Why SJW's are so demented.

Drew_TNBD

digitalscream said:

Sporky said:

Drew_fx said:

By their logic a brown lesbian lawyer earning $1M a year is less privileged than a straight white male working as a taxi-driver.

The above is like saying that BMI is worthless because it paints a professional rugby forward as less healthy than a bedridden anorexic, ignoring that it wasn't intended to be applied to either.

All systems break down at their extremes - hence the "S" in SJW is "straw-man", because it's just another ad-hominem favoured by right wing straight white men afraid of equality.

See how easy it is to belittle those with whom you disagree?

That's all well and good, and I tend to agree with you in most cases; however, most SJW-types genuinely do believe that solely by being white, male and straight we are more privileged than anybody else. The fact that we haven't leveraged that to get to the top rung of society's ladder is a mark of our failure, not an indicator that we might've been less-privileged.

It's really rather silly.

Aye, and their dogmatic about it too.

Whenever I've told one of these freaks about my history - beaten as a child, working class family with no opportunities, etc... etc... - I'm basically told that even after having to CHOOSE THE UTILITY FOR MY OWN FUCKING BEATINGS... I'm *STILL* overly privileged!! We've seen that here on this very forum; whenever I post stats and evidence to support my assertion that white working class boys are the most disadvantaged class in our society, it gets laughed at or ignored. Even though it's true.

Imagine what they'd say to you Lee, with your history of experiencing violence!

There is good news however - these people really are a minority in our society.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

TL:DR for you

I can read. I don't need to be patronized.

digitalscream

Drew_fx said:

Aye, and their dogmatic about it too.

Whenever I've told one of these freaks about my history - beaten as a child, working class family with no opportunities, etc... etc... - I'm basically told that even after having to CHOOSE THE UTILITY FOR MY OWN FUCKING BEATINGS... I'm *STILL* overly privileged!! We've seen that here on this very forum; whenever I post stats and evidence to support my assertion that white working class boys are the most disadvantaged class in our society, it gets laughed at or ignored. Even though it's true.

Imagine what they'd say to you Lee, with your history of experiencing violence!

There is good news however - these people really are a minority in our society.

Oh, I know what they'd say, because they've said it...

"You probably deserved it"

Fortunately, they're easy to ignore on account of being idiots.

Drew_TNBD

Oh, and if anyone disbelieves my assertions here.... erm.... lets go back to Aids Skrillex...

Sporky

digitalscream said:

That's all well and good, and I tend to agree with you in most cases; however, most SJW-types genuinely do believe that solely by being white, male and straight we are more privileged than anybody else. The fact that we haven't leveraged that to get to the top rung of society's ladder is a mark of our failure, not an indicator that we might've been less-privileged.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't total fruitcakes out there. I also think that "privilege" was a poor choice of term, but I think there' some validity that all other factors aside, being born white is a societal advantage, as is being born male and straight.

The problem arises when either side (SJW or MRA for want of more nuanced terms) decide that this applies to individuals rather than groups, and even more so when extremes are taken to ridicule the core concept.

It gets even worse when people apply naive realism to it and fall into the trap of thinking that only their viewpoint is valid, and anyone who disagrees with them is a moron who must be abused because they're too thick to draw the right conclusions.

Sporky

Drew_fx said:

Sporky said:

TL:DR for you

I can read. I don't need to be patronized.

I hope you do read it, because you're clearly dug well into it. Hence you getting so disproportionately angry and aggressive with me any time I disagree with what you've said.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

digitalscream said:

That's all well and good, and I tend to agree with you in most cases; however, most SJW-types genuinely do believe that solely by being white, male and straight we are more privileged than anybody else. The fact that we haven't leveraged that to get to the top rung of society's ladder is a mark of our failure, not an indicator that we might've been less-privileged.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't total fruitcakes out there. I also think that "privilege" was a poor choice of term, but I think there' some validity that all other factors aside, being born white is a societal advantage, as is being born male and straight.

We've just had ... ooooo... I dunno, almost 80 years of being told that someone's skin colour is not important and that it tells you nothing about the persons character.... and now in the last 10 years we're being told that a particular type of skin colour is a valid indicator of their character.... but all the others are still not valid. It's logically inconsistent and by definition IS racist!

You cannot look at me or anyone else as a white person and conclude anything other than I probably don't tan very well!

The problem arises when either side (SJW or MRA for want of more nuanced terms) decide that this applies to individuals rather than groups, and even more so when extremes are taken to ridicule the core concept.

Why do you automatically jump to MRA for your false dichotomy here? There are many many many groups who think SJW's are cancerous. Why don't you pick on the Conservative Woman people instead?

It gets even worse when people apply naive realism to it and fall into the trap of thinking that only their viewpoint is valid, and anyone who disagrees with them is a moron who must be abused because they're too thick to draw the right conclusions.

