# what does the term sjw mean?



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

I am not trying to cause or stir any controversy. I am just interested to know what does this term mean. I know it is short for "social justice warriors". and I used to understand it as a term given to far left individuals.

But now I see that term associated with all kinds of people: (people who criticize trump, the media, liberals, feminists, game developers, youtubers, etc   , and even conservatives in some cases)


I am an American, but I only came here recently, so that term sounds confusing for me and I am not quite sure what constitutes as sjw and what does not?  cause I see some game developers for example being called sjw without making any political statement, like people calling guerilla games director an sjw.

I am not here to challenge anyone, I just want to understand what it means and when do people call you that?


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

It means anyone who disagrees with the person saying it


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 6, 2017)

It's suppose to be a term used for people who basically go out of their way to defend social justice. But it's become a term used to basically describe everything at this point.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> It means anyone who disagrees with the person saying it



so does that make me an sjw then? because I know some people who disagree with me from liberals and conservatives standpoint, I am generally moderate politically


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Jul 6, 2017)

I find that SJW fits perfectly in line with the Politically Correct. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

sjw has come to replace the term white knight


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

I guess one way to some up what an "SJW" is are people who are politically correct to an extent that to most seems "Ridiculous"
People who think that something is racist or sexist on the bases that its racist and sexist and that its "offending" some group of people.
These people think they speak for everyone without realizing that the only people who speak for them are themselves.
They fight causes that don't exist and are not big issues.
These people look to start fights about racism, sexism, ect.
They have no place in today's world


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It's suppose to be a term used for people who basically go out of their way to defend social justice. But it's become a term used to basically describe everything at this point.


if you do not mind me asking, why is it wrong to defend social justice?  I agree that far left are assholes, but as far as I am aware, not all social justice people are far left extremists.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> so does that make me an sjw then? because I know some people who disagree with me from liberals and conservatives standpoint, I am generally moderate politically


Yes it does. 

In truth, it's """"""""""supposed"""""""""" to be the left version of the alt right, where it's people who are super hard left to the point of being destructive, but after like a millisecond of use it just became something to describe everyone other than people in the ingroup, whichever that is. And yes, in gaming that goes triple.


----------



## VinsCool (Jul 6, 2017)

Social Justice Warrior. But like @WeedZ mentioned, it's replacing the term White Knight, due to how extreme some people are involved on certain things.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> if you do not mind me asking, why is it wrong to defend social justice?  I agree that far left are assholes, but as far as I am aware, not all social justice people are far left extremists.


There's no such thing as social justice. To imply social justice is to ignore the rights of individuals. sjw's want to compartmentalize people into various groups and base rights by the defining factors of those groups.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

They have no place in today's world[/QUOTE]


Pakhitew-Island said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> In truth, it's """"""""""supposed"""""""""" to be the left version of the alt right, where it's people who are super hard left to the point of being destructive, but after like a millisecond of use it just became something to describe everyone other than people in the ingroup, whichever that is. And yes, in gaming that goes triple.



I guess it is similar to liberals and conservatives calling each other nazis


----------



## whateverg1012 (Jul 6, 2017)

Liberal


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> if you do not mind me asking, why is it wrong to defend social justice?  I agree that far left are assholes, but as far as I am aware, not all social justice people are far left extremists.


In theory actually going out of ones way to defend the rights of others shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Personally it's not their message that I see as the bigger problem, being that I am a rather outspoken Leftist myself. It's their approach that that is far too extreme and only making hostility toward their cause. It also doesn't help that the term is so grossly abused


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> I guess it is similar to liberals and conservatives calling each other nazis


To an extent, you are probably right. My argument towards that (Which others are rightfully able to disagree with) is that I don't think these so called "nazis" exist. Okay yes, there are some out there, but i do believe its blown WAY out of proportion. And these "nazis," screw them! They suck and are terrible. With these "SJWs" i feel like most of these people (you may disagree) complain about things that are not an issue.
A "close to home" example would be the whole "women in video games" issue. I don't think that that is an issue, but people think that it's ruining children and what not.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> In theory actually going out of ones way to defend the rights of others shouldn't be viewed as a bad thing. Personally it's not their message that I see a problem, being that I am a rather outspoken Leftist myself. It's their approach that that is far too extreme and only making hostility toward their cause. It also doesn't help that the term is so grossly abused


yeah, I know what you mean. I got into argument with someone in college who was saying "you can't be a good guy and a conservative". I am not a conservative but I know a lot of nice conservatives so I argued with her about that and I defended conservatives.


----------



## InquisitionImplied (Jul 6, 2017)

t. Someone who doesn't know how to look up the definition on Urban dictionary


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> yeah, I know what you mean. I got into argument with someone in college who was saying "you can't be a good guy and a conservative". I am not a conservative but I know a lot of nice conservatives so I argued with her about that and I defended conservatives.


That's basically the biggest issue with them. They are the other side of coin when it comes to extremes


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> There's no such thing as social justice. To imply social justice is to ignore the rights of individuals. sjw's want to compartmentalize people into various groups and base rights by the defining factors of those groups.


I'm not really interested in a big debate, but none of this makes sense, because it is going off the implication that we're already in an equal society and that everyone doesnt already compartmentalise people into groups and treat them differently based on that. Or that the intention isnt to allow individuals to be free to act how they like, no matter what group they are in.

I agree that "sjws" are pretty dumb but going completely into the other direction and saying social justice doesnt exist is a weird one.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Oh gosh ok

So it depends on who you are/what side of the political spectrum you're on. It was (as I understand it) originally meant to refer to a very specific subset of far-Left people who would go so far into activism that they were essentially militant (read: would probs beat someone up if they were opposed in the street). These would be your bra-burners, soccer moms (the variety that advocate for "participation trophies")... having trouble coming up with other _good _examples, but you get the gist

Now, though, it's kind of devolved into a derogatory term that the Right uses as an all-encompassing insult whenever someone tries to suggest or implement any kind of Progressive policy


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> t. Someone who doesn't know how to look up the definition on Urban dictionary


already looked there, but I wasn't quite sure I still understood what it meant. cause in the case of the horizon zero dawn director. I didn't see anything he said "as far as I am aware" that sounds like an sjw. and yet some people on twitter will calling him that for some reason.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> With these "SJWs" i feel like most of these people (you may disagree) complain about things that are not an issue.
> A "close to home" example would be the whole "women in video games" issue. I don't think that that is an issue, but people think that it's ruining children and what not.


I actually am going to disagree, because I feel as though one could say that they actually are bringing up issues that are relevant to them, it's just that the general population doesn't see it from their perspective


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> already looked there, but I wasn't quite sure I still understood what it meant. cause in the case of the horizon zero dawn director. I didn't see anything he said "as far as I am aware" that sounds like an sjw. and yet some people on twitter will calling him that for some reason.


He had a game with a female protagonist, and that's really all it takes nowadays. I'm sure oter stuff could have happened that may make the statement more justified, but it's also very possible that that's it.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> I'm not really interested in a big debate, but none of this makes sense, because it is going off the implication that we're already in an equal society and that everyone doesnt already compartmentalise people into groups and treat them differently based on that. Or that the intention isnt to allow individuals to be free to act how they like, no matter what group they are in.
> 
> I agree that "sjws" are pretty dumb but going completely into the other direction and saying social justice doesnt exist is a weird one.


The idea of social justice itself is a contradiction. If any act is taken in the name of social justice, it is an injustice in terms to individual rights. Its not a debate, it's a fact that has been shown over and over. Look at any agenda for any "sjw" group and you see it imposes on individual freedom. The most common theme is imposing on freespeech, particularly with pc culture.


----------



## osaka35 (Jul 6, 2017)

- If kiddie idealogue is using it, it means "my way is the right way, and if you disagree with me you're hitler".
- If skilled professional is using it, it means "those who fight against backwards thinking and promote equality"
There's a lot of grey that lies in-between, unfortunately.

Anyone can wear a label. It's a matter of how it's used that matters.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I actually am going to disagree, because I feel as though one could say that they actually are bringing up issues that are relevant to them, it's just that the general population doesn't see it from their perspective


In addition, they don't seem to see it from other's (the "right") perspectives as well. This is why conversation is so important. While i have had no personal experience with people who refuse to converse with me on certain hot topic issues, from what i have seen, "SJW" seem to refuse talk to others on the other team.
Keep in mind, this is a generalization of my experience and does not reflect "the left" as a whole. I do not care wether someone is left or right, What i care about is if they willing to defend their argument calm and collectively, as well as with facts. Personal feelings are okay as well but as long as they stem from something fact based.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> In addition, they don't seem to see it from other's perspectives as well. This is why conversation is so important. While i have had no personal experience with people who refuse to converse with me on certain hot topic issues, from what i have seen, "SJW" seem to refuse talk to others on the other team.
> Keep in mind, this is a generalization of my experience and does not reflect "the left" as a whole. I do not care wether someone is left or right, What i care about is if they willing to defend their argument calm and collectively, as well as with facts. Personal feelings are okay as well but as long as they stem from something fact based.



from my political standpoint I am more of a libertarian. I am fine with anyone making a claim as long as they are not violent


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> The idea of social justice itself is a contradiction. If any act is taken in the name of social justice, it is an injustice in terms to individual rights. Its not a debate, it's a fact that has been shown over and over. Look at any agenda for any "sjw" group and you see it imposes on individual freedom. The most common theme is imposing on freespeech, particularly with pc culture.


