what constitutes a social justice warrior?

tritium

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Ye see, I'm not denying the existence of SJWs if you go back on my posts there, I take issue with anyone with leftist views being labelled as such as happens on Boards all the time. And I will say it again: that kind of behaviour is not exclusive to the left.

Oh I don't disagree, and if you look at my own posts on this you'll see I openly say as much. I just feel the parallel you drew gave too much credibility and mainstream oxygen to true sjws. To my mind their clearest parallels exists in groups like storm front, I.e. small minded bigots with a level of inflated arrogance inversely proportional to their lack of cop on or self awareness

tritium

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

The iona institute have become sjws? :pac:

Two sides of the one coin in some cases, the fervent certainty of the zealot , no matter how compelling the argument against them they're always right...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is that not a paradox?

By claiming that left-wing ideologies are 'here to stay', would that not mean they would reach a point where these ideas are considered the preserve of conservative ideology?

Progressive ideals will eventually become established, yes. They will be perceived with greater validity, and the frontiers of acceptable ideas will be broadened accordingly.

"Lefty loony ideas" is a quote from another poster, I'm just borrowing his phrase to suggest that what he describes is not dying, but is constantly being applied and rejuvenated.

I don't think left wing ideologies have ever gained any traction in society until the point where they became a right wing conservative ideology.

From the Peasants' revolution, through to the French revolution, through to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and even extending into more recent issues like gay rights, I couldn't disagree more.

As for ideas about capitalism spreading education, that sounds more to me like a chicken and egg situation. I don't think it's capitalism spreads education at all, but rather the other way around

There's nothing chicken and egg about it. I'm not talking simply about the ability to read and write. Capitalism has increased the availability and duration of education; more families can afford to send their children to school instead of to labour, and for longer and longer. As the cycle progresses, criticism of establishments becomes more vocal, and ability to challenge inequality is strengthened.

Capitalism eats itself.

RDM_83 again

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Progressive ideals will eventually become established, yes. They will be perceived with greater validity, and the frontiers of acceptable ideas will be broadened accordingly.

"Lefty loony ideas" is a quote from another poster, I'm just borrowing his phrase to suggest that what he describes is not dying, but is constantly being applied and rejuvenated.

From the Peasants' revolution, through to the French revolution, through to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and even extending into more recent issues like gay rights, I couldn't disagree more.

There's nothing chicken and egg about it. I'm not talking simply about the ability to read and write. Capitalism has increased the availability and duration of education; more families can afford to send their children to school instead of to labour, and for longer and longer. As the cycle progresses, criticism of establishments becomes more vocal, and ability to challenge inequality is strengthened.

Capitalism eats itself.

I would argue the opposite, the evidence is inequality is increasing in economic terms in the west, whats happening is that "minority" issues have co-opted the traditional left wing.
You mention polyamorous dating for example, whats one of the major sites used by them Ok Cupid, a site owned by the same company that own match.com and tinder, capitalism doesn't hate "alternativeness" its just another market to exploit.
The old school leftism that established real worthwhile things like the NHS decent pay and conditions and social housing wasn't greatly concerned with being "progressive" it was concerned with helping the working (wo)man.

edit: and while we're debating capitalism my post is now an example of this since its advertising match .com with a new automatic referral link

RDM_83 again

.

Junkyard Tom

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Capitalism has increased the availability and duration of education

It has played its part certainly but most education is delivered and legislated for by the state. Also education isn't necessarily wedded to Capitalism - check out literacy rates in Imperial Russia versus Soviet Russia.

darkpagandeath

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Climate change is accepted by 97% of climatologists, i.e. people who actually know what they're talking about.

Climate changes all the time has in the past will do in the future with or without humans about.

but aside from that if people want to see SJW go look at the whit woman being black thread.

tipparetops

SJW's only ever quote part of a post -
they will pick out part of a post, put it in bold, and add some winks etc.

They are usually the kids who had the nickname ducky in school.

jimgoose

anvilfour wrote: »

The Mangina stooges of Feminazis.

Can I just say, "Feminazi Mangina Stooge and the People Who Will Never Own A Lawnmower" would be the greatest name ever for an all-girl alternative electrofunk band??

anvilfour

jimgoose wrote: »

Can I just say, "Feminazi Mangina Stooge and the People Who Will Never Own A Lawnmower" would be the greatest name ever for an all-girl alternative electrofunk band??

A fine appellation! :-D

TheBeardedLady

jimgoose wrote: »

Can I just say, "Feminazi Mangina Stooge and the People Who Will Never Own A Lawnmower" would be the greatest name ever for an all-girl alternative electrofunk band??

Can I play the triangle?

