Had a dinner with an SJW (did not know beforehand). What the hell? Questions at the end.

[kentonio]

Black people we're terrorised to keep them from having hope to one day be treated as equals. That is not anything like the case with gender inequality.

Err, that's EXACTLY the same as gender inequality.

In some tragic cases women are terrorised as such, but it affects those women as individuals, not collectively. Women ARE treated as equals. Actually they receive much more protection from society and the government than men do. The argument here is whether or not they should receive even MORE protection. Black men were not given MORE protection than whites. They were given LESS!

Women were given more protection by the state because for centuries they had received pretty much ZERO protection and as a result they were being beaten at home in staggeringly huge numbers. After lifetimes of being told that if their husbands beat the **** out of them that was just fine and dandy in the eyes of the law, it required serious solutions to combat it. Even now after years of those increased protections, women still account for 85% of domestic violence cases. Or as HP put it..

The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan and Iraq between 2001 and 2012 was 6,488. The number of American women who were murdered by current or ex male partners during that time was 11,766. That’s nearly double the amount of casualties lost during war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/domestic-violence-statistics_n_5959776.html

Perhaps when large numbers of men stop beating the **** out of or killing their wives and girlfriends, it won't be necessary to protect them so much.

You miss the point completely. Women are not taught how to act, period. I mean you could say that girls are taught such and such by their parents or teachers, but you will never see any organized campaign like that to teach girls anything except crap like stand up to symbols of male masculinity.

Probably because women don't have a terrible track record of commiting violence and other extremely serious social problems. What exactly is it you think women should be taught? What are they doing in large numbers that you find worrying?

[Kidlicious]

I'm just not going to argue with a feminist.

[Ming]

Typical Kid.... anytime somebody points out that women are getting beat up by their cowardly masculine husbands and boy friends, they must be horrible feminists.
Only Kid can stand up for cowards and whine about how unfair men are treated.

[Dry]

Here is the video I was refering to in my previous post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPAfS8-wm8g

[Kidlicious]

Here is the video I was refering to in my previous post https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPAfS8-wm8g

Good video. It also must be suitable for children since it is viewable in restricted mode.

[Dinner]

Just laugh, tell her she is ignorant, then walk out.

[Pekka]

Dry: Thanks, actually familiar with Prof. Peterson. And here's the problem with him (and not at all HIS problem or to be blamed on him): many guys, especially alt right folk will hijack HIS stuff to support their misogynist world, just like SJWs have stolen original authors to support theirs. This is dangerous, where actually intelligent people are used to support someone else's agenda, intellectualising it. Kind of like what happened with Nietzsche (his stuff was hijacked by nazis, whereas he had very little sympathy for even nationalism of any kind). I suspect this is one of the main reasons most philosophers do not want to have an autobiography open to later misinterpretations.

Peterson is obviously very intelligent, patient, and just overall unique mind and person. I think he nails it with SJWs very well. Especially the madness of using, forcing and putting into a law the use of x amount of gender pronouns. This whole "I am special" and self-victimisation culture is madness. While I do sympathise with individuals of difficulties defining their own gender identity, some of them in flux, and especially any maltreatment of them as humans, at the same time the world cannot be expected to address people by the way they feel. That is BS. Unlike Prof. Peterson, if someone said they were, say, Z. I will address them by that, should it remain somewhat constant and I deal with Z a lot. Outside that? Can't be bothered.

This is weird, as in my native language, we have no gender pronouns. No he, no she. We have ma'am and miss, sir and so forth, but they are usually never uttered, unless in a fancy thing. So this pronoun thing does not really apply to my life anyway, as we don't have them. Considering other languages, I find it extremely strange. Why is it SO important? I'd focus the energy on equal rights for all people, including Z and no one left out. Not so sure if we have a God given right to be addressed the way we feel like. Or want to be, in case we were born to the wrong gender. It is NOT impolite or wrong to assume that a person can be addressed as a she if she looks like a woman. Otherwise, we would lose any kind of reasonable method to even start connecting. This whole pronoun thing is not really interesting to me, I see it as madness in action and should not be taken too seriously (unless you're living in Canada).

If everyone thinks there's a problem, it should be defined. So what is the problem? Clearly, patriarchy is a problem. That should be combatted systematically. What is the goal for SJWs? It clearly is not equal society.

I read an interview today about a local feminist comic, who had a point. She said she jokes a lot about white males because they are the oppressors, but never about any minorities, as they are already oppressed and should not be targeted for jokes. Now, you could choose that comedy should not have _any_ limits. But if you want one limit, and that is targeting one group especially, well... and stating it's funny, while any other group cannot be funny. I'd say that has nothing to do with feminism. I can see that you can joke about white males, and that they are oppressors. Sure. But if you say that is funny, whereas the same jokes no other groups are racists and therefore not funny... I question the logic. Well, it is her choice, but I'd probably never see her. I'd like to see equally offending jokes across the board. The above logic implies that only white males can be racist, sexist, oppressing, etc. That statement, in my mind, is all of the previous. Maybe I don't identify myself as an oppressive individual. It makes 0 sense, say if I went there and said, my gender identity is in flux, and is Z for that night only, then who am I? Also, is it OK for me to take a crap on... say... women? If I identify myself as black Z, then why would a white feminist female, clearly more large in numbers and less oppressed than I'd be, be offended? In fact, should it not be me, if she did not address my Zness correctly? It gets really confusing and fast, if you go down the rabbit hole.