I mean sure, that is a fundamental contradiction of rights on a whole, as in your example, the reverse is also true. Yes, giving people the right to not get called a slur takes away someone's right to say it, for example. That just means these issues are more complicated than they seem on the surface, not that they dont exist. 

I will even take you up on your challenge and bring up one common "sjw" thing, trans people and bathrooms. Allowing trans people to use bathrooms they want takes away an individuals rights to.....I dont know?


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> from my political standpoint I am more of a libertarian. I am fine with anyone making a claim as long as they are not violent


Let me ask you this then, "What is free speech" and "What is not?"
(no hate, just a question.)


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

Hmm, honestly I didn't want to comment here but go look up a youtube channel called Alphaomegasin. 



There is literally more of his videos just like this, maybe will help understand better.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Hmm, honestly I didn't want to comment here but go look up a youtube channel called Alphaomegasin.



I watched a bit of that video, I honestly couldn't make it through it


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> Hmm, honestly I didn't want to comment here but go look up a youtube channel called Alphaomegasin.



I love this guy. Don't let his appearance fool you. He is a smart guy.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> I mean sure, that is a fundamental contradiction of rights on a whole, as in your example, the reverse is also true. Yes, giving people the right to not get called a slur takes away someone's right to say it, for example. That just means these issues are more complicated than they seem on the surface, not that they dont exist.
> 
> I will even take you up on your challenge and bring up one common "sjw" thing, trans people and bathrooms. Allowing trans people to use bathrooms they want takes away an individuals rights to.....I dont know?


Then as a straight white male I should have the right to use any bathroom I want. But then that would impose on privacy and people's sense of well being. You can't put Trans, gay, straight, white, black, etc. People in different boxes and give them different rights. That's not equality.

And here's an example of how it imposes on me. I know Trans people that I respect. But I don't want some Trans m-f I've never met going into the bathroom with my little girl. That might offend some people, but not a risk I'm willing to take to support the Trans community. Sorry.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> I love this guy. Don't let his appearance fool you. He is a smart guy.


He got that "Ollie the magic hobo" Appearance but the genius of a capitalist... no wait there is a joke here, give me a moment, I'll come back later.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

I need disclaimers before checking out political youtube channels because some of them are truly awful. I cant judge that though since I havent watched any of him, though his name does sound familiar.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Then as a straight white male I should have the right to use any bathroom I want. But then that would impose on privacy and people's sense of well being. You can't put Trans, gay, straight, white, black, etc. People in different boxes and give them different rights. That's not equality.
> 
> And here's an example of how it imposes on me. I know Trans people that I respect. But I don't want some Trans m-f I've never met going into the bathroom with my little girl. That might offend some people, but not a risk I'm willing to take to support the Trans community. Sorry.


Same. People will argue that hardly any trans people are going to do this and blah blah blah...
So i ask this question, how many incidents will it take for it not to be okay? 1? 100?
By the time they figure it out, several children will be hurt. I would rather not take a chance of something that could be dangerous.
Call me paranoid, but if i love someone, i will do WHATEVER i need to to make sure they're safe.


----------



## DKB (Jul 6, 2017)

it means dumbass

like me :^)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> WeedZ said:
> 
> 
> > And here's an example of how it imposes on me. I know Trans people that I respect. But I don't want some Trans m-f I've never met going into the bathroom with my little girl. That might offend some people, but not a risk I'm willing to take to support the Trans community. Sorry.
> ...


The problem, though, is that it really ISN'T a problem. There have been next to no confirmed reported cases of a person claiming to be transgender walking into a bathroom and preying on kids, whereas there are plenty of cases of transgender individuals having to use a bathroom that doesn't match their gender and then being harassed or even physically assaulted.

On top of that, there's already a lot of negative stigmatization that comes with coming out as transgender, whereas there's technically nothing stopping a man from literally just walking into a bathroom and raping a girl (why do you think women go to the bathroom in "packs"?) Hell, if a predator is desperate enough they could just rape a kid of the same gender. Why, then, would someone bear the weight of pretending to be transgender if they could just do that?...


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Let me ask you this then, "What is free speech" and "What is not?"
> (no hate, just a question.)



I classify it as someone who uses identity politics to hate a whole group of people automatically based on stereotypes. (for example hating blacks, hating liberals, hating conservatives, hating gays, hating muslims etc). However I understand that even hate speech is legal as long as it is not violent (KKK has the right to march even though they are a hate group). That is how free speech is defined in the U.S at least.  I understand that there are bad people in each group. but I would never use that as an excuse to hate a whole group of people without talking to them first.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Then as a straight white male I should have the right to use any bathroom I want. But then that would impose on privacy and people's sense of well being. You can't put Trans, gay, straight, white, black, etc. People in different boxes and give them different rights. That's not equality.


Nope. Again, you're working off the implication that the world is already completely equal and that people get special treatment. Saying "we're all equal guys so stop putting us in different groups" wont make things equal, it will just make racists and sexists and the like do whatever. And I'd much prefer protecting the rights of regular people than racists or sexists.




Stephano said:


> Same. People will argue that hardly any trans people are going to do this and blah blah blah...
> So i ask this question, how many incidents will it take for it not to be okay? 1? 100?
> By the time they figure it out, several children will be hurt. I would rather not take a chance of something that could be dangerous.
> Call me paranoid, but if i love someone, i will do WHATEVER i need to to make sure they're safe.





WeedZ said:


> And here's an example of how it imposes on me. I know Trans people that I respect. But I don't want some Trans m-f I've never met going into the bathroom with my little girl. That might offend some people, but not a risk I'm willing to take to support the Trans community. Sorry.


This I dont get either, there's quite a few things I dont get with this argument, from the implication that the bathroom would be completely safe with just cis females, to the one that anyone who's nefarious would be stopped by not allowing it, to the fact that it most likely happens all the time already without incident, to the idea that a m-f trans person is inherently more dangerous than general female. If we were to block an entire group from doing anything based on a hypothetical minority, nobody would be able to do anything. It's just blocking rights with no real benefit.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

basically I respect all opinions except for once that are telling me to disrespect other people opinions


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The problem, though, is that it really ISN'T a problem. There have been next to no confirmed reported cases of a person claiming to be transgender walking into a bathroom and preying on kids, whereas there are plenty of cases of transgender individuals having to use a bathroom that doesn't match their gender and then being harassed or even physically assaulted.
> 
> On top of that, there's already a lot of negative stigmatization that comes with coming out as transgender, whereas there's technically nothing stopping a man from literally just walking into a bathroom and raping a girl (why do you think women go to the bathroom in "packs"?) Hell, if a predator is desperate enough they could just rape a kid of the same gender. Why, then, would someone bear the weight of pretending to be transgender if they could just do that?...


You are right, there are very few cases supporting these claims. My personal argument towards this is...... "Fear"
Fear can be irrational but it can also be rational. Past experiences as well as love, can influence what people think about certain topics.
I have read a few cases in the past about men going into women's restrooms and being horrible people. For me, one case is enough to influence whether something is okay or not. Aside: Whats worse, 1 person dying or 10 people dying? I would say neither. One death is too much.
You mentioned that there is nothing stopping a man from entering a restroom, and you are right. My argument towards this is also fear based. If i see a man walk into a women's restroom, that would get me worried because of who might be in there. Someone pretending to be a women could enter without a second glance. That is my arguement.

For those reading this. You are free to disagree with me and that is PERFECT. I like discussion of hard topics because it encourages people to think critically.
I would like to add, i don't hate trans people, i don't hate anyone. I have my beliefs and they have theirs. I may disagree with a life decision, but that doesnt mean i "love" them any less. Because the truth is, I'm just as messed up as everyone else...


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

I wouldnt use respect myself, I dont say, respect the opinion that the world is flat. But I do think people are free to say so, even if it's silly. Just dont teach it in schools


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> I classify it as someone who uses identity politics to hate a whole group of people automatically based on stereotypes. (for example hating blacks, hating liberals, hating conservatives, hating gays, hating muslims etc). However I understand that even hate speech is legal as long as it is not violent (KKK has the right to march even though they are a hate group). That is how free speech is defined in the U.S at least.  I understand that there are bad people in each group. but I would never use that as an excuse to hate a whole group of people without talking to them first.


