Does SJW-reated stuff get helled because the term is pejorative?

"Racist" and "sexist" are used because they actually carry weight with them, addressing actual harmful ideologies.

Terms like "mangina" and that other word that is blocked on here are used as an attack on how male feminists are somehow emasculated by their opinions, as though that's actually something that matters

PureSlime said:

"Racist" and "sexist" are used because they actually carry weight with them, addressing actual harmful ideologies.

Terms like "mangina" and that other word that is blocked on here are used as an attack on how male feminists are somehow emasculated by their opinions, as though that's actually something that matters

No, you didn't understand what I meant. I meant sexist and racist are used inappropriately to insult and shutdown conversations. Most of the time i hear those words being used by sjws, its because someone disagreed with them. For example, disagreeing with modern feminism doesnt make one sexist, and disagreeing with the BLM movement doesn't make one racist, but those terms are used precisely in that way. Is that clearer?
Also, I don't care how mangina is used, I don't use such a term, and I don't hear it often. Again, mostly from sjws complaining about anti-sjws or trolls, it is the internet after all. Not that it doesn't happen, but it's rare at best. However, I frequently get called racist, sexist, homophobic (I'm gay btw, so I don't see how I could be homophobic) for disagreeing with sjw arguments, or even for being a white male. I'd say such things are far more common.

No, I really don't think that you get it. These are not equally bad sides of the same coin.

PureSlime said:

No, I really don't think that you get it. These are not equally bad sides of the same coin.

Okay, I see we aren't going anywhere. Using words for the sole purpose of shutting down conversations is different than using words for the sole purpose of shutting down conversations, because one actually carries weight. Except it doesn't when used as I described.

sudo459 said:

Okay, I see we aren't going anywhere. All I'm saying is that people use the words sexist and racist in places where there isn't anything racist and sexist.

When you say things like "I disagree with modern feminism and BLM" People call you racist and sexist because you're saying you disagree with it as a whole and that usually comes from a racist and/or sexist background. If you say that you disagree with a feminist or blm issues like "I think abortion should be illegal cause I value all forms of life" or "police officers shouldn't have body cams on them cause I value personal privacy for everyone" most people won't call you sexist or racist. Some might because these two issues are very important to people but most won't. But when you say shit like "blm are terrorists" people are going to call you out on your diet racism.

Yeah, but nuance and context are for commies!

mistercow said:

When you say things like "I disagree with modern feminism and BLM" People call you racist and sexist because you're saying you disagree with it as a whole and that usually comes from a racist and/or sexist background. If you say that you disagree with a feminist or blm issues like "I think abortion should be illegal cause I value all forms of life" or "police officers shouldn't have body cams on them cause I value personal privacy for everyone" most people won't call you sexist or racist.

You'd be suprised. But really? If people that hold a belief generally come from a racist background, they shouldn't automatically be assumed to be racist. I'm from Texas, and you'd really be suprised how often it's brought up, through no fault of my own.

mistercow said:

Some might because these two issues are very important to people but most won't. But when you say shit like "blm are terrorists" people are going to call you out on your diet racism.

"BLM are terrorists" isn't a racist statement. Ignorant, yes but not racist. Saying it is racist implies that the BLM activists hold to a single race.

I like how its just always "justified" when a sjw assumes racism or sexism when someone disagrees with them. Just assume so its easier to silence and discredit your opposition rather than having rational discourse on the matter. I hate BLM. I must be racist.

GoatLord said:

So to get the question I'm really interested in: Is the ideology attributable to a particular political movement, or something more broad?

It's a social movement, much like feminism and political correctness. It originated from the universities. If you want to understand what laid the grounds for this, and what its purpose is, watch the videos by Yuri Bezmenov.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc

(edit) here's the full video for that second one:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3IbhXYzVOPY

sudo459 said:

"BLM are terrorists" isn't a racist statement. Ignorant, yes but not racist. Saying it is racist implies that the BLM activists hold to a single race.

And ignorance towards black people is another way of saying racism so thanks for agreeing with me.

I'm going to put it this way. Until you give reasons for disliking some actual blm issues and not just saying "I hate blm" people like me and other more progressive users on the forum are going to call you racist. If you want to stop this give me actual reasons because you have for disagreeing with blm issues.

