The whole anti-SJW is just people reacting to what was itself a reaction to a reaction to a reaction. Humanity, society is basically just reactions to progress/status quo. You yourself, this post is just a reaction to SJWs which is a reaction to years of conservative dogma (just say no, tough on crime, zero tolerance, greed is good, starve the beast) which was a reaction to post WWII progressive lean...ad on and one

All essential by the way. Yours, mine, ours. But I'm sad when I see people getting too caught up in the minutia. Fight but don't take it so 'effin personally.

LRH said if you're reacting, you're not operating at a conscious level.

Trump is fat and orange though? It's just stating the obvious.

And he has incredibly small hands for a man. Creepy.

What’s wrong with that?

What's wrong with what?

What's wrong with that?

Oh boy.

I bet you have big feet and a huuuge vagina.

Wow, have we slept together? Perhaps at an orgy at a hostel?

Removed. Rule 4

You handist! How dare you!

It's the obvious and a fact but I've seen people get upset because a person described someone as black. It's the same concept. It should be okay to call someone their skin color because it's, like you said, obvious. But it seems sjws only think it's acceptable to call white people white and not black people black. And it's only okay to call skinny people skinny and not okay to call a fat person fag. I think OP's point stands. Some comments from sjws are a hypocritical. They want peace and equality but some of them are violent and outcast anyone with a different opinion than them.

people get mad at being described as black when its completely irrelevant otherwise. ie "my black friend tom", "tom, who's black" etc etc. it doesnt help that generally, people are attempting to illicit a the white person's "image of a black person" which is likely to be 'ghetto', speak in heavy ebonics, and be angry 'for no reason'.

I have never once been called racist for saying, "Black women are bar none the most abused, mistreated, and neglected group in the United States." because the black part was RELEVANT to my statement and not attempting to illicit a stereotype or demean the group. "Those god damn black women!" is different, do you see?

no "sjw" wants violence or to outcast, but we understand there can NOT be a civil society where ideas of ethnic or racial superiority, where some groups want genocide, are allowed to have a platform. Intolerance can not be tolerated.

Finally, Racism, contrary to what you believe, is not about skin color. Racism is about about the power dynamic between majority and marginalized groups. To address the orange, people of color can't take off the color. Trump's orange is removable.

redefining words to fit an ideology is kinda why people are pushing back tho

its not redefined. the academic theory pre-dates the dictionary.

the academic theory pre-dates the dictionary

the same dictionary these academics needed to get their degrees? You think the dictionary didn't exist before the 1980's? seriously you don't honestly believe that do you?

Lol the 1980s you'd be cute if you weren't a voting adult.

critical race theory wasn't a thing until last century. seriously, who taught you these things?

No bad tactics, only bad targets. I have heard that stated more than once by those who 'fight' for social justice.

Indeed, I noticed this when I was one of them before I got tired of the hypocrisy. Isn't using ad hominem attacks a Saul Alinsky tactic?

I have you tagged as: Stop and frisk is great and needs to be implemented all over.

Just hard not to think of you any other way. So,of course you hate community organizers.

I'm flattered!

Like these anti-trump people who claim he is a racist then make fun of his skin color. Or the people mad about fat shaming who then make fun of Trump's weight.

lets be real, this is what this thread is really about. OP is mad people makes fun of his daddy lol

Got to say, the way you guys keep referring to Trump as “daddy” is a bit creepy. I realize you’re doing it to antagonize, but I think you’ve reached the point where it’s being used as default by certain people, possibly more than by the people you’re attempting to mock.

shudders

It's a bit creepy because it's meant to be. The point is to highlight that many Trump supporters are no different than cult members. Their blind worship and unwavering loyalty IS creepy. the_donald refers to him as God Emperor for fucks sake.

I get what you’re saying, but if you use a word or phrase ironically over an extended period of time it loses its irony. Now, people just see Trump haters calling him daddy without irony.

Be honest, you are just bothered by people using it as an insult. Because people who dislike Trump haven't gradually succumbed to an unironic daddy fetish for him.

Should your friends stop using it too, or is it always ironic when they do it? https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search?q=daddy&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&sort=new

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

yikes

I find it creepy, it’s doesn’t “bother” me. I’m sharing my opinion with someone who made a comment that looks a bit silly.

Anyway, thanks for sharing the link. Not sure what you’re aiming to achieve with it.

Top post is someone talking about their child calling them “daddy”.

Second post: T_D mocking liberals who call Trump daddy.

Not looking at the next two as there’s no mention in the title.

Next, they’re calling Ballsack eyes daddy.

Well, I don't believe you and I'm sharing that view. You can't seem to decide whether it's a "bit creepy" or a "bit silly," you haven't explained how "Trump haters" now possess a real daddy fetish for him, and you carefully ignored many posts from the link.

Trying (poorly) to turn the daddy mockery around didn't work out, it just made you look "triggered" - I am using this ironically. Although your comments are thematic I'll grant you. If this was T_D and not a T_D post that found its way to r/conspiracy I could see how you would go from "people who mock Trump's fake tan are racists" to "people who mock Trump's cult of personality have incest fetishes."

I’m so sorry. Did I think out of turn? Very pleased you’re here to correct me as I’ve now seen the error of my ways and will definitely conform to the approved standard in future.

I’m so sorry. Did I think out of turn? Very pleased you’re here to correct me as I’ve now seen the error of my ways and will definitely conform to the approved standard in future.

I'll have to quote this stock retort of yours for the irony. You started the whole comment chain when you were offended by the language someone used and failed to turn it back on them.

Please share it. More people thinking out of line need to be reprimanded and conditioned in the right way.

It was rude of me, but I completely forgot to say “thank you” for your hard work here. It hasn’t gone unnoticed.

Outrage intensifies

So has god emperor lost it's irony and a serious title now? Should I be worried that a third of the country believes we live in a theocratic dictatorship?

Ever stop to think what you say reflects more on you than the people you're talking about?

For example?

The majority of people that call him daddy use it as pejorative to describe Trump supporters. It's not what they call themselves.

So you asserting the label says more about you than them most of the time.

T_D, a neverending trump rally, have a nickname for the person they rally for. Holy shit, call Mueller. This is groundbreaking.

Nothing is more frustrating than when a bystander, who has no clue what's going on, jump's in the middle to give their opinion.

Lol triggered

Got to say, the way you guys keep referring to Trump as “daddy” is a bit creepy.

the same folks use "nothing burger" alot, it all seems scripted

Why does this matter? The content is still the same. Some of these people are completely hypocritical and ignorant.

Truly a conspiracy of the highest order

So people that hate SJWs for being to PC are mad because SJWs are no longer being PC. Maybe they saw being PC got them no where so now they're biting back.

It just seems hypocritical. I honestly don’t care. I’m not sure what message my reply conveyed but it was apparently the wrong one lol.

Why does this matter?

Because this is 100% not conspiracy content and is instead Flytape once again whining and crying that people criticize Trump?

I know this sounds crazy, but some people would like r/conspiracy to be about conspiracies, and also long ago grew tired of the overly sensitive, easily offended liar of an OP who started this thread, so they call him out when appropriate.

Which is every other post he makes, really.

I don’t know anything of OP or FlyThai, or if your talking about the same person?

I meant why does it matter if people make fun? I’m not trying to speak on the content of the sub as a whole, I personally wish the sub wasn’t so polluted with random political shit, like this, because who cares?

I’m not defending anyone, but mentioning that people hate on the same shit they seem to defend.

SJW is a straw man. Here's what you do: If a group of people don't like you calling them a certain thing, don't call them that. If you do call them that by accident apologize. That's literally all 90% of people have to do to not be an asshole. It's hard to demonize someone who's looking out for you, so you dehumanize them with a stupid and meaningless label. Sound familiar?

He has half the story. By attempting to force labels and groups onto people, most political parties and affiliations have turned into exclusivity and contradictory circlejerks. Example: Trump saying he will lower taxes for everyone, ends up doing it for a few including a huge cut for himself. Or The DNC saying that trump rigged the election when their primaries were likely rigged. Or any example of any political party in the last couple years. TLDR; we need to cut the bullshit and actually work together.

Calling Trump orange is the same as the N word.

Missing /s?

no people really believe shit like that. welcome to racist as fuck america.

Figured it was obvious enough to be unnecessary.

Lol you never know. I've heard similar things said :p

LOL. Right? let's be clear, HE WAS NOT BORN WITH ORANGE SKIN.

not sure this is the correct forum, not conspiracy, just some in some peoples nature

Neo-Marxism (SJWs ideological concept) is a conspiracy to subvert the government in favor of a neo-marxist system in which "fairness" is established by equality of outcome.

This is probably true, but the OP paints Trump as being outside of this plot when he's really a very central player at the moment.

I don't think he can be blamed for their behavior, if that is what you mean?

I'm just saying Trump serves the cabal and has been for decades.

this post is about SJQ hypocrisy - or did I miss the part about trump? or are you speaking to OP's character and not about the post it self?

Not sure where you're getting that from? I certainly don't see it.

Here's the tip of the iceberg. Search this sub for more info.

Trump endorsing Netanyahu for prime minister in 2013. Trump as grand marshall of the Israel Day parade in 2004. Rothschild banker and current secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross bails out Trump's failing Taj Mahal in 1990. "there is value in the Trump name".

Soros has a business with Kushner, they are partners. Breitbart and Infowars happily gloss over this after painting Soros as the arch enemy.

And my favorite, Trump the democrat: https://i.redd.it/xmx00432x0ly.jpg

But why is the entire political, business and media establishment still bashing him 24/7? This isn't partisanship, this is questioning why he is being defamed and attacked by the people he is supposedly working for. If he is what you say he is, why is he being viciously attacked by the creeps you claim he's working for, and why are the creeps behaving this way towards the first non-governmental-employee-President?

It's a trick! In 8 years, we'll be saying the same things about a democratic president.

Obama: runs on hope and change, accomplishes nothing progressive, starts the drone wars, fails to close gitmo, etc.

Trump: runs on change and anti-corruption, tries to topple Syria, re-opens the war in Afganistan, re-opens gitmo.

Who specifically is in the cabal he is serving? It’s a big assertion, a few names would help support it, I’m not even resistant to the idea.

He's serving the Rothschild family by way of Bibi and the other power brokers of Zionist Israel and Zionism. Specifically, Trump has demonstrated pay for play with Wilbur Ross, our commerce secretary and former Rothschild banker. Other Israel connections include all of the Goldman Sachs folks on his team (just like Obama), and his actions in Syria, specifically his missile attack.

Compelling stuff thanks for the follow up. If the cabal you reference are zionists then this backs it up, that’s a tough connection to overlook. I’ll be watching with this angle in mind, thank you friend.

No problem, I'm glad that you're out for the facts. There's even more I left out too like George Soros being linked to the Rothschilds (on wikipedia) and Jared Kushner and Soros owning a business together. I don't mean for this to sound partisan, dems are the exact same neo-liberal Zionist party. They all party together, there's pictures. Total fucking sham.

Right on the dot lmao. And did you notice how bad you got downvoted for that? 😳

Found the lobster

There is definitely a conspiracy to inject communism into the soft minds of the American youth. Yuri already exposed it in the 70s. Try reading "A Warning to the West" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He says there's a plot to have a Bolshevik Revolution in the west and they're playing the long game

Here are my thoughts on the issue. We as a society simply don't seem to be capable to do away with a racial conceptual schema. That is to see the world as composed of races which are in a hierarchical relationship with each other. Those on the right see this natural, while those on the left where historically split into two camps. The first camp was that this conceptual scheme is itself wrong and we need to fight against it in all forms, and the second camp is that the conceptual scheme might not be rooted in nature, but it tells something about our social world, i.e., it has a social reality.

The second camp predominates, and as such members of this camp still use a racial conceptual schema, all the while claiming that such schema are somehow wrong. This leads them to holding that members of certain races have shared characteristics, but that holding that skin color itself is not it. What essential characteristics are held, are those of historical hierarchies, which need to be rectified. How are they rectified? Why by denigrating one race, and attempting to help another... they reproduce the same racial dynamics nominally they are against.

I think that they simply can't do away with that racial schema, or at least don't really know how to actually fight it or dismantle it.

Shit, conservatives work very hard to keep up the racial, cultural and religious wars active, it helps them stay in control.

And the people behind our current one party government are the most insane and deeply racist people in our nation.

Shit, conservatives work very hard to keep up the racial, cultural and religious wars active, it helps them stay in control.

I agree, but my point was somewhat more broad, and aimed at the 'left', or at least the type of 'left' politics that dominate the campus and online. Which is that they don't know how to escape racialism, and end up reproducing it themselves.

