Is the alt right worse than SJWs?

Jerrymander said:
As annoying as SJWs can be. I find the alt right far worse, they basically advocate a social Darwinist worldview as well as bullying and harassment. Milo Yiannopoulos, one of their heads, advocates bullying of overweight people thinking it would cause them to lose weight (when in fact, the opposite if true). There's barely anything positive or empowering that comes out of their mouths.

A hypersensitive society is certainly better than the opposite.
Click to expand...

Hey, I know! Let's use subjective language in bold, unnuanced manner to discuss undefined social phonomena with which we only have third hand personal contact!

That'll be an AWESOME thread!
 
RussDill said:
SJW - ees-JAY-double-you - noun. Someone who is passionate about their views who I disagree with.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell the difference. Here's a practical example:

"Ugh, another movie with a black lead actor. I'm so sick of those. I'd like to see some white actors for a change".

This is a totally reasonable and logical statement of personal preference that should in no way annoy anyone for any reason.

"Ugh, another movie with a white lead actor. I'm so sick of those. I'd like to see some black actors for a change".

This is a whiny, oversensitive SJW being completely emotional and irrational and censoring the entire movie industry with their hateful rhetoric, forcing artists to comprise their integrity just to appease these whiners.

See how clearly different those are?
 
Seems to me the Alt-right are more prone to acting out their beliefs with violence than the SJWs, unless you're lumping in the self-proclaimed Black Bloc anarchists with SJWs.

It's sure not the SJW crowd spray-painting swastikas all over town and roaring up and down Broadway (the heart of the historically gay neighborhood) in jacked-up pickups waving Confederate battle flags. Even the anarchists are more into breaking windows than heads.
 
SJWs without a doubt. Their hysteria and idiocy do more to undermine and delegitimize the liberal ideals I care about more than the alt-right ever can.
 
deadrose said:
Seems to me the Alt-right are more prone to acting out their beliefs with violence than the SJWs, unless you're lumping in the self-proclaimed Black Bloc anarchists with SJWs.

It's sure not the SJW crowd spray-painting swastikas all over town and roaring up and down Broadway (the heart of the historically gay neighborhood) in jacked-up pickups waving Confederate battle flags. Even the anarchists are more into breaking windows than heads.
Click to expand...

But that is a healthy sign of the defense mechanisms of The White Race..at least according to one rather notorious poster we have here.
 
Tony said:
SJWs without a doubt. Their hysteria and idiocy do more to undermine and delegitimize the liberal ideals I care about more than the alt-right ever can.
Click to expand...

THe worst thing about SJW's is that they find so much racism in just about everything that no one believes them when the Real Thing shows up. The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome.
 
mijopaalmc said:
I see noone has bothered to define "SJW" yet.
Click to expand...

I just looked it up...

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

If that won't do, wiki also has an entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Hope that helps.
 
marplots said:
I just looked it up...

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

If that won't do, wiki also has an entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's a subjectively determined term of abuse, not a very good starting point for a reasoned discussion.

I also wanted to know how the posters who were involved in the thread or defining it.
 
deadrose said:
Seems to me the Alt-right are more prone to acting out their beliefs with violence than the SJWs, unless you're lumping in the self-proclaimed Black Bloc anarchists with SJWs.
Click to expand...

What planet are you on? Seriously? I'm left somewhere between the two Lennons and Lenins, but even I had to cancel some of our concerts because of all the violence being done by the SJW's to people who didn't even actually disagree with them politically but weren't willing to engage in property destruction and violence with them

I have yet to witness violence done by the alt right recently, though i will gladly classify historical nuts like Timmothy McVeigh as alt right
 
Tony said:
SJWs without a doubt. Their hysteria and idiocy do more to undermine and delegitimize the liberal ideals I care about more than the alt-right ever can.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
THe worst thing about SJW's is that they find so much racism in just about everything that no one believes them when the Real Thing shows up. The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this.
 
mijopaalmc said:
I see noone has bothered to define "SJW" yet.
Click to expand...

Actually, many have bothered to do so already, but have been ignored by the likes of you.

Here, I'll define it for myself: A social justice warrior is a type of left-wing extremist who engages in identity and oppression politics; to summarize, the idea that people are defined by their group regardless of their individual circumstances, that minorities are inherently oppressed by the majority, and that the only remedy is to tip the scales in the former's favour.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
Actually, many have bothered to do so already, but have been ignored by the likes of you.
Click to expand...

Citation needed

Argumemnon said:
Here, I'll define it for myself: A social justice warrior is a type of left-wing extremist who engages in identity and oppression politics; to summarize, the idea that people are defined by their group regardless of their individual circumstances, that minorities are inherently oppressed by the majority, and that the only remedy is to tip the scales in the former's favour.
Click to expand...

That's a start. At least not a term of abuse.

Can you present some examples of airings that for your description?
 
mijopaalmc said:
Citation needed
Click to expand...

Ok:

marplots said:
I just looked it up...

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

If that won't do, wiki also has an entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Hope that helps.

