ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th January 2019, 03:46 PM   #281
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You seem to have grasped the meaning of "SJW" quite well. It's true you've described a pretty broad tent, but you still managed to exclude quite a bit from your definition. It lacks nuance, but is probably serviceable enough for most conversation.
I didn't provide a definition, so I don't see how I could exclude anyone.

If SJW means "anyone left of center", then it's just a pejorative term for the left. I would have thought you would want to rescue the word from this fate, but I guess not.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 04:18 PM   #282
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,419
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I think you nailed it. You're more interested in the appearance than the message. Some people are more interested in the message. I think it is why Louis C. K. can still get laughs. People agree with his message. What can a twenty something year old who still relies on their parents for everything possibly say that would enlighten me about life? Sure, they have quaint little ideas about how life ought to be, we all did, but real life isn't rainbows and unicorns. Come back when you've survived the hard **** and we'll talk and laugh about all of it.
Yep How dare the youth not get the humor of racist old men masturbating at them!!!! That is a privilege, like when people walk up to you on the street and compliment your breasts.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 04:22 PM   #283
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,419
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Part of the problem is that even if all comedians agreed to never perform at a College ever again, this issue is larger and more complicated than that. PC Culture isn't exclusive to colleges (And needless to say, not all colleges have an overall PC mentality). PC Culture is everywhere.
Exactly first it took the century old comedy tradition of the minstral show and we need to fight back against this political correctness.I suggest the revival of the BBC classic The Black and White Minstrel Show. Prime television for 20 years. Until political correctness killed it in 78.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 04:26 PM   #284
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,419
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yeah. I don't agree that a 20 year old getting offended by an inoffensive joke is basically the same thing as Maoism. Therefore, I'm Part of the Problem. Enjoy the communists under your bed.
And of course the idea of an offensive joke is anathema to them as humor can not be racist or bigoted.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 07:08 PM   #285
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,917
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
I think that might be certain more vocal groups in the student body

Know what you mean by entitlement culture though.

They do seem to be when deciding what people can hear
The people running the event are actually entitled to decide what people get to speak at their event, and when they get to stop speaking.

You are not entitled to a venue.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:07 PM   #286
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
The people running the event are actually entitled to decide what people get to speak at their event, and when they get to stop speaking.

You are not entitled to a venue.
From a slightly different perspective. The organizers used Patel's name, and fame, to sell tickets. They stated he would be doing his comedy routine. The audience is entitled to get what they paid for.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:12 PM   #287
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I didn't provide a definition, so I don't see how I could exclude anyone.

If SJW means "anyone left of center", then it's just a pejorative term for the left. I would have thought you would want to rescue the word from this fate, but I guess not.
I supplied the definition when asked and it isn't "anyone left of centre." I am extremely left of centre and believe in 100% equality of opportunity. I am also completely against any organization, or its officials, deciding what I am allowed to hear or say.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:27 PM   #288
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly first it took the century old comedy tradition of the minstral show and we need to fight back against this political correctness.I suggest the revival of the BBC classic The Black and White Minstrel Show. Prime television for 20 years. Until political correctness killed it in 78.
And that right there is the entire issue: Political correctness has gone from getting rid of a racist TV shows to cutting the mikes of comedians who tell anti-racist jokes. It's a ****** up world.

You did know the Patel joke is anti-racist, and anti-homophobic, right?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:28 PM   #289
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Not "somehow more important" - entirely more frequent. You know, more common and more deadly.
Really? More frequent and more deadly? Citation required.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:38 PM   #290
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
I was trying to remember what Columbia University came up on the ISF for awhile back and then I remember it was the school that backed "Mattress Girl" in her completely false accusations against an innocent male student, even giving her course credit for carrying a matress around campus.

Remembering that I had not seen the result of the innocent victim's lawsuit I went and checked it out. Turns out Columbia settled with him and put out a statement which completely exonerated him.

What a ****** up school.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 08:45 PM   #291
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
SJWs seem to favor sucker punches, assault with blunt objects, and only occasionally gunning down lawmakers they don't like. They also sometimes tend towards false accusations and even fake incidents.
Exactly correct.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 09:19 PM   #292
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
How often is "occasionally"? How many times per year on average?
Yeah. Citation sorely needed.
__________________
Cracking eggs and shooting children in the head is the exact same thing.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 10:11 PM   #293
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I supplied the definition when asked and it isn't "anyone left of centre." I am extremely left of centre and believe in 100% equality of opportunity. I am also completely against any organization, or its officials, deciding what I am allowed to hear or say.
Cool, cool.

