Community >> View Post
·
Post By
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 642
In Reply To
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,108
Subj: Re: Social Justice Warrior branding
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 at 09:45:12 am EDT (Viewed 77 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Social Justice Warrior branding
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 at 10:09:39 am EDT (Viewed 109 times)



    Quote:
    Sometimes, but rarely in a good way. All it usually does, in my experience alone, is to put somebody in a box. Sometimes it is justified but many times not.



    Quote:
    It is like the term snowflake that has caught on.


So what's the answer sanitize all our words so no one is offended so there are no negative words in the world. This is exactly the problem, suppression of thought. Snowflake is a perfectly good descriptor. I don't see massive outrage for words like whitey...redneck...conservatard...etc etc...All is see is one group tryng to dent another groups creative and sometimes accurate use of words. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Everyone laughs when we call Trump and Orangutan...because its PC and safe and "kool" to do so. But there is an uproar when SJW is used? So its ok to make fun of fat people...well if they are trump and not some woman who wants to be a model right?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        One can have a pretty good understanding and have the term used against them by somebody who does not understand too.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Sure.

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Whatever happened to just saying somebodies opinion or thought was misguided or incorrect?

          Quote:

            Quote:
            And what happened to polite humor rather than out right very negative (sometimes very funny) attacks on the establishment. or peaceful congregation over rioting etc...complaining about a term but turning a blind eye to violent rioting is a great example where SJW applies.



    Quote:
    Humor does not have to be polite at all. But people are not wrong for being offended either.


Sure...but they shouldn't carry it to suppression. Most churches don't like using the Lords name in vain. So can they FORCE you to stop doing so? It's offensive to them afterall. That's the point NO....just like others should not be for SJW, Snowflake, whitey, etc...


    Quote:
    I am not aware of rioting or anything. So, I honestly cannot comment on that. And I still do not think SJW is a good term in those situations either. As calling somebody that does not really have any impact on that situation.



    Quote:
    I would say I see it used more as slander than anything else. It is really up to that persons sensibilities on what they think just as much as the other way. I just see no good reason to do it.


And do you see a good reason to call Trump an orangutan? It has gotten many a laugh and made some cash for the comedians...seems like a good reason to me. Though it is not nice in the least.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:
                What are people's thoughts on this term? I think it's become fashionable to write off any attempt towards political correctness with a SJW label. I think it's become dismissive and mocking, and personally I hate it.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I think it has its place. And that those who cant handle it are just the people it is targeting. Overly PC. (I am partially kidding and partially teasing, I don't want to insult you if you feel this way).

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Isn't the last part PC though? I think that is the point that the railing against PC culture ignores.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I don't think anyone is railing over being PC...its just many people are tired of the Over-PC culture that is sweeping the country.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Isn't that contradictory? If they are tired of what they see as overally PC culture and are acting out than it would be railing against it.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Railing is not the same thing as being against something.



    Quote:
    "The verb rail means to criticize severely."


Yes but the "severity" makes for quite a marked difference. There is a difference between tapping someone and hitting them with a sledge hammer. Both are "contacting" with another. THAT was my point. The severity level is not what you seem to think imo. There is also a difference between PC and OVER-PC-Culture.


    Quote:
    Seems fine to me. As that is what many are doing. I have seen you do that as well.




    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I mean Trump in part ran on that platform. So a fair number of people agree. Still does not make it right or wrong but I think the idea that people are not going against it or trying to is mistaken.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I don't understand...where do you get that anyone is saying there isn't some anti-PC backlash? That's part of this whole discussion.



    Quote:
    To be fair, above you are the one debating word usage with me to underplay. At other places you play up.


Pot meet kettle, Mr. bring up the dictionary to debate a word. \:P


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Many who use SJW are just as happy to insult people or morso than anybody else. They use it like conservatives accused liberals of using the race card.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            And just like liberals accuse conservatives of hating people of different races?

