Current Events > Don't believe anyone who tells you that ''SJWs'' are a legitimate problem.

(+) Yeah! (+)

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

You are an excellent example of the type of delusional people that I take issue with. While I'm sure that there are some people in existence who are similar to "people who want leverage in society...", they are much smaller in quantity than you think and are in no way representative of the majority of "SJWs" who genuinely want a more just society. You sound like you've been influenced by anti-SJW propaganda, with this part of your post being key:

it's actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive. It's this pervasive idea wholly resembling McCarthyism.

Do you honestly think that these "SJWs" that you so despise have any real power to "hunt down and eliminate" media that they deem unacceptable? Hell, even one of the most notorious individuals that anti-SJWs love to complain about, Anita Sarkeesian, doesn't propose getting rid of video game media containing what she considers problematic messages. Most SJWs just want more media to be made containing progressive messages.

Yeah I know you take issue with my type because we're the ones with enough mental aptitude to debate you without going "hurrrr SJWs!!!" at every instance. Change of pace for you, difficult to adapt to. I get it.

Again, the heart of this argument all comes down to just where you draw the line on what constitutes an SJW and how you measure the vocality of extremists, so I really won't bother with that part. I could tell you that SJWs actually do something and you could just come back and say those are the vocal minority.

But when you give me a specific example like Anita Sarkeesian, I can debate that for sure. Her videos basically read like a college freshman assignment to take issue with a random subject and argue it. Her videos are all about taking issue with specific instances, not "wanting more media to be made containing progressive messages". And she has been monumentally influential in the video game industry in seeding these ideas.

>SJWs actually do something
>Uses Anita Sarkeesian as an example

Man, you people place way too much onus on video games. Your life must be extremely small and insignificant.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

You are an excellent example of the type of delusional people that I take issue with. While I'm sure that there are some people in existence who are similar to "people who want leverage in society...", they are much smaller in quantity than you think and are in no way representative of the majority of "SJWs" who genuinely want a more just society. You sound like you've been influenced by anti-SJW propaganda, with this part of your post being key:

it's actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive. It's this pervasive idea wholly resembling McCarthyism.

Do you honestly think that these "SJWs" that you so despise have any real power to "hunt down and eliminate" media that they deem unacceptable? Hell, even one of the most notorious individuals that anti-SJWs love to complain about, Anita Sarkeesian, doesn't propose getting rid of video game media containing what she considers problematic messages. Most SJWs just want more media to be made containing progressive messages.

Yeah I know you take issue with my type because we're the ones with enough mental aptitude to debate you without going "hurrrr SJWs!!!" at every instance. Change of pace for you, difficult to adapt to. I get it.

Again, the heart of this argument all comes down to just where you draw the line on what constitutes an SJW and how you measure the vocality of extremists, so I really won't bother with that part. I could tell you that SJWs actually do something and you could just come back and say those are the vocal minority.

But when you give me a specific example like Anita Sarkeesian, I can debate that for sure. Her videos basically read like a college freshman assignment to take issue with a random subject and argue it. Her videos are all about taking issue with specific instances, not "wanting more media to be made containing progressive messages". And she has been monumentally influential in the video game industry in seeding these ideas.

>SJWs actually do something
>Uses Anita Sarkeesian as an example

Man, you people place way too much onus on video games. Your life must be extremely small and insignificant.

...I was discussing the example he used.

No, YOU read poorly!
---

@RoboLaserGandhi

The thing is, you made the assertion that "SJWs" are "actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive". You need to back such a claim with evidence. You also need to provide evidence that this is a large group of people doing this and that they actually have power.

Regarding Sarkeesian: I've seen a decent number of her Feminist Frequency videos, and one of her key recurring points is that video game storywriters have a tendency to be lazy and rely on stereotypical representations of female character and to make female characters function as plot devices. If her content encourages video game writers to be less lazy and create more interesting and varied female characters with more meaningful roles to play in stories, isn't that a good thing?
---

The very concept of 'social justice' is malicious, and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or a thief.
---

wiiking96 posted...

The thing is, you made the assertion that "SJWs" are "actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive". You need to back such a claim with evidence. You also need to provide evidence that this is a large group of people doing this and that they actually have power.

SJWs complain when there's an all white or all male cast all the time, or that something simply doesn't have a female protagonist. Or even when something doesn't go political enough, like what happened with Far Cry 5 and its cover art baiting something much more controversial than what actually takes place.

And you need to back your stuff up here. You've been making a lot of broad assertions yourself.

wiiking96 posted...