But I wasn't talking to you?
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:35 PM   #294
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Cool, cool.

But I wasn't talking to you?
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by zooterkin; 7th January 2019 at 01:34 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:41 PM   #295
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,511
OK, then "SJW" means "anyone from a black bloc anarchist to Nancy Pelosi".

Well, that's really helped.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2019, 11:49 PM   #296
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I realise that, snowflake, I was just helping you out.
Why did you elect to call me a snowflake just now? Did I express some sensitivity to something, or are you now just tossing out mindless invective?

Quote:
Your mischaracterization of what was said in this thread was either due to a failing memory or willful desire to decieve. Either way I though it important that you be corrected. So, you're welcome.
Either that or I was not talking to you, and expressing surprise that someone else thought SJW could be applied to a spectrum as broad as the black bloc right through to Nancy Pelosi and still meaningfully talk in general terms about SJW attitudes towards violence.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:15 AM   #297
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,409
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
I would say this case is not an example of any bigger problem.
I wouldn't.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 09:26 AM   #298
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 32,452
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
Yeah. Citation sorely needed.
Adorable
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 11:29 AM   #299
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Either that or I was not talking to you, and expressing surprise that someone else thought SJW could be applied to a spectrum as broad as the black bloc right through to Nancy Pelosi and still meaningfully talk in general terms about SJW attitudes towards violence.
Yes, the term can apply to a spectrum of people who put the dogma of social justice ahead of reason and facts. For example, SJW would be someone who believes that the myth of gender fluidity gives LGBTQ people the right to exist and want laws that define how you are allowed to address them.

Those are all different issues and one does not arise from the other.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 11:54 AM   #300
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I wouldn't.
Well, obviously, but the "microexample" of this case does not actually exemplify the problem you described at all. You'll need to describe a different problem.

Originally Posted by qayak
Yes, the term can apply to a spectrum of people who put the dogma of social justice ahead of reason and facts. For example, SJW would be someone who believes that the myth of gender fluidity gives LGBTQ people the right to exist and want laws that define how you are allowed to address them.
This is not a coherent response to anything I've written, nor does it make sense out of your bizarre claim that I was dishonestly characterizing something that I was not even addressing. It also doesn't address the problem that a swath of the public that wide isn't monolithic, and so you won't be able to say anything meaningful about their attitudes towards violence. Trying to put Amy Lee on the hook for street-level violence is just ridiculous.

I'd also still like to know why you decided to call me a snowflake. Am I correct in assuming that it's because I don't agree with you that "SJWs" are basically Maoist Hitlers and that you've therefore decided I must *be* an SJW, worthy of the very best insults you have in your arsenal?
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 11:55 AM   #301
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,962
I thought SJW was shorthand for either "I don't like what you'e saying but can't refute it"?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:11 PM   #302
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,725
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I thought SJW was shorthand for either "I don't like what you'e saying but can't refute it"?
Sounds like now it's more of a slur for non-Republicans/Democrats.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:51 PM   #303
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
This is not a coherent response to anything I've written, nor does it make sense out of your bizarre claim that I was dishonestly characterizing something that I was not even addressing.
It could be that your words did not reflect what you meant, I grant. However, SJW applies to a far narrower range of people than what you had agreed to. In the context of this thread topic, the only SJWs we know for sure are the people who got up and kicked Patel off the stage. They met the criteria. They used their dogma, against the evidence of what the actual joke meant, to silence someone they didn't like, and prevent others from hearing what they didn't want them to hear. When the woman claimed Patel's set was racist and homophobic and a portion of the crowd applauded, I would view them as SJWs as well. They had heard the joke and yet followed the dogma not the evidence.

Quote:
It also doesn't address the problem that a swath of the public that wide isn't monolithic, and so you won't be able to say anything meaningful about their attitudes towards violence. Trying to put Amy Lee on the hook for street-level violence is just ridiculous.
I don't put anyone on the hook for street level violence except the person who commits it. That's the difference between you and I. I hold everyone, left wing crazy and right wing crazy, responsible for the violence they commit. I also hold them responsible for violence they incite. You on the otherhand hold conservatives responsible for all right wing crazy violence, and give all left wing crazy violence a pass. Left wing incitement and violence doesn't exist in your reality.