Until then you are "sudo459 one of the many users on doomworld that drink diet racism." If this makes you mad you can prove me wrong or you can stay mad and call me "MisterCow femnazi hipster sjw"

mistercow said:

And ignorance towards black people is another way of saying racism so thanks for agreeing with me.

"BLM are terrorists" implies no ignorance towards black people as a race.

mistercow said:

I'm going to put it this way. Until you give reasons for disliking some actual blm issues and not just saying "I hate blm" people like me and other more progressive users on the forum are going to call you racist. If you want to stop this give me actual reasons because you have for disagreeing with blm issues.

Fair enough, but I never said I hate blm.

mistercow said:

Until then you are "sudo459 one of the many users on doomworld that drink diet racism." If this makes you mad you can prove me wrong or you can stay mad and call me "MisterCow femnazi hipster sjw"

Uhh.... what? You haven't made any claims, how can I prove you wrong?

-Edit: can you explain diet racism to me?

mistercow said:

And ignorance towards black people is another way of saying racism so thanks for agreeing with me.

No it's not an disparaging people who are ignorant as racist only makes them less likely to gain the knowledge needed to understand the situation.

sudo459 said:

I don't support censorship at all, especially if the opposition is based on ignorance. Why? Because I have the balls to recognize that I could be wrong. The only way to find out is through proper discourse. The only reason to shut people up is simply because having to think is hard.

So you're a "fair and balanced" guy. The assertions of reactionary anti-SJWs (call them meninists if you like) are rooted in narcissistic ignorance and this was established long ago through proper discourse. Yet they persist through their stubborn refusal to learn the lessons of history. If they get anything more civil than utter public humiliation, it's more than they deserve.

My stance on this shit regarding race: I feel like if you pretend black people aren't targeted disproportionately by cops, then you're being willfully ignorant. (As a side note, all cops need body cams to keep not only the civilians, but the good cops - the majority of cops - safe.) If you respond to that point with "black people are more likely to commit crime" I'll respond with "Yes, and if you're black, you're also more likely to have been born impoverished." The people who think the crime stats are more based on skin color than living conditions are taking a very, very shallow, almost tribalistic view. By the same token, I think the whole white privilege thing is bullshit, and that the only notable privilege one can be born with is wealth and thus power. I'm not more privileged than Beyonce or Eddie Murphy or whoever else just because of my skin color, I find that claim to be indicative of ignorance on the topic. Like with any major social issues, if you sit somewhere in the middle or have a somewhat nuanced position, you're hated by both sides of the fence, but since most people are dribbling retards I'll wear that like a badge of honor.

Sorry for the slightly negative tone but it baffles me that some people watch pundits on either extreme end of the spectrum and nod their empty fucking heads without actually thinking about the issues for themselves and bothering to read for 5 minutes before regurgitating someone else's opinion on the rest of the world.

mistercow said:

And ignorance towards black people is another way of saying racism so thanks for agreeing with me.

I'm going to put it this way. Until you give reasons for disliking some actual blm issues and not just saying "I hate blm" people like me and other more progressive users on the forum are going to call you racist. If you want to stop this give me actual reasons because you have for disagreeing with blm issues.

Until then you are "sudo459 one of the many users on doomworld that drink diet racism." If this makes you mad you can prove me wrong or you can stay mad and call me "MisterCow femnazi hipster sjw"

This is why SJWs are vehemently disliked by rational people. This attitude is why the topic is polarizing. Thanks for helping tear down your own movement

Edit: OK, so if anyone wants to have an actual debate on this, please open up another thread, and I'll gladly go toe-to-toe.

insanoflex312 said:

This is why SJWs are vehemently disliked by rational people. This attitude is why the topic is polarizing. Thanks for helping tear down your own movement

God, just shut up. You don't get to pretend rationality is whatever you agree with. The topic is only polarizing because of people like you and sudo insist that it is, which is a common tactic regressives use to make their viewpoints seem valid and worthy of discussion, sort of like the "teach the controversy" tactic used in pushing teaching creationism in schools and denying evolution.

dethtoll said:

sort of like the "teach the controversy" tactic used in pushing teaching creationism in schools and denying evolution.