Regarding Sarkeesian: I've seen a decent number of her Feminist Frequency videos, and one of her key recurring points is that video game storywriters have a tendency to be lazy and rely on stereotypical representations of female character and to make female characters function as plot devices. If her content encourages video game writers to be less lazy and create more interesting and varied female characters with more meaningful roles to play in stories, isn't that a good thing?

She makes her living by nitpicking. She is actively searching for microaggressions and misogynist talking points in 90% of her videos. That's not exactly helpful for anyone.

wiiking96 posted...

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

Most people who would self-identify as a "SJW" are well-meaning and primarily want to make the world a better place

Yeah... stopped reading here, the smell of bullshit was just too overpowering.

Tell me, do you identify as an anti-SJW yourself, or have you just been convinced by anti-SJWs that SJWs are a problem?

You're literally trying to defend Anita Sarkeesian. If this topic isn't bullshit, it's bait.

We're done here either way.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'social justice' is malicious, and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or a thief.

I think you and me have very different ideas of what "social justice" in entails.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

I'm still waiting to hear who's career or life got ruined by the "evil ESS JAY DUBS". Surely if this was as big of an issue that people think it is there'd be a decent list of people out there already instead of pretending guys like Kevin Harts life is ruined because he's not hosting an award show.

What's Aziz been up to?

Now you could argue "He'll climb out of the rut", and maybe you're right, maybe he will. But there are a great deal of people who don't want him to. That's my general point. The intent to destroy is there.

It's like working customer service, except everyone, even people who aren't customers can be your customers, and if enough of them say something, you'll get fired. On the other side, this happened to Kathy Griffin and Louis C.K.

Also, because it's all subjective and relies on feelings and people's memories, someone like Mel Gibson gets to come back.

But that's my point. I'm not saying they're a threat to society, but on an individual level? It probably sucks seeing the walls around you close for something that to be completely honest, is none of their business.
---

wiiking96 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'social justice' is malicious, and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or a thief.

I think you and me have very different ideas of what "social justice" in entails.

Then define it. The generally-accepted definition, that we get 'justice' for the disenfranchised by punishing the groups that benefited by that disenfranchisement at some point in history, is malicious on its face.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

The thing is, you made the assertion that "SJWs" are "actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive". You need to back such a claim with evidence. You also need to provide evidence that this is a large group of people doing this and that they actually have power.

SJWs complain when there's an all white or all male cast all the time, or that something simply doesn't have a female protagonist. Or even when something doesn't go political enough, like what happened with Far Cry 5 and its cover art baiting something much more controversial than what actually takes place.

Again, this is what you said:

"it's actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive."

This is the assertion that you need to back up. Pointing out that some people sometimes complain about media that they see as problematic is not anywhere close to being substantive evidence.

And you need to back your stuff up here. You've been making a lot of broad assertions yourself.

My broad assertions are that "SJWs" aren't anywhere near as bad as a lot of people like to claim that they are. I assert that people are exaggerating the degree to which a group of people impact society. If there is evidence to suggest that "SJWs" are actually a serious problem, then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide it. My assertion can be boiled down to this: Anti-SJWs are talking out of their ass because they want something to complain about.

wiiking96 posted...

Regarding Sarkeesian: I've seen a decent number of her Feminist Frequency videos, and one of her key recurring points is that video game storywriters have a tendency to be lazy and rely on stereotypical representations of female character and to make female characters function as plot devices. If her content encourages video game writers to be less lazy and create more interesting and varied female characters with more meaningful roles to play in stories, isn't that a good thing?

She makes her living by nitpicking. She is actively searching for microaggressions and misogynist talking points in 90% of her videos. That's not exactly helpful for anyone.

This isn't the impression that I got at all from her videos. Anita makes some valid points and provides plenty of legitimate evidence to back up her points. I'm aware that she can be something of a dick and doesn't best understand how to achieve many of her goals, but that doesn't mean that she has contributed nothing of value.
---

AdviceMan posted...

What's Aziz been up to?

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all
---

darkjedilink posted...

wiiking96 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'social justice' is malicious, and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or a thief.

I think you and me have very different ideas of what "social justice" in entails.

Then define it. The generally-accepted definition, that we get 'justice' for the disenfranchised by punishing the groups that benefited by that disenfranchisement at some point in history, is malicious on its face.

Since when the hell was that the generally-accepted definition?

