The insane social justice thread

[actaeon277]

Could be "draggin' the line"

To me, TOW the line would involve wire guided anti-tank missiles

I like TOWs.

I like MK 48 torpedoes better.
But, not being in the ocean, they have limited use for me.

 

[actaeon277]

Pictured below...

Inter-sectional feminist video game bloggers trying to figure out what narrative angle to take on Steam removing sexualized video games at the behest of right wing fundamentalists brazenly employing inter-sectional feminist rhetoric

I don't speak that language.

 

[BugI02]

I like TOWs.

I like MK 48 torpedoes better.
But, not being in the ocean, they have limited use for me.

I like the concept of 'run out to enable'

 

[Mikey1911]

AGM-86 for me, or its ancestor AGM-28 (you ain’t nothin’ but a) Hound Dog.

 

[actaeon277]

Mk 24 nuke.

Urban Redevelopment.

 

[Mikey1911]

Mk 24 nuke.

Urban Redevelopment.

LGM-25C/Mark 6/W53.
When You Care Enough to Send the Very Best.

 

[BugI02]

Mk 24 nuke.

Urban Redevelopment.

B61

Dial a yield. The bright light of freedom in several popular sizes

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Hahahahahahahaha.....

 

[jamil]

Anyone catch the Monk debate on political correctness? The proposition they were debating was the statement, "Be it resolved that what you call political correctness, I call progress..."

The debaters were Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg for the "pro" side; Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry for the "con" side. 2 hours long, so something to listen to if you have several guns to clean or whatnot.

My thoughts on it: It wasn't Peterson's finest performance. He allowed himself to get rattled by race baiting Michael Dyson's racist comments. He just couldn't let it go. But in the end I think people realize that Dyson's remarks proved Peterson's point about group politics. Dyson never answered Peterson's points and counterpoints other than to call him a "mean mad white man". Probably not the most brilliant way to respond to Peterson's accusations. Apparently Dyson thought his oddly placed big words would impress the audience.

The polling after the debate showed 92% thought the Peterson and Fry won. A pretty resounding defeat. Some other stats, before the debate ~36% of the audience favored the pro side and 64% favored the con. After the debate ~6% changed their minds to the con side so 30/70 at the end of the debate. Polling also showed that neither Dyson nor Goldberg ever broke 10% on best points made.

Dyson made it about what Peterson said the left makes it about, therefore demonstrating the truthfulness of Peterson's point. Goldberg tried and failed to fashion herself a moderate. She wanted to make it a vendetta against Peterson--she admitted she didn't want to do the debate until she found out Peterson would argue the other side.

Trigger warning: Dyson's windbaggery is in typical form.

[video=youtube_share;GxYimeaoea0]http://youtu.be/GxYimeaoea0[/video]

 

[jamil]

Hahahahahahahaha.....

Oh. Idunno. How many non-heteronormative people were invited? Maybe the Royals are trans-phobic. Maybe they're really horrible uppity people who think you're all freaks.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why ISJ exists:
Border patrol agent stops women because they were speaking Spanish.

“Ma’am, the reason I asked you for your ID is because I came in here, and I saw that you guys are speaking Spanish, which is very unheard of up here,”

[video=youtube;ddes0_H_BVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=ddes0_H_BVw[/video]

 

[KLB]

Why ISJ exists:
Border patrol agent stops women because they were speaking Spanish.

[video=youtube;ddes0_H_BVw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=49&v=ddes0_H_BVw[/video]

Your examples really don't explain anything. I don't know anyone that thinks there is no prejudice, discrimination, or profiling. Showing examples of such, does not explain the nonsense that is ISJ.

Please explain how this causes:
People to attack a young woman who poses a picture of herself with an animal she has killed while hunting.
Explains wanting to shutdown a public speaker whose views you may not agree with.
Or any of the other truly inane examples.

I think inane is an even more appropriate word than insane for this nonsense.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Your examples really don't explain anything. I don't know anyone that thinks there is no prejudice, discrimination, or profiling. Showing examples of such, does not explain the nonsense that is ISJ.

Please explain how this causes:
People to attack a young woman who poses a picture of herself with an animal she has killed while hunting.
Explains wanting to shutdown a public speaker whose views you may not agree with.
Or any of the other truly inane examples.

I think inane is an even more appropriate word than insane for this nonsense.

