ITT, you explain why you hate SJWs because you hate the whole idea of "social justice." Why do you hate it so?

ITT, you explain why you hate SJWs because you hate the whole idea of "social justice." Why do you hate it so?

there is no inequality. life sucks, deal with it and stop fucking whining

I originally thought the sjw hate was moronic, but I guess I was wrong. That shit is cancer asf. Took out my boy Kevin and Louis. I'll never forget.. and fuck Tig Nataro

Why is not whining about equality (and, I guess, just accepting it) so horrible that you hate the people who whine about it? No troll, genuinely want to understand!

Soory. Kind of drunk. Meant :" why is whining..."

It's super gay and unfair.

Explain to me why "social justice" is inherently "good," according to you?

>you explain why you hate SJWs because you hate the whole idea of "social justice.
This sort of dishonest bullshit is one of the reasons why I hate SJWs. You are equating yourself and your movement with social justice, and when people object to your behavior, you accuse them of hating equality.

I hate SJWs because in reality, they are shitty, opinionated, virtue-signalling bullies that use actual injustice as a shield for their own bad behavior. They look down their nose at people, shout down anything or anyone they don't disagree with, and I am yet to meet one that isn't a closeted bigot. They have so much in common behaviorally with the people they claim they are fighting, and yet they can't see it. They take and destroy, never build. When I made content involving a white male protagonist, they will try to tear it down because they feel white men are over represented in that medium. However, they will NEVER make their own stuff or tell their own stories.

They are just all around bad news in their actions. If you listen to some of the things they claim to want, it sounds great. When you see them in action, it quickly becomes a destructive shitshow that, quite honestly, is more divisive than inclusive. I'm a late thirties black man that has lived, worked, and voted in a few different places (both coasts, central texas, etc), and I sincerely believe that races and sex relationships are WORSE today than it was 5, 10, or even 15 years ago, and you SJW shits are so wrapped up in your own narrative that you don't seem to notice how much harm you are doing.

Because I know that I'm privileged as a European white male, but what special kind of a retard would it take, to not defend your privileged position against everyone wanting a piece of it.

And if I'm going down with my class, I'll at least go down the same way as the old french nobility 1789: fighting and the banner up high!

In order to have "justice" for some it means disadvantaging others. Affirmative action is a good example you dont need nearly as good of grades if youre black as opposed to white or asian.

No one would hate SJW if they just minded their own business.

i dislike people who spend too much energy trying to find reasons why they're being victimised. as a normal human being THIS TRIGGERS ME and i want to know where the hell is my support group?

...

Social, meaning community.

Justice, meaning just behavior, fairness.

Social Justice has no relationship with the two words it uses to form its label. You are NOT a controlling majority of any community, you just want control. You want control because your concept of justice requires you to control and meddle inorder to ensure "fairness" and you think that is a just behavior.

...

this

also pic related.

and cause of the cleese quote

>say to a group of women "all women are self-centered," and at least three will says "well I'm not!"

...

Tl;dr:

Bigbrain centrist (i.e. shitlib) boomer celebrities are not to be trusted.

Social justice is a contradiction in terms. All justice, that which is good and just, lies with the individual. Social justice, collectivism, uses the individual as a sacrificial lamb for collective goals. That's the antithesis of justice.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

>EXTREMES ARE BAD
God forbid we have an extreme lack of axe murders in society, or an extreme amount of happiness.
What centrists like this dick hate is the consistent application of principles. That's because they have to principles to apply.

Objective philosophical principles lead you to an "extreme", that is, consistent behavior. That which is right cannot simultaneously be wrong. A is A. Consistency is objectively preferable to inconsistency.

You should really define terms when you make threads like these. Each neckbeard seems to have his own definition of social justice.

Doesn't it just mean a fair society? Isn't that what everyone wants?

I understand that identity politics and shoutdowns are perverse interpretations of these ideals, but it's not the ideals themselves that are to blame.

No!

>Doesn't it just mean a fair society? Isn't that what everyone wants?
>fair
You should really define terms when you make replies like these

They want to be victims, instead of working themselves up into a better place in life they demand to be put on a pedestal without putting in the effort.

>T, you explain why you hate SJWs because you hate the whole idea of "social justice." Why do you hate it so?