The Diabolical Monocle

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Can I play the triangle?

We don't play the triangle anymore, we play the octagon.

The triangle symbolized the patriarchy, we feel an octagon is much less gender specific.

anvilfour

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

We don't play the triangle anymore, we play the octagon.

The triangle symbolized the patriarchy, we feel an octagon is much less gender specific.

God help anyone in the woodwind section... :-D

Gbear

tipparetops wrote: »

see how a thread about sjw can quickly be derailed by sjw.
you are against gay marriage = homophobic
you want borders controlled= racist
you question climate change= u must be questioned

but back in the real world the right is rising across Europe.
enjoy your period of left wing loony nonsense, its days are numbered.

It's gas.

You're very much on the far side of the bell curve.

It's the same magnitude of ideologically driven, anti-factual bull****, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

In the end of the day, there's lots of people who just flat out reject reality. Their political leanings come after that, but the same fallacies in reasoning are at play.

anvilfour

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

We don't play the triangle anymore, we play the octagon.

The triangle symbolized the patriarchy, we feel an octagon is much less gender specific.

Don't mess with me man, I specialised in Fem Lit!

AndonHandon

SJW meeting spot;

https://barricadeinn.squ.at

"Get a job, hippies".

One eyed Jack

AndonHandon wrote: »

SJW meeting spot;

https://barricadeinn.squ.at

"Get a job, hippies".

As a squatted, rent-free autonomous space, The Barricade Inn exists largely outside of the constraints imposed by capitalist society. However, until we abolish capitalism in its entirety, money is still very useful to us. Please, if you can, donate some money to us!

Cheeky bastards - "we need money to abolish capitalism" :pac:

Not a NSA agent

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Cheeky bastards - "we need money to abolish capitalism" :pac:

Probably put that up from their iphones too.

Not sure what they expect to happen when money is gone. Until those damn capitalists created money there was no way to value anything.

P. Breathnach

You know, I rather like the idea of creating threads that appeal to extremists. They can draw up their battle lines and throw rocks at one another. Nobody gets harmed, because they are so far apart that even their best shots fall short.

The rest of us can leave them to it, and solve the world's problems in our more temperate discussions.

Patrick Wheelock

AndonHandon wrote: »

SJW meeting spot;

https://barricadeinn.squ.at

"Get a job, hippies".

What a shower of w*nkers.

I bet Ronan Burtenshaw or Shane O'Curry know these people.

tipparetops

Gbear wrote: »

It's gas.

You're very much on the far side of the bell curve.

It's the same magnitude of ideologically driven, anti-factual bull****, but from the opposite side of the political spectrum.

In the end of the day, there's lots of people who just flat out reject reality. Their political leanings come after that, but the same fallacies in reasoning are at play.

lets me guess, your very much on the left side of the bell curve.
With the rest of the the Slim and T Army loving oddities.
You reject the truth and instead embrace the lies of the bourgeois.
The ultimate BS talkers.
But just like all nonsense, it must end.

Links234

tipparetops wrote: »

lets me guess, your very much on the left side of the bell curve.
With the rest of the the Slim and T Army loving oddities.
You reject the truth and instead embrace the lies of the bourgeois.
The ultimate BS talkers.
But just like all nonsense, it must end.

I'm seriously having a hard time deciphering what you're talking about

Gbear

tipparetops wrote: »

lets me guess, your very much on the left side of the bell curve.
With the rest of the the Slim and T Army loving oddities.
You reject the truth and instead embrace the lies of the bourgeois.
The ultimate BS talkers.
But just like all nonsense, it must end.

Nope.

If anything, right of center.

I just know out of hand rejection of science in favour of ideological bull**** when I see it.

tipparetops

Gbear wrote: »

Nope.

If anything, right of center.

I just know out of hand rejection of science in favour of ideological bull**** when I see it.

The evidence is 50/50.
For a scientist who says global warming is caused by humans and the clock is ticking, there is another scientist who says the opposite.

Some may actually think that climate change policies are just another chain to put around the necks of the undeveloped world.

Science has done many good things buts let not all kneel at the altar.
Lets not forget science probably made some of its greatest strides through research practiced in World War 2.

the right always question science, many scientists do think they are gods.

Not a NSA agent

tipparetops wrote: »

The evidence is 50/50.
For a scientist who says global warming is caused by humans and the clock is ticking, there is another scientist who says the opposite.

Some may actually think that climate change policies are just another chain to put around the necks of the undeveloped world.

Science has done many good things buts let not all kneel at the altar.
Lets not forget science probably made some of its greatest strides through research practiced in World War 2.

the right always question science when they dont like that the studies show, many scientists do think they are gods.