I'm not sure what the best definition of social justice is. I don't know how to best put it into words, such it's such a broad concept. But I feel like pointing out that there are groups in society that currently directly benefit from the disenfranchisement of minorities and poor people, especially the wealthy and powerful. There are people stuck working in sweatshops making products to benefit the bottom lines of huge corporations.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all

That's great. But you are aware that his "comeback" tour is a complete and utter result of the fact that he laid low for an extensive period of time for the outrage to die down. Yes, it was his decision, and it most certainly was a wise one.

But it would be disingenuous to pretend like his career did not take a hit, people weren't calling for him to not be renewed by Netflix, or he was not affected significantly by any of this. I suppose I should take partial blame for setting this up as an all or nothing game. I picked Aziz in particular because he's one of the few people involved in MeToo where the consensus was split rather than mostly against him.
---

AdviceMan posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all

That's great. But you are aware that his "comeback" tour is a complete and utter result of the fact that he laid low for an extensive period of time for the outrage to die down. Yes, it was his decision, and it most certainly was a wise one.

But it would be disingenuous to pretend like his career did not take a hit, people weren't calling for him to not be renewed by Netflix, or he was not affected significantly by any of this. I suppose I should take partial blame for setting this up as an all or nothing game. I picked Aziz in particular because he's one of the few people involved in MeToo where the consensus was split rather than mostly against him.

Consensus was split because there was a conversation that needed to be had. The sheer amount of men coming out pretending like pressuring women into sex is just part of the game should have made that clear.
---

wiiking96 posted...

Again, this is what you said:

"it's actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive."

This is the assertion that you need to back up. Pointing out that some people sometimes complain about media that they see as problematic is not anywhere close to being substantive evidence.

Let's take a look at the whole quote to get a little bit more context because that part was pretty inseparable from the rest

wiiking96 posted...

- "SJWs" are nowhere near as influential towards pop culture trends as anti-SJWs like to suggest. The increased prevalence of progressive ideas in pop culture is a product of a generally more progressive society than what existed in the past, a society where racism, sexism, and bigotry of all forms are much less socially acceptable than they were in the past. "SJWs" are just a small part of a much larger societal trend towards increased societal justice.

Here's the thing, it's not just bigotry being less acceptable in media (because outright examples of it were pretty hard to come by depending on how far you go back), it's actively hunting down and eliminating anything that isn't progressive. It's this pervasive idea wholly resembling McCarthyism. It's this sheepish groupthink system of "trendy morals", and that's a philosophy I'm seeing you participate in right now. In this very topic, you are setting out to convince people of the "correct" way to think. Not just arguing a position, but coming in here with an air of "setting things straight".

My point was that it's not about society simply promoting progressive ideas in media but certain groups shunning media that does not follow suit with this prevailing mode of thought. Those people could be considered SJWs. Or not. I don't care what you call them, I judge them by their actions.

COVxy posted...

AdviceMan posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all

That's great. But you are aware that his "comeback" tour is a complete and utter result of the fact that he laid low for an extensive period of time for the outrage to die down. Yes, it was his decision, and it most certainly was a wise one.

But it would be disingenuous to pretend like his career did not take a hit, people weren't calling for him to not be renewed by Netflix, or he was not affected significantly by any of this. I suppose I should take partial blame for setting this up as an all or nothing game. I picked Aziz in particular because he's one of the few people involved in MeToo where the consensus was split rather than mostly against him.

Consensus was split because there was a conversation that needed to be had. The sheer amount of men coming out pretending like pressuring women into sex is just part of the game should have made that clear.

I'm not sure I remember it the same. I thought it was more "That's shitty, but he didn't do anything that would qualify as coercion". So the question of course was did he break any real rules, and it wasn't just men who said "no". Then there were people who said purely by virtue of being a famous man, the answer is "yes". So some people considered it sexual assault, and some people thought it was shitty behavior. I suppose there was also a subsection that said it was perfectly normal and good, but I don't really think that's why there was push back.
---

darkjedilink posted...

wiiking96 posted...

darkjedilink posted...

The very concept of 'social justice' is malicious, and anyone suggesting otherwise is either an idiot or a thief.

I think you and me have very different ideas of what "social justice" in entails.

Then define it. The generally-accepted definition, that we get 'justice' for the disenfranchised by punishing the groups that benefited by that disenfranchisement at some point in history, is malicious on its face.

it's been defined. look it up. just because anti intellectuals like yourself like to play dumb doesn't mean others have to play along with you. most of these terms have true meanings that the ignorant and uneducated like to twist and misconstrue just to avoid the real conversation.
---

It depends what you mean by problem. They are a minority, but they are a very vocal minority. They gunk up things with their rhetoric, and few people want to tell them off lest thei become labeled as bigots. There are times where people are mislabeled simply for fighting for a proper cause, but the Twitter mobs rarely ever fight for a proper cause. It's nearly always just bunk.

wiiking96 posted...