Quote:
I'd also still like to know why you decided to call me a snowflake. Am I correct in assuming that it's because I don't agree with you that "SJWs" are basically Maoist Hitlers and that you've therefore decided I must *be* an SJW, worthy of the very best insults you have in your arsenal?
No, it's partly because when I say SJW your mind automatically goes to "Maoist Hitlers." Neither Mao, or Hitler, were interested in social justice (One of the criteria.).
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 12:58 PM   #304
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,983
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sounds like now it's more of a slur for non-Republicans/Democrats.
Absolutely anyone who takes a positive social-justice related stand.

Users will assert it's meant to apply only to extremists, or people who only pretend to care about social justice issues for publicity, but this is facetious; in actual practice it is applied to any and all who take a position of advocacy.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:03 PM   #305
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sounds like now it's more of a slur for non-Republicans/Democrats.
I think you are having an issue with my use of "spectrum of people." I refer to spectrum because they can come from many other identifiable groups, any race, any colour, any sexual orientation, political leaning, either gender, etc. but they all have a specific action in common, they use social justice dogma to try and control what other people are allowed to think and say.

When Patel was doing his set everything was fine until the crazies got up on stage to silence him. People stated the crowd was split by his set and that is how it should be, people who like it applauded, people who didn't we silent of even booed! That's free speech.

But SJWs aren't happy with that. they want to silence anything they think might, possibly, be offensive to THEM and prevent anyone else from hearing it. Then they claim it makes the world a better place.

All the great philosophical minds agree that feelings, especially extreme feeling are what give life its richness. From pain comes growth. These people don't want that. They want a monochromatic world where everybody feels just enough to exist and not enough to really live life.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:04 PM   #306
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Absolutely anyone who takes a positive social-justice related stand.
No, that's just your willful misinterpretation of what was said, which is your history on the ISF I suppose.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:09 PM   #307
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
It could be that your words did not reflect what you meant, I grant.
Or how about you grant that there's absolutely nothing dishonest about me not addressing your points in a response to somebody else, and that this idea is just unhinged?

Quote:
However, SJW applies to a far narrower range of people than what you had agreed to. In the context of this thread topic, the only SJWs we know for sure are the people who got up and kicked Patel off the stage. They met the criteria. They used their dogma, against the evidence of what the actual joke meant, to silence someone they didn't like, and prevent others from hearing what they didn't want them to hear. When the woman claimed Patel's set was racist and homophobic and a portion of the crowd applauded, I would view them as SJWs as well. They had heard the joke and yet followed the dogma not the evidence.
So then do you think this narrower set of SJWs is prone to violence? Do you think the leaders of the student organization were thinking "Just give me a reason, Patel."

Quote:
I don't put anyone on the hook for street level violence except the person who commits it.
Yeah, that's ********. You're trying to put "SJWs" on the hook for street-level violence, despite the fact that the people engaging in street level violence aren't SJWs as you've defined the term.

Quote:
That's the difference between you and I. I hold everyone, left wing crazy and right wing crazy, responsible for the violence they commit. I also hold them responsible for violence they incite. You on the otherhand hold conservatives responsible for all right wing crazy violence, and give all left wing crazy violence a pass. Left wing incitement and violence doesn't exist in your reality.
If you genuinely held everyone equally accountable, your focus would not be on people who elevate "social justice" dogma above facts and reason. It would be anyone who elevates dogma above facts and reason.

And yet here you focusing on some of the least harmful dogmatists in the world.

Left wing incitement and violence is much rarer than right wing incitement and violence in our reality. Right-wing political killings in the US outnumber left-wing political killing 10-to-1. And I'm not aware of anyone who can be credibly described as a social justice dogmatist killing anyone. So I continue to maintain that your priorities are ****** up.

Personally, I think the difference between us is that I haven't elected to regard you as the enemy over a disagreement.