"the left," is only the new word for liberalConnieSocualistMarxist.

They conservatives have been rying to create riots on the universities for years now. They want all those public funded colleges that allows working class, now called the middle class, get an education, unfunded and closed.

They use race, feminism, religion, and their fucked up phoney "free speech," movement.

Mario Savio the most famous of the, free speech, leaders of the 60s made it clear his demand about free speech was about the freedom to challenge authority.

It was never about being able to say nigger, whore etc.

Why is the working class now called the middle class? I grew up pretty poor and I don't understand how someone in the middle class is struggling.

Wait, show me the instances where "conservatives" have been trying use racism, feminism, etc. The way I've been looking at things it seems like "the left" has been doing this all on their own.

The left has been creating riots all on their own. Is there proof that conservatives have been trying to incite riots in universities? Every riot I see is a group of leftists "protesting" conservative speakers that they disagree.

Here is one about their campus activities. I have posted on other comments on this thread.

Common man, I give you the benefit of the doubt and you link an op ed?

Those were the astroturfed fake antifa people, even Robert Reich made a statement about that staged event. those people are not from the campus and no one local knew any of them.

So anything leftists ever do that wasn't popular was actually done by conservatives as a false flag. You've actually convinced yourself that this blatantly self-serving narrative is accurate. Wow.

No you are confused, but then are you accepting responsibility for what conservatives have done in the interests of keeping us divided and attacking each other instead of attacking the rights and wealth thieves who have made increasing poverty their life work?

You are absolutely right in this analysis, and I share it about it the right. The stance about free speech is just a wedge issue where the goal is to privatize all institutions, that way any restrictions on people's freedom, what to teach, how to talk, etc can be justified because 'it is a private company so they can do what they want', or another version of that talking point.

However, this is somewhat unrelated, to how the left reproduces racialism under the nominal project of fighting racism.

Liberals do as much of this by claiming that immigrants and blacks can't care for themselves, so they throw money at them to "save" them. They create income ceilings on welfare that keep the "disadvantaged" from moving up the sociopolitical ladder. As soon as they get a raise, or too many hours, or a bonus, they make too much money to benefit from the state. So they're forced to either stay out of work, or they move above the threshold and make less money for more work.

Liberals are totally fair.

There is no liberal media that is the constant message you are given and you accept it totally.

And honey, that welfare myth has been over since the 90s and you probably can't even tell us why.

OK, tell that to my ex who had to declare bankruptcy after her job gave her a 10% raise, causing her to default on her debts, lose rent money, and get kicked out of low income housing. Oh, she's white too so her privilege sure helped there.

And 2, I ain't your fucking honey.

That makes me laugh, because the narrative is all the high living, People of Color or Illegal immigrants are living so high on the hog while on welfare, then some white person goes on welfare and gets the usual next to nothing,

They are told by their conservative think controllers, all those other people get all the money. We'll stop it and only good white folks will get welfare of course that is a lie,

The white people still think the other people, the ones they don't like, refugees, illegals, POC, and liberals, are using up all the welfare money.

You aren't wrong.

I wouldn't expect conservatives to implement welfare in the first place, why the left expects them to conform to their values is beyond me. There's an obvious and intentional definitive difference in the parties, otherwise they would be the same party.

That being said, it isn't financial support disadvantaged communities need. It's up to the disadvantaged to seek economic opportunity outside of their comfort zone. They can't let politically motivated social ceilings dictate their community's economic growth.

Nice to meet you mr. libertarian.

Do you not see your contradiction,

it isn't financial support disadvantaged communities need.

Then tell them to go seek economic (financial) opportunities, what "comfort zone?" accept even less pay, relocate (how do you relocate with -0- funds?)

I am going to guess you mean everyone should, go where the work is,

at the same time

we are being told the work is going to robots and temporary immigrants only.

And what are political motivated social ceilings?

It's simple really. Develop a skill, find someone who will pay you for that skill. Learning can be free, especially with the internet.

And what are the kinds of work available?

Remember, the robots are coming.

Somebody has to program the robots, write update patches, maintain hydraulic lines, develop environmentally friendly manufacturing and products that can be mass produced by robots, teach AI socialization, translate and transcribe paper documents, test wares... ya dig?

You know programming is now mostly machine work, and if there is going to be automation in the programs that create automation it will soon also be directed by AI, that not only write the originals but self repair and self correct.

Video will probably do that AI socialization instruction, and other tasks you mention.

I think you have too much faith in how quickly true, ubiquitous AI will take over.

Of course eventually AI will become the leading labor force but until then it behooves those who wish to rise in economic power to invest in these technologies. And when AI takes over, the economic system will have evolved to fit that system, because the system AI is born into will be completely unlike any system we live in now.

My first thought is, what are you going to do with the disadvantaged whites?

The owners of production have been the market controllers for more than a few years already.

They have the same opportunity as any other disadvantaged people to invest.

And yes, that's why they have to corner the R&D market. The proprietary rights are where they'll earn their money.

And who pays the cost of this training for these very poor workers? Remember they are unemployed.

Like I said previously, information is essentially free. Filing a patent is maybe $50. For $50 you could make millions.

I think you information may be from the last century.

why aren't you a millionaire?

The message is stop the welfare and everyone can sink or swim by their own means, including white people. That's why you marxists had to invent patriarchy theory and privilege theory, to explain how everyone being treated equally is actually oppression.

I think i love u.

I just took a stroll through your comments and my response is: ]

DITTO!

SJW 4 lyfe.

They also say 'incel' which is sex shaming.

Orange isn't a real skin color. It's a narcissist problem where you always want to "look tanned".

Does this extend to dying your hair, whitening your teeth, painting your nails etc?

Sure. All those seem pretty narcissistic to me. At a minimum the hair dying and teeth whitening.

Well, if we include makeup, that I mistakenly left off, you have to include nearly everyone, so it seems strange to point that one thing as a sign of a psychological problem in just that one person and not include everyone else, doesn't it?

His example in his post was about skin color. So NO it doesn't seem strange that that is what I pointed out. All the other things you brought up are also narcissistic so it speaks on a much larger problem about our current society. Why are you trying to derail or deflect to protect Trump?

The other things are about changing the color of your body, and, if you read the title of the post, it is general question of hypocrisy shown by a particular group. If anyone is "derailing", it seems to be you.

"Make fun of his skin color". It is orange from dying because he is narcissistic. It isn't a natural color of people. Next we are talking about a war on white people. I thought we were making fun of his skin color for being ORANGE not white like his is supposed to be? What aren't you getting? I understand his post is about the hyprocrisy of SJW's but we are a whole different problem.

Ok, find me a single post or comment of yours calling a politician out for altering their skin color and proclaiming it is a sign of narcissism besides Trump. I mean, lots of them use tanner and bronzer.

Then they are all narcissists...His post is explicitly about Trump. Like holy Hell. How much more dense could you be?

You should reread the post.

Trump in there twice and SJW's once. Maybe you should dude. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm done with you. Fuck off.

His post is not explicitly about Trump oh Ye of Shitty Comprehension Skills

It's about SJW's making fun of trump for his orange skin and his fatness?

what the fuck are you guys talking about

Can you show me another politican that has that fake glow that trump has?

Any politician that wears makeup is faking their skin tone.

You have to admit there's a difference between a little makeup and what trump has going on. If theres some old ladies in Congress that have some clown makeup going on, that I would compare to what trump has going on with his fake tan.

He's dying from Narcissism?

dyeing. Forgot you keep the "e"

Is wanting to look “good” necessarily narcissistic? I don’t think so. I think there’s a point it becomes narcissistic, like when your skin is permanently orange or looks like leather. When your teeth are so fucking white it looks like chalk. When you obsess about it constantly.

I don’t really thing general cosmetic upkeep is narcissistic. Though I do agree that our society tends to be a little crazy about it.

I getcha. There are definitely other reasons from Trump I could've focused on but the example in the post was about making fun of his orange skin.

"narcissistic:having an excessive or erotic interest in oneself and one's physical appearance."

Based upon definition I guess there is a point but it seems like a fine line. I agree though the compulsive whitening, tanning, straightening, and dyeing definitely are. It just seems like everyone has to be done up to stroke your ego which seems to fit the definition.

you heard it here first people, being tan means your skin color isn't real.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and it is not pretty.

It's not pretty, but it sure is entertaining.

Yeah because having "orange skin" from tanner, bronzer, or whatever is real skin color. I don't know where you grew up but we definitely made fun of people that had this sort of issue.

It's funny that you left out having "orange skin" (which is just tan skin) from NATURAL TANNING FROM THE SUN.

Yeah I'm sure you made fun of people who went outside of their house and had the sun touch their skin.

Absolute, unrelenting insanity from you people.

Clearly missing the point to obtuse. This shit isn't natural. Yeah you are right I made fun of the people with their hands colored from using the shit to cover their body or the patchiness. Come on, talk about my insanity. You twist everything that has been said to try to prove a point. "You people" funniest shit ever.

First of all, obtuse is not a verb and has never been used as a verb.

Yeah you are right I made fun of the people with their hands colored from using the shit to cover their body or the patchiness.

Congratulations, you sound like a petty asshole, no twisting that is there?

You twist everything that has been said to try to prove a point.

You said "orange isn't a real skin color" - I don't have to twist this to show just how ridiculous and stupid that sounds. Trump is just tanned like everyone else who looks "orange."

The fact that you would continue unapologetically with this line of attack proves just how incredibly petty, cruel, and hypocritical you people are - exactly the type of person OP is describing.

I'm a petty asshole for calling out a narcissist... okay? It isn't. Using bronzer or tanner or laying the in bed with goggles on until your orange isn't a real fuckin skin color. It isn't even on the damn chart. I'm petty and cruel for making fun of people that are so fucked up in the head that they dye themselves orange. What type of delusional world are you living in? When did we start applauding people for looking fake?Hypocritical? Might want to check that definition. Haven't done anything of that nature yet.

Do I even need to address the incredible mental gymnastics to justify your cruelty towards other people?

I'll just let you do you and people can judge YOU for this trainwreck of a comment.

FAKE WHITE PEOPLE

You're making a joke but that is literally what this is. I remember a time when we called people that colored themselves orange to "look tan" fake.

Ooooh new narrative to push? He looks like a regular white person 99% of the time.

https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/ba8986a/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2F50%2Fc8%2F138f27c14977a0e52aa4ccfa1433%2F22-donald-trump-115-gty-1160.jpg

I guess there's a problem with being tan or wanting to look tan now because of Trump. Got it.

How many times have we seen these protestors scream "but you're a white fucking male!"

Uhh...zero times? Can you link to a video where someone screamed this? I've never seen it.

You've never heard of Aids Skrillex?

So OP is freaking out because of one racist nutjob? He's making it sound like they're rampant but in truth it's a very tiny minority of people who think this way.

Keep shifting those goal posts

Should I place them next to the "mocking bad fake tans is now racism" ones?

Facts are oppressive!

The SJWs are here, and all they do is destroy.

Original AIDS Skrillex & Carl The Cuck at Trump Rally

by Infowars.com

Most of you probably don't remember this but 20 years ago, Alex Jones wasn't the shame of conspiracy theorists everywhere. His videos were actually passed around and shared by intelligent people. Sad!

I figured this would be downvoted.

Truth is that taleofcowards guy above asked a stupid question. He asked for a video that can found in two seconds. Also, one example does not move the needle in any direction. Completely useless question to ask that just leads nowhere.

But he asked for one video and you gave him one. The real question is why someone would ask such a useless question in the first place?

Jeez, this sub has lost it. You post a link to what the commenter asks for and get downvoted in oblivion. This thread is mostly partisan nonsense. I've got a feeling that people only come to this sub now because it's one of the few remaining places where whatever "side" you happen to be on isn't in a total echo chamber. I sound like the old conspiracy guy with the big white beard, but in my day conspiracy subs were full of people who realised that both sides were corrupt and controlled by the same people. It was regularly cited as the Hegelian Dialectic - thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Propose an idea, the other side fight it, an agreement is reached somewhere in the middle that was always the intended outcome. Why is evidence of thing that someone asked for now resulting in being downvoted. No doubt this comment will be downvoted for questioning the downvotes. C'mon old-school conspiracy people take back this sub, these new people are shit and boring, let them go back to /r/politics where they can be boring and regurgitate whatever side they are on talking points of the day. I want the old crazies back in here who at least knew they were being lied to and at least knew they were crazy

I'll second that!

Google it you lazy scum.