        Quote:

          Quote:
          That is pretty much what I said, so yes. Although, in either context it may be correct in situations.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I know...just making sure we agree both sides deal out such labels. Since such threads are proportionately liberal sided here.



    Quote:
    I am not sure I agree depending on the subject matter. If you mean overall both sides have bad things. Sure, but I think there is a danger in just assuming that the sides are equally bad at everything. I am not sure that is right either. It just normalizes extreme behavior.



    Quote:
    The example that is worrying me is in terms of US government people just say that all politicians are corrupt and liars so they seek to normalize the staggering breath of what is happening.


While the statement is true I think for "most" politicians. There are degrees of severity. A very important decision. Just like a football game 5yard vs 15yard penalties. Not best analogy but an easy one.


    Quote:
    I am very much against throwing hands up and saying both sides do it and done. As I would think that one has to delve a bit deeper. Nothing is more annoying that a constant action on one side equalized by finding one counter example on the other. That is not the same thing.


I am all for calling BOTH sides on their sh**. Problem is I rarely see conservative or liberals willing to give an inch and admit they are ever wrong about anything. They always point to the other side. I saw it recently with the Clinton supporters and the DNC shenanigans. I see it now with die-hard Trump supporters over the Russian hacking investigations. BOTH sides defended by their side despite essentially voter tampering.


    Quote:
    Nor does it excuse wrong behavior by one side or the other. Both sides do it is not an out. It does not make it ok at all.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              It can be very dismissive, but so is sarcasm and words llke for instance "man-splaining"...however for some reason those are accepted.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                For me I do use the word...usually when I feel someone is being hypocritical, ridiculous or too extreme. For example. Some of those colleges where comedians are not even to tell a silly joke because its not PC and someone's feelings might be hurt...these students are missing a fundamental principle behind almost all humor. It's based on pain.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Not all jokes are funny though. And sensibilities change over time. Watch humor from around the 30's. A fair bit of it is racist by our modern standards.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            So? Should they be denied the right to free speech? If it bothers you don't buy a ticket or walk out. But when you start throwing riots over a joke you didn't like...YOU are the problem. (I don't me you specifically I mean this in a general you).

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Not supporting riots or anything, but both would be speech. Starting a riot would not be protected. The person could be escorted out.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But this is acceptable to the overly PC. Because it's for a PC reason...this is part of where the negative connotation for SJW has been in use for.



    Quote:
    I have never seen it used in a positive way.


Negative words can be used for positive effect.


    Quote:
    I would need to see examples or a news article. I am just not familiar with the examples that you are talking about. Not saying you are wrong. I just do not know of them off hand.



    Quote:
    And I still think the term is wrong. As it is not just used for people that take it to extremes. People tend to use it towards anybody they do not agree with on certain issues. As opposed to just disagreeing they give a label and make assumptions.


How people use or misuse a word is not only subjective it is also not the "words" fault.


    Quote:
    I have never seen anybody use the term without venom.


I have seen it used quite a bit with humor myself. Venom as well too of course. And intellectually in this very thread.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        You still did not address my point at all about changing times and comedy. The "so" deflects the question but seems to ignore realities of comedy and situations.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Because its a non-issue. If people don't like the comedy they wont PAY to go see it. So the comedian can change or his act will fail. No reason to riot or ban them. That is the act of a SJW of the negative connotation.
        And really...certain types of modern comedy are still extremely racist...but its ok if they say...pick on red necks right? That's PC cool and hip.



    Quote:
    It depends on the comedian, the persons knowledge of the comedian going in and the act itself. If you go into a known offensive comedian and get offended than your case is small.


See...this I disagree with. If you PAY to go see a comedian you know nothing about. It's ALL on YOU. Really, can no one take responsibility for their own actions and choices these days?


    Quote:
    That said, there are comedians who have sort of just gone up on stage and started ranting and saying horrible things without context as well. Maybe they thought it was funny but it was not their MO going in.