Don't believe anyone who tells you that ''SJWs'' are a legitimate problem

unless you live in non-American western countries like Europe or Canada.

And when SJWs got done ruining Europe and Canada, America is next.

We need to call them all out and expose them to the public scruitney before it's too late.
---

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.
---

social media isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Twitter activist rarely act like that outside of it. Same with Twitter bigots.

hell, plenty people didn't even know the political stances of their family and peers until they started posting on social media.

I feel like people whose social life is mostly existent on the net often times conflate the two worlds.
---

Then who's responsible for desexyfication of waifus in video games?
---

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

AdviceMan posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all

That's great. But you are aware that his "comeback" tour is a complete and utter result of the fact that he laid low for an extensive period of time for the outrage to die down. Yes, it was his decision, and it most certainly was a wise one.

But it would be disingenuous to pretend like his career did not take a hit, people weren't calling for him to not be renewed by Netflix, or he was not affected significantly by any of this. I suppose I should take partial blame for setting this up as an all or nothing game. I picked Aziz in particular because he's one of the few people involved in MeToo where the consensus was split rather than mostly against him.

But the fact, and my point, is that his career wasn't ruined by "the SJW's". He did, as you said, take the smart move and does what any reasonable person would do when they are in the middle of a controversy, and that's let the situation die down and continue on as normal. You could argue that his reputation took a hit from it, but until we see the long term impact on what it will do to him we can't say definitively.

And the fact is they'll always be a vocal subset of people online who will take the extreme stances on issues to, in most cases, incite a reaction. Social media is loaded with people trying to get others to pay attention to them, and the easiest way to get that is by being the loudest voice in the room. My whole point was that these people are the vast minority and that they don't actually have the power that people prop them up as having. And generally, when there's controversy regarding a celebrity or a subject, those associated with that controversy tend to distance themselves from that thing until the smoke dies down. That's not something that just arrived with "SJW's" or social media in general, it's the whole entire concept of Public Relations departments.
---

Dyinglegacy posted...

Then who's responsible for desexyfication of waifus in video games?

Oh they are still very much here:

https://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/soulcalibur-6-ivy.jpg.optimal.jpg
---

wiiking96 posted...

Dyinglegacy posted...

Then who's responsible for desexyfication of waifus in video games?

Oh they are still very much here:

https://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/soulcalibur-6-ivy.jpg.optimal.jpg

What about my sexy Samus boob reduction?! I also hear about less focus on T and A in the new DOA. A travesty.
---

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

That's definitely what your post suggested. Why are you even arguing about this if you don't even seem to disagree with me?
---

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

That's definitely what you suggested. Why are you even arguing about this if you don't even seem to disagree with me?

I disagreed on all the points my original post touched on.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

That's definitely what you suggested. Why are you even arguing about this if you don't even seem to disagree with me?

I disagreed on all the points my original post touched on.

Okay, fine. How about this: Can you provide evidence to back up this claim?

"Most SJWs are people who want leverage in society through a childlike and emotionally unstable attempt to influence the opinions of the masses to treat them as victims. The other chunk of SJWs are those with hyperempathy who vicariously live through the victimhood of others."
---

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

That's definitely what you suggested. Why are you even arguing about this if you don't even seem to disagree with me?

I disagreed on all the points my original post touched on.

Okay, fine. How about this: Can you provide evidence to back up this claim?

"Most SJWs are people who want leverage in society through a childlike and emotionally unstable attempt to influence the opinions of the masses to treat them as victims. The other chunk of SJWs are those with hyperempathy who vicariously live through the victimhood of others."

No, I can't, because this is all an inherently subjective argument like I've said multiple times.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

wiiking96 posted...

@RoboLaserGandhi

Again, what you have repeatedly failed to do is provide evidence that what you're describing is a legitimate problem. That what these people are doing is actually damaging.

I never really made that argument though. They certainly overreach in their influence, but as individuals I don't consider them a threat to society. They are more accurately a symptom of society's problems that further influences them.

That's definitely what you suggested. Why are you even arguing about this if you don't even seem to disagree with me?

I disagreed on all the points my original post touched on.

Okay, fine. How about this: Can you provide evidence to back up this claim?

"Most SJWs are people who want leverage in society through a childlike and emotionally unstable attempt to influence the opinions of the masses to treat them as victims. The other chunk of SJWs are those with hyperempathy who vicariously live through the victimhood of others."