Removed. Rule 10

you're a fucking white male, just like the guy that said it. Oh, and the guy he said that to is also "old"

So there is your video. But what does that prove? That there is an idiot out there? What difference does it make if I link a video of one idiot? Or even a hand full of idiots? One video or a few idiots does not move the needle one way or another. Does it?

There is no SJW movement, it is a name created in the conservative think tanks to lump together and attack any social idea they hate.

Listen you dumb fuck, you may have only been on the internet for the last few years, but I've been on it since 56k days. I was literally a proto-SJW; before it became the mainstream retarded bullshit that is today. There was no "conservative think tank", there was simply an unending supply of retarded SJWs bitching about women being sexy in video games and movies, and hating on white males. They are parasitic scum and need to removed forcibly wherever they are found.

This site happens to be one of the places that housed and pushed the idea

Here is a list of the fucking fake groups used to create political division and run PETA ELF New Black Panthers OWS SJW CodePink Antifa BLM BernieBros

You claim this under every username you come here with. .

Ill ask you for the 10th time.

Do you have any evidence for this?

The primary evidence is right in front of you every day since they began back in the 80s with names like feminazi these names are nearly always only used by conservative media, and it is all conservative.

So no evidence then?

That's not evidence. That's an opinion.

"No I don't have any proof but if I keep repeating my claims people will surely buy my narrative!"

Name change?

What?

ELF

What's ELF? I know some of the EFF guys.

Earth Liberation Front, and Animal Liberation Front, they were blamed (staged ?) burning SUVs, destruction at construction sites, and bombing laboratories and or setting lab animals free, etc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation is the only EFF I know of.

Ah, I couldn't think of what that acronym could stand for, googled it and came back with, encouragingly, stuff about Extremely Low Frequencies.

Ever read The Monkeywrench Gang?

Yeah, EFF is cool :)

Is this a copypasta?

Anything's a dildo if you try hard enough.

Many of the people in this thread are dildos and they aren't even trying.

Translation "I didn't read it or comprehend it"

It's got great potential

Hey that kind of sounds like the Alt-Right label. Or white nationalist.

bingo

But those are self created names. No one calls them self a social justice warrior

That's what people say but I see it used differently. If anyone is going around calling themselves an alt-righter they are silly and should realize the term has been tarnished. I have only seen it used in a derogatory fashion. Never met someone who claimed they were an alt-righter.

Not as much now, buy people definitely referred to themselves as alt right. And there are still a lot of people who call call themselves alt right/ white nationist. Just look at breitbart

No one calls them self a social justice warrior

At least not where it might be recorded, and then only to close comrades.

Because it's a term used to mock progressive leftists mired in toxic identity politics.

They labeled themselves that.

It's used to

to lump together and attack any social idea they hate.

It's origin is insignificant to my point. I am referring to how the term is used.

to lump together and attack any social idea they hate.

You're exaggerating.

Wow what an amazing insult. Good job buddy!

Uh...what about Bannon bragging at the RNC that Breitbart was "the platform for the alt-right"?

Why would definition change of how the word is used just because Bannon decided to own it? I am talking about how the word is used by normal every day people.

Bannon decided to own it?

He didn't decide to own it. That implies people called him alt-right so he embraced it, sort of like how the LGBT community embraced "queer." That's not the case. At the time, "alt-right" was the preferred term, one created by people in the so-called alt-right movement (apparently coined by Paul Gottfried and made popular by Richard Spencer) and used by them until it became a target for mockery.

The new preferred term seems to be "new right." We'll see how long that lasts.

And yes, for those keeping score, there's a good deal of irony in these people having preferred terms they want to be referred to by and the terms they don't want people using for them.

Propaganda is a powerful thing.

Yeah, dude, you're acting like he was a feminist taking back "Cunt."

What does "own" mean to you? I'll see if there is a different synonym I can plug in there so it is more factually correct for you.

I'd just strive for being factually correct in an objective sense.

How do you know that not to be factually correct in this case? Did Bannon insinuate he had other motives for owning the alt-right title?

I was alive then and alt-righters were proudly calling themselves alt-righters and some, like Bannon, were bragging about having alt-right publications.

I think we both know this to be true.

You:

That implies people called him alt-right so he embraced it, sort of like how the LGBT community embraced "queer." That's not the case. Also you: I was alive then and alt-righters were proudly calling themselves alt-righters and some, like Bannon, were bragging about having alt-right publications.

I'm not sure what your argument is here bud but you are contradicting yourself.

No, I'm not.

Try to stick with me. First off I was quoting another user who said your saying the he owned it "implies people called him alt-right so he embraced it" which was clearly not the case.

I then stated that I have clear recollections of alt-righters proudly labeling themselves that and even boasting their publications were platforms for the alt-right.

Cleared it up, friend-o?

You know the conservatives created Alt-Right to replace their also self created, White Nationalists, though that name is as old as the Civil WAr.

You should go and ask r/altright why they chose the name.

The alt-right is a rebranding of American Nazis and klansmen. They needed an edgy name to use as an umbrella to keep the gullible virgins and mysoginists they keep recruiting ignorant to the true nature of the "movement." Sneaky bastards.

The difference here is alt-right is a self applied label, where sjw is a straw man used by people who are mad that they can't get away with saying the n word or faggot anymore in polite company.

So because a handful of people originally self identified as alt-right before the name was tarnished that means it can't be used as a derogatory label with the same intent of the sjw label?

Uh, the Alt-Right group was created by Richard Spencer, a white supremacist. Sure, other, non-racist right wingers took up the label for their own reasons -- anti-Government types, MRA tyepes, etc. but the media didn't slander the name 'alt-right'. People with a certain view of social ideas lumped themselves under that banner.

You can pretend Alt-Right isn't used in the same way SJW is but I have seen it many times. Just because a group with a handful of people used this term before it was derogatory does not mean it isn't currently used in a derogatory fashion much like SJW is used.

I'd say that the term "alt-right" became derogatory because the people who made up the alt-right tarnished the name themselves and are now trying to run from it, without changing the ideas that tarnished the word in the first place.

The term "Neoliberal" and "Neoconservative" became somewhat derogatory terms in the same way. Should we stop calling Hillary Clinton a neoliberal because the word has taken on negative characteristics due to the failure of the philosophy?

I disagree. Alt-Right didn't have anything to do with racism in it's conception. The media came out and made the alt-right seem like a bunch of racist nazis when that didn't reflect reality or the actual definition of the term.

The alt-right's conception was conceived by Richard Spencer. That's who coined the term. He's the one who promoted it, through his National Policy Institute website.

Richard Spencer is a white supremacist. He wanted to create a home for people who didn't look like rednecks, skinheads, Aryan Brotherhood types (basically people who would look professional in a business setting) to push his white supremacist ideals.

Now when the alt-right was presented to you, it may not have been presented in a way that was race first. And certainly, non-racist Conservatives glomed onto the label to help push their own beliefs, but it's conception was absolutely rooted in white supremacism.

Wrong. Usage of "warriors for social justice first originated in the early 1930's: "But the actual phrase "warrior for social justice" first appears in library database searches five years earlier—and in the United States. From Fantasy, volumes 1–2 (1931) [combined snippets]:

He [Charles Erskine Scott Wood] is a pioneer and path-finder in fields and wildernesses and deserts of thought, frontiersman on many intellectual horizons. But he also helped push the physical frontier further toward the Northwest. He is a warrior for social justice and in the one war that can never end: the campaign for truth."

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/358034/timeline-of-semantic-change-of-the-term-social-justice-warrior-sjw

Sounds like a technicality, the contemporary definition of the movement could still well be a conservative gimmick.

Except for it was even used in the early 90's in India as a description for an irrational activist.

In the early 2000's it was used as a self description: "was previously used in the mid-2000s by Tumblr and Live Journal bloggers to refer to the struggle against forms of body-based social discrimination such as sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, and classism."

Not everything is a vast right wing conspiracy. It was spread by social media.

Oh sure India really has a lot of influence on U.S. culture.

You missed the point.

Still waiting for evidence for your claims.

Here is an informative bit about the campus disruptions, like Milo's. Didn't Mercer say he was sorry he had hired him.

http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade

Except you just described it as being used as a dismissive and disparaging label earlier in time than the recent use of the word.

That people ended up using it in self description doesn't invalidate any present argument in particular, its fully compatible with the theory of it being used to dismiss liberals regardless of whether that was by a grand design or opportunism.

Not every liberal is a "sjw' though.

I know quite a few liberals that aren't.

It's a very specific type of person that's almost like a parody of liberal.

Precisely. The initial point is to do with "sjw" being used to dismiss those liberals by associating them with a group that is both deeply stigmatized and loosely defined. It prevents dialogue and stifles the left, which are desirable results for conservatives, which indicates a motive for said conspiracy.

What about everyone on the right being labeled as a "Nazi" by portions of the "left?"

Both sides do it to discredit each other.

That's part of the point of partisan politics. Divide and conquer.

That's fine

Fish hook theory. Literally everyone except me is a nazi. You scum.

I don't think j you're Nazi

I'm not, you are

I'm Jewish

Jesus Christ, you're on 0 points as I write this for saying in a conspiracy sub that "the conspiracy is partisan politics itself". When did this become an unpopular opinion that anybody visiting a conspiracy sub feels the need to downvote?

Yeah, this sub is in a sad state nowadays, my friend.

That's funny it just like the back story posted all over the internet about antifa when conservative groups were called on that dirty operation.

Then you'll admit "liberal" groups are behind the "alt right" and "white nationalists" etc?

Or is it just one "side" that allegedly does this?

Just trying to see if you have any c o consistency in your opinions whatsoever.

Conservatives are the ones who introduced , "alt right" as a cover story for, white nationalists and because, CommieSocialistMarxist became a comedy line, they decided to upgrade to: alt-left. Calling people white nationalists is probably as old as the Civil War.

Oh. So you're just another extreme partisan who thinks the other side is the boogieman. There's no consistency in your opinions whatsoever. Only groups that make your "side" look bad are fake.

Duly noted.

Remember to add to your, "duly noted," that is what you are saying, not what I said.

LOL he is named "redpillfiend" and talks just like all of those little repressed clones do. 1 year, could be a bot...

How is this documented in a video?

Your first link Proves my point, SJW is how conservatives identify any social or cultural issue they hate and this explains the conservatives behind the divisive propaganda.

http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade

Two very different incidents can be attacked with one phrase.

Well, that is their job.

Maybe he couldn't see through your bird mask vape smoke

Did you see the feminist march? Tons of SJW's there, no doubt about it.

That women's march itself is a conservative turff operation, it is used like OWS, was first to make people think something would be done, then to trash the entire concept and those liberal homeless peolle and drug addict gang members destroying public property.

And I am sure most of the participants think the women's March is real.

Can you explain more why you think this?

I read a lot of political and history and my professional life is in marketing. And one link is language, another of course is who is publishing, and/or originating the political attacks, another is how the target is identified, and the audience being targeted and so on.

I mean, this sounds plausible enough to have piqued my interesting, but it'd be good to see a write-up.

It has been gleaned from observation except now and them they slip up and tattle on themselves, or drop it when it is noted by the public.

I think some of it is mentioned in some political works, for example I think you can find written accounts about the Nixon team creating their own riots to happen at Nixon's "law and order," campaign speeches.

That sounds like a very untrue observation.

I wasn't certain until I heard an interview on NPR from the Sacramento area organizer and the language, topics, and talking points the organizer used identified the origins.

Liberals see what they want to see.

Mmkay.

So this is just the other side of the coin when idiotic Trump supporters say Charlottesville was actually a Soros false flag.

It's funny how you're all the same.

Except that Charlottesville was also a conservative creation, with the hope of really violent riots because our Republican Congress is all set and ready to go to outlaw all public protesting and demonstrations.

Haha, right

The only SJW stuff I see is on reddit making fun of tweets and tumblir posts. I think OP sees the entire "left" as SJW, hence the problem.

Uhm,,,there is no movement? Lol

Ok then why are are msm outlets running the same theme at the same time...?

And how every "celebrity" then makes it a talking point.

The all use the same speak, same tactics and same talking points at the same times...it's not a grass roots movement, but a engineered one.

I am talking about the name Social Justice Warrior, SJW as a creation of the conservatives to use to attack any movement toword universal individual rights for all human adults, including LGBT, non-Christians, all skin colors, and both for women and men.

I mean really why should your religion prevent a person who has a different skin color from civil rights, or one who has a different religion or no religion from running for civil office?

There is no SJW movement

There absolutely is and it revolves on 100% inclusivity of all people, being politically correct all the time, and never saying anything that could possibly hurt someones feelings, and if you do you're automatically wrong and deserve your head chopped off in the public eye. The only problem is that these people pushing this are total hypocrites who don't practice what they preach in any sense.