I am white and wealthy and mean to remain on top of the heap. Might makes right. Anyone who rocks the boat that keeps me in luxury and safety, I want the government to crush them like a bug. And the government listens to men like me.

If you don't like it, there are 180 other countries where you won't have to suffer under the yoke of rich white men like me, so please feel free to fuck off and never come back.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Is the concept of fairness really in need of definition?

Even if it is, I'm not the one who made the thread so I'm not subject to my own advice about defining terms when starting threads.

>I added a new term and I won't define it because reasons
Then fuck right off, you're not prepared for a discussion

What you're missing is that "consistency" nearly always means being consistently leftist or consistently to the right. In the American political landscape, that means if you believe in gay marriage you must believe in hormone therapy for "transsexual" 8 year olds or if you believe in the Second amendment you must hate minorities. People who hate "centrists" are usually the same people who are most seceptable to cults.

What is happening right now?

That doesn't even address what I wrote.

You cant make sense if you half a sentence.

SJW constantly look for things that can offend, of which there are limitless possibilities. I believe there can be no freedom of speech without freedom from repercussions (in general). They believe that every word you ever utter should be scrutinized to see if it might somehow be twisted to offend someone.

I know someone here is going to take my statement literally, so I will give some pertinent examples of how I think freedom of speech should work.

The NFL should fire you if you kneel during the anthem. You are being paid to do a job, and by not doing that job you are directly hurting your employer.

A nazi participating in a rally, whether it is "conservative", "white pride", etc or whatever, should fear no repercussions from his speech. He is on his own time and expressing his views peacefully, even if he is intimidating people by carrying torches.

BLM protests that turn into chimp outs with riots and looting should be stopped and broken up. If they cant play nice they cant protest.

Antifa faggots that throw piss/shit/bleach, or shout over people peacefully protesting should be arrested, for assault/battery/denying freedom of speech.

Also there is no such thing as hate speech, in case there was any confusion about that.

Consistency to principles. Those are policy decisions not based on any philosophical principles. If you aren't consistent, you're categorically wrong. A square circle is a contradiction in terms, and is irrational. Conclusions drawn from inconsistent premises are irrational.

Because whites invented the victim mentality and all these minorities hijacked it! Not fucking fair and I am beyond offended, asshole!

I'm an anarchist who believes in what would be referred to as eugenics. In that sense, I don't believe in giving weak people an equal voice.

That isn't what he is saying. What he is saying is that one should not convince yourself that you and only you are a force for good and they are only a force for evil. It's important to understand that while evil people may disagree with you, a person disagreeing with you isn't necessarily evil. When you demonize anyone that disagrees with you, you are no longer on the path to being productive.

There is an important bit of human nature that comes into play when you present an opposing view. How you go about it strongly affects whether or not a given person will listen. If you approach them with the attitude that they are wrong, wrong, wrong and your views are the one true way, it is unlikely that they will listen to you. People get defensive and usually double down - you cannot convince someone by yelling at them or vilifying them. If you approach, ready to listen and willing to acknowledge that your views aren't perfect, then more people will listen to you.

Not being an extremist doesn't mean you have no principles or you don't apply them consistently, and there are extremists that are also hypocrites. One can have strong principals and make principled stands without resorting to the vilification and the rationalized dehumanization that is the hallmark of extremism.

Maybe I have you wrong, but...

In order to avoid inconsistencies I just need to alter the way I describe my principles. You know, like, tautologies, man.

It's really difficult to be absolutist about everything.

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.
>Does fairness need a definition?
Yes. In a discussion with words (all of them), terms must be mutually understood. What is fair? Equal distribution of all resources? Equality in the eyes of the law? Equality of outcome vs. opportunity? Equal respect for property rights? "Fairness" alone is so incredibly broad and meaningless if you don't define it. That's why you aren't prepared for a discussion.

Also you're a hypocrite. You demand that the OP, who didn't define social justice, define it so people understand what he's talking about. Then you make a stupid fucking statement that "everyone wants a fair society" without defining the nebulous concept of fair. Then when I tell you to define it, you say there's no need to.

In short, you're an idiot who doesn't know how to have a discussion and you contradict yourself in 2 posts. Fuck off.