And they suffer for it. I don't see the point. See this is a good use of snowflake...were their feelings hurt? If so we must gag the comic right, or riot, etc...?


    Quote:
    The ones I am aware of nobody rioted but complained alot. That is well within their rights too. Those that break the law should be arrested.


Complain yes? Stop going to that comedians gigs? Sure. Cause property damage and march...stupid. And an applicable use of the term "snowflake" possibly. ;P


    Quote:
    Banning them may be fine, it is the choice of the institution and is often a business choice. Nobody has the right to perform where ever they want.


Of course not. They also have the right not to be threatened when they were invited.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        What is acceptable changes over time and can be arbitrary. And just because a person has a right to say something does not mean it is ok either. The KKK has freedom of speech too. Does not make what they say acceptable on a societal level.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It's completely acceptable for them to speak however they like. Their message is garbage and hateful, but its safe and cool to call them on it. Where certain other racist groups it's...quite all right because the PC Police said so.



    Quote:
    It is not really safe and cool. There is a pretty big backlash against that too, using some of the same arguments being brought up here. It does not mean that there is not a point but I think it is important to keep in mind that good intentions can go too far either way.


Like the Overly PC-culture and suppression of ideas and thoughts movement. I agree. \:\)


    Quote:
    One of the backlashes that I have seen on social media is calling others intolerant for being against those that act intolerantly. Which is ironic. Just like some see it as ok to attack other people because that is what they think their religion says. The government cannot and should not stop their speech but that does not make it right or ok. Just like some of the folks you are going on about that call every action taken misogynistic etc.



    Quote:
    I am not sure what you are referring to with the second bit.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            For instance, it is one thing for a comedian to stand up and pose differences between say black people and white people or men and women. Usually major generalities that are not totally correct but are often amusing.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Oh? It is? If I want to make fun of how black people say certain words I can without the same PC backlash as how black comedians mimic white people? No I cant. But I wouldn't not ever tell a black comedian he cant do so.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          It depends on how you say it. Comedy is very much in the eye of the viewer but at the same time there are some people that are better about not coming off as mean spirited in comparisons or gags about that sort of things.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But anyone who is PC, or being sensitive to another wouldn't say it to begin with right? See how hypocritical this is? Bill Maher used the N-word in a very NON-racist way and the backlash was immense. So no I don't agree with you its just how you say it...and this is the problem with the overly-PC.



    Quote:
    I strongly disagree with you. I have seen discussions of that word go on without anger on either side. It very much depends on many factors. And it depends on a given person's past and how they say things.


I just gave you a perfect example of where this is NOT the case. If you know anything about BM the strong supporter of reparations and the guests he has on his show, you would see this.


    Quote:
    Honestly, there are not many good ways to use that word. I do not understand why some use it so much but that does not make it ok for anybody to use it.


So only certain people can use it? That's a tricky path to head down.


    Quote:
    I think this gets onto a bit of my issue with the anti-PC band wagon. It is a catch all for complicated racial, ethnic and other things. Just in a catch all. I have just found that SJW pretty much takes anybody with concerns about a given issue and more or less means that they are different from mine, so they are not worth it.



    Quote:
    Also, if nobody did anything to Mahr than people are allowed to say whatever they want. Freedom of Speech goes both ways.


Of course...and people are allowed to respond to those counters are they not? And call them out like I just did. It's called back and forth. It's not just shut up and take what they reply with.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not sure why you are so concerned with protecting all comedians. As they are not all created equal. Some people may think a pretty crude rant is hilarious. That does not mean that it is not horribly offensive either or that most people would be uncomfortable hearing it.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Maybe its ok to be uncomfortable sometimes? You seem to be willing to allow certain PC approved comedians to say what they want because it doesn't affect a certain group of people...and not for another group of people.



    Quote:
    I am ok with comedians saying whatever they want. I am not ok with them playing the victim card if somebody is offended. I am not ok if people take violent actions because they were offended either.



