How would one measure the influence of "social justice warriors"?

Sure is funny how entire industries are bending to their will though...Oh wait, or those laws being passed support its madness. Yes, I said LAWS. Bill C-16 in Canada is a prime example and no amount of SJW deflecting can prove that wrong as it has already effected people.

Bill C16 adds gender identity and gender expression to the class protected against discrimination. It joins race and sex with the same protections.

"
The law amends the Criminal Code by adding "gender identity or expression" to the definition of "identifiable group" in section 318.[8][9] Section 318 makes it a criminal offence to advocate or promote genocide against members of an identifiable group, which now includes gender identity or gender expression. Since the definition of "identifiable group" is also used in s 319 of the Code, the amendment also makes it a criminal offence to incite or promote hatred because of gender identity or gender expression.[10]

The law also adds "gender identity or expression" to section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.[11] This section is part of the sentencing provisions and makes gender identity and gender expression an aggravating factor in sentencing, leading to increased sentences for individuals who commit crimes motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression.
"
That's hardly an extreme law. And :
"
In November 2017, Lindsay Shepherd, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University who showed a video of Peterson's critique of Bill C-16 in her "Canadian Communication in Context" class, was reprimanded by faculty members, who said that she had created a "toxic climate" for students by showing parts of Peterson's argument, compared it to "neutrally playing a speech by Hitler, or Milo Yiannopoulos", and claimed that she had violated Bill C-16.[16][17] Commenting on the incident, University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman noted that the Canadian Human Rights Act (which C-16 amended) does not apply to universities, and that it would be unlikely for a court to find that the teaching assistant's actions were discriminatory under the comparable portions of the Ontario Human Rights Code.
"
Seems like it's way less far-reaching than you're trying to claim.
 
Can you tell me how having an Imperial Star Destroyer firing away at the entire rebel alliance for the entire film was an SJW theme?

I said the plot is bad, we agree on this.
I never said every flaw with the movie is SJW-related.

But lets go ahead an put the complete blame on Rian Johnson, because the person who hired him and approved his script is a woman.
 
I can describe them, and have defined them and can do that again if you like.

SJws and their ilk, attack freedom of speech and shut down any dissent as racist, part of the Patriarchy etc. ( you see on this forum all the time)

often they are white, and are so consumed with white guilt that they often negate their own opinion..
eg: "as a cis-gendered white male, I don't feel like I can have an opinon on the matter..."

Okay, I will hold you to that definition. But you realize that your definition does not match everyone else's right?

I've seen people called SJWs on here for using facts to combat propaganda repeatedly. That's why I am telling you that it is a meaningless blanket term for most people. It is just thrown around at anybody they disagree with.

Read my first response in this thread, and you'll see I already kinda defined it.

never criticize Islam, but sure as shit will lose their minds over a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding...

Let me ask you a question. Your buddy Ripskater said the other day that slavery is not necessarily a bad thing. He said slavery is only bad if the slaves are treated poorly. Yes, that's right, owning somebody is not mistreating them. In addition to owning them, you have to abuse them for it to be bad.

His support was the Bible. That is religious extremism, by any reasonable definition of the word. Yet, there were crickets from the anti-Muslim crowd. What do you call that?

I'm just wondering what the pop-culture labels are for all these people, since you seem to be the label expert.
 
These are specific issues and I won't dispute them as they are factually accurate and have always found US drug laws abhorrent

Right. Occupy Wall-Street was full of goofy hippie-ass hipsters with stupid fake names, but their central conceit isn't wrong. There is a lot of corporate money in politics, and politicians are far more loyal to those big corporate donors than they are regular voters, and wall-street was a major cause of the great recession and yet they didn't pay any penalties for their recklessness.
 
Okay, I will hold you to that definition. But you realize that your definition does not match everyone else's right?

I've seen people called SJWs on here for using facts to combat propaganda repeatedly. That's why I am telling you that it is a meaningless blanket term for most people. It is just thrown around at anybody they disagree with.

Read my first response in this thread, and you'll see I already kinda defined it.



Let me ask you a question. Your buddy Ripskater said the other day that slavery is not necessarily a bad thing. He said slavery is only bad if the slaves are treated poorly. Yes, that's right, owning somebody is not mistreating them. In addition to owning them, you have to abuse them for it to be bad.

His support was the Bible. That is religious extremism, by any reasonable definition of the word. Yet, there were crickets from the anti-Muslim crowd. What do you call that?

I'm just wondering what the pop-culture labels are for all these people, since you seem to be the label expert.

I did not see this thread, or this post. please provide a link.

if what you say is true, than I obviously vehemently disagree with my "buddy" Rip.
 
Right. Occupy Wall-Street was full of goofy hippie-ass hipsters with stupid fake names, but their central conceit isn't wrong. There is a lot of corporate money in politics, and politicians are far more loyal to those big corporate donors than they are regular voters, and wall-street was a major cause of the great recession and yet they didn't pay any penalties for their recklessness.


dude, I don't disagree with this either.
 
dude, I don't disagree with this either.

Yeah. That's my point. On one side there are loud and perhaps annoying or abrasive protesters protesting real problems, and on the other side there are people who distract away from those problems by pointing at the protesters and saying they are the real problem.