Yeah, but you were clearly talking about political consistency which is vastly different from consistency in principals. The only people (again, in American politics) who are consistent in principals pick and choose from both sides of the spectrum. In other words they're at least more centrist than left or right.

No, principles are objective conclusions about human behavior derived from objective observations about the human condition. You can alter your definitions of "square" and "circle" all you want, but "square" and "circle" have objective definitions - descriptors of shapes that meet certain criteria. The same applies to behavior.

>When I made content involving a white male protagonist, they will try to tear it down
This is what's up.

A huge part of college education has always been, and rightly so, critical thinking. Basically, observing things and subjecting them to criticism in order to discover their true nature.

In the last few decades, and especially in the social sciences, this has been displaced by something called Critical Theory. The founders of this purposely named it do as to confuse people. You wouldn't criticize Critical Theory--I MEAN thinking would you? The basis of Critical Theory is to dismantle --which they equate with criticize in addition to action--traditional norms and mores, and ONLY traditional norms and mores. You can't subject Critical Theory to criticism.

So, a whole generation or more of college educated people have had this instilled into them and they know nothing else. Their entire education values destroying things which are familiar to them.

Building things, and maintaining them, requires more than criticism. It requires that compromises be made and errors which cannot be fixed in retrospect to be handled and mitigated. Building something takes time, effort and patience. It will invariably invite criticism. A Critical Theorist, however, cannot stand criticism without action, and so that built thing, flawed as it must be, should be destroyed.

People who invest in social justice can see the flaws in everything, because they have been trained to do so. They just can't see the good in anything.

You're dumb and you make anyone to the right of Bernie sanders look dumb. I agree that NFL kneelers should be fired and are also objectively retarded, white power protesters are also subject to firing. You have no consistency. The free market corrects for everything.

Consistency is worthless and barely present in the real world.

Adaptability has always been at the forefront of evilutionary success. Adherence to strict moral or ideological principles in the face of a completely incompatible reality leads to incompetent rage which is then easily exploited by populist movements.

Beware those that tell you that, through them, you can get everything you want. Truth is, you can't and you won't; Arcadia does not exist because the inherently chaotic nature of reality won't permit it.

As for your social responsibilities, don't overinflate your influence. Just as I have zero chance of making you see things differently, so do you to the world. Activism is mostly destructive and pointless, it just feeds into mob mentality making others easier to steer.

I'm not a hypocrite, though. I specifically stated that you should define terms when starting a thread. You're the one who's up in arms about introducing terms. The way I phrased it prevents me from being a hypocrite.

I didn't say there was no need to define it either. I was just surprised that there appeared to be a need. Further on in the discussion it's obviously useful to ask the other party what they mean when they use a word whether they define it or not, of course.

And, I mean, you did that, but it didn't seem constructive in spirit. It seemed aggressive and shit. I don't think you care what I consider fairness to mean. I think you're interested in winning some weird argument.

I was genuinely offering advise to the OP.

Why the heck are you so miffed about this man? Relax.

>The NFL should fire you if you kneel during the anthem. You are being paid to do a job, and by not doing that job you are directly hurting your employer.
Not that guy, but that seems a bit dubious. If that wasn't in their contract and they are still performing on the field in accordance with their contract, then firing them is without basis. It should also be pointed out that the national anthem before sporting events wasn't an NFL thing, but a DoD recruitment effort thing, as is the flyovers of military aircraft. The DoD actually pays the NFL and other sports leagues to perform the anthem before games. The moment you inject politics to the field, you also open up the possibility that someone may chose to respond to the politics you've brought with some of their own.

Last but not least, firing a player for taking a knee in protest would be bad mistake from a PR standpoint.

>the same applies to behavior

You're fucking retarded. Fair is subjective. Square vs. circle are objective. How hard is this for you?