Fixed that. We saw before iona were using studies that the researches themselves said they were flawed and more research is required to draw conclusions.

AndonHandon

Humans will just have to adapt to the effects of climate change. They will be gradual so we will have plenty of time.

tipparetops

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Fixed that. We saw before iona were using studies that the researches themselves said they were flawed and more research is required to draw conclusions.

not the only ones to do it, not the last.
all one needs to get any type of research to back their standpoint, money.

Not a NSA agent

tipparetops wrote: »

not the only ones to do it, not the last.
all one needs to get any type of research to back their standpoint, money.

Indeed, hence why peer review is so important. Something which gets often ignored. I can get my research to say anything I want but if 9 other researchers get different results to mine and point out where I went wrong then those 9 are probably right.

Herb Powell

tipparetops wrote: »

The evidence is 50/50.
For a scientist who says global warming is caused by humans and the clock is ticking, there is another scientist who says the opposite.

No there's not, the vast vast majority of scientists studying climate change all agree that it's being accelerated by human acitivity.

Source: not my arse http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

PopePalpatine

Not to mention that tiny minority of "climate change skeptic" climatologists are often on the payroll of fossil fuel companies.

tipparetops

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Indeed, hence why peer review is so important. Something which gets often ignored. I can get my research to say anything I want but if 9 other researchers get different results to mine and point out where I went wrong then those 9 are probably right.

like the climate research unit emails - classic example of peer review not working if 9 out of 10 scientists wish the same outcomes.

Herb Powell

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not to mention that tiny minority of "climate change skeptic" climatologists are often on the payroll of fossil fuel companies.

And those concerns about low frequencies caused by wind turbines? You can probably guess where those studies came from. And their academic worth.

Hans Bricks

How on Earth can a climate change denier still exist ?

Look at the ever shrinking Aral sea, the fact Icebreakers are now capable of navigating the Northern passages in Canada, Polar Bears feasting on Dolphin carcasses who have migrated as far north as Svalbard, the trends in sea levels pointing toward the inevitable swallowing of entire seaboards and cities like Bangkok. Piss taking on another level.

Gbear

tipparetops wrote: »

The evidence is 50/50.
For a scientist who says global warming is caused by humans and the clock is ticking, there is another scientist who says the opposite.

For whatever reason, you're deluding yourself.

I don't know what belief you have vested in climate change not being real - fixing it as a problem doesn't mean the downfall of capitalism, nor would it have much of an impact on our quality of life.

It's a terrific opportunity to clean up our environment and with a range of carbon-neutral options for transport, power generation and so forth, it needn't be particularly costly.

I know why companies that would stand to lose from enforcing carbon cutting policies want to lie about it - their entire business is at stake.

Unless you work for them you don't really have a dog in that fight though.
Obviously, they pay people - politicians, news organistations and the like, to peddle their rubbish, but if you even have a rudimentary understanding of the issue, that nonsense won't fly.

It's nothing like 50/50. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97%) and scientists in general understand that it's a real problem - quite likely the biggest problem that the Western world faces.

tipparetops wrote: »

Some may actually think that climate change policies are just another chain to put around the necks of the undeveloped world.

The climate doesn't care about our politics.

It might be difficult to persuade developing nations to not make the same mistakes we did - taking shortcuts to industrialisation at the cost of the environment, but if we can't, then it won't be rich Western countries who pay for it, but the developing nations themselves.
They have the most to lose from this problem.

tipparetops wrote: »

Science has done many good things buts let not all kneel at the altar.
Lets not forget science probably made some of its greatest strides through research practiced in World War 2.

Science is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has no moral implications in itself.

With that said, it hasn't done "many good things". It has done everything.
Our entire society is built on science. It has allowed the safest, healthiest, wealthiest, most interconnected and most advanced society in the history of the world to exist.

There is literally no difference between the science you're happy to trust to fly you around, to drive you around, to call your family, to cook your dinner, to send your communications, to run your business, etc, and the process behind our understanding of climate change.

It's all different fields of the same process. An application of one broad method to a multitude of problems.

tipparetops wrote: »

the right always question science, many scientists do think they are gods.

An utterly vapid statement in every sense.
You'd be as well saying it about bin men, cheese producers or dance instructors.
Scientists are people, they have a profession and they have a useful set of skills but ultimately they have the same good and bad personality traits as everyone else.

Show us which scientists think they're gods, show us why they're representative of scientists as a whole and demonstrate how they differ from everyone else. I'm sure you've got some extensive evidence to hand to back up a statement slandering tens of thousands of people.