I could not agree more.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> I wouldnt use respect myself, I dont say, respect the opinion that the world is flat. But I do think people are free to say so, even if it's silly. Just dont teach it in schools



you are absolutely right, what I meant to say is respect the right to say it, but I would correct them factually in a respectful manner. I do not have to agree with someone to be respectful, it just means that when I debate them or correct them, I have to be respectful about it.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Nope. Again, you're working off the implication that the world is already completely equal and that people get special treatment. Saying "we're all equal guys so stop putting us in different groups" wont make things equal, it will just make racists and sexists and the like do whatever. And I'd much prefer protecting the rights of regular people than racists or sexists.



The only inequality that exists is rich vs poor. Other than that people are looking for special treatment. As I said, why can they use any bathroom they want but I cant? Putting people in groups by race is racism. Grouped by sexuality is bigotry. Sjw's doing it to say they want to stop racism is hypocrisy, and don't get me started on that peeve. Btw, as much as you don't like it, racists and sexists are regular people. You don't have to like them, but you dont have the right to silence them.



Pakhitew-Island said:


> This I dont get either, there's quite a few things I dont get with this argument, from the implication that the bathroom would be completely safe with just cis females, to the one that anyone who's nefarious would be stopped by not allowing it, to the fact that it most likely happens all the time already without incident, to the idea that a m-f trans person is inherently more dangerous than general female. If we were to block an entire group from doing anything based on a hypothetical minority, nobody would be able to do anything. It's just blocking rights with no real benefit.


There you go with groups and special rights again. This is why people don't like sjws. There are no groups. We are all animals thrown into life together trying to navigate the world. As soon as you make a group, you've thrown equality out the window.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> There you go with groups and special rights again. This is why people don't like sjws. There are no groups. We are all animals thrown into life together trying to navigate the world. As soon as you make a group, you've thrown equality out the window.


No one speaks for anyone except themselves.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> The only inequality that exists is rich vs poor. Other than that people are looking for special treatment. As I said, why can they use any bathroom they want but I cant? Putting people in groups by race is racism. Grouped by sexuality is bigotry. Sjw's doing it to say they want to stop racism is hypocrisy, and don't get me started on that peeve. Btw, as much as you don't like it, racists and sexists are regular people. You don't have to like them, but you dont have the right to silence them.
> 
> 
> There you go with groups and special rights again. This is why people don't like sjws. There are no groups. We are all animals thrown into life together trying to navigate the world. As soon as you make a group, you've thrown equality out the window.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


>


deep


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


>


Oh good, so I no longer have to search for this image myself


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Oh good, so I no longer have to search for this image myself


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


>



They actually showed us that image in college.


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

kingtut said:


> They actually showed us that image in college.


Are you serious? Dang, i would not expect that type of imagery to be "acceptable" on a lot of campuses.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Are you serious? Dang, i would not expect that type of imagery to be "acceptable" on a lot of campuses.


There are various "cleaned up" versions of it. I personally like it, though, because it's a great analogy for how a lot of various things are taken for granted by those of us who are born with racial/gender/geographical advantages


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> Are you serious? Dang, i would not expect that type of imagery to be "acceptable" on a lot of campuses.


they were basically saying that step 3 on the right is the ideal situation, but until then they are aiming for the middle step. but just for curiousity why wouldn't it be acceptable?


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> There are various "cleaned up" versions of it. I personally like it, though, because it's a great analogy for how a lot of various things are taken for granted by those of us who are born with racial/gender/geographical advantages


maybe i'm misinterpreting the photo...
I was mainly being sarcastic over the fact that people would disagree


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

Stephano said:


> maybe i'm misinterpreting the photo...
> I was mainly being sarcastic over the fact that people would disagree


What do you think the photo is saying?


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> This is why people don't like sjws



epic. Knew this was coming though



WeedZ said:


> The only inequality that exists is rich vs poor. Other than that people are looking for special treatment. As I said, why can they use any bathroom they want but I cant?


This no longer sounds like caring about people's safety. Would it be possible that maybe, inequality might exist but you have not personally come across it in the ways other people may have? You're big on individuality without thinking about the fact that people may have a myriad of experiences that could differ from yours but be equally valid. Not to mention, class and race has been intertwined since slavery, bleeding into colonialism and then regular society.



WeedZ said:


> Putting people in groups by race is racism. Grouped by sexuality is bigotry. Sjw's doing it to say they want to stop racism is hypocrisy, and don't get me started on that peeve. Btw, as much as you don't like it, racists and sexists are regular people. You don't have to like them, but you dont have the right to silence them.


Those are literally, not the definitions of those terms. Also, what do you say to the idea that racists and sexists silence people with their actions? What happens to them? Should they be stopped? How do you propose that? 



WeedZ said:


> There you go with groups and special rights again. This is why people don't like sjws. There are no groups. We are all animals thrown into life together trying to navigate the world. As soon as you make a group, you've thrown equality out the window.


You lost me on this part. Well, more than usual. Putting people into groups is part of human nature. You do it yourself. To ignore all groups in an effort to say everything is equal already helps nobody, It doest make things fair. It makes all the people, who are judge by others within their groups, get discriminated against. In reality, not everyone is treated as equal. And the people who are doing things to minimize potential harm based on the different treatment people get are not the problem.

Of course, this is all hypothetical now since my responses are getting too long and my potato computer is slowing down. I have much more to say but this is the jist of it. Now let me go back to failing to get OCDM to work


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

If I understand correctly it is basically two arguments conflicting against each other :

1. We should treat each other equally regardless of background or minority status so that inequality goes away. since we will all be guaranteed the same rights

2. we can't forget the oppression of minorities because they experience more problems than other people and then need more help

That is basically where college classmates are divided from what I have seen here


----------



## Stephano (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What do you think the photo is saying?


Panel 1: I see it as something being done intended to help people but mainly helps a few. No one is hindered, but not everyone can benefit fully.
Panel 2: I don't like this one. Specific people are given advantages so that they match up with everyone else. While i do understand that some people do need help, There are several ways that this can be done without discriminating a group of people. For example, schools/companies wanting "quotas" for minorities attending/applying to them instead of picking the best person.
Panel 3: I see this like Panel one. Something is done that helps everyone and hinders no one. Everyone can succeed if they choose to. Although many will disagree that even with this thing that helps everyone, there is still inequality.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

Like I said, the issue of rights, equality and freedom of speech is a complicated one filled with contradictions to navigate, history and context to be aware of, many different perspectives and numerous things to think about.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Stephano said:


> Panel 1: I see it as something being done intended to help people but mainly helps a few. No one is hindered, but not everyone can benefit fully.
> Panel 2: I don't like this one. Specific people are given advantages so that they match up with everyone else. While i do understand that some people do need help, There are several ways that this can be done without discriminating a group of people. For example, schools/companies wanting "quotas" for minorities attending/applying to them instead of picking the best person.
> Panel 3: I see this like Panel one. Something is done that helps everyone and hinders no one. Everyone can succeed if they choose to. Although many will disagree that even with this thing that helps everyone, there is still inequality.


How are the other people being discriminated against bythe people who need more help getting more help? Is someone who is doing badly in school and gets exrta help to pass discriminating against the rest of the class?


----------



## Mark McDonut (Jul 6, 2017)

I find most self-identifying SJW's to be fans of the same mob harassment they accuse other people of, but they're too delusional to accept that we all have faults. I find a lot of them to be absolutely miserable with their lives and instead of working to improve them on their own by learning new skills and coping mechanisms, they blame the world for how they feel and themselves become the bullies.

Shit's fuckin sad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Pakhitew-Island said:


> Like I said, the issue of rights, equality and freedom of speech is a complicated one filled with contradictions to navigate, history and context to be aware of, many different perspectives and numerous things to think about.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



That's a bad analogy. "social justice" would be like accusing the teacher of being a pedophile if the teacher doesn't pass them based on threats (not their earned grade or tutored help)

SJW's take the easy way out and attack people they perceive as threads instead of avoiding them. What they do is akin to crashing into a car that pulls into your lane as a matter of principal (IT'S MY LANE! YOU MADE THIS HAPPEN!!), rather than doing what normal people do, avoid the other car and move on with your life.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 6, 2017)

It means Social Justice Warrior. 

If you break the word down, it basically means someone who fights for equality. But right now, the phrase represents these psychotic "feminists" that are getting so butthurt about sexism against women, they're turning against men and always playing the victim card. I put feminist in quotes because that's not REAL feminism. 

