Politics The 2016 US Presidential Election

Who are these people you are talking about? I've never met a person like this in my entire life, yet they are always used as the poster children for lberal voters

 

Funny how that works isn't it? Nobody has ever met or even seen one of these people despite the massive crowds in videos of their criminal misbehavior, despite the worldwide effects of their fabrications and witch hunts, and despite their having such profound numbers and influence that the President of the United States of America was moved to specifically rebuke them on more than one occasion.

It's almost as if people firmly on the side of defending these people were just saying that they've never met or seen someone like this because to admit otherwise would be to give up the narrative of moral perfection in the face of misogynist woman-haters. But surely that's not the case. Surely it's perfectly reasonable that not one person, anywhere, ever, has ever met a single person like this despite the mountains of evidence not only of their existence in vast numbers but also of their staggering influence and institutional power.

Perhaps they reproduce via binary fission and simply evaporate after a certain period of time. Perhaps they're in league with the molemen and hide underground. Perhaps they're clones who live in utter seclusion. Perhaps those mattresses many were carrying around college campuses had cloaking devices hidden inside them.

Or perhaps it's more likely that you have met many people like this throughout your life and either can not or will not admit as such, or have not been in their crosshairs and thus didn't recognize them for what they were.

 

So please, link the best page you can find that sees SJWs for what they are and defines them as sexist, racist, violent criminals as you do.

BTW, Conservapedia is not written by left-wing moderates but by right-wing extremists. It would seem that your conception of SJW is even more extreme than theirs.

 

I grew up with real socialists, communists, and activists.
The kinds of people who fought for union rights, civil rights, sent money to Ireland, and marched for peace.
They would be the badasses who went to line back in the day, true social justice "Warriors".
None of them are anything like what you describe.

 

I've already given you examples of SJWs and their conduct in real life, at this point you're playing disingenuous games in an attempt to ignore the real world.

Conservapedia's definition is not written by SJWs, nor are others on other websites. Wikipedia however is subject to major feminist campaigns to edit it to conform to feminist goodthink and purge crimethink.

My definition is no more extreme than anyone else's, I'm simply including in my description of them the levels of violence and criminal behavior they've recently escalated to, emboldened by slavish and worshipful praise and unconditional adoration heaped on them by the likes of Baraka.

You have proven many times that you are incapable, or utterly unwilling, to ever approach an argument involving feminism or gender politics from any position other than tracing backwards from the axiomatic and nigh-religious belief that "feminism is always right". That's not a projection, it's a repeatedly demonstrated prejudice on your part. A cult-like devotion of such depth and fervency that even when I in the past sided with feminists on something you continued to mendaciously defend, deny, erase, or handwave away anything that contradicts it.

The only person that projects here is you. You define everything that contradicts feminist dogma as absolute wrongthink, and everyone that doesn't participate in your utter worship of feminist dogma as the Worst Person Ever to the point you (and others) have repeatedly engaged in double standards and the weaponization of the board rules, even as your own toxic bigotry and vicious personal attacks left people PMing me to offer silent support rather than post, fearing they themselves would be next to be "torn apart".

Do you even realise the number of times I've bent you back upon yourself? Led you by the nose into saying black/white/black/white out of pure blind zealotry? I've turned you against your own feminists in the past simply by virtue of the fact that what I was citing sounded egalitarian rather than the SJW bigotry you're used to enabling.

Only one side of the ideological spectrum holds the systemic and institutional power to lobby for and pass laws so discriminatory in practice that they constitute a modern day jim crow while simultaneously spending thirty years successfully suppressing over 300 studies disproving a core part of their entire ideology to such an extent that it's literally named "violence against women" now.


Only one side of the ideological spectrum holds such systemic and institutional power that they get away with burning priceless historical works and holding entire universities hostage to the degree that the President of the United States of America has had to publicly condemn their bigotry and constant attempts to silence crimethink in pursuit of enforcing ideological purity. Multiple times.