The name, SJW was created to attack any social progress and that is how it is used.

Yes there is a social movement to progress. There is no Social Justice Warrior organization.

It is a blanket term to attack people who promote equality for all.

BOOM! Loving the response to this thread. I feel like even a few years ago no comment like this would have been upvoted, let alone be a top comment.

There is no SJW movement

Yes there is.

The "social justice" in SJW, is a call to action by the scourge of postmodern neo-marxism currently plaguing the west. It's an unholy, alliance between the technically incompatible philosophy of postmodernism, and ideology of neo-marxism, where instead of the Marxist group conflict between the bourgeois vs. proletariat, it pits the oppressed vs. oppressors, and paradoxically tries to justify it with postmodernism.

It's being used quite heavy handedly in globalist/lefty/democratic circles as controlled-opposition, to weaponize the west's liberal values against itself, for the furthering of policy goals that globalist elites desire.

Jordan Peterson - Political Correctness and Postmodernism

Lol, linking Jordan Peterson. Dude's a joke.

Ad hominem

Yes to you, and those who's circles you run in, we get that, but please refute what he's actually saying. His arguments here are iron-clad. Dr. Peterson's past instills nothing but confidence in many hundreds of thousands of people.

Literally no reason to watch a 30 minute video of some guy who is a laughingstock in his field.

Hmm, how awfully convenient that he's a laughing stock while you simultaneously state that there's no reason to watch his video. The damage control seems to be in full effect. It's only by coincidence I'm sure that he's feared by unkempt, resentful, no-life activist types, who can't address his points, and fear debate, all because they depended on what he's dismantling just so that they could keep their racket going of pennies on the dollar, so they can continue "validly" expressing their resentment towards western capitalistic society. No one here's laughing, but some are certainly sweating bullets.

I'm laughing tbh. At him and your self important BS you typed up here lmao.

Distract and avoid all you want, the sooner you actually argue against Jordan's points in the video the better you'll be served. Protip: you can't

Till then, all you can do toss ad-hominems and character assassinate, because it's arguments from those like him carry the conversation forward.

Literally no reason to watch a 30 minute video of some guy who is a laughingstock in his field.

Little bit of self importance, little bit of BS. I see the playbook Hillary Clinton did her dissertation on is being put to use by others: "Accuse your opponent of what only you are doing as you are doing it to create confusion."

Life isn't about debating and competition. The sooner you learn that the happier you will be friend.

Thanks, the name Social Justice Warrior was created by conservatives to attack any social progress.

The progress they call, cultural Marxism.

What I find interesting is that people complain that the more extreme conspiracy theorists(rabid flat earthers and such) are actually psyops meant to destroy the conspiracy movement as a whole, however they will point to the most extreme of what they call liberals, SJW’s, BLM, etc..., and say the whole movement is exactly like that and should go away.

If the group they are attacking isn't behaving the way they claim they make one that does and give it a name to make attacking easier and to confirm the biases they have spent decades creating.

I’ve followed various commenters here, and from another couple subs, and watched the stuff they said. There were a couple who would go to different subs and talk about making memes pretending to be BLM members pushing for violent revolt, or even more interesting pushing for black people to not vote at all as some form of protest over only white candidates.

I’ve decided to dismiss the extremes I hear out of hand, unless I see them take action. And when I do I blame those people, not everyone else under the same umbrella. Agent provocateurs are real.

Agent provocateurs are necessary for the conservatives to advance their hate and division dialogs and legislation, like mandatory sentencing.

I think it’s not just limited to conservatives, and I’ll mention Russian intelligence but I’m not limiting it to that. I’m sure a multitude of other countries(and the US) are taking advantage of the vulnerabilities exposed by social media to cause greater division and strife in nations they oppose.

The knowledge that Russia is deeply engaged in disrupting all the democratic leaning NATO nations, but any democratic leaning nations but the big issue right now is that our own Republican party and their financial supporters and candidates, may have cooperated with the Russians.

Whole movements do this? A dozen or hundred people just jump in and say "Shut up fat nigger!"

Yeah, I don't fucking think so.

you can't lump everyone in to a group

proceeds to lump OP in to a group....

Specific people exactly like him are exactly like him and proceed with the same exact statements over and over.

it's already been explained.

People like you, need shit explained twice.

Why the fuck did you just say the n word?

God's will.

You get too much lead and carbs.

fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk im calling an ambulance!!!

Get out of this forum, kid.

Removed. Rule 4

Removed. Rule 4

This whole f***ing subreddit should be removed. It's a joke.

Yes, they are definitely hypocrites. But they are blind and don't see this.

this is some deepgovshit.edu

quality post.

They claim to be anti-fascist -- all the while acting exactly like fascists. Classic Satanic inversion.

You'll like this. I'm more left than right, but I appreciate your sentiment.

"Punch a Nazi" (ft. Rucka Rucka Ali) - Social Justice: The Musical

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AhGYo9TExU

you realize being a libertarian nazi shithead is not something to be ethnically cleansed?

Ahhh there it is. Classic.

The SJW stuff is simply neo-McCarthyism. You can't prove anyone is an sjw cultural marxist and based on the loose definition for this alleged movement. It's a bullshit effort to paste anyone with left leaning ideas as some kind of soviet style communist. It's a form of censorship.

You're argument would have more validity if SJW's weren't proactively trying to silence those they disagree with (Berkeley Riots) even if they are within the minority class (Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell called coon, uncle tom, etc.), trying to force segregationist policies on whites (Evergreen State College), painting white's as an "oppressor class" (even poor whites), painting minorities and women, san Asians, as the "victim class", etc. When there's a group of people (loud minority/SJW's) that proactively try to impede on individual constitutional rights, when there's a group of people saying waving the American flag is somehow racist, or when there's a group of people that doesn't allow someone to speak based on the color of their skin (even if that person is white), you can say with good certainty they're an SJW. When you find someone not even willing to hear the other side no matter your background, you've found someone brainwashed by neo-Marxist ideology that's taken over your typical college campus. You should take a chance and look deeper into Communism and Marxism and see for yourself the underlying philosophical structures that are similar to today's cultural climate of SJWs.

The premise that SJW's even exist is suspect to begin with. Talking head videos dont prove anyone is specifically a SJW. The premise itself is flawed because you cannot prove anyone is a SJW.

You citing random events and references without any specific details does not prove anyone is a SJW. Youre throwin shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so you can continue labelling people as a SJW despite a complete inability to prove they are.

It's ideological censorship. Congratulations, you fell for propaganda meant to turn half of America into the enemy and perpetuate this cultural war which divides the United States.

I hear your side. It's total unproveable bullshit that is a form of ideological censorship. You can label anyone a SJW without providing any proof. Looking deeper into Communism or Marxism doesnt prove any specific people are neo-marxists. It's just telling people to drink more kool aid.

Well I see what you're saying, but culture is and has always been an ideological battle ground. I can agree that there isn't any 1 person that embodies the philosophies of an SJW, but that's not how ideologies become action. Ideologies manifest when enough people come together to make a movement possible. It's not that every person in the movement agrees on every premise of the ideology. It's that there's enough philosophical agreement that justifies their movement together as a group. And I'm arguing that the current left has agreed upon philosophical precepts that run counter to western ideology of individuality.

You should look into how Nazism and Communism actually came into being. It's not that there was an entire nation of evil people, it's that there was a movement of enough people with enough philosophical similarity that amalgamated into the monster we read about in history books.

In case you forgot the entire idea of America was based on liberal philosophies from the Enlightenment. The concept of a free society, guaranteeing freedom of religion, speech, press and protest are the foundation of our nation. This is buttressed by the belief that all humans deserve basic human rights that are unalienable. Does that mean Thomas Jefferson was a cultural Marxist for believing in equality? Based on these arbitrary definitions it seems anything remotely liberal is classified as cultural Marxism.

I know how Marxism and Christian Nationalism came into being. You’re the one defending a right wing ideology that says we can ban groups of people based on their religion or discriminate against citizens based on religious beliefs. The alleged “cultural marxists” think this violates the rights granted under the Constitution and are using their first amendment rights to speak and protest these policies.

Comparing these positions to soviet style communism is an inaccurate an unproveable assertion. Citing propaganda from the 30s and 50s or talking head videos doesn’t prove anyone is SJW.

Instead of making one line references without context provide specific details and evidence that the people you accuse are indeed SJWs. The sad thing is this theory only seems to exist in a right wing echo chamber. Clearly the socialists in Norway are nothing like socialists in North Korea or the former USSR. You’ll make no distinction between them, you’ll lump them all into the same pile despite major fundamental differences.

Woah woah woah... what's with all the misinformation... You clearly don't know your history and the meanings of the words you spout... Before going any further, my hope is that you take the ideas I’m suggesting and do further research because it’s pretty clear that you don’t understand this topic or its components too well. The belief that all humans deserve basic unalienable human rights is NOT cultural Marxism and is a magnificent ahistorical interpretation... The constitution and the liberal philosophies that emerged from the Enlightenment explain that every person should have certain natural, basic, unalienable human rights. Marxism which wasn't created until the mid 19th century took a leap and suggested that all people should be equal. These are fundamentally two entirely different premises. The enlightenment was about equal opportunity by supplying the individual unalienable rights while Marxism was about equality of outcome where methods of how equality is achieved are put on the sideline. This is a very important distinction because the world is inherently unequal, ie it’s going to be very hard to argue equality of outcome in basketball when one player is 5’-0” and another is 6’9”, some people are smarter than others, some are physically disabled, some have talent in math, while others having more talent in music, some people are born into richer families while others are born into poorer families. What this means is that outcome will inevitably be varied. What’s worse, Marxist ideology is the philosophical underpinnings, of Communism, with the same supposition of “equality” (more specifically equality of outcome) which has NEVER worked in our history, look into Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Venezuala today… The current SJW phenomenon happening right now has similar underpinnings of Communism rooted in Marxist ideology. PC culture, race shaming (ironically today against whites), 3rd and 4th wave feminism (male hate rhetoric), all have similar underpinnings of Marxist ideology where group identities trump individual identity. I’ll give you clear examples of where this ideology has infected college campuses. You don’t have to look any further than UC Berkeley where Ann Coulter speech was cancelled, Milo’s speech was cancelled, and Ben Shapiro’s speech cost him $600,000 for security. I don’t agree with everything they say, but when radical leftists RIOT, damage school property, or makes people pay more than half a million dollars for security, I have to wonder why. When youtube, demonetizes conservative think tanks and even liberal’s like Dave Rubin, I start wondering why the hell they are censoring a gay liberal. The common trend in all of this, is that they all criticize the SJW movement that is rooted in Marxist ideology. It’s not a theory, you only need to do a little research to find out the truth that you’re so unwilling to consider possible.

To add, the reason why socialism works in Norway or other Scandinavian countries is because comparatively to the US they have a very small population and they culturally homogeneous.

Based on your descriptions of cultural marxism, the belief in egalitarianism ideals that espouse equality would be considered cultural marxism despite the fact it predates marxism. That's part of the problem. The descriptions of cultural marxism in all the videos and documentation you guys provide condemns all liberal beliefs. It applies gross generalizations to anyone with left leaning ideals and makes no effort to prove any kind of association.

I know the meanings of the words. I'm not the one trying to apply different meaning to entire groups of people. That would be guys like you who continue to propagate this bullshit claim that protestors are SJW cultural marxists because they disagree with the policies of right wing politicians who are trying to ban groups of people because of religion, or using religion to discriminate against citizens who are supposed to be treated equally under the law. You cant prove that anyone you decide to call a sjw cultural marxist is indeed a cultural marxist.

Nobody here with left leaning beliefs is advocating for soviet style marxism which is what you keep comparing them to.

The UC Berkeley speeches were cancelled because of the threat to public safety. Not because people want to turn America into Soviet Russia. People were killed at prior speeches by right wing extremists like what happened in Portland or Charlottesville. Public safety and the costs for security paid by the taxpayers was the reason why those speeches were cancelled. Not every protestor rioted or damaged property and they certainly didnt stab, shoot or drive a car into crowds of right wind protestors like what happened in Charlottesville.

There is no proof the SJW movement even exists. It's a theory that bounces around inside of a right wing echo chamber with no way to prove anyone belongs to it. The only people who take it seriously are those who defend the unconstitutional policies of Donald Trump's administration.

No, the reason why socialism works in Norway and other Scandianavian countries is they practice market based socialism. The government provides infrastructure, but their economy participates on a free market. We use the same kind of socialist policies in America as it relates to providing education, police and fire protection and taxpayer funded military. The truth is, we, the people, own and fund everything by proxy as taxpayers. That is a form of socialism. Those services are funded by taxpayers for the benefit of all citizens.