See below: 







All we need to worry about here is Second Wave feminism. This not only from _that time_, but the logical feminists today that don't flame all men and aren't butthurt about EVERYTHING.

Third wave feminists are often equated to SJW's, for being hypocritical and anti-climactic against what feminism is really supposed to mean.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jul 6, 2017)

So I'm guessing OP didn't watch the video.


----------



## Windowlicker (Jul 6, 2017)

They are basically left-wingers(I'm a centrist) who have nothing better to do than to "fight" for causes that they really don't have to fight for. They whine about sexism in video games and movies, men spreading their legs on public transportation and women's rights in the western world(where women actually have full freedom nowadays), while women in the Middle East are still maimed and tortured. They also support gay rights but in a completely twisted way. Basically, if you are a man, Caucasian and straight you are the reincarnation of Hitler. Moreover, they support body positivity but in an also unhealthy way in the sense of no matter how fat you are, you should be considered beautiful even if that means that you might die at 30. All in all, they are just rebels without a cause that reside on Tumblr.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

Mark McDonut said:


> That's a bad analogy. "social justice" would be like accusing the teacher of being a pedophile if the teacher doesn't pass them based on threats (not their earned grade or tutored help)
> 
> SJW's take the easy way out and attack people they perceive as threads instead of avoiding them. What they do is akin to crashing into a car that pulls into your lane as a matter of principal (IT'S MY LANE! YOU MADE THIS HAPPEN!!), rather than doing what normal people do, avoid the other car and move on with your life.


It's not bad at all. In the image (which he is saying he doesnt like) the accusation is that the person getting extra boxes to have an equal chance as everyone else is discriminating against others by needing more help, and that is silly. Someone who has a learning disability getting extra attention isnt discrimination.  Black people getting a scolarship for themselves because they never get scolarships otherwise isnt discrimination. A person who needs more than other people and gets it isnt discimination. Because they needed more in the first place. Treating everyone equally while ignoring that it still leaves them unequal is not equality.

Your thing has nothing to do with that at all. Like, in the slightest.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If I needed the least possible help to get a chance to succeed in life, I'd consider myself lucky, not discriminated against.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> It doest make things fair.


Thats the point of the whole thing. Life isn't fair. I don't know why millenials don't get this.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Thats the point of the whole thing. Life isn't fair. I don't know why millenials don't get this.


So if life isnt fair, you agree that inequality exists then.

And no, I'm not a millenial, or a sjw, or whatever else because I disagree with you. We dont need to turn this into Youtube comments.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> So if life isnt fair, you agree that inequality exists then.
> 
> And no, I'm not a millenial, or a sjw, or whatever else because I disagree with you. We dont need to turn this into Youtube comments.


You're a millenial because you're 23. There is inequality. But it's a monetary inequality. Not a race, gender, sexuality, etc one. imagine if governments regulated resources directly where they need to go without the use of money. Services, labor, food, housing. Everything where it's needed. What politics would we need for race, gender, blah blah, if that were the case?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 6, 2017)

Elysium420 said:


> Moreover, they support body positivity but in an also unhealthy way in the sense of no matter how fat you are, you should be considered beautiful even if that means that you might die at 30.


You mean not body shaming people?


----------



## Viri (Jul 6, 2017)

Go spend 10 minutes in any major college in the US and you'll find out the hard way, what an "SJW" is. I suggest Evergreen university.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You're a millenial because you're 23. There is inequality. But it's a monetary inequality. Not a race, gender, sexuality, etc one. imagine if governments regulated resources directly where they need to go without the use of money. Services, labor, food, housing. Everything where it's needed. What politics would we need for race, gender, blah blah, if that were the case?


your response to me specificallly saying that things arent fair relating to pretending everyone is already equal is to say that life isnt fair, implying that the statement is just a fact of life. But now you say that life actually IS fair relating to that, and the inequality is unrelated to what you were specifically quoting me about.

Not to metnion that again, class and race is intertwined (and this is also a fact). You are being willfully delusional to say that all discrimination is over. In fact, you yourself dont beleive this, a you mentioned the trans bathroom thing in a reply to my statement and your statement was that you'd prefer keep your daughter safe even if it is discriminatory towards the group, since you do say that doing it is supporting their community. You specifically quoted it as the rights of a group going over the rights of an individual, which means you are aware the rights exist, but just prefer individual rights more. Which, sure, but just say that.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> your response to me specificallly saying that things arent fair relating to pretending everyone is already equal is to say that life isnt fair, implying that the statement is just a fact of life. But now you say that life actually IS fair relating to that, and the inequality is unrelated to what you were specifically quoting me about.
> 
> Not to metnion that again, class and race is intertwined (and this is also a fact). You are being willfully delusional to say that all discrimination is over. In fact, you yourself dont beleive this, a you mentioned the trans bathroom thing in a reply to my statement and your statement was that you'd prefer keep your daughter safe even if it is discriminatory towards the group, since you do say that doing it is supporting their community. You specifically quoted it as the rights of a group going over the rights of an individual, which means you are aware the rights exist, but just prefer individual rights more. Which, sure, but just say that.


Equality and fairness are two different things. We are all "equally" participating in an "unfair" game of monopoly. My point being race has nothing to do with how the game is rigged. The correlation that you see between poverty and race is a cultural consequence. I'm not saying discrimination is dead. I even said racists exists. We just have to deal with them. As far as the bathroom thing. It's not discrimination to expects others to be held to the same rules as I am. It would be discrimination to give someone a special privilege based on a social construct. My reasoning is my own and is inconsequential.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

See what I don't understand is how you see "person going to the bathroom with the sign that has their gender on it" as being treated as any way other than you are


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Mark McDonut said:


> I find most self-identifying SJW's to be fans of the same mob harassment they accuse other people of, but they're too delusional to accept that we all have faults. I find a lot of them to be absolutely miserable with their lives and instead of working to improve them on their own by learning new skills and coping mechanisms, they blame the world for how they feel and themselves become the bullies.
> 
> Shit's fuckin sad.
> 
> ...



it is really similar to how some sjws went crazy when trump won, even though they are part of the reason why trump won to begin with. But instead of thinking how to change it, they went more destructive.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> See what I don't understand is how you see "person going to the bathroom with the sign that has their gender on it" as being treated as any way other than you are


Because now we have two types of gender. Biological and sociological. The signs are designed for biological gender. I don't have an answer for this one though. I don't think it's fair that a trans person should have to use the restroom of their biological gender. But at the same time, you impose on other people to go with the sociological. This one trips up my "just don't fuck with people" policy.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Equality and fairness are two different things. We are all "equally" participating in an "unfair" game of monopoly. My point being race has nothing to do with how the game is rigged. The correlation that you see between poverty and race is a cultural consequence. I'm not saying discrimination is dead. I even said racists exists. We just have to deal with them. As far as the bathroom thing. It's not discrimination to expects others to be held to the same rules as I am. It would be discrimination to give someone a special privilege based on a social construct. My reasoning is my own and is inconsequential.


I would say people having to deal with racists and racists not having to deal with people telling them to shut up is inequality. And telling people to just deal with it and fall in line the way you deem fit is taking away individual's rights to fight things the way they feel they should, and I think someone in the thread was pretty against that

What causes the factual correlation between race and class is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. Plus, if you arent saying discrimination is dead and racism exists, how can you then go say there is no inequality besides class?

I think you just really dont like people getting what you perceive as special treatment (it isnt) and so cant put what you know about these issues with how you feel about these issues together.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 6, 2017)

Viri said:


> Go spend 10 minutes in any major college in the US and you'll find out the hard way, what an "SJW" is. I suggest Evergreen university.



I am already in a university lol. I have seen some far left people the hard way. I have never seen anything like it, it was amazing (the stupid kind of amazing)


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Because now we have two types of gender. Biological and sociological. The signs are designed for biological gender. I don't have an answer for this one though. I don't think it's fair that a trans person should have to use the restroom of their biological gender. But at the same time, you impose on other people to go with the sociological. This one trips up my "just don't fuck with people" policy.


So what you're saying is....these issues are more complicated than they may seem on the surface and arent as simple as one may think? Hmmmmm.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> I would say people having to deal with racists and racists not having to deal with people telling them to shut up is inequality. And telling people to just deal with it and fall in line the way you deem fit is taking away individual's rights to fight things the way they feel they should, and I think someone in the thread was pretty against that
> 
> What causes the factual correlation between race and class is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. Plus, if you arent saying discrimination is dead and racism exists, how can you then go say there is no inequality besides class?
> 
> I think you just really dont like people getting what you perceive as special treatment (it isnt) and so cant put what you know about these issues with how you feel about these issues together.