No, I can't, because this is all an inherently subjective argument like I've said multiple times.

Am I in the wrong for saying that people shouldn't be convinced by your arguments if you have no evidence?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

AdviceMan posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Just looking at his name it seems like a month ago he announced that he was launching another tour in the early part of next year, and still has been running smaller shows recently. And the tour next year is all major venues and major cities. And Netflix said they're willing to go ahead when he's ready for another season of Master of None, it was Aziz's decision to put the show on hold.

So I mean, it doesn't seem like his career is ruined at all

That's great. But you are aware that his "comeback" tour is a complete and utter result of the fact that he laid low for an extensive period of time for the outrage to die down. Yes, it was his decision, and it most certainly was a wise one.

But it would be disingenuous to pretend like his career did not take a hit, people weren't calling for him to not be renewed by Netflix, or he was not affected significantly by any of this. I suppose I should take partial blame for setting this up as an all or nothing game. I picked Aziz in particular because he's one of the few people involved in MeToo where the consensus was split rather than mostly against him.

But the fact, and my point, is that his career wasn't ruined by "the SJW's". He did, as you said, take the smart move and does what any reasonable person would do when they are in the middle of a controversy, and that's let the situation die down and continue on as normal. You could argue that his reputation took a hit from it, but until we see the long term impact on what it will do to him we can't say definitively.

And the fact is they'll always be a vocal subset of people online who will take the extreme stances on issues to, in most cases, incite a reaction. Social media is loaded with people trying to get others to pay attention to them, and the easiest way to get that is by being the loudest voice in the room. My whole point was that these people are the vast minority and that they don't actually have the power that people prop them up as having. And generally, when there's controversy regarding a celebrity or a subject, those associated with that controversy tend to distance themselves from that thing until the smoke dies down. That's not something that just arrived with "SJW's" or social media in general, it's the whole entire concept of Public Relations departments.

Fair enough.
---

Dont believe sjws when they tell you cultural appropriation and manspreading are problems
---

wiiking96 posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

Then why did Kevin Hart have to step down from the oscars tc?

Because he made controversial tweets, some people got upset over them (or pretended to get upset), and then proceeded to not apologize for said tweets (or something like that, I don't know all the details). And some people in charge at the Oscars decided that they wouldn't risk having their ratings get hurt over association with the controversy.

You are a damn liar to say that keeping him would hurt ratings...

Axiom posted...

I already know that anyone who whines about the SJW boogieman is an idiot that should never be taken seriously. Just take a look at the people who do it on here for proof

---

"SJW's DONT EXIST!" - tc
---

TC doesn't know how to argue and keeps trying to change the subject to avoid admitting he's wrong
---

Sjw deniers are just as bad as sjws.
---

Mareen posted...

Already knew this.

---

Roxborough4Ever posted...

"SJW's DONT EXIST!" - tc

Clearly you didn't read the OP.

- Most people who would self-identify as a "SJW" are well-meaning and primarily want to make the world a better place for disenfranchised groups. Not all SJWs know how best to achieve their goals, but they aren't malicious.

CM_Ponch posted...

TC doesn't know how to argue and keeps trying to change the subject to avoid admitting he's wrong

1. When did I change the subject?
2. What am I wrong about?
---

wiiking96 posted...

. When did I change the subject?
2. What am I wrong about?

wiiking96 posted...

No, I can't, because this is all an inherently subjective argument like I've said multiple times.

Am I in the wrong for saying that people shouldn't be convinced by your arguments if you have no evidence?

This entire exchange
---

1. I didn't say that first thing. That was another guy.

2. I did technically change the subject after the guy I was arguing with explained that he wasn't trying to argue a particular point. There was no point in trying to argue that point anymore.
---

i take it as a badge of honor when i'm called an sjw. you know you've hit a nerve when that happens.
---

I'm gonna be gone for over 2 hours.
---

Okay I'm back now.
---

to those who are hypocritically obsessed with political correctness in order to satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority motivated from an ignorant and arrogant Western-centric worldview who pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours.

yep sums up the scum sjws perfectly
---

has anybody ever witnessed "SJW" used as a pejorative by somebody intelligent?

please link me to that post.

I told somebody that there's no such thing as an intelligent person who uses that term as an insult. I still firmly believe that and nobody has ever shown otherwise. just snowflakes who conflate reality with their irrational fears, and want to blame demographics who have never done anything to them for their generational failures.
---

Only an NPC would say that.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

has anybody ever witnessed "SJW" used as a pejorative by somebody intelligent?

There's a whole episode in regard to that on the Amazing World of Gumball.
---