I never said only my viewpoint is valid. I was describing my experiences with these people, at the same time as factually explaining a few terms - intersectionality, and the progressive stack for instance which are two of the pillars of SJW thought.

Your playing the NAFALT game, and it's fucking dull.

monquixote

It seems to me to be the actions of a small group of very silly people and we'd be better off ignoring them rather than giving them the oxygen of publicity. 

octatonic

In before someone gets called a 'cuck'.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

Drew_fx said:

Sporky said:

TL:DR for you

I can read. I don't need to be patronized.

I hope you do read it, because you're clearly dug well into it. Hence you getting so disproportionately angry and aggressive with me any time I disagree with what you've said.

Dude, I'm not angry. You asserting that doesn't make it true. Nor am I any more aggressive than I normally am. I know this tactic mate, claim your "opponent" is angry to invalidate their argument. People do it with Richard Dawkins all the time. Even the slightest or mildest criticism gets ballooned into a great big boogeyman.

It's pretty clever really, but I think most people are becoming wise to it now.

Drew_TNBD

monquixote said:

It seems to me to be the actions of a small group of very silly people and we'd be better off ignoring them rather than giving them the oxygen of publicity. 

I take the other tack, that they need to be exposed.

The reason is that these people tend to swan into academic and governmental positions and they do have sway, even though they're a minority.

Anita Sarkeesian was invited to the UN for christ-sake!

digitalscream

Sporky said:

digitalscream said:

That's all well and good, and I tend to agree with you in most cases; however, most SJW-types genuinely do believe that solely by being white, male and straight we are more privileged than anybody else. The fact that we haven't leveraged that to get to the top rung of society's ladder is a mark of our failure, not an indicator that we might've been less-privileged.

I'm certainly not suggesting that there aren't total fruitcakes out there. I also think that "privilege" was a poor choice of term, but I think there' some validity that all other factors aside, being born white is a societal advantage, as is being born male and straight.

I'm more inclined to think that the problem lies in the stratification and ranking of apparent "privileges" - like, for example, being white and male gives you privilege but also being born into awful circumstances doesn't lessen that privilege.

It's generally because the proponents of such theories tend to be academics who are fairly well-isolated from encountering what they regard as fringe cases, even if such cases comprise a non-trivial proportion of the population.

When considered in terms of "advantage" rather than "privilege", it becomes a bit more realistic; "social advantage" has a direct (and unemotional) opposite in "social disadvantage", and can change for an individual over time. Social privilege, in terms of the way it's used these days, is something you're born with and that's the end of the story.

For example, I enjoy significant social advantages now, but go back 30 years and I was pretty near the bottom rung with few prospects of moving upwards. I was, however, apparently privileged right from the start.

Sporky

Drew_fx said:

I never said only my viewpoint is valid.

What you said was:

"Sorry but you're wrong, know nothing about which you speak, and are merely responding in a defensive condescending tone because you feel threatened by differences of opinion.

I didn't invent any of this stuff. I just understand it, because I've researched it."

You're playing the "if I'm rude and aggressive enough the nasty man will go away crying" game, and it's tedious. So when you "factually explained" the terms you did it in such a way as to ridicule those with whom you disagree.

Sporky

digitalscream said:

I'm more inclined to think that the problem lies in the stratification and ranking of apparent "privileges" - like, for example, being white and male gives you privilege but also being born into awful circumstances doesn't lessen that privilege.

Yeah, I can see that. I saw some chart for privilege some years ago and I think there was more to it than race and sex and orientation - family background and poverty did feature too, but the weighting was definitely skewed towards those first three IIRC. I thought it was an interesting idea to consider, as usual it gets to be a problem when people try to expand it and apply it rigorously to individuals.

When considered in terms of "advantage" rather than "privilege", it becomes a bit more realistic; "social advantage" has a direct (and unemotional) opposite in "social disadvantage", and can change for an individual over time. Social privilege, in terms of the way it's used these days, is something you're born with and that's the end of the story.

I think both are factors, and there may even be an element of semantics to it (which may say more about me than anything else). I do think that privilege exists and influences a lot of things, but I also think that influence is overstated by some (I s'pose those are the people who get called SJWs?). Also a lot of this seems to come from the US where (from what I've gathered) the balance of how much a person's life is affected by this privilege thing vs by their class is different from the UK.

Sporky

Drew_fx said:

I know this tactic mate, claim your "opponent" is angry to invalidate their argument.

I'm not trying to invalidate your argument; I disagree with it, I don't think it's invalid.

I'm trying to get to the point where we can discuss things without you trying to dismiss everything I say out of hand with "you don't understand, shut up" posts.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

Drew_fx said:

I never said only my viewpoint is valid.

What you said was:

"Sorry but you're wrong, know nothing about which you speak, and are merely responding in a defensive condescending tone because you feel threatened by differences of opinion.

I didn't invent any of this stuff. I just understand it, because I've researched it."