You're fishing pretty hard for a contradiction, and I assure you, you won't find one. People tell racists to shut up all the time. The kkk believe they are an oppressed group. As far as just sucking it up, yes, that is exactly what I expect people to do. There will always be someone in this world that someone else doesn't like. If we were allowed to do what we wanted with them we would all be gagged and shot. People can express their opinions about racists and racism all they want, but they can't silence them. That's inequality.

I'm all for people sticking it to the man and fighting for what they think is right. But if I think it's wrong, I'm going to argue it. They aren't fighting against an oppressor. They are fighting against having to be offended, and life isn't that easy. They want to silence people and that's something that I consider wrong.

If  the correlation between race and poverty were cause and effect, there would only be one race at the top. The fact is its a cultural thing. I really don't feel like getting into the statistics.

How can you say it's not special treatment when youre for censorship, privilege of groups with distinct social constructs, financial benefit based on race, and so on? This right here. Sjw's preach about equality, racism, sexism and the underprivileged. But their answer is to compartmentalize people based on race and gender, infringe on the rights of individuals, and give special privilege to those they deem deserving. The whole thing is hypocrisy. The ends don't justify the means.



Pakhitew-Island said:


> So what you're saying is....these issues are more complicated than they may seem on the surface and arent as simple as one may think? Hmmmmm.



I hate this fucking issue.. you said it would be inequality. I disagreed. If I realised tomorrow that I'm a female, I would have the understanding that I have a biological criteria, based on social expectations, to adhere to. I would do so to maintain equality. Is it fair? No. But like I said. Life isn't fair.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I hate this fucking issue.. you said it would be inequality. I disagreed. If I realised tomorrow that I'm a female, I would have the understanding that I have a biological criteria  based on social expectations, to adhere to. I would do so to maintain equality. Is it fair? No. But like I said. Life isn't fair.


Nah, what it'd really be like is if right now, people insisted that you are in fact female, called you by the wrong name intentionally, and told you how to dress, act, and live your life


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nah, what it'd really be like is if right now, people insisted that you are in fact female, called you by the wrong name intentionally, and told you how to dress, act, and live your life


We were literally talking about none of those things. Anyone that would do that is just an asshole and should be told so.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 6, 2017)

Social Justice Warrior - SJW, Feminists.
They originally were created for fighting for women's rights, but sadly you can't have nice things on Earth so they started to bitch about everything.


----------



## RevPokemon (Jul 6, 2017)

It's funny I am probably a prime ess jay dubya type (trans, kinda thicc, a college student, 20 something) but am so against them and a large part of their logic. They simply are an insane group that is sad to consider that they exist.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Anyone that would do that is just an asshole and should be told so.


I know right


----------



## grossaffe (Jul 6, 2017)

I typically associate Social Justice Warriors with those who militantly fight battles that don't need to be fought for people who didn't ask them to do so.  They tend to have a disposition that anyone who disagrees with them does not have a right to their own opinion.

I don't generally associate them with people fighting their own battles.  Feminists, for example, I don't consider to be SJWs due to the self-serving nature of their battle.  The men who fight the feminist fight, however, I might include among the group.  A little off topic here, but you know the feminist movement has gotten bad when they've turned against and made death threats against the woman that started the first Battered Women's Shelters, Erin Pizzey.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 6, 2017)

It is an area which amuses me, partially because it is mostly a thing on the internet for me and does not tend to wander into real life (I did see someone chanting in the college/university the other day as I was walking through, that was my first).

Sadly it does seem to have devolved into an epithet among some people, which is unfortunate as there was some value in the term as it was once defined.

That baseball image is tricky for me as it is a functional problem and easy (and cheap) to solve. Societal and systemic issues may well require some more nuance, have tradeoffs and possibly considerable expense that feeds back into the tradeoffs (every life is valuable is OK, however if a place does not have universal free healthcare then clearly there is a limit, and it can go further than that).

My personal litmus test is the man on the street idea.
That being if I met someone on the street and the only information I had about them was some characteristic then would it alone mean something to my interactions with them. 

This is not the same as statistics. Statistics actually plays a role above -- if I am in the US then black people may well be a group that as a whole has more crime, more poverty, less education and so forth. We could debate effects, causes and such which is fine, and possibly even seek to address things here. The end result however is not a particularly significant modifier in the man on the street problem above. To that end my problem with racists, sexists and such is not that it is not nice but that it is against fairly basic statistics. I am happy for you to be free trying to live your life that way, accounting for the prejudice vs discrimination thing anyway. Going further say skin colour for the problems above might not be the issue, just a coincidence of sorts and treatment of that may well be better served as a local area thing than a group thing.

This is certainly not the same as biology. Owing to testosterone, that I am reasonably active and the like I likely have far greater muscle capacity than most of the female population, however the option for self determination of skills exists so if a woman wants to join me hauling bricks and cement up scaffolding all day long then they are welcome to try. Going back to black people then biology recognises something called the grandparent effect by some where it is noted that populations with grandparents do better. Legally enforced and allowed discrimination is still very much within living memory (and may even still just above be becoming parents) so that could be worth considering at some level, though how much effect that would have over incentives for something that allows for self made improvements in quality of life is a different matter.

I have previously stated I hate qualifying things and doing the reassuring bit. If I ever do it then I am probably being disingenuous, or playing the game (if a group is more likely to respond and give me what I want -- if I am sitting in court I will use the proper terms of address for there, mainly as not doing that is not going to help me).
To that end I hate having to state the previous two paragraphs as it almost went without saying at one point and feels redundant, and at the same time I can safely be said to be one that enjoys the sound of my own text (see surrounding paragraphs likely exceeding most others here). I hope it continues to go back into history and one day I (I being a several hundred years old AI/robot or something) can find it as silly as say the notion that disease was transmitted by eye contact.

Religion is an interesting one in the consideration of the things above. It is something you are taught, it is something you choose to have and it is something you continue to choose to have. In many cases it flies in the face of statistics and logic, and going further then on a personal level it tends to involve the surrender of your personal agency which just seems distasteful to me. "My religion says gay wedding cake is bad" is a piss weak justification and not one I care to accept.

A phrase I like is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. At the same time I am actually quite for providing the first couple of levels of maslow's pyramid ( https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow-pyramid.jpg ) as I reckon it can mostly be done and is probably worth doing.

Back on topic occasionally when contemplating this sort of thing we look to see what, if any, groups self identify as a given term. I don't know where the term arose and we could unpack many things, however it is fairly easy to see warrior got appended to social justice similar to armchair coach, armchair warrior, armchair general, though it was not helped by some using phrases like "fighting for social justice" (by raging in an echo chamber on the internet). Some in turn seem to have "taken the term back". Equally where older notions* like social change become social justice is a world unto itself.

*in the middle ages one might be "ran out of town" (a serious problem if it happened to you) for being an undesirable. I see striking similarities between social justice and that so older is a tricky word to use there.

On social justice and politics then it might be useful to consider the opposite. Various politicos in the US have, or had, high return rates to positions despite theoretically being up for election every few years. In more recent times the what Americans call right leaning peeps found their base eroded not by left but by even further right leaning peeps, or they had spoiler effect where owing to poor voting rules you only get one choice and thus can split bases. Social justice is then the left answer to that silliness, however most people seem to recognise that and thus it is less visible (returning to storm on the internet).

Identity politics and intersectionality. In religions it has been observed that those with many gods failed when monotheism was invents possibly because economics says so -- administering 50 temples is more expensive than franchising from one main temple. Intersectionality is then when the realisation struck that certain groups were aiming to achieve the same thing and merged, especially after also realising that they had "won" (women could vote, did not get fired after getting married, segregation had ended, mixed marriage was a thing...) and thus some would be out of the job. It is done, it is won, you need some people to make sure it does not regress, to file off the rough edges and generally root out vestiges of the bad times but for the most part you can all disband and get back to normal life (which you may not have had before so that is scary, especially as you are not guaranteed a roof, medicine and enough calories).
Identity politics seemed to come about after realising the above and that some people could be more than one thing (the classic HR nightmare of a disabled, transsexual, non straight, old, military veteran [though that is more an American thing], minority race, minority religion...) and might need help on multiple fronts. It subsequently became something of a points scoring game, which is something I truly detest before it in turn became the basis for doing things. This in turn feeds into the somewhat ridiculous definitions some in that sphere use with terms like dominant group in society -- "racism is where the dominant group (race) in society oppresses another group" being one such example. Within that logic it is then impossible for a black person to be racist which is insane from where I sit. We could go further into ideas like feelings mean something, another notion I see floated in those circles from time to time, but I will not.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Jul 6, 2017)

Oh, too many pages... Perhaps I should read around them but I lack time right now, and I want to give my view on the meaning of the term anyway.