The truth is Norway and other countries under the Nordic model, or even UK, France and Germany have socialistic policies that underpin their countries, but they are not practicing soviet style socialism or communism. They have major fundamental differences, like participation in market based economies, that separates them from your idea of Marxist ideology.

The truth is you dont understand the meanings of communism and socialism and are trying to attribute all forms of liberalism to soviet style marxism.

It is a theory. You cannot prove that anyone is a sjw cultural marxist. All you can do is cite talking head videos where people talk about the theory. Nobody has a cultural marxist membership card. Nobody talks about these things but right wing extremists. In fact, these things were spawned from anti-communist propaganda in the 30s and 50s. They are anachronistic relics of the Cold War. It's neo-McCarthyism used to perpetuate an ideological culture war against other Americans that disagree with right wing policies like banning people because of their religion or making corporations people or allowing Christians to discriminate against other Americans based on their Christian beliefs or to deny rights to an American citizen because they happen to be attracted to the same sex.

You cant prove PC culture, race shaming, 3rd and 4th wave feminism have anything to do with Marxism. These are empty claims you cannot back up. Believing all people are equal under the law, as stated in our Constitution, including minorities and women is not race shaming or male hating. That's a guaranteed right in the Constitution.

Wow you are one brain washed kid.

First off, I wasn't defining cultural Marxism because cultural Marxism is a new terminology. I was defining Marxism because it shows the underlying roots of cultural Marxism and neo Marxism. Please re-read.

"Nobody here with left leaning beliefs is advocating for soviet style marxism which is what you keep comparing them to." No one intends to, but when you start spouting equality of outcome for everyone, it's a marker of the underlying philosophical root of Marxism.

"The UC Berkeley speeches were cancelled because of the threat to public safety. People were killed at prior speeches by right wing extremists like what happened in Portland or Charlottesville." Feb 2017 - UC Berkeley May 2017 - Portland Incident Aug 2017 - Charlotesville Just a little effort would've shown you Berkeley pre-dates Portland and Charlotesville...

"There is no proof the SJW movement even exists. It's a theory that bounces around inside of a right wing echo chamber with no way to prove anyone belongs to it. The only people who take it seriously are those who defend the unconstitutional policies of Donald Trump's administration." David Rubin - Liberal gay, did not vote Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq86Beh3T70 Brett Weinstein - Liberal activist, did not vote Trump https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/evergreen-professor-at-center-of-protests-resigns-college-will-pay-500000/ Eric Weinstein - Brother of Brett Weinstein, did not vote Trump, on "Social Justice Religion" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui7ET4Imu04 Johnathan Haidt - Liberal professor, criticizing PC Culture/Trigger warnings/safe spaces. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

I can list more if you want.

"The truth is, we, the people, own and fund everything by proxy as taxpayers. That is a form of socialism. Those services are funded by taxpayers for the benefit of all citizens." I agree that the people hold power over government. I never argued against this. I also never said the US doesn't have socialist policies in play, to deny this is stupid, and your simply projecting like numerous other times to think I denied this.

"The truth is you dont understand the meanings of communism and socialism and are trying to attribute all forms of liberalism to soviet style marxism." No, that's why I clearly communicated "Neo-Marxism" and rightly said that the underpinnings of communism and socialism have much of its roots in Marxist ideology explaining further that the primary problem with Marxist ideology is that of equality of outcome. You're still not using terms correctly or you've misunderstood my posts...

"It is a theory. You cannot prove that anyone is a sjw cultural marxist. " Just like gravity is a theory, but when I see it I call it out to question it. When other's see it, it affirms my beliefs. Hey I'm socially liberal on policies, but when I see SJW's I'll call it out and when there are liberal voices in the media that call it out, I'm ready to hold it true.

"You cant prove PC culture, race shaming, 3rd and 4th wave feminism have anything to do with Marxism. These are empty claims you cannot back up." I think I just did. To deny this is to deny there's air in the air.

"Believing all people are equal under the law, as stated in our Constitution, including minorities and women is not race shaming or male hating." As I said in my earlier post, the enlightenment was about equal opportunity by supplying the individual unalienable rights, meaning people are equal under the law, while Marxism was about equality of outcome where methods of how equality is achieved are put on the sideline, ie even if I earned my money with my hard work and time, those sitting at home not doing anything deserve the same amount of pay as I do.

Put a little more effort into seeing the other side. If it was Neo-McCarthyism, you wouldn't find so many liberals jumping ship.

You're the one that is brainwashed insisting this group exists despite a complete inability to prove it. Nobody says they belong to this sjw cultural marxist group, the only people who talk about it are right wing ideologues.

As far as Berkley cancelling, here was their reasoning: ""It is extremely unfortunate that this announcement was made at the last minute, even as the University was in the process of spending significant sums of money and preparing for substantial disruption of campus life in order to provide the needed security for these events," Assistant Vice Chancellor Dan Mogulof said in a statement. "

Milos had done a speech in February that ended up in riots. Saying they cancelled because of security and costs appears to be the exact reason the chancellor decided to cancel it.

I can however show people who willfully identify as neo-nazis and white supremacists. I don't call people neo-nazis or white supremacists without proof that they are actually neo-nazis and white supremacists. To apply that SJW label to anyone without evidence is a gross generalization that cant be proven.

You did not prove PC culture, race shaming and 3rd and 4th wave feminism have anything to do with marxism. You cited videos with talking heads giving their opinions on the topic. That's not actually proof. Thats the opinions of talking heads.

Nobody here is arguing for "equality of outcome" or for flat wages like in soviet style Marxism. Why do you keep making these comparisons? To demonize people with left leaning ideas by calling them communists or marxists maybe?

I'm not going to put any effort into seeing the other side. It's simply a way the right wing has come up with invalidating anyone that disagrees with their policies.

The fact that you're denying the existence of SJW ideology or more correctly postmodern ideology rooted in neo-Marxist ideology should be a red flag to anyone with an ounce of critical thinking.

I'm denying the premise that anyone with left leaning ideals is a SJW cultural marxist. The gross generalization that half the country is SJW cultural marxists is a bunch of bullshit.

I know what I believe and why I believe it and it isnt related to soviet style marxism, its related to christian egalitarianism and liberal philosophies from the Enlightenment.

Well I guess we just have a misunderstanding on our hands. I don't think everyone with left leaning ideals is an SJW cultural Marxist. I never said that and I'd agree it's definitely a gross generalization.

That's why I've always said "radical leftist". This doesn't mean liberal or even left for me. I think a lot of our miscommunication is coming from not defining the words we're using.

I'd categorize SJW's with radical leftists, but I think are part of the fringe. Dangerous, but still fringe. I think radical leftists have a dangerous ideology possibly more dangerous than KKK or fringe right simply because SJW's and radical leftists work in the name of the disenfranchised (there's a moral component). Personally I think it's easier to get this kind of danger mixed up from friend or foe, it's easier to spot the radical right. I think most lefties are just plain liberals with a more recent trend towards socialist ideology, but that's not the same as radical leftist.

Liberal ideals are definitely not the same as Marxism and have no root in Marxism and to clarify I think it's just the current radical left/SJW that fit the description.

Too bad it took this long to get here, but I'm glad we did haha.

Extremists of any variety are dangerous. I can agree with that. Extremism in all forms is on the rise.

Anytime I see this SJW argument its typically being used to generalize all liberals without distinction. That if you disagree, you must be a SJW cultural marxist. Watch these 10 videos and read this anti-communist propaganda from the 1930s and 1950s because its totally true. It feels like another way to divide us and distract from what's actually happening by tossing labels at people.

It feels like there's a lot of generalizing going on from the right. That all Muslims must be terrorists. That all Mexicans are rapists murderers and that all Liberals must be cultural marxists. That is what infuriates me.

I apologize for that. I'm just as guilty of generalizing you as one of the other idiots claiming every left leaning person is an SJW cultural marxist that believes in soviet style marxism and hates America.

I definitely don't agree with the notion that all liberals are SJW cultural Marxis and I can agree that it does sound like neo-McCarthyism. The problem is there is a powerful movement by a vocal minority that seriously affect social, cultural, political atmosphere that uses the guise of liberal/progressive ideals of the 60's, but is an absolute antithesis to those very ideals. It's something that the right and left could actually agree with and I think more liberals are catching on to it. Because of this guise, I think it's actually far more dangerous than the radical right. A majority of Americans know that there are grave repercussions for being racist, homophobic, bigoted, sexist, etc, but when the SJW radical left starts to call anyone who wrongthinks with these kinds of accusations, individuals have the problem of being potentially shut down simply because someone doesn't like what they are saying even if it might not be racist, homophobic, bigoted, sexist, etc.

There's a lot of generalizing on both sides. I don't think anyone but the fringe ever said all Muslims are terrorist or that all Mexicans are rapists, but I do see people on both the left and right presenting statistics that most Muslims believe in Sharia Law or that there's a high percentage of undocumented immigrants that disproportionately commit crime. Multiculturalism is great only to the extent that people are willing to abide/live by by the fundamental American ideals/laws of freedoms stated in our constitution.

I didn't vote for Trump (the fact that anyone has to preface with this statement shows the momentum of SJW radical left) but the ban on the 7 or 8 Muslim countries were countries that were noted by the Obama Admin as having highest probability of terrorists. Also, protecting our borders should be a bipartisan issue, it takes a lot more to become a citizen in Scandinavian countries than it is to become a citizen in America. Do I agree with his decision on the ban or the wall? Not entirely. But are they completely unjustified? No.

I wanted to make sure we came to some understanding because it's easy to fall into "sides." It's important that we don't, there're too many people that do. It's hard to do on the internet, especially Reddit because it takes time to respond, it's hard to read emotion, it's just not the same as a face to face conversation. You'll find that you can agree with more people than not or at least come to agree to disagree. Anyway, good luck.

By his logic if pedophiles called themselves something else, there'd be no pedophiles.

I was seriously questioning my sanity for a second, haha.

You left off Jordan Peterson, liberal professor.

Is he liberal? I always thought he was, but I hardly ever see him talk about his political affiliation.

He doesn't espouse specific political camp ideology. Conservatives like him because he has hit on some interesting ways of looking at some topics (like life in modern US) that they enjoy. But if you watch videos of him teaching courses, it's clear that he's of the liberal philosophical slant. What sets him apart is that he prefers to make sense rather than go off the deep end like so many liberals tend to do.

"What sets him apart is that he prefers to make sense rather than go off the deep end like so many liberals tend to do."

lol. I love this, but I want to say I don't think all liberals are like this and I doubt anyone who can distinguish themselves as a classical liberal from today's radical leftists aren't like this either.

I've probably said this a bunch of times, but I think Jordan Peterson is an intellectual powerhouse. His brain works on so many levels so quickly, it's inspiring. His ability to truly listen or try to understand multiple points of views at once is crazy .

I get the impression you actually, physically jab yourself with your finger when you say "nobody here is arguing for Marxist communism". SJWs mainly argue within one of two modes: a chaotic, riotous gang-up ("brigade"); or a complete and utter isolation chamber with a total vacuum of fact, of history, of present conditions and events, and of guilt by association.

So far in your argument with this other redditor, you have managed to eek out one single word in retaliation to the facts, and that word is "egalitarianism".

A simpleton browsing wikipedia will find, I was upset to discover, a hyperrealized term that broadly umbrellas a very wide range of documents and philosophies but with one transparently obvious and onerous thread joining them all. That thread being the preferred historical dressing up that cultural Marxists prefer to parade around in.

A quick glance at the etymology of "egalitarianism" reveals that its first use is somewhere between 1874, well after the establishment of the most prominent documents espoused to carry its tone. Nearly all academic sources on so-called "egalitarianism" are written more as an up-to-speed "how to guide" than an actual academic article, with three sources claiming three first use dates and one of them claiming two differing ones.

This is indicative of the problems with allowing cultural marxism to take hold in the academic establishments. Revisionism and inaccuracy in worship of idealised fantasy worlds set as unmoving political objectives. I personally put it all down to poor potty training, oedipal complexes, etc.

Christian egalitarianism has been around since Paul was writing letters to churches around the world. America was founded on principles of egalitarianism and liberal philosophies from the Enlightenment. It existed way before marxism was even a thought.

You're part of the problem here. You're using cultural marxism as a label to attack anyone with left leaning ideals despite the fact you cant prove they are cultural marxists. You are proving its being used as a form of neo-McCarthyism to demonize people who have different opinions than you, and the irony is you say I live in a fantasy world but youre the one making allegations and cant back up your claims.