You know, I knew it felt like something, but never quite was able to put my finger on it. Thanks for reminding me.

dethtoll said:

God, just shut up. You don't get to pretend rationality is whatever you agree with. The topic is only polarizing because of people like you and sudo insist that it is, which is a common tactic regressives use to make their viewpoints seem valid and worthy of discussion, sort of like the "teach the controversy" tactic used in pushing teaching creationism in schools and denying evolution.

Exactly my point. We aren't human, we don't deserve a fair chance at discourse. Funny how you know nothing about my views AT ALL because I never discussed them. See goatlord? Threads like this are helled because people like dethtoll here can't have a proper discussion about a topic. He's just right, and you are a regressive if you even hint that you might disagree. I mean, I don't even know if i do or nowtbecause we can't have a real discussion. My biggest pet peeve is a strawman. Also, I guess this is also evidence of what doomkid was saying as well.

dethtoll said:

God, just shut up. You don't get to pretend rationality is whatever you agree with. The topic is only polarizing because of people like you and sudo insist that it is, which is a common tactic regressives use to make their viewpoints seem valid and worthy of discussion, sort of like the "teach the controversy" tactic used in pushing teaching creationism in schools and denying evolution.

Rational people tend to hate being called racist or sexist because they disagree with people. I actually wanted to open up a discussion on the matter to actually debate. But I'm the one that polarizes the discussion? Projection.

Also, the only thing thats close to creationism is the blindness to how actually racist and sexist some of the SJW philosophies are. Example: Equality of outcome rather than opportunity, white-privilege, male-privilege, patriarchy theory.

White privilege is obviously racist when it gets to the "you can't be racist against white people" stage, and most of the time, its just a way to discredit people instead of hearing their opinions. Same goes for male privilege.
Patriarchy theory demonized everything that men do and blames them for everything. It even hides problems men can face, but if it doesn't, it, again, blames men.
Equality of outcome is discrimination. Nuff said.

I'm racist and sexist, right? I'm the regressive? I want people to be treated equal, and that's bad? I don't group people based on skin color, then judge them and treat them differently, so I'm the racist? Are you still in denial about these terms being used improperly, or are we ready for an actual discussion?

insanoflex312 said:

Rational people tend to hate being called racist or sexist because they disagree with people. I actually wanted to open up a discussion on the matter to actually debate. But I'm the one that polarizes the discussion? Projection.

Well I mean, if what you say is racist or sexist towards a marginalized group, you probably don't get to decide that it wasn't.

PureSlime said:

Well I mean, if what you say is racist or sexist towards a marginalized group, you probably don't get to decide that it wasn't.

That's not even what we are arguing about. I said that there are things people use the words racist and sexist to describe that aren't racist or sexist, with examples, and your counterargument is "yes they are". So, I'd like to ask, why is disagreeing with, let's say the idea of white privilege racist? Ive heard people being called racist for disagreeing with this idea.

an_mutt said:

People who are labelled as "Social Justice Warriors" are typically people who have standards above saying the first uneducated thing that comes to mind and then complaining about freedom of speech/political correctness if anybody calls them out on it. They're usually found looking to progress society, but thankfully the brave Rational Thinkers of the world are always there (always) to fight for keeping culture and society where it belongs: the 1950s. Social Justice Warriors will also destroy video games with feminism.

If it were the 1950s, we wouldn't have any women or minorities in political power nor would any form of progressive activism be tolerated.

Specific examples:

•Barack Obama
•Hillary Clinton
•Colin Powell
•B.E.T.
•Lead roles held by ethnic minorities in movies or TV shows
•Sexual Harassment policies that are enforced
•The View

Just to name a few...so I am confused on how this is anything like the 1950s.

sudo459 said:

That's not even what we are arguing about. I said that there are things people use the words racist and sexist to describe that aren't racist or sexist, with examples, and your counterargument is "yes they are". So, I'd like to ask, why is disagreeing with, let's say the idea of white privilege racist? Ive heard people being called racist for disagreeing with this idea.

Well I'd definitely say that it is racist, but also just massively willfully ignorant.

White privilege does exist. It's exceedingly obvious that white people have a socially preferential treatment compared to those of other ethnicities in the western world. That white people are given a pass as being the "default", aren't racially profiled by police, etc.

It may not be explicitly racist, but it's part of an implicit racial bias that we likely all have because of the racist culture in which we inhabit. It imparts that bias on all of us.