Quote:
No, it's partly because when I say SJW your mind automatically goes to "Maoist Hitlers." Neither Mao, or Hitler, were interested in social justice (One of the criteria.).
My mind went to Mao and Hitler because you literally refer to SJWs as little Maos and little Hitlers, constantly warning us about what these people are just about to become. It's presumably how you justify your monomaniacal obsession with them. Don't put that on me.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 5th January 2019 at 01:18 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 01:32 PM   #308
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 22,983
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
No, that's just your willful misinterpretation of what was said, which is your history on the ISF I suppose.
What you personally have said does not matter. The invention of the term predates your use of it, and is used widely enough on the internet that what it means and how it is most commonly used is readily apparent.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:27 PM   #309
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,409
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Well, obviously, but the "microexample" of this case does not actually exemplify the problem you described at all. You'll need to describe a different problem.
Why yes, yes it does.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 02:33 PM   #310
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Why yes, yes it does.
Just to remind you what you identified as "the problem":

Quote:
So, granted, the problem isn't exclusively about PC culture, and of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't comedians who have indeed crossed the line (Michael Richards, for instance), but there is a problem with this accessibility to the internet, and this ability to trash anyone on the media, and it makes comedians feel like they're walking on eggshells.
Accessibility to the internet had nothing to do with this incident, nor did anyone trash him in the media. He wasn't hounded after the fact about a successful set. He bombed in the moment because he couldn't handle the fact that a joke didn't land (irrespective of the reason it didn't land).
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:02 PM   #311
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
What you personally have said does not matter. The invention of the term predates your use of it, and is used widely enough on the internet that what it means and how it is most commonly used is readily apparent.
Yeah, and then it changed, and changed again. Go ahead, stick with what didn't work.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:09 PM   #312
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yeah, hardly a day goes by that we don't hear a story about an SJW mailing pipebombs to celebrities or shooting up a synagogue.
The SJWs told us that if we just made Holocaust denial illegal there would be no more violence against Jews! That didn't work so much did it? Of course that fact won't inspire you to start thinking and certainly won't deter you from blind adherance to the dogma.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:20 PM   #313
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
The SJWs told us that if we just made Holocaust denial illegal there would be no more violence against Jews! That didn't work so much did it? Of course that fact won't inspire you to start thinking and certainly won't deter you from blind adherance to the dogma.
SJWs didn't exist when anti-Holocaust-denial laws were passed, just as they didn't exist (and were not the target of) George Carlin's most famous routine. Just bizarre that you would try to lay these things at their feet. Even if they had been responsible for those laws, there's nothing dogmatic about the idea that anti-Holocaust-denial laws might work to reduce support for far right parties, even if that view is mistaken.

And I see that I was correct. Despite the fact that I have given you no reason to suppose that I elevate dogma above reason and fact, you have nevertheless decided that I'm a dogmatic progressive.

Which makes it clear that the definition you provided isn't actually the definition you use. In fact, you call people SJWs and snowflakes when they disagree with you.

Last edited by mumblethrax; 5th January 2019 at 03:37 PM.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 03:41 PM   #314
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Or how about you grant that there's absolutely nothing dishonest about me not addressing your points in a response to somebody else, and that this idea is just unhinged?
I never asked you to respond to my points. I clarified what the only definition of SJW in this thread actually was. You took it upon yourself to argue with that.

Quote:
So then do you think this narrower set of SJWs is prone to violence? Do you think the leaders of the student organization were thinking "Just give me a reason, Patel."
Yes, I do think they are prone to violence. One only needs to go look at all the Youtube videos where their protest of speakers has turned to their use of violence. Or where their threats of violence lead to the cancelling of the Portland, Oregon Rose Parade. Or the threats against a comic book artist because he illustrated Jordan Peterson's book . . . Left wing crazy is no different from right wing crazy.

Quote:
Yeah, that's ********. You're trying to put "SJWs" on the hook for street-level violence, despite the fact that the people engaging in street level violence aren't SJWs as you've defined the term.
That right there is the ******** you refer to. It just amazes me that SJWs think they are the only ones with cameras, and computers, to record, and store, things. It was the downfall of the Jian Ghomeshi false accusers and it is the downfall of your argument here. They are definitely SJWs as I define it.