Your description of cultural marxism and the ease by which you accuse people of being cultural marxists would throw Thomas Jefferson into the same mix for saying all men are created equal and have inalienable rights.

It wasn't called egalitarianism until Marxists needed a syndromic term for successful brainwashing. And there you go, expanding on the umbrella (hyperrealization of a word, illustrated) to fit your immediate talking points.

Everything just flies right over SJW heads, but that's because they all have their heads up their asses.

Give me a break. You're making more claims you cant prove.

You're the brainwashed ideologue here that cant back up his claims.

Project, much?

The problem common to SJWs is they hate research and expect the whole world experience to be fine art.

I'm not an SJW and I'm not the one projecting here. You're the one making claims you cant back up with facts or evidence. You just make new claims when the prior ones are proven to be bullshit. It's you that is accepting conclusions where no evidence exists to prove them.

Your opinions are proving anything. Your lack of study is what's stacking up bullshit chips, here.

You're the idiot trying to say egalitarianism was made up to cover for Marxist brainwashing.

On the crazy scale, you score an 11.

See, all you liberals do is bullshit, flick butts, and try to walk away.

That’s not proof I’m an SJW or that egalitarianism was made up to cover for Marxist brainwashing.

Your insults can’t even graduate the 2nd grade. That probably explains your nonsensical sentences and inability to prove your claims.

Let me know when you can prove something with facts.

Nobody is trying to prove you're one or that everything you spout is Marxist brainwashing, because all of that has been apparent. Nobody is trying to prove you're even on this planet, son.

Prove that what I am saying is Marxist brainwashing or that I am an SJW. You're the one here that is spouting right wing propaganda without a basis in fact.

Making empty claims you cant prove seems to be your specialty. You're just a pathetic troll that can only call people names because you cant actually back up anything.

You haven't proven any of the conjectures you've set out to. Nobody else in this convo is out to prove anything about you. Besides, personal opinions about you don't impact reality. Your thinking that ignoring facts about reality, squashing them with opinions about reality, and demanding other people prove their opinions about you instead, is definitely having an impact on your reality.

Dude, youve done nothing but make direct accusations about me you cant prove.

You also cannot prove that anyone is a SJW or that Marxists co-opted egalitarianism to cover up for their brainwashing.

The fact is you keep making empty claims and believing in a false reality that all left leaning people are SJW cultural marxists and cant prove a single thing. It's a fantasy in your head that you are projecting onto me. You cant prove any of it. It's a gross generalization that you can hide behind because it is YOU that doesnt want to deal with real facts that prove the claims YOU make.

you've done nothing but

What happened, there? Did you have to step away for a little meth hit? GTFOOH.

I'm not the crackhead making claims about people he cant prove.

If neo-Nazi's supported Trump and Trump espoused policies that seem to favor neo-nazis, would it be fair to say every Trump supporter is a neo-nazi?

Because that's essentially what you're saying in regards to SJW. If the shoe fits one person, then it fits all persons with similar beliefs and we can judge the entire body of people as the same. It's simply bad logic that cant be proven.

No, that's not what I'm saying and it's not even close. I'm refuting your ideas that supposes SJW's somehow don't even exist, that you can't call someone out as an SJW, that everyone can be considered an SJW... That's wrong and misleading.

This is your standard of metrics... "The premise that Nazi's even exist is suspect to begin with. Talking head videos dont prove anyone is specifically a Nazi. The premise itself is flawed because you cannot prove anyone is a Nazi.

You citing random events and references without any specific details does not prove anyone is a Nazi. Youre throwin shit against the wall and hoping it sticks so you can continue labelling people as a Nazi'sdespite a complete inability to prove they are.

It's ideological censorship. Congratulations, you fell for propaganda meant to turn half of Germany into the enemy and perpetuate this cultural war which divides Germany."

In case you didn't know, I'm doing to illustrate your argument is not well thought out, it can literally be applied to anything...

You're actually proving my point but you cant see it.

I mean, you've been misinterpreting and misrepresenting everything I've been saying, even saying I'm siding with the right... So I'll just take it that you can't understand...

The entire topic has been misrepresented from the start and is used as a gross generalization to demonize people for their political beliefs.

Nobody wants to talk about the real issues here, theyd much rather apply labels.

I think SJW's in the way I've defined it, should in fact be demonized, but we can agree to disagree.

your obstinance for delusion is incredible

Your sentence doesn't make sense. But it had a lot of syllables.

You can call someone out as a SJW. You simply cannot prove it. It's a gross generalization just as saying all Trump supporters must be neo-nazis because neo-nazis supported Trump and he passed policies friendly to their positions. I cant prove that statement because its a gross generalization just as calling someone, or anyone with liberal beliefs a SJW is also a gross generalization.

But truthfully there are people that are very open and public about their association with neo-nazi and christian nationalist groups.

When you see reactionary individuals, virtue-signalling hypocrites, pushing an ideological view of the world that plays to the worst kind of left-wing identity-politics. This is coming from a radical leftist or SJW.

When people present false narratives that incite riots as BLM did with their "Hands up Don't Shoot" narrative where you had BLACK witnesses tell the court that Michael Brown was guilty of reaching for the officer's gun and riots break out in Ferguson because of an unfair racially biased system. This is justified violence coming from a radical leftist or SJW.

When you have an entire generation of women believing they don't have opportunities for equal pay, when the data shows in the top 150 cities women in their 20's (typically before leave for childbirth) get paid MORE than their male counterpart. This is coming from a radical leftist or SJW.

Or when a liberal white professor like Brett Weinstein gets fired for refusing to participate in a day of absence where white students and faculty were asked to not attend school that day in remembrance of segregation. This kind of hypocrisy is coming from a radical leftist or SJW.

Being an SJW is taking in facts like these and still blaming some mythical "system" on the circumstances of their perceived injustice. It's pure misinformation and is the biggest danger to our society today. That's why it's critical to call it out when you see it even though you'll be called a racist and a sexist for doing so.

I think I can now agree with you that you can't call someone an SJW with absolute certainty as you would an skin head who waves his banner up high. But I can with absolute certainty tell you when SJW type or radical leftist thinking is at play because they'll always double down on their mistake just like true white supremacists and skinsheads would on their insane ideology of race supremacy.

"When people present false narratives that incite riots as BLM did with their "Hands up Don't Shoot" narrative where you had BLACK witnesses tell the court that Michael Brown was guilty of reaching for the officer's gun and riots break out in Ferguson because of an unfair racially biased system. This is justified violence coming from a radical leftist or SJW."

Maybe its a protest against the militarization of the police and the fact more civilians have died at the hands of police that any point in American history. BLM didnt just spring up out of nowhere, it took unnarmed civilians being killed by police, mainly minorities, to get people angry enough to take to the streets. Nobody is justifying violence, but when people are angry, they can get violent. More than 1,000 people died at the hands of police last year. Police brutality is a real thing in America. Don't believe me? Ask the nurse in Utah who got slammed to the wall and arrested for refusing to violate the Constitutional rights of one of her patients.

"When you have an entire generation of women believing they don't have opportunities for equal pay, when the data shows in the top 150 cities women in their 20's (typically before leave for childbirth) get paid MORE than their male counterpart. This is coming from a radical leftist or SJW."

The data shows women dont receive equal pay for equal work. When you isolate parts of that data and take it out of context, you can spin a narrative like "in the top 150 cities women get paid more" but you're taking the data out of context.

"Or when a liberal white professor like Brett Weinstein gets fired for refusing to participate in a day of absence where white students and faculty were asked to not attend school that day in remembrance of segregation. This kind of hypocrisy is coming from a radical leftist or SJW. "

No, it doesnt mean its coming from a radical leftist or SJW. It was a protest gone wrong. He resigned as a result. That doesnt actually prove your claims.

"Maybe its a protest against the militarization of the police and the fact more civilians have died at the hands of police that any point in American history." It's too bad it wasn't. I'm also against the militarization of the police and very against police brutality. However, the riots occurred because of the fair ruling of finding innocent the cop that shot Michael Brown. I'm not saying there isn't racial injustice or police brutality in America, there's a lot of work to be done. But when you base your movement on a false narrative, it smells of victim mentality, oppressor vs oppressed, nao-Marxist ideology.

"The data shows women dont receive equal pay for equal work. When you isolate parts of that data and take it out of context, you can spin a narrative like "in the top 150 cities women get paid more" but you're taking the data out of context."

You're right, when you take a multivariable analysis to account women who don't have children, who don't leave their profession, who negotiate aggressively, and who work in the same work with the same amount of hours of work, the average pay of women and men converge.

"No, it doesnt mean its coming from a radical leftist or SJW. It was a protest gone wrong. He resigned as a result. That doesnt actually prove your claims."

He was wrongfully terminated and the school paid him $500,000 in damages. Student's called him racist even though he has a history of fighting racism.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/25/bret-weinstein-files-38m-tort-claim-against-evergr/

“[Evergreen] failed to set and enforce necessary boundaries in the workplace on campus, selectively has chosen not to enforce its student Code of Conduct, and sent the unmistakable message that the school will tolerate (and even endorse) egregious violations (and even crimes) purportedly to advance racial social goals, diminishing the collegiate experience for all, and fostering a racially hostile work and retaliatory environment for faculty and staff,”

This is what SJW ideology looks like in practice.

The Ferguson riots started the day after he was shot. It was the response to excessive force that resulted in the killing of an unnarmed man. A black man. Dylan Root could kill 9 people in a church and be taken into custody without a scratch.

Even when citizens follow the rules, like Philando Castile did when he got pulled over, they get shot and killed. It wasn't just Michael Brown, it was Philando Castile, Trayvon Martin and every other black man that got killed by an overzealous, and predominantly white, police force. I don't blame black americans for feeling like they are oppressed when these things happen and people get off scott free. They were slaves for over 200 years and only got the right to vote 40 years ago. We might have legalized civil rights, but that doesnt mean racism disappeared from people or institutions.

The data also shows that men who do have children and build families are paid more than women who do have children and build families. We can isolate parts of that data set all day long, but on average across all that data, women get paid less than men for the same jobs.

The protest went wrong at Evergreen, that doesnt mean its evidence of some massive SJW conspiracy. Taking language from a tort lawsuit filed against the school doesnt mean those claims are true. Did they fail to set and enforce necessary boundaries? Sure, that's a fair assessment. Claiming its proof of SJW ideology is a stretch.

I'm not saying there are injustices, prejudicial injustices, or that there isn't racism, etc. But to justify rioting and molotov cocktails is kind of crazy especially in the situation where Brown went for the officer's gun after he store from a convenient store... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11242108/Ferguson-timeline-of-events-since-Michael-Browns-death.html

But I guess I can give you a little leeway on that issue. I just don't think violence is in anyone's interest.

"The data also shows that men who do have children and build families are paid more than women who do have children and build families. We can isolate parts of that data set all day long, but on average across all that data, women get paid less than men for the same jobs."

This is most likely because in a typical household, women will HAVE to take time off work from a job to have the baby. This isn't fair by any measure, but it's a huge factor. If you look at data tat shows men who have children get paid more than women who have children, I think it's pretty obvious why that's the case. Women have to take off work. I think there should definitely be some solution to this, but to say there's no pay equity because of sexism and patriarchy is plain false.

I'm saying SJW ideology is rooted in Marixist ideology of oppressor vs oppressed. In this situation the white professor was automatically group identified as "white oppressor." His refusal to participate in the Day of Absence got him fired even though it should be his unalienable right to protest the event. See how in this case an individual's unalienable right to free speech/protest was violated?

Below is a good example of SJWs at work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1P_1mLlJik

I'm not saying any one of the individuals embody the true all encompassing essence of an SJW, but the ideology driving the mob is that of SJWism rooted in neo-Marxist ideology.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to not realize that "all whites are racists/Nazis/Red Necks" whatever else you can come up with is socially equal to "all blacks steal/rape/are gangsters".

You Dems are going to have to try some tactic (literally: any tactic,) besides retreating further and further into an interior fantasy world if you want to have something to count as achievements basically ever again besides orgasm and psychotic break.

I'm not the one living in an interior fantasy world concocting imaginary conspiracies out of thin air.

If you believe all men are created equal and the Constitution guarantees rights to every single American citizen regardless of race, religion or gender, you could be called a SJW cultural marxist based on their definitions. It's a bullshit effort to paste anyone with left leaning ideas as some kind of soviet style communist. It's a form of censorship.