Can you present some examples of airings that for your description?
Click to expand...

You can check out Feminist Frequency, MTV's Franchesca Ramsey or Laci Green on Youtube for examples.

Or check this one out. A bit of an extreme case:

 
mijopaalmc said:
Notice how that was only provided after I made my comment.
Click to expand...

No, it was provided before the post I was replying to, and you ignored that definition, showing exactly the kind of behaviour I talked about. Furthermore, in a recent thread this year several definitions and explanations were given and similarily ignored; if not by you, then by others. You are also, I'm sure, capable of looking for definitions on your own.

Do you have any intention of looking up the people I mentioned?
 
...I am a Social Justice Warrior. If you want to know what my political points of views are, then read my posts here.

I'm not dangerous. And SJW's have never been in power and never ever will be in power.

The Alt-Right are now in charge of the most powerful country in the history of the world.

At this stage I wouldn't be worrying about the SJW's at all.
 
marplots said:
I just looked it up...

Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

If that won't do, wiki also has an entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

...why did you quote the Urban Dictionary, but cite Wikipedia?
 
Argumemnon said:
No, it was provided before the post I was replying to, and you ignored that definition, showing exactly the kind of behaviour I talked about. Furthermore, in a recent thread this year several definitions and explanations were given and similarily ignored; if not by you, then by others. You are also, I'm sure, capable of looking for definitions on your own.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

You're dishonesty is, by now, unsurprising.

I commented that none had birthed to define "SJW" in #54 and marplots proffered a definition in #55. You responded to me by quoting my observation in #54 asserting that "many have bothered to do so already, but have been ignored by the likes of you" (#58) and, when asked to provide a citation in #59, you quoted (#60) marplots' definition in #54. In other words, you used the fact that I didn't anticipate a definition given after I had requested it has evidence that I was ignoring a definition that had been given.

Argumemnon said:
Do you have any intention of looking up the people I mentioned?
Click to expand...

I am already familiar with term.
 
mijopaalmc said:
You're dishonesty is, by now, unsurprising.

I commented that none had birthed to define "SJW" in #54 and marplots proffered a definition in #55. You responded to me by quoting my observation in #54 asserting that "many have bothered to do so already, but have been ignored by the likes of you" (#58) and, when asked to provide a citation in #59, you quoted (#60) marplots' definition in #54. In other words, you used the fact that I didn't anticipate a definition given after I had requested it has evidence that I was ignoring a definition that had been given.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not! I assumed that, by the time you got to reading my post #58, you'd have read Marplot's response in #55. Do you read posts in reverse chronological order? If not, then you HAD read Marplot's answer by the time you responded to my post. In fact, YOU ANSWERED Marplots by dismissing his definition, which is EXACTLY what I said you were doing.

Your accusations of dishonesty are ironic.

I am already familiar with term.
Click to expand...

And?
 
Argumemnon said:
Absolutely not! I assumed that, by the time you got to reading my post #58, you'd have read Marplot's response in #55. Do you read posts in reverse chronological order? If not, then you HAD read Marplot's answer by the time you responded to my post. In fact, YOU ANSWERED Marplots by dismissing his definition, which is EXACTLY what I said you were doing.

Your accusations of dishonesty are ironic.
Click to expand...

Only to you.

There's a difference between dismissing a definition because it is hopelessly abusive and subjective and ignoring the fact that one was given at all. You originally asserted that I did the latter not the former and then changed your argument to my doing the former not the latter.

Argumemnon said:
And?
Click to expand...

Can you provide a specific example from their corpus?
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
Only to you.
Click to expand...

Oh, burn! :rolleyes:

There's a difference between dismissing a definition because it is hopelessly abusive and subjective and ignoring the fact that one was given at all.
Click to expand...

I did not say that you ignored the fact it was given. I said you ignored the definition. And the definition of "loser" (someone who doesn't win) can be seen as abusive, too, but it doesn't stop it from being the correct definition, which properly describes the people targeted by it.

Can you provide a specific example from their corpus?
Click to expand...

No, now it's your turn: do you understand, using these people as examples, what is meant by SJWs and in what way their ideology is damaging?
 
Argumemnon said:
I did not say that you ignored the fact it was given. I said you ignored the definition.
Click to expand...

Patently false:

Argumemnon said:
Actually, many have bothered to do so already, but have been ignored by the likes of you.
Click to expand...

Argumemnon said:
No, it was provided before the post I was replying to, and you ignored that definition, showing exactly the kind of behaviour I talked about. Furthermore, in a recent thread this year several definitions and explanations were given and similarily ignored; if not by you, then by others. You are also, I'm sure, capable of looking for definitions on your own.
Click to expand...
(emphases added)

Argumemnon said:
And the definition of "loser" (someone who doesn't win) can be seen as abusive, too, but it doesn't stop it from being the correct definition, which properly describes the people targeted by it.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was referring to as abusive.

Argumemnon said:
No, now it's your turn: do you understand, using these people as examples, what is meant by SJWs and in what way their ideology is damaging?
Click to expand...

