Community >> View Post
·
Post By
bd2999

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 14,481
In Reply To
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 916
Subj: Re: Social Justice Warrior branding
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 at 10:09:39 am EDT (Viewed 168 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Social Justice Warrior branding
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 at 03:11:27 am EDT (Viewed 147 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              This came up on a Spider-man board, and I thought it would make a good discussion here.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I'd say it can pop up anywhere...though those leaning to the left are not likely to use it, they will use some other term like misogyny, "insert word(usually a color)" power...and so on.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            To a point, but you are comparing the term SJW to more extreme thoughts on the left. They are used in the same way and neither is really acceptable most of the time.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          There are extreme left views, and they are just as wrong as the extreme right views. But words change over time. SJW has become a term for people who jump on the popular band wagon wrt to leftist policies without even understanding the issues. Basically a new term for drinking the kool-aide. There are many terms that change over time.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        In my experience it is used in the same grain as calling someone a snowflake. Those using it use it just as readily.



    Quote:
    And just as many terms exist for labeling the "other side". It's not a one sided argument of derogatory terms. And sometimes it fits.


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.

It is like the term snowflake that has caught on.


    Quote:

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



    Quote:
    Sure.



    Quote:

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



    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.


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

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.

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.


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


"The verb rail means to criticize severely."

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


    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:
    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.


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


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


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.

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.

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.

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:
            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:
    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.


I have never seen it used in a positive way.

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.

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.

I have never seen anybody use the term without venom.


    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:
    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.


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.

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.

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.

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.


    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:
    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.


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.

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.

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


    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:
    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.


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.

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.

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.

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


    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:
    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.


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.

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?

Why are there different types of comedy?

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.

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.


    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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          One has to know the audience and the audience has to know what they are getting into. However, there have been cases of comedians saying some pretty bad stuff and they were rightfully heckled about it.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          We arnt talking heckling.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am unaware of many riots occurring at stand up comedy clubs but maybe I am wrong.



    Quote:
    Universities...the breeding ground of the SJW. ;\)


Again, I would need something to go off of. It has been a bit now since I have worked at one or been at one but I do not remember it being too bad when I was there.

And just because you chose to label them one way or another does not mean there is no point to the argument. They may make it poorly, but one can make that case against nearly anything.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I feel I just would have left if it bothered me that much but whatever.

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:

                Quote:
                I recognize that there are people who can go to far in their pursuit of political correctness, and those people are probably rightly deserving of mockery. But by and large, I think political correctness exists to show empathy for people who aren't like you, and I think that's a good thing.

              Quote:

                Quote:
                Waaaayyyy too far imo. Comedians are being told what jokes are PC enough to be told and we feel we need to hand out 12th place prizes to kids because there feelings might be hurt at not winning.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Are they? Still seems to be pretty raunching and racy comedy out there. At least the last time I watched stand up.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          As long as it meets the PC standards and mocks the correct allowable PC agreed upon people that can be made fun of.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Not really, you just need to know your audience. Some were always offended by the Daily Show. Know the audience you are going for and it is alright.



    Quote:
    This would apply to KKK conventions as well right?


To know your audience? Yes. Does not make it right or wrong but that is how comedy works.


    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:
    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.


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.

More violence occurs for a given speaker that says pretty horrible things. Which is an odd situation. One side says very offensive things, the other side is gouded into getting mad. Then the original side says look how violent they are because they are afraid of my rights. Ignoring the content and such.

That has become more common for sure.

IMO, universities should be open in the academic sense of discussion. Everything should be discussed there because it can be done in a way that should be more clinical. The why's.

Somebody or anybody coming in with hate speech has a right to speak on public ground but they are also not saying ok stuff either. Now, that is the extreme end and I am aware that people are offended by much less than that but I am just pointing out my thoughts on this as well.

People have a right to be offended. Many do need to open up a bit more, but it is not for somebody else to draw a line in the sand and tell them they are wrong for their opinion either. Against FoS goes both ways. So long as it is not violent.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          The last part is also a bit amusing to me. As many of those now screaming about PC culture were the ones that started that trend in the first place. Kids are not dumb, they know if they won or loss.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          That's a sweeping and completely false statement. It's completely an artifact of PC culture to hand out 12th place prizes.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Is it? Millenials in particularly grew up in this sort of world. Their parents and older were the ones that started the trend of giving these things. They are now rallying against it.



    Quote:
    We will simply have to disagree here. Especially since we are not talking about Millennials unless you consider them all SJW's? We are talking about the overly PC. I have yet to see a SJW say its silly to hand out 12th place prizes.


Am I? Not really, but typically I have found it much more common for older generations to say it to younger generations. You can say that is a generalization but that is how I have found it to be on various social media.

Typically it has broken down into their life experience being different than somebody elses and then why people today are not like those experiences. This is true of any generation. We do not like things different. I am in that boat too, but I fail to see how labeling does much of any good.

I rather see somebodies argument get called stupid than see the person get dismissed. The later should only be after a while of back and forth. Even then some would flip out, but if the conversation does not go anywhere than there is not much point in having it. If there is no conclusion or anything happening than why bother?