You're playing the "if I'm rude and aggressive enough the nasty man will go away crying" game, and it's tedious. So when you "factually explained" the terms you did it in such a way as to ridicule those with whom you disagree.

You're confusing comedic edge with rudeness and aggression. And we've had this exchange in private before. We both know that on these topics we tend to disagree a fair amount, and we both use the same tactics. You calling me tedious is no less aggressive or rude just because you didn't use the word fuck and I did.

You've made demonstrable false statements in this thread. I will outline them for you.

- S stands for strawman. No it doesn't. It stands for social.
- The above is like saying that BMI is worthless because it paints a professional rugby forward as less healthy than a bedridden anorexic, ignoring that it wasn't intended to be applied to either. You were referencing something I said about the progressive stack. Here you seem to be saying that the progressive stack was not designed to compare a brown lesbian lawyer and a white male taxi driver. But this is untrue. It was designed to compare people from different social backgrounds, and it is used to assemble them in a sort of high-score table of privilege. This is well documented.
- All systems break down at their extremes. This seems like an empty polemic statement to me, and I don't see that it is necessarily true.
- See how easy it is to belittle those with whom you disagree? - Misrepresentation. I didn't belittle anyone who I particularly disagreed with. I belittled an ideology and philosophical train of thought. Totally different thing.
- You laughed in a belittling way directly at me when I made a post, even using a smiley to demonstrate your belittlement. I call that hypocrisy.
- Hence you getting so disproportionately angry and aggressive with me any time I disagree with what you've said. - I'm not angry. So another lie.
- I'm trying to get to the point where we can discuss things without you trying to dismiss everything I say out of hand with "you don't understand, shut up" posts. Also not true. You're just trying to be a wind-up merchant. You've not actually addressed any of the points I've made other than to say you disagree. Why do you disagree? With which particular bits?

So how about you actually tackle my arguments instead of my character Andi? So far every single contribution of yours in this thread is one big ad hominem. If I've said something that is actually INACCURATE... cite your source. If it rings true, I'll change my opinion. Alternatively, continue taking the piss. I'm happy to play ball for another 10 pages, coz I've only got progress bars to watch for the next hour!

Fretwired

monquixote said:

It seems to me to be the actions of a small group of very silly people and we'd be better off ignoring them rather than giving them the oxygen of publicity. 

Except that they can wield power ... in the US feminists want a law to declare than a man who lies to a woman and has sex is guilty of rape and legislators are looking at making it law. Nuts ...

digitalscream

Sporky said:

digitalscream said:

I'm more inclined to think that the problem lies in the stratification and ranking of apparent "privileges" - like, for example, being white and male gives you privilege but also being born into awful circumstances doesn't lessen that privilege.

Yeah, I can see that. I saw some chart for privilege some years ago and I think there was more to it than race and sex and orientation - family background and poverty did feature too, but the weighting was definitely skewed towards those first three IIRC. I thought it was an interesting idea to consider, as usual it gets to be a problem when people try to expand it and apply it rigorously to individuals.

When considered in terms of "advantage" rather than "privilege", it becomes a bit more realistic; "social advantage" has a direct (and unemotional) opposite in "social disadvantage", and can change for an individual over time. Social privilege, in terms of the way it's used these days, is something you're born with and that's the end of the story.

I think both are factors, and there may even be an element of semantics to it (which may say more about me than anything else). I do think that privilege exists and influences a lot of things, but I also think that influence is overstated by some (I s'pose those are the people who get called SJWs?). Also a lot of this seems to come from the US where (from what I've gathered) the balance of how much a person's life is affected by this privilege thing vs by their class is different from the UK.

Ultimately, the whole "check your privilege" thing ignores the single most influential factor: money. A person could be a black transgender lesbian...if they have a lot of money, they have more social privilege than anybody who doesn't because of the opportunities that affords (which is supposedly what this definition of "privilege" is meant to measure).

Is it right? Probably not. Is it the world we live in? Definitely.

Drew_TNBD

Sporky said:

Drew_fx said:

By their logic a brown lesbian lawyer earning $1M a year is less privileged than a straight white male working as a taxi-driver.

The above is like saying that BMI is worthless because it paints a professional rugby forward as less healthy than a bedridden anorexic, ignoring that it wasn't intended to be applied to either.

Look... take it back to this point, coz this is really your first disagreement that I can spot. Would you agree with that?

I think you're getting the cart before the horse on that. It isn't that concepts of privilege and progressive stack are not useful for comparing a brown lesbian lawyer and a white male taxi-driver... it's that if you want to compare those two... then those concepts are not the right tools.

The intention isn't to utilise the tools and to find a job for them... it's that you've got this thing you wanna do, what are the best tools for them?

I don't think skin colour and gender is a good enough metric for determining the privilege differential between those two generalised examples.

Sporky

Right - I've cleared this one as I wasn't being helpful. Back in a mo.