I'm not going to pretend every protester's cause is legitimate because that's certainly not true, or that there aren't problems in academia (although I would argue it's mostly the profit-minded administrators who fail to handle these issues correctly), but I believe that the idea of "SJWs" being the root of the world's problems is laughable.
 
I did not see this thread, or this post. please provide a link.

if what you say is true, than I obviously vehemently disagree with my "buddy" Rip.

After doing everything he could to defend slave owners, this was the exchange:

Is keeping people as slaves an evil practice? Yes or no.

I honestly don't know how to answer that. In the Bible, God didn't really condemn slavery, he condemned the harsh treatment of slaves. God set up Hebrew slavery so that a man who had nothing could have shelter and be provided for along with his family. But Hebrew slaves were free after 7 years of going into slavery. I think there were many aspects to black American slavery that were evil. Many of them were worked to death, brutally beaten, separated from their wives and kids. It was awful.
 
After doing everything he could to defend slave owners, this was the exchange:


well, @Ripskater said it was awful, and there were aspects of it that were evil in the last couple of sentences of that exchange.

but seeing as to how he didn't outright condemn it as "evil", in that regard I disagree with my friend.

See, it wasn't that hard.

now...if only ...if only you could condemn raising a hissy fit and going to Crave to report a Mod for not banning someone...
 
I can describe them, and have defined them and can do that again if you like.

SJws and their ilk, attack freedom of speech and shut down any dissent as racist, part of the Patriarchy etc. ( you see on this forum all the time)

often they are white, and are so consumed with white guilt that they often negate their own opinion..
eg: "as a cis-gendered white male, I don't feel like I can have an opinon on the matter..."

never criticize Islam, but sure as shit will lose their minds over a Christian baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding...

Such people are an utterly insignificant portion of the population, but the terms get expanded to include a lot of people who don't fit that description. I think a better solution than finding more ways to group and then dehumanize people who disagree with you is to focus on arguments and whether they are solid and factually based or not.
 
well, @Ripskater said it was awful, and there were aspects of it that were evil in the last couple of sentences of that exchange.

but seeing as to how he didn't outright condemn it as "evil", in that regard I disagree with my friend.

See, it wasn't that hard....

Wait, did you actually pretend that the last few sentences of that post were positive? The part where he said the only reason black slavery was bad was because they were beaten?

Wtf? We are talking about owning people. Lol.

Somehow you just managed to find a positive in a statement about how slavery can be fine. That is insane.

You are more bothered by a man holding a sign at a baseball game about racism (you called him scum) than you are about a man saying it is OK to own slaves.
 
Such people are an utterly insignificant portion of the population, but the terms get expanded to include a lot of people who don't fit that description. I think a better solution than finding more ways to group and then dehumanize people who disagree with you is to focus on arguments and whether they are solid and factually based or not.

Factually based arguments? Who has time for that when you can just call everyone names. Hell, I might even invent some names to call you and use them in a clumsy abbreviation. You ethnomasochist LWCSJWPOS!
 
The same applies to "Nazis" yet that doesn't stop y'all from freaking out over them.

The majority of Hitler and Nazi references on this site are right wing Memes. Everybody from the teenagers from Parkland to Obama is a Nazi, apparently.
 
Wait, did you actually pretend that the last few sentences of that post were positive? The part where he said the only reason black slavery was bad was because they were beaten?

Wtf? We are talking about owning people. Lol.

Somehow you just managed to find a positive in a statement about how slavery can be fine. That is insane.

You are more bothered by a man holding a sign at a baseball game about racism (you called him scum) than you are about a man saying it is OK to own slaves.


WTF!?!? I just said I disagreed with Rip. I didn't state anything was positive.

You just pulled a Cathy Newman.
 
Their influence is pretty much limited to serving as useful idiots to whomever manipulates the fragile emotions of this group of people.

People who do not operate from a rational basis, from a logical stand-point, cannot ever hope to have any true influence of their own. Their impulsive actions merely serve to achieve a rational operator's agenda, unbeknownst even to themselves.

The river of tears streams its way into somebody else's lake. In recent times, more often than not, directly into the hands of their ideological opposition.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it's been said (I didn't read every post and we're at 6 pages now) but the OP is trying to quantify SJW impact when the term is flaky to begin with. You have to know someone's intentions to illustrate that they're a SJW and not just someone genuinely concerned about the well being of groups that have been historically discriminated against.

Also, I think the TS is mistaking the work done by Haidt. Haidt wants inclusive and diverse college campuses, he wants minorities to feel welcomed, etc., which are "SJW" type causes. He is concerned about young folks that can't stand to hear an opposing view, "speech is violence" shit. That is what the Breitbart crowd calls "a snowflake".

Hey TS, get your liberal insults straight!
 
WTF!?!? I just said I disagreed with Rip. I didn't state anything was positive.

You just pulled a Cathy Newman.

Are you kidding? Read your post. Lol.

"well, @Ripskater said it was awful, and there were aspects of it that were evil in the last couple of sentences of that exchange.

but seeing as to how he didn't outright condemn it as "evil", in that regard I disagree with my friend."

You started with 2 positives, then finally got around to the whole not condemning slavery part and said you "disagree in that regard" lol. Well that's great that you found something disagreeable in his "slavery is not necessarily bad" post. Lol.

Just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top