    Quote:
    It is a recent thing. It wasn't going on 20-30years ago.


The backlash has reached a fever pitch recently or why the backlash?

I would argue that it may go back further depending on how you want to define it, but the war over the whole thing is very very recent.

The twenty or thirty years thing overlaps with the millenial time frame pretty well. As it falls in their lifetimes.

However, like I said, from my experiences the sensibilities of each generation seem to be different. It is not a judgement on them out of hand, but a racist comment from a grandparent may make sense in their experience but it does not make it ok either.

And it should be just as offensive to say that the grandparent is on the same line as the KKK. But that does not mean that grandparent was right either.

Extremes of course. I just have never seen the SJW or similar terms used well. Most of the time they seem as cover for an opinion that is offensive. It demonstrates as much willingness to dismiss discussion as anything else. In many contexts it is almost the same as throwing out an "ist" card.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      If we are talking generalities it seems fine to me. We pretend it is recent but it goes back a ways. It is pretty selective reasoning to pretend it is a recent thing.

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:
            However, that can go too far one way can't it? You also do not want to teach kids that you are either the winner or the loser. There are all sorts of things in there. In life most of us lose more than we win, or at least tend to remember those more.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Actually I think its very important to be able to know you lost. I don't know about you but losing often motivated me to put more effort in next time. It's also an important lesson that you realize being the 12th best shampoo maker in a small city...you are not going to get a reward.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          No, but the if your not first your last mentality is over the top too.



    Quote:
    Sure...but not getting a 12th place prize isn't a punishment.


I am not really supporting 12th place prizes. If that happens somewhere it is goofy. That said, I do not have issues with giving prizes for the first three or so finishers in a given situation.

In some situations I even understand participation awards. But it would stop after a pretty low level. As with little kids I think supportiveness is important. Be it support in failure or success.

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.

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.

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


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You pointed out 12th place above but unless the contest was massive I generally only remember maybe going out to third or so. Others may have gotten participation trophies or something. Which about everybody knew was a joke anybody.



    Quote:
    Well that was my recollection as well...but that changed.


It may be that way, I have not gone to many things recently where places have been handed out. Usually it is a winner and a loser.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I do agree that children are not allowed to fail enough but I also think that as a society failure is greatly frowned on. We only talk about winners. Most of the backlash I see from those with this sort of view, at least from my facebook feed, seems to be along the lines that people need to suck it up but also that failure is unacceptable.



    Quote:
    Failure is where we learn our greatest lessons. There are times when failure is NOT an option. And nobody ever wants to fail. But if we are not allowed to ever fail and be AWARE of it...there are some serious mental issues that will come from this. There needs to be something in between. Something that lets a person fail but doesn't drag them down but teaches them how to rise up over diversity.


I discuss this above in more detail. Failure can do both of those things in my experience.

The key is for a given learning institution etc. to make it clear that failure is not the end of the world and what should be done from there. That is critical IMO.

Failure in and of itself and in isolation can be crippling for some. If one is on a team, your team will lose. The coach, a good one, should push the team to be better. Show them where they failed and what needs to be done to fix it.

Teachers, parents and the like should not be upset about a failure. It is a moment to show where improvement is and how it can be made.

Now, idealistic, continued failure meets punishment at some point. Not saying you are saying this but I see to much of the mentality of they need to do it on their own. At some point they do, but is the foundation there. Throwing a kid in the water to swim is not the best way of doing much.

A foundation that teaches kinds, who will then be adults, about failure would probably help all over the place.


    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).


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

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.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      It is perfectly fine to fail, but what failure or loss means is variable on the situation. Being the third best in a given area is probably just fine.



    Quote:
    And in life sometimes even better. I have seen where some businesses prefer not the straight A 4.0 student...but the 3.something student that shows additional talents outside their specified field.


True, it gets strange with what businesses want though. At times one is lucky to get a job with a 4.0 unless one has experience. Given the economy that has improved but I have still heard stories from friends or friends siblings.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Sometimes in fact, no matter how hard you try it will not matter too.

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Words people use to cause hate or the sheer purpose of hurting someone...yes we should try to be PC and avoid such things. If we see injustices in the world we should feel free to speak up and say "This is WRONG". But to me SJW are those who take this too far, and actually strangle freedom of speech and try to coerce you to their way of thinking and attempt to manipulate your mind and take away independent thought.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              I tried to make this point a bit below, but I disagree with some of this. As I have seen many also use the term to dismiss speech too. Many times if a reasonable point is made.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Well the term SJW really doesnt apply to them does it? SJW applies to those who follow and spout their ideology without understanding anything about it...I am sure there are more than a few terms used against others that seem OK to the PC SJW's...like Bible Thumper and so on.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Yet, you ignore the people using it the way I am describing and pretend that it does not happen. They are using it. If it applies or not does not matter.



    Quote:
    Sure it can be misused...just like bible thumper has. I am not ignoring it at all. I am stating SJW has its place as well in our vocabulary.


I do not think that either does really. Does not mean people will not. I rather point out the argument. The SJW or Bible Thumper calls out the person too much.


    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:
    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.


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.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      And your assumption that a given person has no idea what they are talking about is not always true.