All that is below is my interepretation, and it is all IMHO, I don't want to write IMHO in every sentence so I just state it once here.

Yes, SJW stands for "Social Justice Warrior", but as with many terms on the Internet, it's meaning is to be taken with sarcasm and irony.
An SJW is not defending any kind of justice.
An SJW goes behind a flag, in order to try to fit with the pack, just that.
It can be any pack, a pack of PC people, a pack of anti-PC, anything.
The point is the SJW doesn't really have ideas or opinions of his own, and doesn't even care to defend a given position because he really thought about it.
He just wants to fit in the pack and get some privileges of being seen as part of said pack.

So, in short, _*an SJW is an opinionless egoistic hypocrite that only poses as defending a popular position to fit with the pack and be seen as standing above someone else. An SJW may or may not really share the position, as he doesn't care, but the posing makes he feel entitled and superior and fitting in a given pack, and thus he keeps being an SJW only for an egoisticic sense of feeling above anybody else.*_

If you take the meaning of SJW as I said before (that is what I guess most people do), of course you can be a PC SJW, a Trump supporting SJW, a media SJW, feminist SJW, etc.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 6, 2017)

I am sure among their number are people which breath and drink water too. Is being a t****** and wearing drag somehow deleterious to your ability to read to children in a public library? To that end very much not enough said; you are going to want to elaborate there.

Also would a t****** in full drag be someone dressed like their birth sex?


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You're fishing pretty hard for a contradiction, and I assure you, you won't find one. People tell racists to shut up all the time. The kkk believe they are an oppressed group. As far as just sucking it up, yes, that is exactly what I expect people to do. There will always be someone in this world that someone else doesn't like. If we were allowed to do what we wanted with them we would all be gagged and shot. People can express their opinions about racists and racism all they want, but they can't silence them. That's inequality.
> 
> I'm all for people sticking it to the man and fighting for what they think is right. But if I think it's wrong, I'm going to argue it. They aren't fighting against an oppressor. They are fighting against having to be offended, and life isn't that easy. They want to silence people and that's something that I consider wrong.


Oh no, the contradiction most definitely exists, I'm not fishing for anything by stating that, and you are even talking about it yourself in several of your comments. You even said it when you said the KKK think they are oppressed. And you say they arent fighting against an opressor when people are killed and discriminated against for their race or sex every day. You continuously say silencing people is wrong but defend groups of peole who continuously silence people every day. And dont say "we arent talking about those people" 



WeedZ said:


> If  the correlation between race and poverty were cause and effect, there would only be one race at the top. The fact is its a cultural thing. I really don't feel like getting into the statistics.


Well, other than the fact that, again, this is a complicated issue that cant be summed up in one sentence relating to cause and effect, I'll give you a cliffnotes version and say that  a combination of the effects of slavery to colonialism, making minorities already seen as lesser in society, giving them less opportunities for social mobility, laws that affect them specifically that makes it more difficult for them to move up in society, and a cycle of poverty that involve internal and external factors (for example, these people focusing on immediate things rather than things that benefit them in the long run, keep people in lower income areas. Yes it doesnt happen everywhere, and yes it doesnt mean race and class are a 1:1 thing, but it is absolutely a thing that exists. 



WeedZ said:


> How can you say it's not special treatment when youre for censorship, privilege of groups with distinct social constructs, financial benefit based on race, and so on? This right here. Sjw's preach about equality, racism, sexism and the underprivileged. But their answer is to compartmentalize people based on race and gender, infringe on the rights of individuals, and give special privilege to those they deem deserving. The whole thing is hypocrisy. The ends don't justify the means.


It's not special treatment if the person needs special help. Someone being given something because they are put in a lesser position, not through their own actions, but based on something in society beyond their control is not getting special treatment. In fact, the relative equality you say exists now happened because of centuries of minorities getting "special treatment" to be equal to other people. 




WeedZ said:


> I hate this fucking issue.. you said it would be inequality. I disagreed. If I realised tomorrow that I'm a female, I would have the understanding that I have a biological criteria, based on social expectations, to adhere to. I would do so to maintain equality. Is it fair? No. But like I said. Life isn't fair.


Okay, but not everyone thinks like you. You constantly talk about individuality but also expect everyone to do things like you. The world shouldnt act based on what you personally find to be inequality. You can think its something to suck up but other people have the right to disagree and do something about it. Actualy, there's a lot of things in my posts you arent really addressing. And it is oh so easy to just tell people to suck it up when you dont have to experience the things they go through every day. Realise that I havent replied to any of your points with "well you should just suck it up" Life isnt fair, as you say, so why do you think it is going to be fair to your opinions? Who chooses who's viewpoints it's unfair to? Why theirs and not yours?



WeedZ said:


> But their answer is to compartmentalize people based on race and gender, infringe on the rights of individuals, and give special privilege to those they deem deserving.


And at this point I realise there isnt much more to say, since you arent really addressing anything and just saying the same thing. Again, everyone separates people based on these things, it didnt "start" with what you call sjws. You keep saying individual rights are being infringed, but I have constantly said that in your effort to not do this, you are infringing on the rights of millions of people in these groups. In fact, you are giving racists and the like the special privilage to silence other people without anyone silencing them. Someone getting special treatment because other people dont treat them like human beings and call them animals that deserve to be shot isnt discrimination. If someone is being denied the chance to be treated equally by society, them getting the chance to be treated equally is not discrimination.

Anyways, this is the long debate I was planning to avoid so and we arent getting anywhere here. Though you or anyone reading could at least understand the issue or be inspired to think more about it, which wouldnt be bad. (you are free to snarkily say the same about me not seeming to get what you are saying) so I'm done here now, but for real. Especially since I dont wanna be late for work. Also had to cut this short, if I missed something, oh well tbh

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



comput3rus3r said:


> Sjw's include people who are getting t******** in full drag to read books to children in public libraries. Enough said.


sjws are for people who read to children while wearing clothes? I agree.


----------



## Soulsilve2010 (Jul 6, 2017)

An SJW is a Social Justice Warrior who is a virtue signaler that likes to have the moral highground(in their opinion) and feel superior.


----------



## smf (Jul 6, 2017)

dpad_5678 said:


> All we need to worry about here is Second Wave feminism.



Only if you believe the First wave feminism lies.

The suffragettes in the UK weren't fighting for women's rights to vote, they were fighting for rich women's right to vote. Most men didn't have the vote at that time either.

During the first world war Emmeline Pankhurst and other suffragettes went out handing white feathers to men who were not in uniform to shame them into signing up essentially to die to protect them.

The vote was only given to everyone because afterwards the rich people realised that the poor men were fighting to defend a system where they never had a chance to vote. The effort that women put in while the men went off to fight was also recognised. They had to delay women getting the vote, because so many men had died that they would not be able to be represented as the women would outweigh them.

They also destroyed a lot of paintings in protest, but still people admire the evil women that claimed responsibility. Today we'd call them snowflakes.

There are advantages of being a man and advantages of being a woman, they both have disadvantages. There are a lot of horrible men and a lot of horrible women out there too.

I'm sick of anyone calling themselves a feminist.

SJW's are people you hate because they are trying to fix a problem that you benefit from existing & it's therefore in your interest to invalidate their point.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

smf said:


> Only if you believe the First wave feminism lies.
> 
> The suffragettes in the UK weren't fighting for women's rights to vote, they were fighting for rich women's right to vote. Most men didn't have the vote at that time either.
> 
> ...


I'm conflicted, because I "like" everything in this post other than the "I'm sick of anyone calling themselves a feminist" thing lol


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Oh no, the contradiction most definitely exists, I'm not fishing for anything by stating that, and you are even talking about it yourself in several of your comments. You even said it when you said the KKK think they are oppressed. And you say they arent fighting against an opressor when people are killed and discriminated against for their race or sex every day. You continuously say silencing people is wrong but defend groups of peole who continuously silence people every day. And dont say "we arent talking about those people"
> 
> 
> Well, other than the fact that, again, this is a complicated issue that cant be summed up in one sentence relating to cause and effect, I'll give you a cliffnotes version and say that  a combination of the effects of slavery to colonialism, making minorities already seen as lesser in society, giving them less opportunities for social mobility, laws that affect them specifically that makes it more difficult for them to move up in society, and a cycle of poverty that involve internal and external factors (for example, these people focusing on immediate things rather than things that benefit them in the long run, keep people in lower income areas. Yes it doesnt happen everywhere, and yes it doesnt mean race and class are a 1:1 thing, but it is absolutely a thing that exists.
> ...



This is alot for someone typing on their phone. First of all the oppression is imagined, that's why I said the kkk think they are oppressed as well. Btw, they aren't oppressors. They have no political influence and they certainly don't kill people. It's not the 1930s anymore. I think you need to look up the definition of discrimination because sitting around getting drunk in robes talking about how much you hate certain races is racism, not discrimination.