I only talk about consistency in principles. Consistency as far as political party affiliation goes in nonsense. For example, I can make the claim that I own my body, mind, and the results of my actions based on objective observations of reality. I am the first to appropriate control of my body, and the only one who can do so, so I objectively own my body. By extension. "I" (the self>product of the brain>product of the body) own my mind, and I own the result of my actions (in a social context). You're replying to me because you acknowledge that I "own" the action of forming and sharing the argument.
That seems off topic, but let me reiterate. I have a consistent principle of respect for property rights, based on objective reality. The left and right are both hypocrites in this regard. The left acknowledges property rights in regard to mind and body (for the most part) but not in regards to results of actions (progressive income tax, trade barriers, but that's another argument). The reverse applies to the right in some cases, but I'm tired of typing

In short. Political affiliation is meaningless in the context of consistency. All that matters is application of principles.

I don't think we're on the same page, somehow.

If I have the principle that all squares are my favorite, for instance, and I come across a square that is not my favorite, I simply amend that premise. All squares except THIS ONE are my favorite.

That's the sort of shit I'm talking about.

This is very wise.

>should fear no repercussions from his speech
I don't agree. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but people have freedom of response. If there are social repercussions (i.e. friends stop talking to them, etc) or rebuttal speeches, then that is simply how it goes. They get to talk, but so does everyone else.

>BLM protests that turn into chimp outs with riots and looting
This pisses me off to no end, and I also wonder if they understand what that does to public perception. It's almost the exact opposite of what they should be doing, like someone at a planning meeting said 'what's the best way we can undermine public support for our cause while giving ammunition to our detractors?'

>there are 180 other countries where you won't have to suffer under the yoke of rich white men like me,

Ever heard of imperialism? There's literally nowhere where you're not the white man's bitch in one way or another.

So you should be subject to being fired for shit you do on your personal time? I think you only think this way because you believe you have privacy. What if your job could fire you for your internet history, is that OK too?

>Consistency is worthless
That's a statement of consistency, an absolute statement.
>Adaptability has always been = success
Statement of consistency
>Adherence to strict principles in the face of an incompatible reality...
Stopping you there. Principles are only valid if they're consistent with reality. Principles inconsistent with reality are illegitimate and can be discarded.
>Chaotic nature of reality
Statement of consistency, AKA not a chaotic nature. I know you don't believe this either. You eat because you expect nature will be consistent enough to digest it. You sleep because you assume you will wake up. You perform actions because you know that they will have reactions. If you behave according to any rational standard, you are acknowledging that nature, and reality, are objective, and demand some sort of objective behavior to maintain life.

As for the lats part that's just nonsense. I live life by principle because I have learned principles. That means that someone has already made me see things differently. So if you acknowledge that humans are capable of learning (which is an objective truth) and that you have learned something in your life, then you can go ahead and discard that last statement.

agreed

its why anita sarkeesian will never make a video game of her own

>Fair is subjective
I agree, discard the term and replace it with one that's useful in determining right and wrong; true and false.

Preference isn't objective. Objective principles guide human behavior, but specific instances of behavior are guided by preference. It's an objective truth and principle that human beings must eat in order to sustain life (or in order to live "well"). What I choose to eat is up to preference, so long as it satisfies the conditions to promote "life".

Maybe I've got your wrong, but it seems to me like you're equivocating consistency and being.

Every sentence in which he declares something to be a certain way, you seem reduce to a matter of consistency.

Well lets say they should have the option to, and IMO they should exercise that option since kneeling in protest is viewed by the majority as disrespecting the flag and inevitably hurts the bottom line of the NFL. Nazis get fired for making political statements when theyre not at work for fear that it will hurt a business whether it will or not, and these people are injecting politics into something not really political to begin with. Whether it is 1 or 100 or 100,000,000, someone is tuning out of the NFL because overpaid players cant protest on their own time and are using the NFL's cameras as a platform for their protests.

I understand the DOD and all that, but in effect they are an advertiser. It'd be like all the players protesting Levis because slaves once picked cotton, except a lot of people feel REALLY strongly about cotton and the players are pissing off the people that ultimately pay to watch them. They should be able to say anything they want about shit going on, just not on the job where it makes the company appear to endorse their opinions.

That's because it is. Any statement is supposed to convey some sort of truth, and in the context of truth, consistency is objectively preferable.

If I said that A is A, it's an objective and consistent statement of truth.

If I said I was hungry, it's still a consistent statement of truth. Truth apply to reality as descriptors of reality. I won't be hungry later, because I'd have eaten by then. That doesn't change the fact that in the moment that I was hungry, "I am hungry" was a consistent statement of truth.