To bring this back to the thread as a whole;
SJWs (a stereotype, I'll happily grant you, but we haven't bloody well got all day to go through the minutia) have, for whatever reason, a belief system that isn't rooted in testability, empiricism, rationality logic but rather, first and foremost, gut feelings.

If someone can just come along with figures and facts that invalidate one of your opinions, it strikes at the core of everything underpinning all of your beliefs. That's true whether you have a secular belief system that's about just making the world a "nicer" place as far as you're concerned, or you have a prescription to believe certain facts from a holy text.

To pre-empt that problem, you see how the holy texts often drum home the importance of faith, as do autocracies - there is one revealed truth that can't be questioned. Everything else must be denied and learning too much about competing ideas leads to temptation and must be avoided.

You see that too on the leftist-SJW side of things as well - empirical questions have no prejudice or morality but that doesn't stop certain questions surrounding things like race, culture, poverty, crime and so on being made taboo.

tipparetops

Hans Bricks wrote: »

How on Earth can a climate change denier still exist ?

Look at the ever shrinking Aral sea, the fact Icebreakers are now capable of navigating the Northern passages in Canada, Polar Bears feasting on Dolphin carcasses who have migrated as far north as Svalbard, the trends in sea levels pointing toward the inevitable swallowing of entire seaboards and cities like Bangkok. Piss taking on another level.

so every natural disaster is due to climate change.
climate change denier, is there really people who talk like this.
moronic.

tipparetops

Gbear wrote: »

For whatever reason, you're deluding yourself.

I don't know what belief you have vested in climate change not being real - fixing it as a problem doesn't mean the downfall of capitalism, nor would it have much of an impact on our quality of life.
o
It's a terrific opportunity to clean up our environment and with a range of carbon-neutral options for transport, power generation and so forth, it needn't be particularly costly.

I know why companies that would stand to lose from enforcing carbon cutting policies want to lie about it - their entire business is at stake.

Unless you work for them you don't really have a dog in that fight though.
Obviously, they pay people - politicians, news organistations and the like, to peddle their rubbish, but if you even have a rudimentary understanding of the issue, that nonsense won't fly.

It's nothing like 50/50. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists (97%) and scientists in general understand that it's a real problem - quite likely the biggest problem that the Western world faces.




The climate doesn't care about our politics.

It might be difficult to persuade developing nations to not make the same mistakes we did - taking shortcuts to industrialisation at the cost of the environment, but if we can't, then it won't be rich Western countries who pay for it, but the developing nations themselves.
They have the most to lose from this problem.



Science is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.

It has no moral implications in itself.

With that said, it hasn't done "many good things". It has done everything.
Our entire society is built on science. It has allowed the safest, healthiest, wealthiest, most interconnected and most advanced society in the history of the world to exist.

There is literally no difference between the science you're happy to trust to fly you around, to drive you around, to call your family, to cook your dinner, to send your communications, to run your business, etc, and the process behind our understanding of climate change.

It's all different fields of the same process. An application of one broad method to a multitude of problems.



An utterly vapid statement in every sense.
You'd be as well saying it about bin men, cheese producers or dance instructors.
Scientists are people, they have a profession and they have a useful set of skills but ultimately they have the same good and bad personality traits as everyone else.

Show us which scientists think they're gods, show us why they're representative of scientists as a whole and demonstrate how they differ from everyone else. I'm sure you've got some extensive evidence to hand to back up a statement slandering tens of thousands of people.

To bring this back to the thread as a whole;
SJWs (a stereotype, I'll happily grant you, but we haven't bloody well got all day to go through the minutia) have, for whatever reason, a belief system that isn't rooted in testability, empiricism, rationality logic but rather, first and foremost, gut feelings.

If someone can just come along with figures and facts that invalidate one of your opinions, it strikes at the core of everything underpinning all of your beliefs. That's true whether you have a secular belief system that's about just making the world a "nicer" place as far as you're concerned, or you have a prescription to believe certain facts from a holy text.

To pre-empt that problem, you see how the holy texts often drum home the importance of faith, as do autocracies - there is one revealed truth that can't be questioned. Everything else must be denied and learning too much about competing ideas leads to temptation and must be avoided.

You see that too on the leftist-SJW side of things as well - empirical questions have no prejudice or morality but that doesn't stop certain questions surrounding things like race, culture, poverty, crime and so on being made taboo.

oil is king. it makes everything from car tyres to windfarms.
don't buy everything your sold.
we are all affected by carbon tax to pay for this nonsense.

i would have more respect if global warming policies were used to rid us of our dependence on the middle east - no chance that ever happening unless we frack and frack like we mean it.

PopePalpatine

tipparetops wrote: »

so every natural disaster is due to climate change.
climate change denier, is there really people who talk like this.
moronic.