This race and poverty again. Youre going back further then the 1930s here. Slavery, really? That shit ended in 1865. Since then black people have been given every opportunity to succeed. Their poverty has more to do with their increased crime rate, lower hs graduation rate, increased drug use rate. Colonization?! Bro, that was 1607. 400 years ago. I don't think I need to comment on how stupid that is.

You said "The world shouldnt act based on what you personally find to be inequality." I think you should take your own advice. As I've said before, people should speak up. What they shouldn't do is occupy conferences to disrupt speakers. Or any of the other shit they do to impose on others.

As long as you keep posting I'm going to debate. This is my thing. I hope you at least tell me what points I'm ignoring.


----------



## simbin (Jul 6, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> It means anyone who disagrees with the person saying it



anyone who disagrees with the person saying it = troll


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> This race and poverty again. Youre going back further then the 1930s here. Slavery, really? That shit ended in 1865. Since then black people have been given every opportunity to succeed. Their poverty has more to do with their increased crime rate, lower hs graduation rate, increased drug use rate. Colonization?! Bro, that was 1607. 400 years ago. I don't think I need to comment on how stupid that is.


Actually, it's a perfectly valid observation. To say that the things that happened post-civil war aren't still affecting minorities today would be ignoring a lot of stuff. Hell, slavery is still technically legal according to the 13th Amendment, it's just masked by the guise that it's ok because it's used as a punishment for a crime, which is horrifying to think about. And in terms of crime rates/scholarly success rates, you have to again think of geography; many black families are born and raised in low income areas where crime is already rampant due to police indifference. It's hardly a recipe for success


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, it's a perfectly valid observation. To say that the things that happened post-civil war aren't still affecting minorities today would be ignoring a lot of stuff. Hell, slavery is still technically legal according to the 13th Amendment, it's just masked by the guise that it's ok because it's used as a punishment for a crime, which is horrifying to think about. And in terms of crime rates/scholarly success rates, you have to again think of geography; many black families are born and raised in low income areas where crime is already rampant due to police indifference. It's hardly a recipe for success


Manual labor should be a punishment. Personally any time I drive past convicts picking up trash on the side of the interstate they're primarily or completely white. 

As far as being born into crime riddled communities, that's what I mean by culture. The US is primarily white. If you put all the impoverished people together most of them are white as well. So why is it only black people that have an unfair disadvantage? Obviously being poor itself isn't the cause of the crime and low hs graduation rate. Maybe the gang activity and higher murder rates have something to do with it. Which has no connection to slavery as far as I can tell.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 6, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Manual labor should be a punishment. Personally any time I drive past convicts picking up trash on the side of the interstate they're primarily or completely white.
> 
> As far as being born into crime riddled communities, that's what I mean by culture. The US is primarily white. If you put all the impoverished people together most of them are white as well. So why is it only black people that have an unfair disadvantage? Obviously being poor itself isn't the cause of the crime and low hs graduation rate. Maybe the gang activity and higher murder rates have something to do with it. Which has no connection to slavery as far as I can tell.


Yeah it's great until you get 20 years of unpaid labor for a non-violent drug charge

Also, as far as poverty goes, I'm fairly certain that ant legislature that helps one group helps all of them


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah it's great until you get 20 years of unpaid labor for a non-violent drug charge
> 
> Also, as far as poverty goes, I'm fairly certain that ant legislature that helps one group helps all of them


I don't agree with drug laws in general, but if we're still talking about racial disparity the majority of convictions for the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine are white.

"I'm fairly certain that any legislature that helps one group helps all of them"

Exactly. It's what you do with it. It's cultural.


----------



## Plstic (Jul 6, 2017)

i fucking hate them and have to deal with them every single day. Punch a nazi this punch a nazi that, all Republicans are fucking facists yadda yadda yadda


----------



## 59672 (Jul 6, 2017)

social justice warrior but social justice whiner is more applicable

The term has always been used in a negative connotation just as white knight is used to those who blindly defend certain groups for imaginary social brownie points in their circle.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 6, 2017)

So doing some thinking and I remembered that I actually have an example of "SJWs" that happened very recently. Although I am just going to call them the "Alt-Left" because honestly that what they are, they are the other half to the Alt-Right. 
So there has been a recent movement to add black and brown stripes to the Rainbow flag, they are suppose to represent minorities in the LGBT+ community. The issue being that they are injecting race into a symbol that never once represented race. So this has sparked some rather heated debates within the community as to if these new stripes are needed or if it's just causing a deeper rift within the already fragile community. 
Which of course here comes the Alt-Left
http://www.theroot.com/if-youre-mad-about-the-black-and-brown-stripes-added-to-1796226799
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/6/20/15821858/gay-pride-flag-philadelphia-fight-explained
http://www.upworthy.com/philadelphia-added-2-new-stripes-to-the-pride-flag-heres-what-they-stand-for
Of course the Alt-Left is 120% in favor of this change because why wouldn't they be? It's the kind Neo-Liberal extremism that they basically get off to. In injects race into topic that now allows them to have another "moral high ground," because now if you disagree, you are now a racist. 
So despite the fact that I am an outspoken Leftest and Civil Rights Activist, I would be painted as a racist for thinking the flag isn't needed. Why? Because the Alt-Left believes everything needs to be this level of extreme "progressive." The idea of bringing race into this topic only allows them to always be morally better than anyone else. It allows them to shutdown anyone for disagreeing because it because a cycle of one-sided arguments. Don't agree? "Racist!" Don't think we need this? "You're part of the problem!" 
This is just one example and the most recent example of what "SJWs" (Alt-Left) really have become.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 7, 2017)

They're mostly wankers. Fair and simple. Being extreme in the political spectrum makes you go coco.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 7, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I don't agree with drug laws in general, but if we're still talking about racial disparity the majority of convictions for the manufacturing and distribution of methamphetamine are white.


And the majority of majority of marijuana convictions aren't

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> So doing some thinking and I remembered that I actually have an example of "SJWs" that happened very recently. Although I am just going to call them the "Alt-Left" because honestly that what they are, they are the other half to the Alt-Right.
> So there has been a recent movement to add black and brown stripes to the Rainbow flag, they are suppose to represent minorities in the LGBT+ community. The issue being that they are injecting race into a symbol that never once represented race. So this has sparked some rather heated debates within the community as to if these new stripes are needed or if it's just causing a deeper rift within the already fragile community.
> Which of course here comes the Alt-Left
> http://www.theroot.com/if-youre-mad-about-the-black-and-brown-stripes-added-to-1796226799
> ...


Honestly I don't mind the "black to white gradient fist" on the LGBT flag. It looks pretty boss and isn't hurting anyone


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 7, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And the majority of majority of marijuana convictions aren't
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Don't smoke weed while driving. They can't arrest you if you don't have it on you. And as someone that served a year house arrest as a teen for possession of a roach, I swear they don't just let you go for being white.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 7, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> This race and poverty again. Youre going back further then the 1930s here. Slavery, really? That shit ended in 1865. Since then black people have been given every opportunity to succeed. Their poverty has more to do with their increased crime rate, lower hs graduation rate, increased drug use rate. Colonization?! Bro, that was 1607. 400 years ago. I don't think I need to comment on how stupid that is.


I dont want to pull the school card but Ive been learning this all my life. Even doubly so because I live in the Caribbean, and slavery and colonialism still affects me today. Call it stupid all you want but it is absolutely, unequivocally the truth. I'm not going to budge on this.

Also, you specifically site things like "increased crime rate, lower hs graduation rate, increased drug use rate." without knowing that yes, dropping out of school because you have to start working for your family short term due to poverty, getting arrested more for drugs with drug laws that specifically target them (look it up) and crime being born from growing up in a society where crime is idolized due to the perceived failings of the justice system are all parts of it.

Also, you ignored loads of things but I dont really have an interest in going back to them. But for example, you replied to one of my replies bringing up several points by just saying life isnt fair.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> So doing some thinking and I remembered that I actually have an example of "SJWs" that happened very recently. Although I am just going to call them the "Alt-Left" because honestly that what they are, they are the other half to the Alt-Right.
> So there has been a recent movement to add black and brown stripes to the Rainbow flag, they are suppose to represent minorities in the LGBT+ community. The issue being that they are injecting race into a symbol that never once represented race. So this has sparked some rather heated debates within the community as to if these new stripes are needed or if it's just causing a deeper rift within the already fragile community.
> Which of course here comes the Alt-Left
> http://www.theroot.com/if-youre-mad-about-the-black-and-brown-stripes-added-to-1796226799
> ...