    Quote:
    I am nto sure how what I am saying about comedy is controversial. It is highly individualized. You telling me that everybody you know finds the same things to be equally funny?



    Quote:
    Why are there different types of comedy?



    Quote:
    The person going in should be aware of what they are going to see, the general style, but that still does not mean somebody cannot cross the line either.



    Quote:
    I am sure it is because you are trying to be devils advocate but not everything is funny to everybody. Racial jokes are delicate and can be offensive depending on how they are worded. Pending context, set up and skill of the comedian this can be done better or worse.


So what if some things are offensive at times? With a joke sometimes this is the very point of it...to make you think about a topic, to call it out, to get a laugh at the incongruity of it, to make fun of the stupidity of it, etc etc...People are going to get offended no matter what you say. I believe in general its good to usually be "PC" and try to be polite and pleasant to everyone...but to force this on other or to say it has no place in life be it joke, political speech, education of our environment is the realm of thought control and overly PC. And this is extremely dangerous when taken too far.

And as far as jokes...are comedians psychic? Do they know which ones will go over well and which ones poorly? Maybe they just have to try the best they can and fail or succeed. In another thread I thought we talked about how its ok to let people fail so they can learn...why is that not true here?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I am saying they ALL can tell whatever jokes they want...let the crowd size dictate whether they fail or not. Not forcing silence upon them.



    Quote:
    I am not saying that. I am saying the comedian should know their audience too. There is a responsibility on both sides depending on the context.



    Quote:
    A comedian could go on stage and tell jokes at the expense of the military to a military crowd. It is their right but it is not the smartest move. Somebody is always offended by something but there are already sort of lines in situations anyway.




    Quote:
    One would not make rape jokes at a rape survivor's meeting. It would be in poor taste and saying free speech as an excuse to avoid anger and potential retaliation is not the same either.


Anger sure...retaliation? Depends on the retaliation. Physical? No I disagree...verbal...sure thing.


    Quote:
    The whole "I'm joking" only goes so far.



    Quote:
    Comedians can say whatever they want to say, but they also have the right to the fall out from whatever they do or say. Which, if I follow you right, is what you are saying they should not say. Freedom of Speech goes both ways I am afraid. One cannot say suck it up and the other should not be offended and call it a day.


I did not say that at all. That should have been pretty clear.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Your premise is that only liberals or leftists are PC. That is not true at all. The sensibilities are just somewhat different. See a stand up mocking religion and there is usually a backlash too.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I no where stated that as my premise. I do my best to be PC myself though I fail at times. But I never saw a riot at a university comedy show where they made fun of Christians or Catholics or Buddhists.



    Quote:
    You are going to need to give me the example that you are referring too. I am just not aware of backlash because of comedy shows. I am not saying you are wrong, just give me the example.


Just randomly googling a few since there are so many examples...

http://nypost.com/2017/02/02/protesters-storm-nyu-over-conservative-speakers-seminar/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-threatens-berkeley-yiannopoulos-hits-social-justice-left-and-campus-apologizes-for-riot/

And non-student example with Trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/protesters-bring-shouts-skirmishes-and-shutdowns-to-inauguration-celebration/2017/01/20/00ea4c72-df11-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html

LOTS of examples just with random google searches



    Quote:
    On an unrelated note but on the subject. As a society we always think to much of individual failure as a fault. It can be, but it is socially taboo. It would be better to know that it is ok to fail at an early age.


Ahh...it was this thread. See here you seem to be arguing against it is ok for a comedians jokes to fail. ;\)


    Quote:
    I mean that is parenting too, but on a societal level it should be ok to fail from time to time. We seem to be moving more towards if you fail than pretend you did not as opposed to the other way. We all mess up sometimes. It is how you respond but most people never really learn how to fail and it can be a lonely feeling. Support in failure is just as important as praise in success in my view. Probably more so.


