So anybody who opposes forced discrimination, being kicked off campus due to your skin color, censorship of free speech, and violent intimidation is a right-winger? Got it.
Elements have, but over all they haven’t. They hate Obama and Clinton. Some embrace Sanders, others shun him. There is a lot in common with Trump. Many are anti-globalization, and isolationists. Damn near all of them are. So with that, I have to disagree.
I hate this SJW moniker like its a bad thing. Both sides are getting a little too sensitive. Both sides are suffering from, what’s the term the kids use now? Oh, Butthurt. The PC culture had its heart in the right place and was, for a time, well meaning. But, it can get taken too far. The outrage over Bill Maher’s bad choice of words, and Kathy Griffin’s poor choice of protest.
Oh, stop with the victim rage. You should wear that tag with pride.
Forced discrimination -based on skin color, violent intimidation -based on skin color, censorship, being kicked of campus due to skin color has been, in one form or the other, an American tradition since its founding.
JB: so you’re a Conservative, in favour of preserving fine old American traditions?
MLK was fighting for social justice in a time of deep injustice; there was actually institutional racism (of course, little did he realize that his dream would never truly be fulfilled as many people self-seggregate, hence this thread topic).
SJWs are mockingly called so because they wish it was the early 1960s all over again, but it’s not. They’re like Don Quixote, fighting windmills that they see as these monstrous ogres of white, patriarchal supremacy, when in fact, they’re mostly just a bunch of weedy kids who were’t invited to prom.
Really? You think I am conservative? I made an ad-hoc attack against the right, and you somehow think I am conservative?
I never said I agree’d with the protesters. Their rage is correct, just misguided. I am on the side of the professor, actually. And, I agree with the protesters, to a point. Advancements and hirings should be based on merit, and not on skin color or sex or sexual preference or identity.
But, alas, it often is.
All this sounds like an excuse to justify gender inequality, and the maternal talk is just exhausting. The stigma of the father being the lesser parent and housewives choose to stay at home because they like it leaves me speechless. I’m so done.
Of all the women who have come and gone in my life, the most important thing to every single one of them was their children; nothing else even came close. That includes one or two who had high-profile careers. Are you going to criticize them for being gender traitors, or failing to live up to their potential? [/quote]
I know plenty of women who have passed the age of conception and have never thought of having children, and I’m probably like half your age. I guess you just know more moms. Most of them are college professors at universities, and why do you think that is? Because they know kids would be the murderer to their career, whereas the father could usually walk off easily.
MLK was nowhere near an SJW, he was actually fighting for something. SJWs don’t actually do anything productive. They just advance Marxism under the guise of fighting for social justice.
“whitewing”? Please. I know a good deal of Hispanics who don’t vote progressive. Not to mention first generation Vietnamese (who are real refugees) that cannot stand the Democrats because as one guy told me, the Democrats (progressives) are too much like communists. Since he fled from the commies as a boat person, I assume he knows more about commies than both of us.
Sounds like you want to keep it.
So … you don’t have any rational argument to justify your position, then? I can sum up mine in a paragraph or two. You should be able to do your elevator pitch too if you think it’s important - preferably using ordinary words instead of jargon from sociology textbooks.
[quote]I know plenty of women who have passed the age of conception and have never thought of having children, and I’m probably like half your age. I guess you just know more moms. Most of them are college professors at universities, and why do you think that is? Because they know kids would be the murderer to their career, whereas the father could usually walk off easily.
And your point is? Again, you seem to be implying that “career” is the be-all and end-all of existence. As one wag once remarked, nobody ever says on their deathbed: “I wish I’d spent more time at work”. You appear not to have thought through the philosophical implications of your position.
Most women eventually end up as moms, because they want to. Most men end up as fathers, because they want to. Unless you’re a fan of the Human Extinction Project, that’s probably just as well. True enough, some fathers bugger off after their biological role is done. Still, 60%+ stick around to see their kids grow up (at least, as far as Society allows them to). Why do you reckon that is?
OK, you’re young, so you don’t have the grim reaper drumming his fingers on the armchair next to you saying: so, are you done yet? You probably think you’ll live forever, and perchance change the world while you’re doing it. Some things about the world just don’t need changing, is all. As someone else remarked, you’re tilting at windmills.
Here’s another of my favourite sayings: youth is wasted on the young. You have all that energy and drive, and you choose to fritter it away on things that simply don’t matter.
[quote]Advancements and hirings should be based on merit, and not on skin color or sex or sexual preference or identity.
But, alas, it often is.[/quote]
It’s a bit more complicated than that. There is some actual research on the subject, which I hope you’ll agree trumps PC speculation. It works something like this:
The hiring manager hires people he likes. He decides whether he likes people in the first 30-60 seconds of the interview. If he’s an out-and-out racist, he will dislike people who don’t have the same skin colour as him. However, such people rarely make it to management positions because they tend to make poor judgements in general terms.
In cases where there is a prolonged acquaintance - say, an internal promotion - whatever prejudices the manager holds towards the candidate’s group (black people, white people, gays, whatever) will have been modulated by his experience of that particular individual. In other words, he will make the judgement solely or mostly on merit.
Funnily enough, personal relationships work in much the same way.
I’d also say that if someone promoted me simply because my skin colour makes me a ‘disadvantaged minority’ - which technically it does - I’d be deeply offended. I don’t ever want favours from the privileged (whoever they are) because they think my “race” requires a leg-up, nor do I want slow-witted college students fighting for the “rights” that they imagine I do not have.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
I have a hard time imagining the person who said this would be arguing for “positive discrimination” or a no-whites-on-campus day. That sounds more like the principles his separate-but-equal and whites-only opponents stood for.
Why? Do you really think that males and females are able to do all the same things with the same level of competence? There are countless studies that clearly show how males are on average better in some things and females are better in others, either from a physical or attitudinal point of view. Expecting equality is nonsense because people are not made with equality in mind.
Forcing equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, is at the base of some of the worst social and economical doctrines of the last two centuries.
Oh, like in social studies, where females are the vast majority? Or nurses? Or any of the other jobs where females are more represented than men? Do you chose to ignore those because they don’t fit your “mah equality” narrative? Or do you expect women to be fired/not hired in favor of men?
I see a fair bit of double standards in your reasoning, both from a moral and from a logical point of view. You may want to make sure that what you write is a reasonable argument, not a bunch of contradicting things with no connection to reality that simply make you feel better with yourself.
He did argue for it, though I don’t recall exactly what term he used. He basically said it should be a temporary measure to help the oppressed “catch up”, iirc.
Why on earth would you think that? They haven’t yet stopped issuing us political dissidents passports… yet.
I’ve seen your posts here. I am very surprised you don’t consider yourselves a right winger.
It’s nothing to be ashamed of. We meet for bubble tea on tuesdays and plot how to keep minorities down.
Of course. That is clearly superior to the alternative! That’s how we plan to raise children, 100%.
You are fluent in english. I just assumed that’s where you picked it up.
The identity politics wars are also affecting labels like “left” and “right”, not that they were ever very solid anyway.
I usually just watch.
After America elected its first African-American president and some took that as an opportunity to amp up their demands for reparations because their ancestors were slaves my typical response was that it could have been worse. Their ancestors might not have been slaves, in which case they would be living in Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau or Mali today rather than America.
Hey, that’s nothing. They could have been Anglo-Saxons who got slaughtered by Vikings or Normans and had no descendants at all!
I’m pretty liberal on a lot of social issues, so I’m probably closer to libertarian, but they have some pretty mushy ideas too, so…
Are you arguing that because the name SJW invokes a noble idea (fighting for social justice) that it can’t possibly be a bad thing?
That’s not the way nomenclature works. Almost no one deliberately coins a negative sounding name for their own ideology. So even flowery turns of phrase like “national socialism” and “peoples republic” can and will be considered ‘bad things’.