Quote:
If you genuinely held everyone equally accountable, your focus would not be on people who elevate "social justice" dogma above facts and reason. It would be anyone who elevates dogma above facts and reason.
I do. I hold police who kill unarmed blacks, or unarmed Natives in Canada, accountable for their systemic racism. I support Colin Kaepernick in his protest. I hold the idiot who drove his car into the crowd of people protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlotte, NC responsible for his actions . . . and I hold a woman at Columbia responsible for her mislabelling an anti-racist joke as racist and homophobic and preventing other people their freedoms.

Quote:
And yet here you focusing on some of the least harmful dogmatists in the world.
Least harmful? We disagree on that. It's why when i am asked to moderate internet forums I decline. I don't believe in censorship at all. I think the answer to false claims is a better argument and that banning people from saying things just drives their mistaken beliefs underground where they can really take root.

Quote:
Left wing incitement and violence is much rarer than right wing incitement and violence in our reality. Right-wing political killings in the US outnumber left-wing political killing 10-to-1. And I'm not aware of anyone who can be credibly described as a social justice dogmatist killing anyone. So I continue to maintain that your priorities are ****** up.
I would say it isn't rarer. I might accept that it isn't quite as extreme in that left wingers tend not to be the ones who own guns but less frequent I don't think so. The violence doesn't come because people are left or right leaning, the violence comes because of anger and rage. They [Anger and rage] follow no political ideology.

Quote:
Personally, I think the difference between us is that I haven't elected to regard you as the enemy over a disagreement.
I really don't think we differ in that regard.

Quote:
My mind went to Mao and Hitler because you literally refer to SJWs as little Maos and little Hitlers, constantly warning us about what these people are just about to become.
Well, you brought up death squads, I just pointed out that death squads aren't the beginning.

Quote:
It's presumably how you justify your monomaniacal obsession with them. Don't put that on me.
Really? So your're saying 100% of my posts on the ISF, and JREF before, are in regard to SJWs? I think you might be "mildly" overstating their importance to me.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."

Last edited by qayak; 5th January 2019 at 03:43 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:03 PM   #315
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
I never asked you to respond to my points. I clarified what the only definition of SJW in this thread actually was. You took it upon yourself to argue with that.
No, you accused me of lying about this thread, because I didn't treat your definition as definitive (truth be told, I didn't even see it). Which is insane.

Quote:
Yes, I do think they are prone to violence. One only needs to go look at all the Youtube videos where their protest of speakers has turned to their use of violence. Or where their threats of violence lead to the cancelling of the Portland, Oregon Rose Parade. Or the threats against a comic book artist because he illustrated Jordan Peterson's book . . . Left wing crazy is no different from right wing crazy.
"Left wing" is not synonymous with "social justice progressive". Anarchists, for example are not progressive. An anarchist or a Marxist-Leninist does not magically become a dogmatic progressive just by virtue of being violent. You don't have a way of distinguishing these people, no way of determining who is dogmatic and who isn't, and therefore are simply laying all left wing political violence at the feet of the social-justice-minded.

Quote:
That right there is the ******** you refer to. It just amazes me that SJWs think they are the only ones with cameras, and computers, to record, and store, things. It was the downfall of the Jian Ghomeshi false accusers and it is the downfall of your argument here. They are definitely SJWs as I define it.
Go ahead and tell me how you determined that.

Quote:
I do. I hold police who kill unarmed blacks, or unarmed Natives in Canada, accountable for their systemic racism. I support Colin Kaepernick in his protest. I hold the idiot who drove his van into the crowd of people protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlotte, NC responsible for his actions . . . and I hold a woman at Columbia responsible for her mislabelling an anti-racist joke as racist and homophobic and preventing other people their freedoms.
What is the epithet you use to describe anyone who disagrees with you on those topics?

Quote:
Least harmful? We disagree on that. It's why when i am asked to moderate internet forums I decline. I don't believe in censorship at all. I think the answer to false claims is a better argument and that banning people from saying things just drives their mistaken beliefs underground where they can really take root.
I'm not talking about censorship. I'm talking about murder.

And dogmatic progressives have been spectacularly unsuccessful in censoring anything, if that's even among their aims, so I'd call them not especially harmful on that front, either.

Quote:
I would say it isn't rarer.
The Cato Institute:

Quote:
Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists are the second deadliest group by ideology, as they account for 6.6% of all terrorist murders during this time. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the second deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, killed 168 people and accounted for 77% of all the murders committed by Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists. The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was about 1 in 33 million per year.

Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time, about 0.7% of the total number of murders, but 13 since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed five since then, including Charlottesville. Regardless, the annual chance of being murdered by a Left Wing terrorist was about 1 in 330 million per year.
Quote:
I really don't think we differ in that regard.
I have not called you names simply because we disagreed. I haven't suggested that you're an SJW snowflake, just because we've disagreed.

That's precisely what you've done.

Quote:
Well, you brought up death squads, I just pointed out that death squads aren't the beginning.
I brought up death squads in response to the absurdity of your "Hitler had to start somewhere" comment.

Quote:
Really? So your're saying 100% of my posts on the ISF, and JREF before, are in regard to SJWs? I think you might be "mildly" overstating their importance to me.
No, I'm saying you have a monomaniacal obsession with these people. Meaning that you are excessively concerned with them.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:05 PM   #316
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
SJWs didn't exist when anti-Holocaust-denial laws were passed, just as they didn't exist (and were not the target of) George Carlin's most famous routine.
That's bizarre. You think the people were created after the term was adapted, like there haven't always been right and left wing crazies.

Quote:
Even if they had been responsible for those laws, there's nothing dogmatic about the idea that anti-Holocaust-denial laws might work to reduce support for far right parties, even if that view is mistaken.
It is dogmatic when the evidence doesn't support the claim.

Quote:
And I see that I was correct. Despite the fact that I have given you no reason to suppose that I elevate dogma above reason and fact, you have nevertheless decided that I'm a dogmatic progressive.
Your posts in this thread are the reason. You talked about my feeling that you have ignored my points earlier. I think there are many people who have ignored the points beginning with nobody addressing whether Patel's joke was racist or homophobic and why. There is no way it can be interpreted as such but people ignore that and instead claim he was unfunny or annoying.

Then they claim George Carlin was the hero of edgy comedy and how he could perform at any college today but ignored the routine I posted that would definitely have him banned from those colleges and his feelings about the type of people who interrupted patel.

The entire response has been a gong show of repeated dogma and rhetoric that dances around the facts. We are to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to call unfunny people racist and homophobic. How about we call them unfunny, call racists, racist, and homophics, homophobic?

Quote:
Which makes it clear that the definition you provided isn't actually the definition you use. In fact, you call people SJWs and snowflakes when they disagree with you.
See my response immediately above this. It is a lie to call Patel racist or homophobic based on his routine. Everything that came after is ******** because it is based on that lie. Continuing to defend the actions based on that lie isn't just people disagreeing with me, it's dogma.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:19 PM   #317
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
No, I'm saying you have a monomaniacal obsession with these people. Meaning that you are excessively concerned with them.
And you would be totally wrong. If you do a quick check of my history here you will see that I spend far more time arguing against the actions of right wing terrorists. This happens to be the topic of the thread and there have been more of these topics lately but my record will speak for itself.

The difference between us is that I am not using one group's violence to deny another groups violence. If you want to see me argue against right wing terrorism, start a thread about right wing terror and say something stupid, I'm sure I will chime in. But this is a thread on SJWs and it started out with the stupid claim that Patel's joke was racist and homophobic. I only argued against the people who went with that narrative without checking to see if it really was.

No one has come out and said the joke wasn't racist or homophobic but they have backed off to the point that they say he was interrupted for being unfunny.

And your still arguing the other side. How about if you state where you stand on the joke and his being mischaracterized as racist and homophobic because those accusations can destroy a person's life. Maybe we aren't so far apart but we seem to be mountain ranges apart based on the simple fact that you haven't actually made your view on this clear. There's been lots of dancing going on in the thread and maybe I put you in the wrong group.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:24 PM   #318
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
That's bizarre. You think the people were created after the term was adapted, like there haven't always been right and left wing crazies.
No, I think that progressives (in the modern sense) didn't exist. Because they didn't.

Quote:
It is dogmatic when the evidence doesn't support the claim.
Only if you have the evidence. In reality it's exceedingly difficult to evaluate the efficacy of something like a Holocaust denial law.

Quote:
Your posts in this thread are the reason. You talked about my feeling that you have ignored my points earlier.
No, my posts in this thread aren't the reason. You talk a lot about evidence, but you don't actually have any when you need it.