Agree


    Quote:
    Teaching the right way to respond to failure is probably more important really.


Agree



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Take a look at Texas schools where no child is left behind...and a sickening percentage of students leave High School barely able to even read. I have seen it (along with some scary revisionist history attempts).



    Quote:
    I am not that aware of NCLB other than how bad I hear it is.



    Quote:
    That is a tragedy for education and the like. I could go on separate rants about how education is done and what I view was misconceptions about some things but no point here.


Indeed...sadly schools seem to have become only another business.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Saying that there is something for religion hardly makes much of a difference to the point at hand unless you want to discuss some of the hypocrisy. Everybody is offended by something. It just depends on the person.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        My point is...some of those who don't like the SJW prerogative term have never had any problems with using their own negative connotation words. It's the new double standard of the overly-PC.



    Quote:
    People are good at double standards. But at the same time, if a person is using the term SJW than they should also not be offended by being called something in return.


Both should be able to handle such words. Without trying to repress the others.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            PC at the core is not being a jerk to other people and taking other people's feelings into account.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            When done as it should be. It moved beyond this however.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          To some extent, but there are many who will use it as an excuse to any aspect they do not agree with. Making it, in their minds, ok. It is still not.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Sure....but once again. We arnt discussing whether it is used right or wrong...but if it is accurate in any instance. And yes it is. It may be applied incorrectly by some...but it is also very accurate at times.



    Quote:
    I am not sure you have done much to convince me that it should be used at all.


Nor do I expect to. You pretty much had your mind made up from the get-go.


    Quote:
    Why is it accurate to just dismiss a person's arguments with that label?


Why is it ok to sanitize the language and only use PC-approved words?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      People can miss-use ANY word. Shouls we stop using them all then?



    Quote:
    Not all words, but words that can just be used negatively. I have yet to see a context where calling somebody those sorts of things helps anybody.


So no negative words allowed in a language? That's a very bad idea imo. Negative words can be used to spark a reaction (not always terrible), thought, impact, as descriptors, intellectual exercises, etc...


    Quote:
    Certain words bring nothing to the table at all.


That's rather dismissive of you. Maybe it does for some people.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I would say there is FAKE news. A lot of it. As news agencies care only about ratings it seems these days.
      I also think that I rarely see anyone using it correctly.



    Quote:
    Fake news implies things that are made up and little if no basis in reality. I am not sure I agree that there is a ton of that. At least not in the standard media I am aware of in the first place.


Or with little fact checking...and then later retractions are made that get very little air time.


    Quote:
    On the internet there is ton of it, but that does not excuse those sources or people for believing it in the first place.



    Quote:
    Sensationalized news does not mean fake news.


It can. Robby bumped Tom as he drove by. vs. Robby rammed into Tom causing serious injury as he apparently swerved to hit him. Sensationalized via words and inserting "possible" intent.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The problem with the news these days is as originally formed. The present the news...flat and unbiased, and then would if they desired make a "personal" commentary on it. These days the commentaries are mashed right in with the presentation of the material with a clear agenda...be it ratings or to make someone look bad or themselves good.



    Quote:
    I agree with this to a point. I do not know that it needs to be flat. They should try and make something interesting if it is not something people follow normally.



    Quote:
    Commentary is not bad in and of itself. I think overally biased commentary is bad.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      So I think the word FAKE NEWS strikes a chord in many. There is a "partial" truth to it. The problem is I will agree...that far to many miss-use it and people like Trump clearly try to avoid having to deal with the fallout of his mistakes by simply tossing this word out.



    Quote:
    I guess it depends on how you want to define that word but to me it is used too much as a catch all to get rid of something.



    Quote:
    IMO, if I understand you right, biased news would be a better term for what you are describing.


Biased is a more accurate term yes. Fake News is more catchy though. Probably part of why it was chosen. (or Trump not knowing the word Biased \:P )




Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2017 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2017 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2017 Powermad Software