There's no "end" to racism. It's a process we have to all keep working at to eliminate our own racial biases.

Pureslime, take a fucking psych class. We don't have

an implicit racial bias that we likely all have because of the racist culture in which we inhabit

We have brains that function based on very simple principles; it is or it isn't. Think of a child with a kitty, he learns it's a kitty and that's that. Then he sees a dog, calls it a kitty. Why? Because he assimilated the new knowledge into his existing schema. Later on he will learn the difference between a cat and a dog, something called discrimination and at that point he accomodates his schema to match this new stimulus. At this point, it is natural to see the two as totally different, and we often find what we are looking for in this life; you see what you want to see. So does he continue to look for similarities or differences? There are both, but how he views each cat and dog will be determined by how he compares them. Which then goes back to the ole 2D thinking of humans: it is or it isn't, it's good or its bad, it's us or its them. If there are some differences then there are more; if there are more then they are not the same. That's the essence of it, and the real battle to fight. Change what you want to see.

PureSlime said:

Well I'd definitely say that it is racist, but also just massively willfully ignorant.

I'll grant you ignorant, but not racist. Never. Oh hey, doomkid, join the club of racist whites, I guess.

PureSlime said:

White privilege does exist. It's exceedingly obvious that white people have a socially preferential treatment compared to those of other ethnicities in the western world. That white people are given a pass as being the "default", aren't racially profiled by police, etc.

I'll grant the "not racially profiled by police" bit, but I think you should elaborate on whites being default. Obviously we are a majority, but I can name several things whites do not benefit from that minorities do. So I guess, privileged in some areas, but not others. Also, do you mean whites (all whites) or generally whites? Can you give an example?
Example: racially based scholarships.

PureSlime said:

It may not be explicitly racist, but it's part of an implicit racial bias that we likely all have because of the racist culture in which we inhabit. It imparts that bias on all of us.

There's no "end" to racism. It's a process we have to all keep working at to eliminate our own racial biases.

Part of that, I feel is dismissing with identity politics altogether. Since race is a social construct anyway, why even bother bringing it up at all? I know we as humans are geared toward tribal beliefs, such as racism, but we can be above such things if we so choose. Would you agree?

Fonze: "Change what you want to see" and PureSlime: "It's a process we have to all keep working at to eliminate our own racial biases" do not appear to be contradictory viewpoints, imho

It seems like there are so many people who go on about wanting to end racial bias by rising above it, then 2 seconds later prove that to be a load of crap by spouting off about how blacks are criminals or how whites are privileged or some other uneducated horse shit depending which side they place themselves on. Those kinds of statements only acknowledge one aspect of very complicated situation, rendering them essentially meaningless.

You do not unite people through division. You cannot unite the population through treating people differently or having different laws in place based on ethnicity, a thing we have no control over. That philosophy really makes no sense at it's core. Finger pointing gets us nowhere, change comes through reformed legislation that ignores race and instead looks at things we can change, things like an individual's socioeconomic standing, for example. You cannot end racism by passing laws that favor one race over another for anything at all, history has proven to us beyond any doubt that such laws only further the divide rather than leading to a somewhat united population.

I personally feel the way to curb racism is through educating people, not pointing fingers at each other here on the bottom rung based on fucking skin pigmentation. Anyone who thinks talk about things like "white privilege" is going to help end racism is missing the point - short of treating your fellow humans with respect and voting, there's really not much we can do to alter the agenda of the ultra-powerful, and that agenda is quite clearly to keep the focus off of the systemic oppression of poor Americans and instead have us point fingers at eachother based on skin tone. If you buy into that inane crap, reconsider your stance, this time after doing a little reading outside of Doomworld posts.

Here is an honest question, how many times has "you're being racist" ever resulted in someone going "Oh god I am, let me totally change my ideology"? I bet you could count them on one hand. Where as the time it's made someone further entrenched into that behavior probably is upwards in the billions.

Edit: Oh and the same in reverse also applies (but that conversation hasn't been relevant for a couple of pages now) when has "you're just being too sensitive" ever worked? Ever?

sudo459 said:

Exactly my point. We aren't human, we don't deserve a fair chance at discourse.

That's not what I said at all, you disingenuous little cockbot.