Insane social justice, at least according to my belief, occurs when people see instances like the one above, and assume that they are widespread. With that assumption, they become mobilized, seeking social justice for the particular group. "Justice," of course, in these instances assumes that there is a victim of "injustice."

The examples you listed aren't social justice, but activism, which can be for a variety of reasons, and sometimes they overlap. But taken according to the definition of "social justice" the clip I posted, certainly fits the narrative better than the ones you listed.

A few days ago, and somewhat related to the Spanish speaking "thing," I posted a video about the racist lawyer ranting about employees at a restaurant speaking Spanish rather than English. Again, I noted "why SJW exists." Well to follow up on that, there WAS an insane social justice response.... someone started a GoFundMe Acct, the booked a Mariachi Band, and protested outside of the lawyer's offices:

[video=youtube;pR_zgBY5Aws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_zgBY5Aws[/video]

In my opinion, that's a bit over the top, but whatever. This thread IS about Insane Social Justice, after all. However, pretty much every instance, besides my own, concerns instances of it occurring absent the REASON it occurs. Those looking on outside, and who simply want to have their pre-conceived notions reinforced don't want to consider the reasons. I think they should.

 

[jamil]

Your examples really don't explain anything. I don't know anyone that thinks there is no prejudice, discrimination, or profiling. Or any of the other truly inane examples.

I think inane is an even more appropriate word than insane for this nonsense.

Inane due to insane self-righteousness. Not caused by the inanely right-wing, though certainly fueled by it. But. Delusion can be fed by anything, like imagined Nazis. Or as simple as assuming all contextual uses of a word are evil, so therefore its use should be banned, and users of the word should be punished. Regardless of context. Or, to assume society should bear any cost to make everyone’s outcome equal. THAT’s not caused by prejudice or profiling.

If you think it is, then maybe you think that, what we call political correctness, you call progress. PC isn’t really progressive. It’s regressive, back to human instinctual tribalism. If you think it’s progressive...Stop it. It’s just another form of prejudice. It’s just another justification to hate.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Anyone catch the Monk debate on political correctness? The proposition they were debating was the statement, "Be it resolved that what you call political correctness, I call progress..."

The debaters were Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg for the "pro" side; Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry for the "con" side. 2 hours long, so something to listen to if you have several guns to clean or whatnot.

My thoughts on it: It wasn't Peterson's finest performance. He allowed himself to get rattled by race baiting Michael Dyson's racist comments. He just couldn't let it go. But in the end I think people realize that Dyson's remarks proved Peterson's point about group politics. Dyson never answered Peterson's points and counterpoints other than to call him a "mean mad white man". Probably not the most brilliant way to respond to Peterson's accusations. Apparently Dyson thought his oddly placed big words would impress the audience.

The polling after the debate showed 92% thought the Peterson and Fry won. A pretty resounding defeat. Some other stats, before the debate ~36% of the audience favored the pro side and 64% favored the con. After the debate ~6% changed their minds to the con side so 30/70 at the end of the debate. Polling also showed that neither Dyson nor Goldberg ever broke 10% on best points made.

Dyson made it about what Peterson said the left makes it about, therefore demonstrating the truthfulness of Peterson's point. Goldberg tried and failed to fashion herself a moderate. She wanted to make it a vendetta against Peterson--she admitted she didn't want to do the debate until she found out Peterson would argue the other side.

Trigger warning: Dyson's windbaggery is in typical form.

I liked how Dyson started his "Mean, mad, white man" diatribe by telling Peterson that he was getting ready to precisely describe racism, and then he proceeded to spill out his word-salad of vague generalities.

In my experience, when a person (or people) insist on only using general language to describe what they insist is a specific problem, that usually means that: a.) They can think of no specific examples to prove their point. AND: b.) By requiring everyone to consider their vague argument as valid, they are requiring everyone to put THEM in the position to judge any and all counter-positions.

 

[jamil]

OT: Feedback on ingo-responsive-rc2 style

I'm just putting this here as a reminder to post this in the feedback thread. Can't really take the time now to find that thread.

With the ingunowners-responsive-rc2 style, the quoted video images are bleeding outside the boundaries of the quote container. It doesn't do that with the standard ingunowners style. Also, I like the white background for the text editor, but it doesn't word-wrap.

 

[jamil]

Insane social justice, at least according to my belief, occurs when people see instances like the one above, and assume that they are widespread. With that assumption, they become mobilized, seeking social justice for the particular group. "Justice," of course, in these instances assumes that there is a victim of "injustice."