    Quote:
    And your assumption here is false. We are talking about the existence of SJW as a term...and its validity. Whether it is properly employed or not is not the discussion. Of course anyone can use any term rightly or wrongly. But once again that's not what the questions was about,


Maybe, but given the varying opinions on the matter I do not think I am. As the conversation is interpretation of the term.

If one thinks it cannot be used well than there is not much else to say. If one thinks it is okay than it becomes contingent to define when and if it is ok to use. At least in my view.

It seems part of the natural extension of the conversation if nothing else. How does want talk about validity if usage is not considered? Words only matter in that context.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              At its worst, I think the SJW label is used to justify prejudices and racism. I would like this term to disappear entirely.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Yes....sadly some use it this way for sure. And its terrible. But racism is not restricted to only one group. Sadly everyone is racist. It's something we each and every one of us needs to fight against, as in fight against our own inner darkness. Not everyone is racist to the same level, some people learn to overcome this fully even I believe. But anyone who says they are not racist or "cannot" be racist are the most racist of all.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            I agree with most of this, but I think the levels are worth pointing out. It is an inner struggle for some people, for many that use this term with abandon it is not. Many of the people with the views that could be considered the most racist are those that see no problem with what they are saying.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Indeed...from all sides. Some people just wont ever see they are racist no matter how thy act. Permanent blinders on themselves. This is true of every group.

          Quote:

            Quote:

              Quote:
              And there are many of those people that will throw this word out or things like snowflake casually.

              Quote:

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  The reason SJW is so offensive imho to many is they sense the truth behind it...not saying its completely true, simply that there is some validity behind its use...and ugly truths make us uncomfortable.

                Quote:

                  Quote:
                  One could say this for many things though. One could be offended that their opinion is just being cast aside and they are being dismissed out of turn.

            Quote:

              Quote:
              Odd that...wonder if certain groups feel the same way about the overly zealous PC crowd towards them?

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not actually defending some of the comments that I find on the extreme end of things. I have seen various people be wrong with whatever ideology.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I have issue with the defense of SJW that it can be used constructively. There are many such words but SJW is the topic of the thread.



    Quote:
    Not all words are constructive at all times. It's really in how you use it.


Than why the mini lecture above about how terms are used?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          IMO, that is the more offensive part of it.

          Quote:

            Quote:
            Going after aspects of PC culture is something I think is needed but the battle against it has also gone too far. There are many examples that think PC should die and they should be able to say whatever they want and let their worst impulses out.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I have heard many examples of the PC crowd doing the same against others. Every side is throwing rocks. I have heard more than a few jokes about the recent shooting at the baseball practice game...on how it was a good start. This behavior is not limited to certain members of the anti-PC movement.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I am not, but I have not heard what is PC. It is a fairly arbitrary guideline of what is acceptable. And I could post links using attacks on PC culture as reasons to justify whatever anger filled thing they have.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I agree that it can go too far but at the same time the whole going against PC culture is almost going against the laws of decency at times. The whole thing is very very subjective. And it is often used when somebody is offended and too lazy to do anything better.



    Quote:
    Sure I agree. But the over-PC zealousness has been building for a long time now...and there is some backlash.


To a point but it is not a positive thing either. It also gives cover to those with the views that are fairly intolerant.

What PC culture even means is pretty hazy to me and seems to vary anymore to what offends a given person.


    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:
    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.


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

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

I do not see the distinction you are even going for here. As anybody using the term would think that they are doing it correctly based on their own sensibilities.


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


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.

Certain words bring nothing to the table at all.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Would one have gone into a room of Holocaust survivors and just start making jokes about it? No, that would be horrible and in bad taste. To me that is what being PC is about more than anything.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Of course...except some SJW's would have no problem making a joke about how shooting Republican Senators is a good start.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        And vice versa. I find both unacceptable.



    Quote:
    As do I...though I still argue for their right/freedom to say it. Deplorable as it is.


Yes, but they may also be criticized for it with the same right.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:

          Quote:
          The issue still breaks down into what one person sees as a valid opinion or not and shutting down someone else's. Heck, I have seen creationists use this term (SJW) on threads in facebook to attack anybody believing in evolution. It is used pretty poorly in many paces.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          I don't have a very high opinion personally of creationists so this does not surprise me. This comes across to me as them not understanding either the SJW because they are a bunch of bible thumpers. (I think I offended both sides with this comment ;P)

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It is just an example to an extreme but I have seen others. If one goes by the various logics than should their opinions have equal voice? They could make the same general arguments.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          Without good definitions and agreement people use it for whatever. It is the same as the whole Fake News nonsense that is now used to dismiss anything that disagrees.



    Quote:
    They should be given equal opportunity to free speech.


They should, but that does not mean equal platforms or that their speech is ok by varying standards either.

Freedom of Speech is something we go too much into. It is important, but it is not the end all be all. If we do not care about the content of the speech than it is worthless. All opinions are not equal in each given area.


    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.


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.

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

Sensationalized news does not mean fake news.


    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.


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.

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


    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.


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.

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

I will leave you with the last word. As I do not want to many more posts of going in circles.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 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