You mention several people you consider to be SJWs and expect me to do the work of explaining how they fit your definition with without providing specific examples of their work you think demonstrates you thesis?

It's your assertion; you support it with your analysis.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Patently false:

(emphases added)
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. You ignored the definition. You quoted it right there!

That's not what I was referring to as abusive.
Click to expand...

Then explain what you were refering to.

You mention several people you consider to be SJWs and expect me to do the work of explaining how they fit your definition with without providing specific examples of their work you think demonstrates you thesis?
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking you IF they fit the definition I gave you, since you said you were already familiar with them.
 
mijopaalmc said:
You mention several people you consider to be SJWs and expect me to do the work of explaining how they fit your definition with without providing specific examples of their work you think demonstrates you thesis?
Click to expand...

...Feminist Frequency is AWESOME. I'm a big fan and supporter of Anita Sarkeesian and her work, and I financially contributed to their last campaign. Feminist Frequency commits the "horrific crime" of critiquing film, movies, television and video games. Lets hope that no-one gives them the nuclear launch codes.
 
Argumemnon said:
No, I'm asking you IF they fit the definition I gave you, since you said you were already familiar with them.
Click to expand...

...I'm a big supporter of Feminist Frequency: and they don't fit the description you have given mijopaalmc. So using these people as examples: your description of what they do and what they actually do are two different things. So if your claim is that Feminist Frequency is a SJW as defined as

"A social justice warrior is a type of left-wing extremist who engages in identity and oppression politics; to summarize, the idea that people are defined by their group regardless of their individual circumstances, that minorities are inherently oppressed by the majority, and that the only remedy is to tip the scales in the former's favour."

Then you need to prove this by showing us how Feminist Frequency fits this description.
 
Let us compare:

SJW - wants to protect the vulnerable.

Alt Right - wants to throw the vulnerable into death camps and/or hunt them for sport.


Gee, is this really even worth discussing?
 
Argumemnon said:
That's exactly what I said. You ignored the definition. You quoted it right there!
Click to expand...

You're quote right; you shifted your focus to claiming that I dismissed the definition in #66 while simultaneously claiming I ignored it. One cannot dismiss something one doesn't acknowledge.


Argumemnon said:
Then explain what you were refering to.
Click to expand...

The definition that marplots supplied, which freely admits to being pejorative

Argumemnon said:
No, I'm asking you IF they fit the definition I gave you, since you said you were already familiar with them.
Click to expand...

That is most certainly not what you asked, insofar as you asked anything until you were requested to provide specifics.

Again you ate asking me to provide your argument for you workout actually specifying which particular videos you think are especially good examples.
 
Last edited:
Racist is a pejorative (to most)... does that not mean it's definition cannot be used? Or is it just the "subjective" part that you disagree with in the earlier provided definition of SJW?

If the latter, then why complain about the former?

I don't doubt that the term is quite subjective (or at least thrown around too freely, much like the terms racist or sexist...)
 
SJW- advocate for social change (primarily on social media) mostly via cultural change based on social justice, identity politics, privilege theory, or intersectionality theory.

Alt Right- opposed to SJWs from a conservative or libertarian perspective.

That's the best I have. In general, I find the Alt Right easier to discuss things with because a number of them are classical liberals and believe in Enlightenment values. Incidentally, on Youtube many of them are called "skeptics", though I would say that only a few embrace what we would call skepticism fully. For example, some Alt Right discussions I have been in with regards to the "wage gap" or "rape culture" have been heavily sourced and persuasive. With intersectionality there tends to be a rejection of discourse based on objective reason in favour of the "lived experience" of the Oppression Olympics. SJWs tend to water down the "-ist" labels by, not only engaging in rampant "call-out culture", but broadly declaring all men are sexist, whites are racist, etc.

Also, Stormfront or SJW is an Alt Right sub making and Alt Right point about how racist the SJW anti-racists are. It is affiliated with Tumblr In Action, which is a very entertaining subreddit about SJW posts on Tumblr.

Which reminds me, SJWs made me quit Tumblr, but the Alt Right hasn't made me quit Reddit or Youtube. I have only ever been banned by SJWs.
 
Last edited:
I'm somewhere to the left of Bernie, just for reference.

When I started seeing stuff like demands for dorms that would only let minorities in them, I knew we'd jumped the shark and it was only a matter of time before it bit us in the ass.

I'm also aware that if I voiced that opinion in certain gatherings, I'd be on the receiving end of a lot of verbal abuse, silencing, shaming, diminishing, minimizing, and other forms of one-on-one oppression that we constantly say are terrible.
 
Travis said:
Let us compare:

SJW - wants to protect the vulnerable.

Alt Right - wants to throw the vulnerable into death camps and/or hunt them for sport.


Gee, is this really even worth discussing?
Click to expand...

Of course it is!

SJWs don't want to allow racism & bigotry.

White blokes might have to learn to be equal to everyone else.

**** that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom