Poll of the Day > Do 'SJWs' and 'Regresive leftist' actually do more harm than good for equality?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I noticed very few people complained about gay characters, female main characters, non white male and non Asian male characters before 2012-2014 befor Anita Sarkesian and the so called 'SJWs appeared in masses. when 'SJWs' began their crusades against gamers allmost most gamers were on the left

Before SJWs appeared almost all atheists, agnostics and non believers were on the left...but when SJWs becagn to call Richard dawkins a bigot when he began to critizice islam all of a suden many non beleivers either become centrist or jumped all the way to the right since they felt Islam was a bigger treat than christianity

In fact the very few conservative members of GameFAQs called this place 'LiberalFaqs' back then.

As a Liberal, I feel the so called 'SJW's do more harm than good...you are not going to make working whites less racist by calling them privileges you are going to make them more racist...you are not going to make

The extreme of both sides is toxic for it's side.

Zikten posted...

The extreme of both sides is toxic for it's side.

Drinking lead paints bad, ok?
---

More harm than good? They basically only do harm. At least their counterparts mostly stick to themselves unless provoked and function in society. Rednecks can be talked to, most of them are just uneducated / raised on outdated beliefs and might grumble and go back to their trailer parks.
---

Equality has been debased by SJWs to not mean equality anymore... So.. yeah.
---

The Horseshoe Theory is stronger than ever these days.
---

SJWs do not turn people racist. They make already racist people more openly racist, using the excuse that SJWs "forced" them to.

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people? Of all the people you could use as an example of being unfairly labeled, why pick him?!
---

Flyingpirate posted...

More harm than good? They basically only do harm.

This, absolutely.

Golden Road posted...

SJWs do not turn people racist.

No, they just call everyone who happens to disagree with them a racist. Even if the issue they disagree on has nothing to do with race. Then they change the definition of racism so that indifference to race is also racist.

Golden Road posted...

They make already racist people more openly racist

Not really. Any sort of identity politics is ultimately an issue of race. SJW identity politics is racist. When people are targeted as a group and defend themselves with their own identity politics that too is racist. You can't fight identity politics with identity politics. That's just adding on more identity politics which is the real problem, not the perceived racism on either side.
---

Yes. There was a time when one could accurately sum up liberals as rational and conservatives as crazies. Now it's not that black-and-white thanks to the regressive leftists.

More harm, but their effect on society is grossly exaggerated by their opponents.

Golden Road posted...

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people?

He's a dick, but people absolutely do unfairly turn him into some sort of strawman caricature.

EightySeven posted...

Golden Road posted...

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people?

He's a dick, but people absolutely do unfairly turn him into some sort of strawman caricature.

I remember when SJWs accused him of cultural appropriation for wearing the "We are all Africans" shirt.

I just. I just can't.

Currant_Kaiser posted...

I remember when SJWs accused him of cultural appropriation for wearing the "We are all Africans" shirt.

Which culture? There are hundreds of cultures in Africa.

Golden Road posted...

SJWs do not turn people racist. They make already racist people more openly racist, using the excuse that SJWs "forced" them to.

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people? Of all the people you could use as an example of being unfairly labeled, why pick him?!

because he is unfairly labeled, the left loved him when he only bashed christianity but the moment he went after islam the far left and their double standards began to attack him

EightySeven posted...

Golden Road posted...

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people?

He's a dick, but people absolutely do unfairly turn him into some sort of strawman caricature.

He is not a dick, what happens if that people get angry if you correct them and dont take their beliefs seriously

Golden Road posted...

SJWs do not turn people racist. They make already racist people more openly racist, using the excuse that SJWs "forced" them to.

Richard Dawkins is a terrible person, though, why would you even bring him up as an example of unfairly persecuted people? Of all the people you could use as an example of being unfairly labeled, why pick him?!

@Golden Road they do make them more racist.....if you tell an uneducated working white man that he is privileged he will becomo more racist, if you tell blacks that all whites are a bit racist they will hate whites more

What happen to the old style that everyone was equal? just like it was before 2012 to 2014? that worked better


Also having double standards against atheists by praising them when they attack Christianity and calling them bigots when they attack Islam is going to make many of them vote for a right wing party

SJW don't do good, so yes, by default.
---

DrChocolate posted...

@Golden Road they do make them more racist.....if you tell an uneducated working white man that he is privileged he will becomo more racist

If that's all it takes to make that man racist, I'm pretty sure he was just looking for an excuse in the first place.