And so the egalitarians, or more moderate feminists should be on the look out, as their good stuff is being hijacked. Just worried that all the good stuff like Prof. Peterson will be stolen by sexists idiots, while Foucault has already been stolen by SJWs, and so soon we will start to lose all the things that is actually good. I've no idea what the altar is for this sacrifice? Political correctness? Liberalism? Both? Neither? Of course the examples are ridiculous, but also in line with the SJWs.

edit: the point with the comic: to think that white males should be made fun of is totally OK IMO. To think that no one else cannot take a joke is racist. As if minorities would be different, with less intelligence, sense of humor, and child like. I think this kind of thinking shows projection of ones own prejudice, combined with misandry. Naturally there are jokes that could be considered too rough, but I believe we have a sense of those limits. Besides, when it comes to comedy, yes, it should be allowed to "fight" the power as means for civilised criticism. And yes, white males should be able to take it. But to think no one else cannot take it and should never be subjected to it is admitting they're going in for the attack, and not necessarily laughs. It makes me question why someone has chosen such a trajectory. Sure, it can be funny. But perhaps check your own privilege as well, and to think white females cannot take a joke is damned offensive. Women are just as smart, and by scoping it out purposefully is sexist and against the original idea of women being equal.

[giblets]

I'm just not going to argue with a feminist.

Of course not, you'd lose horribly.

[Kidlicious]

Of course not, you'd lose horribly.

I also lose horribly everytime I argue with mental retards

[Aeson]

It's natural for any reactive movement to have an overcorrection or combative element even when the movement is not combative in and of itself. I think the worry about, and even use of the term "SJW" as a pejorative is likely counterproductive. Extremists gain control and standing within movements due to a combative atmosphere.

Sure, there are movements that have to be opposed because the are horrible ... White Nationalists for instance ... but Women's Rights and LGBT Rights are good and necessary movements. It would be better to just focus on the good aspects of those movements and ignore whatever fringe stuff that pops up. What percentage of your life is actually affected in any meaningful way by someone wanting to be addressed as a specific pronoun? For me it is so far 0% outside the occasional story I read online... which are invariably posted by those with a negative views on it.

We (as a society in general) of course do the very worst thing by trying to sensationalize the fringes and tie it on the movements as a whole while resisting and patronizing the just changes the movements are after. We force it to be combative.

[Kidlicious]

Dry: Thanks, actually familiar with Prof. Peterson. And here's the problem with him (and not at all HIS problem or to be blamed on him): many guys, especially alt right folk will hijack HIS stuff to support their misogynist world, just like SJWs have stolen original authors to support theirs. This is dangerous, where actually intelligent people are used to support someone else's agenda, intellectualising it. Kind of like what happened with Nietzsche (his stuff was hijacked by nazis, whereas he had very little sympathy for even nationalism of any kind). I suspect this is one of the main reasons most philosophers do not want to have an autobiography open to later misinterpretations.

Peterson is obviously very intelligent, patient, and just overall unique mind and person. I think he nails it with SJWs very well. Especially the madness of using, forcing and putting into a law the use of x amount of gender pronouns. This whole "I am special" and self-victimisation culture is madness. While I do sympathise with individuals of difficulties defining their own gender identity, some of them in flux, and especially any maltreatment of them as humans, at the same time the world cannot be expected to address people by the way they feel. That is BS. Unlike Prof. Peterson, if someone said they were, say, Z. I will address them by that, should it remain somewhat constant and I deal with Z a lot. Outside that? Can't be bothered.

This is weird, as in my native language, we have no gender pronouns. No he, no she. We have ma'am and miss, sir and so forth, but they are usually never uttered, unless in a fancy thing. So this pronoun thing does not really apply to my life anyway, as we don't have them. Considering other languages, I find it extremely strange. Why is it SO important? I'd focus the energy on equal rights for all people, including Z and no one left out. Not so sure if we have a God given right to be addressed the way we feel like. Or want to be, in case we were born to the wrong gender. It is NOT impolite or wrong to assume that a person can be addressed as a she if she looks like a woman. Otherwise, we would lose any kind of reasonable method to even start connecting. This whole pronoun thing is not really interesting to me, I see it as madness in action and should not be taken too seriously (unless you're living in Canada).

If everyone thinks there's a problem, it should be defined. So what is the problem? Clearly, patriarchy is a problem. That should be combatted systematically. What is the goal for SJWs? It clearly is not equal society.