The examples you listed aren't social justice, but activism, which can be for a variety of reasons, and sometimes they overlap. But taken according to the definition of "social justice" the clip I posted, certainly fits the narrative better than the ones you listed.

A few days ago, and somewhat related to the Spanish speaking "thing," I posted a video about the racist lawyer ranting about employees at a restaurant speaking Spanish rather than English. Again, I noted "why SJW exists." Well to follow up on that, there WAS an insane social justice response.... someone started a GoFundMe Acct, the booked a Mariachi Band, and protested outside of the lawyer's offices:

In my opinion, that's a bit over the top, but whatever. This thread IS about Insane Social Justice, after all. However, pretty much every instance, besides my own, concerns instances of it occurring absent the REASON it occurs. Those looking on outside, and who simply want to have their pre-conceived notions reinforced don't want to consider the reasons. I think they should.

Since I started the thread, and I named it, I get to define what insane social justice is. And it's necessary that I do so when I say something is insane social justice, you know what I'm saying. Because I think you're misapplying it.

I don't think you're getting all the way to the bottom of it. Maybe its depth is beyond us, but we can certainly get deeper than what you did. ISJ occurs because of indoctrination. It's at least as deep as that. It's not just activism. There are real social injustices, and legitimate activism is one way to help bring about change to correct real injustices. MLK was an activist, and though I don't agree with his Marxist side, his activism helped bring about a needed societal change.

The spat between the dude who wants people to speak only HIS language, and the people who brought out the "Latin Party", is just a tribal spat. I wouldn't say either side is insane, though they both are carrying things out too far. But THAT's not insane social justice.

Requiring equal outcomes, to the harm of the majority, is inane to the point of insane. Calling everyone to the right of you "literally Hitler" is inane to the point of insane. "Spreading the word to end the r-word" is inane to the point of insane. Claiming that everything in the West is based on the power hierarchy of white males, and that the only reason white males reject the ideas of "progressivism", is because they don't want to share their power, is inane to the point of insane.

Insane social justice is the actions and delusions of an extreme ideological mindset based on postmodernism. It's not caused by extremes on the right. Though, right-wing extremism may be a precursor to indoctrination for some, and it may fuel the beliefs of people already indoctrinated. But insane social justice warriors don't make safe spaces because of "Nazis". They make safe spaces because the free exchange of ideas are dangerous to ideology, because it exposes where they're wrong.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since I started the thread, and I named it, I get to define what insane social justice is. And it's necessary that I do so when I say something is insane social justice, you know what I'm saying. Because I think you're misapplying it.

I don't think you're getting all the way to the bottom of it. Maybe its depth is beyond us, but we can certainly get deeper than what you did. ISJ occurs because of indoctrination. It's at least as deep as that. It's not just activism. There are real social injustices, and legitimate activism is one way to help bring about change to correct real injustices. MLK was an activist, and though I don't agree with his Marxist side, his activism helped bring about a needed societal change.

The spat between the dude who wants people to speak only HIS language, and the people who brought out the "Latin Party", is just a tribal spat. I wouldn't say either side is insane, though they both are carrying things out too far. But THAT's not insane social justice.

Requiring equal outcomes, to the harm of the majority, is inane to the point of insane. Calling everyone to the right of you "literally Hitler" is inane to the point of insane. "Spreading the word to end the r-word" is inane to the point of insane. Claiming that everything in the West is based on the power hierarchy of white males, and that the only reason white males reject the ideas of "progressivism", is because they don't want to share their power, is inane to the point of insane.

Insane social justice is the actions and delusions of an extreme ideological mindset based on postmodernism. It's not caused by extremes on the right. Though, right-wing extremism may be a precursor to indoctrination for some, and it may fuel the beliefs of people already indoctrinated. But insane social justice warriors don't make safe spaces because of "Nazis". They make safe spaces because the free exchange of ideas are dangerous to ideology, because it exposes where they're wrong.

Fair enough.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sometimes it really is difficult to determine what's real and what's parody.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Since I started the thread, and I named it, I get to define what insane social justice is.

Fair enough.

To be fair... there are things Kut has brought up that I would have probably posted here on my own.

The Jamil/Kutnupe dynamic seems to get in the way of our usual ****posting.

I say this as the adoptive father of this thread... proof that two men can raise a child in a somewhat healthy environment.