DrChocolate posted...

because he is unfairly labeled, the left loved him when he only bashed christianity but the moment he went after islam the far left and their double standards began to attack him

As a liberal Christian, no, I did not love him even before. He was always an asshole. But let's not pretend bashing Christianity and bashing Islam are the same. Bashing Islam leads to killing Muslims in the belief that they're all terrorists trying to take over America and Europe, and killing Muslims protects us somehow. Bashing Christianity leads to an imaginary war on Christmas that Christmas handily wins every single year. Not really the same.
---

Golden Road posted...

But let's not pretend bashing Christianity and bashing Islam are the same. Bashing Islam leads to killing Muslims in the belief that they're all terrorists trying to take over America and Europe, and killing Muslims protects us somehow. Bashing Christianity leads to an imaginary war on Christmas that Christmas handily wins every single year. Not really the same.

Ok did I misinterpret you or are you trying to argue that certain ideologies, like Islam, are off limits from criticism? I'd be more understanding if you said Muslims as Muslims are a huge and diverse group of people, but Islam is an ideology.

EightySeven posted...

Golden Road posted...

But let's not pretend bashing Christianity and bashing Islam are the same. Bashing Islam leads to killing Muslims in the belief that they're all terrorists trying to take over America and Europe, and killing Muslims protects us somehow. Bashing Christianity leads to an imaginary war on Christmas that Christmas handily wins every single year. Not really the same.

Ok did I misinterpret you or are you trying to argue that certain ideologies, like Islam, are off limits from criticism? I'd be more understanding if you said Muslims as Muslims are a huge and diverse group of people, but Islam is an ideology.

It's not off-limits, but it needs to be done more tactfully, so as not to give Islamophobes more ammunition. Saying Islam is the super evillest religion is just about the worst way to criticize Islam.
---

Golden Road posted...

Saying Islam is the super evillest religion is just about the worst way to criticize Islam.

Well yeah if platitudes are all you've got then that isn't a very good argument at all. If it's well, sourced and argued though I think being inflammatory is sometimes necessary to have an impact.

Zikten posted...

The extreme of both sides is toxic for it's side.

---

There are many ways to be an atheist, and the Richard Dawkins way adopts the worst aspects of religion.

You can see the massive amount of damage yourself. The entire internet used to be super liberal, now there's a huge surge of Conservatism. That's damage by my standards and definitely damage by theirs.

All because people believed in "white lies". Lying will send you backwards in politics because eventually the truth will surface.

wah_wah_wah posted...

and the Richard Dawkins way adopts the worst aspects of religion.

Yeah, I don't know how he finds time to debate people between his murder sprees and institutional raping.

They do no good. They oppose logic and human nature because they seek some impossible, dysfunctional world. Diseases are actually better, because they encourage further development.
---

EightySeven posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

and the Richard Dawkins way adopts the worst aspects of religion.

Yeah, I don't know how he finds time to debate people between his murder sprees and institutional raping.

Not sure where you've been. He has defended rape culture and murderous Western regimes.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Not sure where you've been. He has defended rape culture and murderous Western regimes.

I've been in the real world where "rape culture" in the West isn't a thing outside of prisons and drones aren't intentionally targeting innocent civilians.

There is definitely rape outside of prisons (the way you deny this basic reality is creepy as fuck btw but Dawkins would be proud of this) and I'm sure that is comfort to Middle Easterners to know their children died by accident while the US government was trying to kill some other person that was never convicted of a crime.

Zikten posted...

The extreme of both sides is toxic for it's side.

Pretty much this.
---

The extreme of both sides are not equally toxic. Teenagers on Tumblr complaining about white people and bona fide Nazis are not equally toxic.
---

Any person with any viewpoint can be a piece of shit. Regardless of how "extreme" their views are. I've met liberals, conservatives, centrists, moderates who sucked as human beings. Your high ideas don't inoculate you from having to try to do the right thing and give a shit, unfortunately.

SJWs think they are helping one group but they are harming the majority with their tactics.

And I can see GoldenSjw is at it again.
"guys guys dont say anything bad about Islam mkay?"

wah_wah_wah posted...

There is definitely rape outside of prisons (the way you deny this basic reality is creepy as fuck btw but Dawkins would be proud of this)

And the way you use strawmans to try to construct emotional arguments is frankly pathetic. There's a huge difference between rape existing and there being a rape culture. What you said was such a disgusting and underhanded way to argue a point.


wah_wah_wah posted...

and I'm sure that is comfort to Middle Easterners to know their children died by accident while the US government was trying to kill some other person that was never convicted of a crime.

It's not and I'm not a fan of the drone program myself, but intent matters and the fact remains that there's a big difference between intentionally targeting civilians and collateral damage. That's no comfort to the dead and their families, but it is nevertheless still an important moral distinction. Got any more vapid comparisons?