No the SJW idea is based on "collective rights". Your social group is either oppressor or oppressed. It ignores the individual in favour of the group. Do you think that people who oppose the SJW mentality genuinely don't want people to have equal opportunities or they don't want a more meritocratic society? That's not true and nobody equates people who want fairness and egalitarianism as being SJW cultural Marxists. Most people want fairness and people to have a equal opportunity. What people oppose is the notion that you are either inherently good or bad, oppressed or oppressor based on your social group

Nobody equates people who want fairness and egalitarianism as being SJW cultural marxists?

I wish that were the case man. But there are people on this subreddit who call anyone with left leaning ideals SJW cultural marxists.

I wish that were the case man. But there are people on this subreddit who call anyone with left leaning ideals SJW cultural marxists.

Well, if they do they are wrong. Honestly, the anti-SJW people I've seen online are totally for meritocratic societies that don't discriminate based on race, sexuality, gender etc. The SJW types are disliked because they use bullying tactics and are authoritarians using "compassion" as a guise to silence people with opposing opinions. They generally refuse to debate or discuss and seem to view opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". They actually harm the overall move towards greater fairness as moderates see their tactics as something that is unreasonable so they end up thinking that because the people pushing the ideas are unreasonable, the overall aims might be as well. The "no platforming" and "punch a nazi" tactics are totally opposite to everything for which liberals stood. I've seen people on videos get punched despite specifically saying they were not Nazis or racist, so clearly it's an excuse to legitimise violence against people they view as opponents

Because it's founded on collectivism rather than empowering the individual it's led to the situation where if an individual from a social group has a different opinion to the majority of that group then, if they are black for example, then they are called "sell-outs", "Uncle Tom" or told they are suffering from "internalised racism" etc. People are individuals first so thinking that someone from a group should have the same opinion just because they are from the group is stupid.

Many of the SJW types treat minorities as fragile incompetent idiots who white people have to use their "privilege" to protect and don't see them as anything other than victims. To me, this is racist as it's based on the idea that white people need to help people of colour as they're too stupid to do it themselves. The old racists at least thought they were a threat and could achieve things, the new left doesn't think they can do anything at all without their help.

I'm sure some who subscribe to the idea do so because their heart is in the right place, but lots of the more vocal elements of the "new left" are hypocritical and are pro censorship, pro violence and anti-discussion. I hope people don't think because people are opposed to SJW types that means they are opposed to wanting a fair and equal society too.

Trump is a bully, the only language he understands is the same in return.

While that's probably true, that's not the reason for the vitriol we're seeing from SJWs.

wrong + wrong = right!

He literally can't be reasoned with. Schumer makes a deal with him then his neo nazi advisors tell him its a bad idea and he flip flops. Its chaos.

The ends justify the means. If they think they can hurt their opponent by using tactics they decry, they will gladly do it because they don't actually care about any of the things that they claim to care about. They just want power over others.

"Gain power" is the whole of progressive principle.

Any examples?

/r/fatlogic is loaded with examples of the weight aspect

And the users of that sub are considered SJW how?

they aren't SJWs, they are former or wanting to be former fat people who reject fallacious ideas about maintaining a healthy weight. they post examples of social justice warriors using 'fat logic'.

Nobody posting in there is a SJW. its just (probably fat) libertarians lol.

It's usually just a mask to hide their own racism.

If you are treating any group differently because of their skin color, positively or negatively, that's racism.

Maybe you should ask the people that supposedly did what you're claiming instead of making a generalization.

Hey, they have a sub for this!

r/rants

personally i feel all these virtue signalling tools are actually racist. they know they are and they do this out of their own guilt trying to over compensate for their internal views.

im mean what is more racists than a white person thinking a black/trans/gay/etc/etc person is unable to defend themselves and needs them to speak for them?

these people are so quick to accuse others of -ism's and i think it is just to draw the focus off of themselves in a weird overcompensation.

like the republicans who attack gays, only to be caught later soliciting blow jobs in airports.

I do get really suspicious of guys I know who are ridiculously vocally outspoken against gays. Like, why's it on their mind's so much?

I watched a video where a white SJW woman was saying that she marched for BLM because she had her handbag stolen and her first thought was it must have been the black guy in the room. That was when she realised what black people must go through on a daily basis.

No, YOUR first thought was the black guy did it. Not all white people think like that.

I sometimes think that the old-school racists are actually less racist than the SJW types. At least they thought "the other" was a credible threat who could actually do things. The white SJWs see other races as being these ineffectual scared creatures who can't make anything of their lives unless the white SJW helps them navigate society with their "privilege". Fortunately, most black people I know don't have the same victim mentality that the SJWs wished they had. It's funny that the "white man's burden" has come back, but is now supposedly "compassionate". People are people whatever their race, sexuality etc. Some people are dicks, some people are cool. Some white people get dealt more of a shitty hand than some black people. Don't be a victim, not everybody is out to get you.

exactly!

These ideas for the left are generally around the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down" where more things are acceptable to do to criticize those in authority. But the SJWs are generally against fat shaming (and calling him orange is not comparative to racism, but you know that already) and i've seen them criticizing the mainstream dems for doing it frequently.

OP do you have any actual examples?

Lots of upset people in this thread for some reason.

Get off the internet and go into the real world, because outside of the internet no one is warring on white people. The real world is still pretty normal, just breathe

racism against white people and sexism against men is impossible according to these people. they want to have their cake and get diabetes from eating it too.

wow, tons of people being obviously willfully ignorant of the cultural marxist/social justice movement. that's not suspicious at all!

Lots of leftists on reddit, I believe only 40% of Reddit’s users are American. I’ll try to find the source I saw.

Every single one browses r/politics too.

Shocking. That sub should be rebranded of disbanded.

Implying the logic you used to come to that conclusion applies to postmodernists, or that being motivated by nothing but "power", they'd want to give up the illusion of objectivity /r/politics has

Communism will win buddy.

After being critiqued to death, I'm legitimately sorry that you still think that. Something must motivate you that you need to find within yourself and correct ASAP.

In any case, here's a word of caution: Everything around you is more socially engineered than you think, and in 2018 all self-proclaimed communists are just tactical foot-soldier for wealthy elites, looking to prop you up as opposition to themselves, for the furthering of their goals.

What is a Pareto distribution"?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

What does this man's explanation of it mean?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T7pUEZfgdI&t=6m53s

Sort yourself out, totally non-obvious one. Then thank the system that gives you your next meal.

"Stephen Hicks - Postmodern Resentment | Tower Of The West": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SUccB5xitg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment

I see what you did there. Hahaha.

It's because the SJW mindset is to simplify the terms of engagement based on "oppressors" and "victim." Those who are part of the "oppressive" group identity are shamed while those who are part of the "victim" group identity are protected. It's no longer about individuals, it's about what group a person can be identified as and are judged based on that group identity. There are 2 caveats to this formula. 1) A person part of the "oppressive" group identity can ask for forgiveness and join the movement for crimes they did not commit, but are nevertheless responsible for those crimes because they can be seen as part of the "oppressive" group identity. 2) If someone who can be identified as part of the "victim" group identity, but speaks out against the methodology or against the ingroupthink, that person will no longer be part of the "victim" group identity and can be subject to shaming.

ie White liberal apologizes and says he can't understand racism because he is white, joins movement. ie Black speaks out against NeoMarxist ideology can be considered a coon, uncle tom, etc. ie Black who comes out as conservative can be considered a coon, uncle tom, etc. ie Woman who know pay gap is a myth is a fat slut, etc. ie Conservatives (without defining what conservative even means) are all Nazi's. ie Person doesn't agree with SJW, the person is a Nazi.

All the normalish people do , it’s social conditioning , easier than making us a actual authoritarian/totalitarian regime

Don’t worry about other groups of people. It’s always the loudest, craziest people that cut through the background noise and get our attention. They are probably not representative of the group of people you are trying to lump them in with.

If you accept the premise of the saying 'The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.', you can flip it around to mean ‘Anyone who isn’t talking to you as if what they’re saying could be wrong is probably too stupid or ignorant to really want to listen to’.

One of the key takeaways of this point in our history is the breakdown of hatred of other groups of people. Everything, that you dislike about a group of people will be done by someone of “your” group as well, maybe with a slight shift. Just ignore the labels people try to sterotype each other with and take things on a case by case basis.

Are you telling me that racists and sexists don’t all belong to one political party?!?! Crazy!

Yes, the left is full of hypocritical behavior.

What's up Mr. Partisan? How's life without lording over us?

Trump endorsing Netanyahu for prime minister in 2013. Trump as grand marshall of the Israel Day parade in 2004. Rothschild banker and current secretary of commerce Wilbur Ross bails out Trump's failing Taj Mahal in 1990.

Soros has a business with Kushner, they are partners. Breitbart and Infowars happily gloss over this after painting Soros as the arch enemy.

And my favorite, Trump the democrat: https://i.redd.it/xmx00432x0ly.jpg

Agreed, both parties work for Israel. This sub proves it daily.

Rothschild, Inc. bailed out Trump's Taj Mahal and he made the investor banker responsible for the deal Commerce Secretary.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-wilbur-ross-commerce-20161208-story.html

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross benefits from business ties to Putin’s inner circle

https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/donald-trumps-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-and-his-russian-business-ties/

the fact that you didn't know about this until now is proof that you are so ignorant of what is going on that you are a determent to society lol

I consider myself a social justice warrior but that is because I make an effort to be socially just. For example there was a guy on the side of the road with a flat bike tire so I helped him fix it. Also I donate to Feeding America which operates food banks for people who are poorer than myself. Also in my elementary school classroom I show my students videos of musicians from all over the world to give them a sense that they share a common humanity with people who look all kinds of different ways. I dunno. “Social justice” is a great phrase and I would rather rehabilitate it than surrender it to the Tumblrati.

Look yall, I don't hate the guy (Trump), but at the same time I don't like him. Reality is I just dont care(enough). There are some things he has said that I agree with, and some where im just like, 'the fuck?'. But if I can state my opinion without bringing on the crusade, is that the people who support trump are usually confined to certain places. Certain subs, groups whatever..they usually stick close, they dont tend to wander far. But all the Trump protesting is everywhere. Now if it were all civilized it wouldn't be a problem..but instead we have all this name calling and making fun of each other.

I agree that both sides of the spectrum can be equally as juvenile, but the trump protesting side outnumbers the other. Now that may mean alot, if so many people are against one person. But in the way the message is being put out, it's not really that appealing.

I respect people not for their beliefs..but for who they are and what they do. Whenever I see a group or individual just constantly attacking and verbally abusing others...it really makes me not want to associate myself with them.

Im sure there are many others who can relate..You can get along with anyone regardless of their beliefs, but there are certain people who you don't want anything to do with because of their actions.

Every single time I get online or watch TV, its always trump this, trump that..his wife, sons, daughters, nazis.. its pretty tiring. You'll see the occasional trump supporting, but it gets quickly drowned out by the protesting negativity.

The way some of yall are presenting yourselves to the world is really...'ugh'. I dont care enough for politics to choose a side. What for? Do you think they're really in control? That one person or group can change in 4 years what has been established and set in stone for so long?

Great comment.

I agree that both sides of the spectrum can be equally as juvenile

Anybody dumb enough to join either 'side' of the false dichotomy is likely to be in a state of arrested development i.e. psychologically juvenile.

You act so high and mighty but youre really not saying anything other than "all the bad stuff he's done doesn't affect me."

Let me just inform you that this is not an intellectual standpoint. This is a fucking LAZY one. If you can't figure out why people are so upset you are ignoring quite a bit.

Well thanks for informing me. But could you explain to me why YOU are so upset?

Hypocrisy is the name of the game for these people, and they rarely realize it.

Yep, I always call reddit out for this shit. They don't care about sexism, racism, xenophobia, pedophobia, etc if you engage in wrongthink.

This post is b8 and artificially on the front page.

ANA KASPARIAN calling Alex Jones a "Fat ass" pretty much sums it up

Have you ever noticed that these type of people only ever exist on the internet?

I can across a bunch of poc republicans on twitter and I was seriously shocked. The left were tweeting some of the most racist and sexist things I've ever seen.

And they talk about hate ffs. Lol.

Isn't it pretty funny how leftists always have to be the bigger people. Like the right insult and do way horrible shit but if leftist makes fun of trump its somehow the end of the world. And once you point out this double standard, people go oh a wrong + wrong= right! Seriously look at what the right does then say something after and they're actually racist

Trump is literally harming people's lives with the immigration polices and didn't he do messed up shit with a 13 year old and grab a women's genitals? Calling him orange and overweight is not comparable to that at all. Did you see what the right said about Obama? Now that's really fucked up

This is ridiculous. First off, orange is not a natural skin colour, he has chosen to look that way due to terrible fake tans. That is perfectly legitimate to make fun of.