I read an interview today about a local feminist comic, who had a point. She said she jokes a lot about white males because they are the oppressors, but never about any minorities, as they are already oppressed and should not be targeted for jokes. Now, you could choose that comedy should not have _any_ limits. But if you want one limit, and that is targeting one group especially, well... and stating it's funny, while any other group cannot be funny. I'd say that has nothing to do with feminism. I can see that you can joke about white males, and that they are oppressors. Sure. But if you say that is funny, whereas the same jokes no other groups are racists and therefore not funny... I question the logic. Well, it is her choice, but I'd probably never see her. I'd like to see equally offending jokes across the board. The above logic implies that only white males can be racist, sexist, oppressing, etc. That statement, in my mind, is all of the previous. Maybe I don't identify myself as an oppressive individual. It makes 0 sense, say if I went there and said, my gender identity is in flux, and is Z for that night only, then who am I? Also, is it OK for me to take a crap on... say... women? If I identify myself as black Z, then why would a white feminist female, clearly more large in numbers and less oppressed than I'd be, be offended? In fact, should it not be me, if she did not address my Zness correctly? It gets really confusing and fast, if you go down the rabbit hole.

And so the egalitarians, or more moderate feminists should be on the look out, as their good stuff is being hijacked. Just worried that all the good stuff like Prof. Peterson will be stolen by sexists idiots, while Foucault has already been stolen by SJWs, and so soon we will start to lose all the things that is actually good. I've no idea what the altar is for this sacrifice? Political correctness? Liberalism? Both? Neither? Of course the examples are ridiculous, but also in line with the SJWs.

edit: the point with the comic: to think that white males should be made fun of is totally OK IMO. To think that no one else cannot take a joke is racist. As if minorities would be different, with less intelligence, sense of humor, and child like. I think this kind of thinking shows projection of ones own prejudice, combined with misandry. Naturally there are jokes that could be considered too rough, but I believe we have a sense of those limits. Besides, when it comes to comedy, yes, it should be allowed to "fight" the power as means for civilised criticism. And yes, white males should be able to take it. But to think no one else cannot take it and should never be subjected to it is admitting they're going in for the attack, and not necessarily laughs. It makes me question why someone has chosen such a trajectory. Sure, it can be funny. But perhaps check your own privilege as well, and to think white females cannot take a joke is damned offensive. Women are just as smart, and by scoping it out purposefully is sexist and against the original idea of women being equal.

A feminist telling jokes about men is about as funny as a Nazi telling a joke about Jews. Of course it might be funny coming from a non-feminist.

[Kidlicious]

It's natural for any reactive movement to have an overcorrection or combative element even when the movement is not combative in and of itself. I think the worry about, and even use of the term "SJW" as a pejorative is likely counterproductive. Extremists gain control and standing within movements due to a combative atmosphere.

Sure, there are movements that have to be opposed because the are horrible ... White Nationalists for instance ... but Women's Rights and LGBT Rights are good and necessary movements. It would be better to just focus on the good aspects of those movements and ignore whatever fringe stuff that pops up. What percentage of your life is actually affected in any meaningful way by someone wanting to be addressed as a specific pronoun? For me it is so far 0% outside the occasional story I read online... which are invariably posted by those with a negative views on it.

We (as a society in general) of course do the very worst thing by trying to sensationalize the fringes and tie it on the movements as a whole while resisting and patronizing the just changes the movements are after. We force it to be combative.

You're telling those who aren't part of your movement not to do exactly what you do, and the SJWs do (yes I include you in that group). It's your movement which focuses on the worst individuals on the right (in America that's traditionalist mostly) and then you argue over and over that the entire society is like that. To use an example anyone who votes for a republican MUST be a racist. Anyone who criticizes feminists MUST hate women. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary must be sexist.

And its merely your opinion that supporting feminists and not criticizing them is good and will lead to good. That is false. The radicals lead the movement. The movement just gets more and more radical.

[Kidlicious]

Why would a moderate be a feminist,/SJW? They wouldn't.

[Aeson]

You're telling those who aren't part of your movement not to do exactly what you do, and the SJWs do (yes I include you in that group). It's your movement which focuses on the worst individuals on the right (in America that's traditionalist mostly) and then you argue over and over that the entire society is like that. To use an example anyone who votes for a republican MUST be a racist. Anyone who criticizes feminists MUST hate women. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary must be sexist.

And its merely your opinion that supporting feminists and not criticizing them is good and will lead to good. That is false. The radicals lead the movement. The movement just gets more and more radical.

You are racist and misogynistic. So I call you those things. I do not call most Republicans those things.

I didn't vote for Hillary, and am on record here several times calling her a terrible candidate.

You are so easily triggered and quite obviously delusional.

[Aeson]

Why would a moderate be a feminist,/SJW? They wouldn't.

See, you conflate feminism and your pejorative label. It's exactly the problem I was referring to.

By attacking feminism as if it was already radicalized, you remove incentive to not radicalize. Most feminists or people who support Women's Rights are not radicals. But more are radicals than would be if society as a whole could just accept equality rather than fight against it.