Only one side of the ideological spectrum holds the systemic and institutional power to get away with massive and usually criminal attacks on virtually everyone and every event that so much as disagrees with them.

You've shifted tactics from insisting there's no such thing as SJWs to the broken logic of a middle school principal defending a bully by saying "you're just as bad for fighting back". The fact is there's no moral equivalence here, there's no practical equivalence. One side has staggering amounts of money and institutional power, the other side literally can't even meet to talk about their issues without the first side committing felonies to shut them down and getting away with it every time.

Your attempts to fabricate a fictive counter-SJW are as transparent as your plaintive cries that feminism is "equality" while feminists are busy investing millions in lobbying against alimony and child custody reform, denying the evidence of hundreds of studies on intimate partner violence, and leading ever more vicious witch-hunts.

And according to you they're all "reasonable, intelligent feminists" and everyone who ever disagrees with one about anything ever in any meaningful and substantive way is one of your "MUCs".

The well is poisoned. Your well. There's no way to possibly reconcile the concept of genuinely seeking equality in good faith with the staggering breadth and depth of bigotry and ever escalating criminality coming from the feminist movement. What handful of genuinely equality seeking individuals are left are increasingly abandoning a poisoned and structurally flawed ideology in favor of seeking equality independent of a forced framework of male villainousness and female victimhood.

Your attempts at disingenuously stifling criticism by playing the "that's not feminism!" card were sidestepped by the popularization of a term referring specifically to people who call themselves feminists and use feminism as a weapon but whose actions and ideology are patently anti-equality. With your principle deflection tactic ruined you're now returning to your original tactics with the minor addition of insisting that "SJW" is just something misogynists call feminists.

Or alternatively they're abusive authoritarians who use Social Justice as their preferred means of abusing others and enforcing their authoritarian worldview, and being a major supporter of theirs you're claiming they're just "social progressives".

 

And as my Uncle Saul would say "This is unqualified horse shit."
Saul was a communist of the old school, had the card and everything, union organizer, and believed woman should be out there fighting with everybody else.
One of the things he really hated was how the left (and the Jews, but that was another story) tended to eat their young.
Playing the game of who is the better revolutionary and going off to make a different group because you disagree with some aspect of this one made no sense to him.
He was happy to work with anyone as long as they didn't try to convert him.

Him and my grandfather had some serious differences on politics and religion.
They could argue for hours but when it came time to hit the wall, to go up against the man, they stood together.
Those differences didn't mean shit.

I'm thinking we have a lot more in common than we have differences and most of this stuff is just what my Uncle Saul would call it.

 

Well this is the most boring threadjacking in recent memory. I have no idea what either of you are on about, but its lame.

 

Yeah, this thread has been turned sideways.

If y'all want to argue about how SJW is/should be defined, start a thread.

Otherwise, please specifically tie it to the 2106 presidential election.

 

Yes, could a mod or admin split these posts into a new thread? Please include this one too, because I'd like to respond again.

Your examples have not addressed what's actually an issue of semantics. Independent of moral judgement, I am requesting a credible source that prescribes an accepted use of the term or a linguistic account that describes its observed use in a scientific manner. This is the only rational way to substantiate your claim that "... an SJW is defined by their racism, sexism, and often criminally violent extremism..." and that "... it's a term with a specific tangible definition that continues to be incredibly applicable."

I will concede that these quoted statements are indeed accurate as they apply to the mainstream understanding of the term SJW if you are able to provide either of these references (and yes, I will be the one to determine whether the prescriptivist source is credible, based on modern academic consensus, or whether the descriptivist assessment is empirically sound, based on the strength of its methodology and conclusions).

You are correct in implying that editors of Conservapedia would not generally consider themselves SJWs. The fact that you included the Conservapedia definition in the quote block which you deemed to be examples of the left-wing moderates defending left-wing extremists indicates that you neglected to observe that Conservapedia is a right-wing extremist resource (which attributes less malice to the SJW identity than you do).