How the hell did you infer that from Hans's post? Climate change almost certainly wouldn't cause volcanic eruptions or earthquakes, but it will lead to desertification and drought in some areas and flooding due to the rise in the sea levels caused by the polar ice caps melting, which IS happening.

Herb Powell

Fracking is nowhere near being a solution.

PopePalpatine

tipparetops wrote: »

oil is king. it makes everything from car tyres to windfarms.
don't buy everything your sold.
we are all affected by carbon tax to pay for this nonsense.

i would have more respect if global warming policies were used to rid us of our dependence on the middle east - no chance that ever happening unless we frack and frack like we mean it.

*facepalm*

I presume by "global warming policies" you mean switching to renewable sources of energy, e.g. wind, hydro, tidal, solar and nuclear power. Well, guess what? Those renewable sources of energy would replace fossil fuels and reduce dependence on the likes of middle eastern countries and Russia, who is currently the biggest exporter of natural gas to the EU.

tipparetops

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How the hell did you infer that from Hans's post? Climate change almost certainly wouldn't cause volcanic eruptions or earthquakes, but it will lead to desertification and drought in some areas and flooding due to the rise in the sea levels caused by the polar ice caps melting, which IS happening.

climate change caused the Sahara desert to form.
climate change occurs naturally.
but people in the first world are so self absorbed we believe we are to blame, while the poor people in China try and grow their economy.

tipparetops

PopePalpatine wrote: »

*facepalm*

I presume by "global warming policies" you mean switching to renewable sources of energy, e.g. wind, hydro, tidal, solar and nuclear power. Well, guess what? Those renewable sources of energy would replace fossil fuels and reduce dependence on the likes of middle eastern countries and Russia, who is currently the biggest exporter of natural gas to the EU.

Ireland should frack and go nuclear, and than slowly invest in renewables.
it makes sense.

PopePalpatine

Of course climate change occurs naturally. What humans have done is to rapidly accelerate it.

jimgoose

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course climate change occurs naturally. What humans have done is to rapidly accelerate it.

The way I see it, the sooner all that nasty oil and ozone is done away with the sooner we can all join hands across the world in peace and friendship. That's why I had a half-gallon of Carlsberg and a large curry-chip (PAAAAARP!!) earlier, while Mrs. Goose drove the Jaaag home. Don't thank me, this is my simple gift to the future Differently Tarded.

bodice ripper

I believe fracking could have disasterous impact on wildlife. Particularly on anything thay lives under a bridge. I am surprised to find you unconcerned tipp...

mickstupp

tipparetops wrote: »

The evidence is 50/50.
For a scientist who says global warming is caused by humans and the clock is ticking, there is another scientist who says the opposite.

lol

darkpagandeath

Herb Powell wrote: »

No there's not, the vast vast majority of scientists studying climate change all agree that it's being accelerated by human acitivity.

Source: not my arse http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The big bag theory was the consensus 10 years ago, Now it's not a lot of other theory's are taking it's place. Just because it's the norm now does not mean it's correct or right. There are no repeatable results only models that are always wrong in Climate change.

darkpagandeath

Hans Bricks wrote: »

How on Earth can a climate change denier still exist ?

Look at the ever shrinking Aral sea, the fact Icebreakers are now capable of navigating the Northern passages in Canada, Polar Bears feasting on Dolphin carcasses who have migrated as far north as Svalbard, the trends in sea levels pointing toward the inevitable swallowing of entire seaboards and cities like Bangkok. Piss taking on another level.

Point to a time in history when there was no climate change ?

darkpagandeath

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How the hell did you infer that from Hans's post? Climate change almost certainly wouldn't cause volcanic eruptions or earthquakes, but it will lead to desertification and drought in some areas and flooding due to the rise in the sea levels caused by the polar ice caps melting, which IS happening.

And has happened before, before humans were around.

The Corinthian

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The big bag theory was the consensus 10 years ago, Now it's not a lot of other theory's are taking it's place.

Really? What are these other theories supplanting it?

Plryty

Clandestine wrote: »

Being a complete loser

I've never known an SJW who wasn't one in real life.

Come to think of it, this is surprisingly blunt but accurate. I've never seen any outgoing/talented guy have such zealotry, unless it was for a very specific cause for direct impact.

The types who took the next step & brought all their beliefs into activism, tended to be the ones who had no stand out quality amongst their peers such as athleticism, humor, proficient on an instrument, academic intelligence etc. Instead they sought to be recognised by defining their self through their beliefs. That mods point on how SJWs can't question their axioms for fear of their world view collapsing is correct insofar as I've seen.