And for fat shaming, at least in the most recent case of the medical, everyone's making fun of the fact that the results are almost certainly lies. I hate the man but I don't give a shit that he's fat. What I give a shit about is that he feels the need to lie about everything.

If he was unapologetically fat, no one would care, except assholes. And assholes are not partisan, they're everywhere.

I assume by "SJW" you mean: stupid people on twitter who are left-wing oriented?

This is a great conspiracy, awesome submission statement!

I've noticed the same thing. It's as if that's all these idiots think about. Got an opinion on something? Well it doesn't matter because you're a white male. Got a problem? Well if you're not a gay overweight black midget, who cares?!?!

Uh...No. I haven't noticed that. Sounds like you might be a bit of a snowflake. Go back to T_D for your own mental safety.

Removed. Rule 10

Congratulations u/Flytape, you are so dead right that your thread has now been heavily brigaded.

Modern leftism = hypocrisy

The real conspiracy here is the comments that are downvoted in this thread are those speaking true of the Marxist cultural/political invation and indoctrination masquerading as leftist "progressive" movement.

I grew up in a communist country. I know propaganda when I see it!!!

I didn't even realize this was a Flytape thread. But sure, the real conspiracy is that people on reddit disagree with you. I grew up with Rush Limbaugh blasting in my house practically 24/7. I know propaganda when I hear it too.

Also penis size.

I suspect penis envy is at the root of it.

Loudest voices have smallest minds.

Loud voices with small minds.

Has anyone noticed that treating large numbers of real individuals as a group and giving them a label such as SJW allows you to deal with them not as people who exist in the world but as an abstraction that exists in your mind?
In other words. "SJW's" as a group do not exist. There is no way to define it scientifically and rationally. It exists in your mind.
"They say there is no war on white people then turn around and attack people for being white." Really? Who is "they?"
As far as Trump, it's true that his appearance is a frequent target but he "attacks" people based on appearance frequently so it would seem kind of hypocritical to me to be #triggered over it.
Do you find these kinds of words hurtful? Or do you simply think that they should be reserved for the use of the President? I'm not sure I understand.

There actually is in "group" we're talking about here, that whether consciously or unconsciously, is possessed in some form or another by ideology. People don't have Ideas, ideas have people, and a particular idea has most of these "SJWs" in their grip. Ideologues in general are on a set path, doing more or less what the bidding of their ideology dictates. Separate from the group they're less possessed, however place them in their online groups, or real world mobs, and more aspects of the entire ideology become fully realized.

Most often, what motivates people to carry out the the "Social Justice" in "SJW", is an unholy alliance between postmodernism, and neomarxism, so a more accurate term that fits the bill is Postmodern-NeoMarxists. Sometimes the shorthand term "SJW" still has utility though.

It has utility as an abstraction that can allow a person to make statements about that abstraction. Are you in favor of social injustice?
This Postmodern Neo-Marxist thing sounds a lot more descriptive and interesting. But the point here is that members of a group are individuals. They are all different. Are the police a group? Can we speak accurately of "the police" and make statements about what the police want? Not really. But at least they are defined as people who are employed as police officers, so there is some basis. No one signs a contract to be an SJW, and your definition of what an SJW is will differ from others.
The title says it all. Apparently SJW's are against fat shaming but will use weight as a way to insult people. Really? If every single "SJW" doesn't do this then the statement is false. And if every single SJW doesn't have the same beliefs on race then the statement is false.
I am talking about semantics, but semantics are important when people start getting stirred up and believing that an abstraction is a dangerous enemy. I mean we're in /r/conspiracy here so the idea of being fooled by language is worth thinking about.

Are you in favor of social injustice?

Most people favor justice, but the devil here's in the details. What's meant by the term potentially can cast it in doubt. "Justice" can and has meant terrible things to people. Proponents of the the term "social justice" tend to use the term, through a certain ideological filter. The “justice” that those looking through the ideological filter speak of, might as well be "Postmodern-NeoMarxist Justice", hence "social justice warriors" getting a bad rap...

While it's technically possible for the term "SJW" to mean something benign, realistically, the "oppressed" vs. "oppressor" agitators calling themselves "SJWs" get all the attention, and prevent that from happening. As far as many people are concerned, It just means something different.

''Progressive'' stack SJW behaviour ruined Occupy Wall Street : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W81A1kTXPa4

Inhttps://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1463/69/1463693047150.jpg

For example, does your "social justice" entail "equity of outcome"? That's a policy that'll fail to help others you're looking to help, and in fact worsens things for them. Reality is unjust. Injustice just is. Their are natural laws, making this an inescapable fact of existence. We're born different, have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities, etc. And these people incorrectly assume that the concept of the hierarchy comes from some fundamentally corrupt one only found in humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvCsZ_6qRAs

That also doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't do anything about it. I actually believe things can and should be done. Not everything can and should be done however.

It's worth reading the short story Harrison Bergeron on this, or watching one of it's adaptations.Those legitimately compassionate, and really looking to best address "injustices", must start by learning to recognize and drop the ideological possession, before they consider going forward.

They are all different. Are the police a group? Can we speak accurately of "the police" and make statements about what the police want? Not really. But at least they are defined as people who are employed as police officers, so there is some basis. No one signs a contract to be an SJW, and your definition of what an SJW is will differ from others.The title says it all. Apparently SJW's are against fat shaming but will use weight as a way to insult people. Really? If every single "SJW" doesn't do this then the statement is false. And if every single SJW doesn't have the same beliefs on race then the statement is false. I am talking about semantics, but semantics are important when people start getting stirred up and believing that an abstraction is a dangerous enemy. I mean we're in /r/conspiracy here so the idea of being fooled by language is worth thinking about.

I'm a good lawyer just trying to serve legal justice, I dislike how layers get a bad rap. Some think we're protectors, and other think we're corrupt and litigious. Some layers think/behave differently, and what the perception of what a lawyer is will differ between people. You're observing a tilt in the public perception of the word "SJW". Why that is should be obvious. If we want it to change, we should treat the cause, not effect in the change of perception.

Here's a good definition of just the postmodernism bit:

Postmodernism: an attitude of skepticism: irony towards/rejection of grand narratives, ideologies and universalism, including objective notions of reason, human nature, social progress, absolute truth, and objective reality.

What's meant by the term potentially can cast it in doubt.

That's sort of what I'm talking about. A term with no real fixed meaning that seems to be, in my opinion, a sort of preemptory attack on the messenger in order to discredit the message. I don't think it aids in society moving forward.
I'm going to look at your links and respond later. I do appreciate your time and I'm open to different perspectives. Thank you.

I think you're partially right in that it's an artificial label applied by people who don't belong to the proposed grouping to define another group of people.

That being said, I think the grouping of people is more or less real -- people with a loyalty to mostly left-wing political causes with an emphasis on sympathetic treatment of racial minorities and population groups thought of as historically discriminated against, principally blacks, women, hispanics, natives, GLBT and so on.

It's really no different than older categories like "WASP". There were no people who ran around calling themselves WASPs, but pretty much everyone knew the general type associated with the label.

I find the fact that "GLBT" exists as a self-imposed grouping to be even more ambiguous than SJW. There is no one person who is GLBT -- presumably you can't be a gay male and a lesbian at the same time. However, given the willingness of transgender activists to accept pretty much any self-selected gender identity, perhaps there are people who claim to be both gay and lesbian at the same time.

That being said, I'm mostly willing to accept the GLBT label as more or less defining a coherent, activism-oriented grouping of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. I'm not entirely sure how the married gay corporate lawyer sees themselves as aligned with a transgender activist other than maybe some vague cultural affinities, but the same is true for people under the SJW banner -- a woman's rights activist and an Islamic rights activist might actually be more opposed than unified, but somehow they seem to find common cause.

You make some good points. You're entirely correct that the term SJW will include people who actually have very different goals. I don't agree with everything you said, such as I don't really think that LGBT is really activism oriented. To me it just means anyone who identifies with any of those terms, but yes when you talk about the "LGBT community" that does tend to have some political connotations. The thing is that community doesn't all agree on everything either.
Anyway, the whole idea was to put the ideas out there for thought and discussion and I appreciate your thoughts on it. You are correct that these terms and other terms that generalize have always been used and have never been entirely accurate. They do have some use. Language is always a sort of approximation.

I think the best metaphor is staring at a large oriental rug -- there's a ton of potential patterns, but where does one end and other begin, and are some patterns really just arbitrary collections of smaller patterns we just group together because of proximity or other qualities?

"Look at the fingers on your hand to see how things that are different can be the same" also kind of sums it up.

This makes me want to take a bonghit and I haven't smoked in three years. :D

Not enough people on your shitty sub so you have to come back here Coup d'état?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7uxvfa/why_are_feminists_fat_ugly/

I'll just leave this here.

You're exactly right, another thing is once they have branded someone as racist or sexist or one of their buzzwords they feel they have free reign to simply throw whatever base insults at the person! 'Fucking inbred racist piece of shit' - that is HATEFUL!

It's called projection.

What’s wrong with that?

I bet you have big feet and a huuuge vagina.

Shit, conservatives work very hard to keep up the racial, cultural and religious wars active, it helps them stay in control.

I agree, but my point was somewhat more broad, and aimed at the 'left', or at least the type of 'left' politics that dominate the campus and online. Which is that they don't know how to escape racialism, and end up reproducing it themselves.

You handist! How dare you!

Liberals do as much of this by claiming that immigrants and blacks can't care for themselves, so they throw money at them to "save" them. They create income ceilings on welfare that keep the "disadvantaged" from moving up the sociopolitical ladder. As soon as they get a raise, or too many hours, or a bonus, they make too much money to benefit from the state. So they're forced to either stay out of work, or they move above the threshold and make less money for more work.

Liberals are totally fair.

"Make fun of his skin color". It is orange from dying because he is narcissistic. It isn't a natural color of people. Next we are talking about a war on white people. I thought we were making fun of his skin color for being ORANGE not white like his is supposed to be? What aren't you getting? I understand his post is about the hyprocrisy of SJW's but we are a whole different problem.

Ok, find me a single post or comment of yours calling a politician out for altering their skin color and proclaiming it is a sign of narcissism besides Trump. I mean, lots of them use tanner and bronzer.

He's dying from Narcissism?

I’m so sorry. Did I think out of turn? Very pleased you’re here to correct me as I’ve now seen the error of my ways and will definitely conform to the approved standard in future.

I'll have to quote this stock retort of yours for the irony. You started the whole comment chain when you were offended by the language someone used and failed to turn it back on them.

I'm a petty asshole for calling out a narcissist... okay? It isn't. Using bronzer or tanner or laying the in bed with goggles on until your orange isn't a real fuckin skin color. It isn't even on the damn chart. I'm petty and cruel for making fun of people that are so fucked up in the head that they dye themselves orange. What type of delusional world are you living in? When did we start applauding people for looking fake?Hypocritical? Might want to check that definition. Haven't done anything of that nature yet.

And the users of that sub are considered SJW how?

It's the obvious and a fact but I've seen people get upset because a person described someone as black. It's the same concept. It should be okay to call someone their skin color because it's, like you said, obvious. But it seems sjws only think it's acceptable to call white people white and not black people black. And it's only okay to call skinny people skinny and not okay to call a fat person fag. I think OP's point stands. Some comments from sjws are a hypocritical. They want peace and equality but some of them are violent and outcast anyone with a different opinion than them.

You missed the point.

Still waiting for evidence for your claims.

Then you'll admit "liberal" groups are behind the "alt right" and "white nationalists" etc?

Or is it just one "side" that allegedly does this?

Just trying to see if you have any c o consistency in your opinions whatsoever.

Here is an informative bit about the campus disruptions, like Milo's. Didn't Mercer say he was sorry he had hired him.

http://prospect.org/article/conservatives-behind-campus-%E2%80%98free-speech%E2%80%99-crusade

Not every liberal is a "sjw' though.

I know quite a few liberals that aren't.

It's a very specific type of person that's almost like a parody of liberal.

Nobody posting in there is a SJW. its just (probably fat) libertarians lol.

I think the best metaphor is staring at a large oriental rug -- there's a ton of potential patterns, but where does one end and other begin, and are some patterns really just arbitrary collections of smaller patterns we just group together because of proximity or other qualities?

"Look at the fingers on your hand to see how things that are different can be the same" also kind of sums it up.

Except that Charlottesville was also a conservative creation, with the hope of really violent riots because our Republican Congress is all set and ready to go to outlaw all public protesting and demonstrations.

Agent provocateurs are necessary for the conservatives to advance their hate and division dialogs and legislation, like mandatory sentencing.

This makes me want to take a bonghit and I haven't smoked in three years. :D