Here's a completely objective (actually somewhat tongue in cheek) illustration of the political spectrum on this issue:
----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|----------------|
International |-far-left----------center-left----------center-right----------far-right
United States |-------------far-left----------center-left----------center-right----------far-right
SJW opinion |-------------------------------------------Wikipedia*------------------Conservapedia---Shadowex3

*The English Wikipedia

Also, I see no issue with Wikipedia emphasizing the importance of including of female viewpoints (which are underrepresented in the majority of the world's historical accounts).

Ah see, when you cite your sources, we can evaluate the credibility of the claims that you draw from them. You can do it too, before you post; it seems that you didn't in this case. If you had, you would probably not have used the first link when you realized that it isn't a scientific study but a list of anecdotal evidence produced by a lobbying agency whose treasurer founded a mail order bride service and thus has financial interest in downplaying abuse of women. The second link is a scientific study which assesses the avenues that men in abusive relationships pursue for help, which is irrelevant to your claims regarding partisanship, policy, and violence against women. The review papers by Straus and Fiebert that you've linked are lauded by MRA extremists, but they're widely contested within the academic circles of domestic violence researchers, and thus they far from satisfy the burden of proof. The bulk of the criticism points out that studies which present gender symmetry rely exclusively on Straus's CTS (conflict tactics scale), a metric which has serious flaws that result in underestimation of violence against women and overestimation of violence against men.

There's also the crucial distinction that the CTS only accounts for perpetration of violence and not its outcomes. Even in Straus's papers, you can find admission of the fact that rates of injury and death are higher for violence against women. And it's not just a little higher either. In Straus's "Thirty Years" article, he indicates that injury and death resulting from violence against women both occur twice as often as injury and death resulting from violence against men. And that's a rather conservative estimate, as the US Department of Justice asserts that 81% of spouse murder victims are female.

 

The mistake you are all making is engaging with an asshole.

Black is white, white is black.

 

@wye

You're relatively new here (and I thank you for being an active member).

You will find that Shadowex3 views certain--but not all, to be fair to him--topics as strictly black-and-white. His position is absolutely right. If you disagree with him you are absolutely wrong. He refuses to acknowledge any gray area; he will not admit that some topics are matters of opinion, i.e. there is no real "right" or "wrong" position. Bombarding people with links to support his position is his favorite tactic; he ignores the fact that much of the content is open to interpretation (his interpretation is, of course, the correct one).

Shadowex3 is also very bright, articulate, and can discuss many topics without resorting to the above ^.

 

One of the local sucking-Republican-ass loudmouth radio show hosts is trying to make a big deal out of that.

 

I can take the time to evaluate every link he posts. None of the ones in his last post effectively supported his point. I see that he is intelligent, which is why I'm bothering to confront him with reason.

Plenty of the perceived-liberal publications are still reporting on it too. cp time joke - Google Search

Maybe you'll say they're not making a big deal, but, even so, I think you're ultimately saying that the popular press operates with a double standard. But on what basis? Can we find an example of any other candidate in this race having made an insensitive joke whose media backlash we might compare?

 

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

So, do you think that Bernie or Kasich/Cruz has any shot of stopping the candidate with the most votes in either party so far? Do you think that this primary season should have started now and been done in 6 weeks? Do you think the conventions will be tense or violent since it has been building up for months?

I have posted a map of the states that I think are safe for each side, and the swing states. There aren't that many swing states left. But if you want to see riots in the street, what if this map happens, with the Democrats getting millions of votes more than the Republican candidate. But, if the new Congress stays with a Republican majority through gerrymandering and winning small states that have as many senators as big states, it won't go over well.

2016 Presidential Election Interactive Map

Or, do you think the TEA party conservatives will run a candidate (or support the Libertarian) to compete against Trump? Do you think the Sanders supporters will back Jill Stein and the Green Party if he doesn't get the nomination? How much will a few percentage points matter in the swing states?