I don't really mind if social justice activists get loud, or angry, or even profane.  My problem comes when they start being outright hateful.

Furthermore, being obnoxious all the time is counterproductive.  Sometimes it's understandable, even justified.  But there's a time and place.

And the inescapable fact that it is still guilt by association. And the article itself comes off less like "here's how to help the cause" and more like "your opinions don't matter so sit down, shut up and listen to your vaginal overlords." Acting like a misandrist is not the way to combat misogyny.

Would a particle physicist be wrong to tell a non particle physicist their opinion in particle physics is less valuable?

Would someone who's experienced racism all their life be wrong to tell a white person their opinion in racism is less valuable?

The difference is that particle physics are a matter of objective fact.

[Even Then]

"Stop being so angry about being treated as lesser, you're inconveniencing me."

...okay, NOW I'm dropping this.

[Ultimate Paragon]

"Stop being so angry about being treated as lesser, you're inconveniencing me."

...okay, NOW I'm dropping this.

I explicitly stated that my problem wasn't with the tone.

[Ironchew]

Nice showing of toxic misogyny on International Women's Day. UP's been producing his fair share but I'll have to hand it to rageaholic for so obviously relishing using the word "CUNT" in its most derogatory, misogynistic sense.

This thread is a real class act.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Translation: "Edgy jokes are a Big Fucking Deal^TM and you should call out your friends for doing something that doesn't hurt anything except the feelings of people who may not even be present.  Also, jokes with friends are morally equivalent to sexual harassment."

Where does she say the jokes are just between friends? If your friends are making these jokes and don't do so recognizing their wrong then it clearly a sign of a bigger problem.

 
Except there are a lot of rape victims who tell rape jokes as a coping mechanism.

You do know why Jewish people get a pass telling Jewish jokes right, or why African Americans don't come off as insulting when they call their mates the N word? It's because they aren't punching down so much as sideways.

More to the point, there's a difference between being passionate and being needlessly offensive.  It's not "tone policing" to ask somebody to be less hateful.  What I'm talking about is content, not tone.  I don't really mind if social justice activists get loud, or angry, or even profane.  My problem comes when they start being outright hateful.

UP having a problem with the content of what the eeevil SJWs say? Would you prefer they not say such hateful things would you prefer they *hoarse whisper* self censor?

The difference is that particle physics are a matter of objective fact.

It's objectively true that lots of people are different from one another. You know, some poor, some rich, some black, some white, some never having experienced rape others less lucky. What's your point?

[Ultimate Paragon]

Translation: "Edgy jokes are a Big Fucking Deal^TM and you should call out your friends for doing something that doesn't hurt anything except the feelings of people who may not even be present.  Also, jokes with friends are morally equivalent to sexual harassment."

Where does she say the jokes are just between friends? If your friends are making these jokes and don't do so recognizing their wrong then it clearly a sign of a bigger problem.

 
Except there are a lot of rape victims who tell rape jokes as a coping mechanism.

You do know why Jewish people get a pass telling Jewish jokes right, or why African Americans don't come off as insulting when they call their mates the N word? It's because they aren't punching down so much as sideways.

Except, as I've already demonstrated, not even that is okay with these people.

As for punches and the direction thereof, there are serious flaws with the argument.  The main problem with the "punching up/down" rhetoric is that anybody can convince themselves they're punching up.  For example, Swedish racists have convinced themselves that immigrants are a privileged group, so in their mind, they're "punching up" when they joke about how white feminists need to be "culturally enriched."

Things get even murkier when intersectionality comes into play.  For example:



Would you consider this "punching up" or "punching down?"

More to the point, there's a difference between being passionate and being needlessly offensive.  It's not "tone policing" to ask somebody to be less hateful.  What I'm talking about is content, not tone.  I don't really mind if social justice activists get loud, or angry, or even profane.  My problem comes when they start being outright hateful.

UP having a problem with the content of what the eeevil SJWs say? Would you prefer they not say such hateful things would you prefer they *hoarse whisper* self censor?

Oh, I recognize their right to say it.  I'm not going to try and pressure them to stop saying it.  But it needs to be recognized that I have every right to criticize them saying it.

The difference is that particle physics are a matter of objective fact.

It's objectively true that lots of people are different from one another. You know, some poor, some rich, some black, some white, some never having experienced rape others less lucky. What's your point?

My point is that lived experiences are no substitute for hard evidence.

[mellenORL]

Dude. Hard evidence, please define it in context? You would rather women just talk about feminist issues using what? Statistics? Here, use this body of a murdered prostitute to help demonstrate those stats. She won't interrupt.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Dude. Hard evidence, please define it in context? You would rather women just talk about feminist issues using what? Statistics? Here, use this body of a murdered prostitute to help demonstrate those stats. She won't interrupt.

There's nothing inherently wrong with using lived experiences or emotional appeals.  But they ought to be backed up with logic and evidence to make a sound argument.

[rookie]

Maybe I owe my guy an apology. Because I'm reading UP's words as trying to pass off past experience as inferior reasons for present actions. Not as good as hard evidence?