Quote:
The entire response has been a gong show of repeated dogma and rhetoric that dances around the facts. We are to believe that it is perfectly acceptable to call unfunny people racist and homophobic. How about we call them unfunny, call racists, racist, and homophics, homophobic?
Back up: you're trying to establish that I'm an SJW, remember? Whether they are SJWs is immaterial.

Quote:
See my response immediately above this. It is a lie to call Patel racist or homophobic based on his routine. Everything that came after is ******** because it is based on that lie. Continuing to defend the actions based on that lie isn't just people disagreeing with me, it's dogma.
Sorry, no. If they lie, that's on them. If Patel ********s, that's on him. If Reason misrepresents the story, that's on them.

There's no "original sin" cop out in critical thinking.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 04:39 PM   #319
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,215
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
And you would be totally wrong. If you do a quick check of my history here you will see that I spend far more time arguing against the actions of right wing terrorists. This happens to be the topic of the thread and there have been more of these topics lately but my record will speak for itself.
Yes. Your record is that you are excessively concerned with SJWs, to the point where you see them under your bed.

Quote:
The difference between us is that I am not using one group's violence to deny another groups violence.
You're pretty bad at finding differences between us.

My position is that it makes very little sense to worry about the violence of SJWs when there was no violence involved here. But you think they're Hitlers-in-waiting, so we had to go down that road.

Quote:
No one has come out and said the joke wasn't racist or homophobic but they have backed off to the point that they say he was interrupted for being unfunny.
He was kicked off for bombing and sucking the air out of the room. The reason they gave when pressed was obvious ********.

Quote:
And your still arguing the other side. How about if you state where you stand on the joke and his being mischaracterized as racist and homophobic because those accusations can destroy a person's life. Maybe we aren't so far apart but we seem to be mountain ranges apart based on the simple fact that you haven't actually made your view on this clear. There's been lots of dancing going on in the thread and maybe I put you in the wrong group.
My position is that the joke is old and tired. I remember David Cross doing essentially the same joke around 20 years ago. I don't think it's homophobic or racist, but I can't say that I'm surprised that a younger crowd would roll their eyes at it, not least because they're less likely to see being gay as a cross to bear.

I suspect that if he'd just moved on, it would have been fine. Lecturing the crowd is seldom a good way of dealing with a joke that doesn't land.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th January 2019, 05:12 PM   #320
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,295
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
Yes. Your record is that you are excessively concerned with SJWs, to the point where you see them under your bed.
Well, there goes your claim that you don't lie.

Quote:
My position is that it makes very little sense to worry about the violence of SJWs when there was no violence involved here. But you think they're Hitlers-in-waiting, so we had to go down that road.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? I didn't bring up violence, someone else did. If you weren't being tittilated by its discussion one would think you would stop bringing it up.

Quote:
He was kicked off for bombing and sucking the air out of the room. The reason they gave when pressed was obvious ********.
No, he wasn't. You are ignoring all the evidence. The organizer stated in the video why she stopped him and it was repeated in the statement. This is the type of thing that leads me to label you a SJW, your willingness to ignore the evidence and follow the dogma..

Quote:
My position is that the joke is old and tired. I remember David Cross doing essentially the same joke around 20 years ago. I don't think it's homophobic or racist, but I can't say that I'm surprised that a younger crowd would roll their eyes at it, not least because they're less likely to see being gay as a cross to bear.
So gays were equal 20 years ago? They couldn't marry. they were still being raided by police. They faced long prison terms . . . but they were equal.

But okay, that's a different issue. The issue now is why would you not comdemn someone who is clearly not racist or homophibic being called homophobic? the dogma says you shouldn't but ethics and reason say you should.

Quote:
I suspect that if he'd just moved on, it would have been fine. Lecturing the crowd is seldom a good way of dealing with a joke that doesn't land.
Really? Have you seen comedy at all? Even King George Carlin did it. But that brings us to another point. Do you call an artist racist and homophobic because they painted fruit instead of kitty cats? Do you fire him? How about an actor? Do you call him racist and homophobic if he flubs a line in a live performance?

All indicators say the audience was merely split after the joke in question. half were still enjoying themselves, half not. And yet, a couple people took it upon themselves to stop the entire show so no one else got offended. That's SJW behaviour.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.