Except that racism has been a pretty big problem in the lgbt community, and the reaction to the flag change helped demonstrate it. It's not injecting race into a topic, its commenting on one that already had it, even if you missed it. I'm actually not sure why the change is bad.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 7, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> I dont want to pull the school card but Ive been learning this all my life. Even doubly so because I live in the Caribbean, and slavery and colonialism still affects me today. Call it stupid all you want but it is absolutely, unequivocally the truth. I'm not going to budge on this.
> 
> Also, you specifically site things like "increased crime rate, lower hs graduation rate, increased drug use rate." without knowing that yes, dropping out of school because you have to start working for your family short term due to poverty, getting arrested more for drugs with drug laws that specifically target them (look it up) and crime being born from growing up in a society where crime is idolized due to the perceived failings of the justice system are all parts of it.
> 
> Also, you ignored loads of things but I dont really have an interest in going back to them. But for example, you replied to one of my replies bringing up several points by just saying life isnt fair.


Father's not providing for their illegitimate children, idolizing criminal behavior, and using illegal substances are cultural issues and not mine, or any else's, responsibility. They have all the same benefits as anyone else but piss them away. Here's an idea, get a job and put your kid through school, stop breaking the law, and get sober. It's not racism, its culture and lack personal responsibility. It not anyone else's fault, and I dare you to tell me how anyone else is responsible for the way these people choose to live their lives. Better yet, what could anyone else possibly do to fix it?


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 7, 2017)

it means Skeleton Jazz Wizard

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

also, sounds like @WeedZ gets it...


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 7, 2017)

@Pakhitew-Island 
Here's the poor victims of social injustice you keep referring to.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 7, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Don't smoke weed while driving. They can't arrest you if you don't have it on you.


SInce Ive watched videos of the police planting guns on black people after shooting them, I'm just gonna call this post funny and move on



WeedZ said:


> Father's not providing for their illegitimate children, idolizing criminal behavior, and using illegal substances are cultural issues and not mine, or any else's, responsibility. They have all the same benefits as anyone else but piss them away. Here's an idea, get a job and put your kid through school, stop breaking the law, and get sober. It's not racism, its culture and lack personal responsibility. It not anyone else's fault, and I dare you to tell me how anyone else is responsible for the way these people choose to live their lives. Better yet, what could anyone else possibly do to fix it?


I just gave you several reasons in this post alone and you glossed over them to ask me again, which is what most of your replies are. It's getting annoying to respond to tbh. Oh well. It was fun wile it lasted.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> @Pakhitew-Island
> Here's the poor victims of social injustice you keep referring to.



Now this is just lazy and insulting to my intelligence. I hope you arent expecting a legitimate responce to this. Let me go say you're defending Dylan Roof's rights to shoot up black churches then since we can now just go find random people and tell the other person what they think about them. What a disappointing way to end the conversation.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 7, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Except that racism has been a pretty big problem in the lgbt community, and the reaction to the flag change helped demonstrate it. It's not injecting race into a topic, its commenting on one that already had it, even if you missed it. I'm actually not sure why the change is bad.


There are actually a lot of issues within the LGBT+, this including issues like; transphobia, biphobia, racism as a whole, and the list goes on. The idea of just focusing one issue, but ignoring every other issue is an actual problem. People are reacting poorly to the flag because it's unneeded change that only addresses one issue and adds race to a symbol that was never about race. Coupled with the reality that there is still poor representation of groups like the trangender community and bisexual community. Which tend to get their struggles either ignored or just completely omitted. This change only adds to the problem.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 7, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> SInce Ive watched videos of the police planting guns on black people after shooting them, I'm just gonna call this post funny and move on
> 
> 
> I just gave you several reasons in this post alone and you glossed over them to ask me again, which is what most of your replies are. It's getting annoying to respond to tbh. Oh well. It was fun wile it lasted.


You didn't say how it's anyone else's fault. If you expect me to believe that there are laws on the books that say "arrest only blacks for possession of controlled substance a" you're out of your mind.

Still, the better question. Tell me how anyone else can fix it, and I'll give you the win.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 7, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> There are actually a lot of issues within the LGBT+, this including issues like; transphobia, biphobia, racism as a whole, and the list goes on. The idea of just focusing one issue, but ignoring every other issue is an actual problem. People are reacting poorly to the flag because it's unneeded change that only addresses one issue and adds race to a symbol that was never about race. Coupled with the reality that there is still poor representation of groups like the trangender community and bisexual community. Which tend to get their struggles either ignored or just completely omitted. This change only adds to the problem.


But the other issues arent ignored? In fact, they have been discussed at length for a very long time. The idea that focus on one issue takes away from others just leads to nothing getting done. Plus, all those other groups have flags that show solidarity for them, what's the issue with lgbt people of colour getting their own as well?


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 7, 2017)

@Pakhitew-Island your stuff keeps getting ignored because you edit/merge your posts. How dare I show you what kind of crime is idolized in the inner city. You thought they idolized purse snatchers.

Doesn't mean I support violence in any way. What's insulting is you believe this culture is somehow everyone else's fault.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 7, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> But the other issues arent ignored? In fact, they have been discussed at length for a very long time. The idea that focus on one issue takes away from others just leads to nothing getting done. Plus, all those other groups have flags that show solidarity for them, what's the issue with lgbt people of colour getting their own as well?


One can address the issues without this kind of change. There have been social movements that have made waves without unneeded change. 
Plus they already had a much cooler flag
(sorry for the poor quality image, I couldn't find a better one.)


This actually represent the community far better than the brown and black stripes. It shows pride in their history by using both historal symbols. 

Sorry if I got off topic, this happened to be the most recent event to happen was actually on topic as an example.


----------



## Pakhitew-Island (Jul 7, 2017)

Lilith Valentine said:


> One can address the issues without this kind of change. There have been social movements that have made waves without unneeded change.
> Plus they already had a much cooler flag
> (sorry for the poor quality image, I couldn't find a better one.)
> View attachment 92178
> ...


Oh, no problem about the off topic stuff, this thread hasnt been on topic for ages and it's pretty much my fault anywyas.

I agree that they COULD have done it without the change, but the fact that they decided to do it this way doesnt really make me feel bad or anything, as in the end the same message is being put across.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> You didn't say how it's anyone else's fault. If you expect me to believe that there are laws on the books that say "arrest only blacks for possession of controlled substance a" you're out of your mind.
> 
> Still, the better question. Tell me how anyone else can fix it, and I'll give you the win.


I'm pretty much done with this convo (I mean, you are telling me what I think so that I can be easier to debate yet again) but here's one more comment for the road, cheers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 7, 2017)

These threads don't where to exist.

One question that Google can answer created a monster debate.


----------



## The Catboy (Jul 7, 2017)

Pakhitew-Island said:


> Oh, no problem about the off topic stuff, this thread hasnt been on topic for ages and it's pretty much my fault anywyas.
> 
> I agree that they COULD have done it without the change, but the fact that they decided to do it this way doesnt really make me feel bad or anything, as in the end the same message is being put across.


There was actually a reason I brought that topic up and it's because those are examples of "SJW" behavior that caused people to dislike the movement. 
The fact that they took a topic that needs to open and talked about and closed it off to any form of discussion. They basically said, "This is how things are going to be and if you think we are going to talk it through, then you are the problem."


----------



## tatripp (Jul 7, 2017)

A SJW is a person who stands up for social justice. That isn't a bad thing, but it generally used as an insulting exaggeration of someone who stands up for social justice to a ridiculous degree. For example, I had a professor who was telling me that the original Star Wars trilogy was sexist because there was only one meaningful woman in the story and it portrayed women as weak and needing to be saved. This professor obviously didn't think her argument through. Princess Leia is kicking butt most of the time and leading a military rebellion. This professor is a SJW.
Another example is all of the Bernie Sanders supporters who think that the government should forgive their student loans or that college is a human right. They think they are being oppressed because they are not receiving their self-perceived rights. This student is an SJW.
Watch the videos on Youtube about Evergreen College. Every student there is a SJW. Their excuse for all the world's problems is that people are racist sexist patriarchal homophobic xenophobes. They always see themselves as a victim.


----------



## kingtut (Jul 7, 2017)

blujay said:


> These threads don't where to exist.
> 
> One question that Google can answer created a monster debate.



yeah, I legitimately did not want to start  a war. but I asked the question here because if I ask it in college I will be questioned. and I didn't want to ask on the internet because the answers were very weird and not serious

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I am honestly kind of scared, because I heard one of the people in college say that all conservatives need to be punched, and she was saying that I am conservative (even though I am not , I recognize good from both sides). and I added the two points together, and it honestly sounds like a thread. She is essentially saying I need to be punched.


----------