Consistency isn't to mean that nothing ever changes, it means that something cannot be both itself and NOT itself at any point.

Well, I can be pedantic about this in varying degrees.

First of all, it is an objective fact that someone has a preference or doesn't. The same is true for their goals or objectives and behavior.

And these things are guided, as you say, by preferences. In this respect, preferences are totally objective. If this isn't what you meant, then I don't know what you did mean.

Also, humans can take in nutrients through IV, so eating is not objectively necessary (I doubt you meant that so literally though).

And even if eating was objectively necessary for survival, that doesn't mean I have to do it. I just have to do it if I want to survive. Do I have to want to survive? Not necessarily.

Fair enough, my wording was absolute. To clarify, absolute statements I make should actually be postfixed with "for now" but there's no way to know that, mea culpa.

Where you say principles must be consistent with reality I'd agree, but color me Platonic but I feel the most pbvious thing about reality at the moment is that we seem unable to discern it's truths and that, especially concerning human nature, a lack of reason seems like a stronger driving force than reason itself. Perhaps this will be different in the future but that's where I feel we are.

I consider killing to be wrong and pacifism to be a moral goal. However, come the day that violence is universal among people I will probably change that outlook to facilitate my survival.

And yeah, I eat and breathe because so far that has served me, but if I ever find that eating bread burns my stomach out for no discernible reason I'm not going to keep doing that just to be consistent.

Right, well if consistency is just a substitute for being, then you are not saying anything. And now you're slipping in the idea of non-contradiction.

Consistency is not a logical swiss-army knife.

It seems to me that you're being tautological and redundant if anything, when you criticize him the way you did.

The fact that people have preferences and are guided by them is objective; what their preferences are and how they guide behavior is subjective.

Yeah I didn't mean eating as actually chewing, I meant that life requires sustenance to continue. But good catch.

It's true that you don't have to eat. It's true that you don't have to live, but we're taking principles. Principles are statements that moral behavior. Moral behavior has to promote life. As living beings, we choose whether to live, or whether to die. If we choose to live, then objective standards have to be met. That's why we have principles.

There's no substitution involved. Consistency describes being. "Existence exists" is a statement of being, only because it's consistent. It's consistent only because it's rationally true.

I don't know what you mean by "not saying anything". I also don't know what you mean by a swiss army knife. I mean, I can say "The mathematical expression to the left of an equals sign necessarily equals the expression on the right". I'm just describing mathematics, I'm not calling it a swiss army knife for solving every equation. I say that a truth statement, to be a truth statement, must necessarily be consistent. Again, this isn't a swiss army knife to solve all moral questions. It's a statement about truth.

You misunderstand. I am not saying your friends cant stop talking to you. I am saying your job shouldnt be able to fire you over it. It should be protected speech in the sense that things necessary for survival cant be denied to you because of it. This would include a short list of things like jobs, college, military/govt, credit, etc.

Now I understand the argument about other people's speech, but heres the thing. If you allow people to be ostracized because of opinions, do these opinions cease to exist? Of course not, people just don't say them in public. Voices are silenced because of political correctness, and I believe in REAL freedom of speech. I think our current system is too oppressive and allows too much of this silencing to happen. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but the great thing about Sup Forums is I can voice it and not suffer for it, because here speech is free like it should be.

On BLM, the worst thing is that they do it in their own neighborhoods, then complain that no businesses want to open and they dont have a real grocery store.

Yeah, I get that's what you're saying. I'm saying it's horseshit, amigo. It seems like a tautology to me.

The idea that existence exists is fine enough, and I agree that it seems to have continuity and is therefore consistent, but I don't find it necessarily consistent. What about something that doesn't appear to have a physical form? What do we do for numbers, for instance? Does "1" or "1 is 1" exist? is it consistent? How so?

>Voices are silenced because of political correctness
>I think our current system is too oppressive and allows too much of this silencing to happen
True, but don't worry. At some point, the charade will implode and people are going to be forced to confront that the emperor really doesn't have clothes on.

I actually need to go. I was interested in your response but it's too late man. Have a good night. Sorry.