When did you hit peak SJW and why? - Get off the woke train and see through the bullshit that is identity politics!

Bad Take Crucifier

It was the most unholy thing I had ever seen
kiwifarms.net
Well spoken, and this is something that was a mind opener for me as well. I'm a left winger or maybe post-leftist who somehow actually volunteers with a left wing group. Youre absolutely right that this is increadibly uncommon. Its really the christians who actually go to soup kitchens, organize food drives, pool money together to get a new rec hall, etc. If the left was 1/10th as good as that, I could accept some of the more absurd positions, but all the left ever seems to do is virtue signal.

Most leftists think charity and volunteering are morally disgusting because "We shouldn't be forced to go that route." But somehow, in the perfect leftist commune world, people are going to volunteer everything, anyway. (lol except for the gulags.) It's so fucking schizophrenic.
 

Sperghetti

#waxmymeatballs
kiwifarms.net
If you happen to be a fictional character with a vagina, and you solve your problems by pulling a pistol and shooting those problems into nonexistence, guess what? You’re actually a man. That part could not possibly be written for a woman. No woman could ever relate to a female character in a story who chomps cigars and kills people. Women are soft, meek, demure, and non-violent. Any time a woman is stoic, confident, macho, or aggressive, she’s just performing masculinity and reinforcing the superiority of manhood.

This is the crux of Anita Sarkeesian’s entire argument. It’s the basis of her entire thesis.

I want you to imagine if Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan said “I don’t like that new Laura Crawft movie. What is it again? Tomb Raider? There’s too much gunplay in it, and really, is showing women shooting people a good... is that a good role model for our daughters? Women belong in the home. Women are caretakers and shouldn’t be doing that violent stuff.”

Anita Sarkeesian’s thesis is page after page of that same exact sentiment, just coming from a woman who is ostensibly feminist.
I wish we could still hand out winner ratings here. 🏅

I have always hated the brand of feminism that Sarkeesian and her ilk promote because it is still the same old “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” spiel, just from people who insist that Venus is superior so they get a pass for being “feminist”. They still believe that female characters need to fit the stereotype of being emotionally labile creatures who will bawl their eyes out while watching Lifetime movies and eating a gallon of Rocky Road when they're on their period, because otherwise they're just a "man with boobs". (And I’d hazard to guess that it’s because they’re the type of women who enjoy hiding behind their gender whenever they’re expected to act like adults.)

It's just like the troon trend promoting strict adherence to the same old gender roles, but claiming it's progressive because instead of making fun of boys who play with dolls, they now encourage them to become girls instead.

I've said it before:

The left has Schrödinger's Negro who is simultaneously capable of overcoming any mighty obstacle while also being totally helpless.

Schrödinger's Mexican, Schrödinger's Indian, Schrödinger's Tranny, Schrödinger's Handicapable Person, Schrödinger's Autist, Schrödinger's Fag, Schrödinger's Woman, and so forth also exist but to a lesser degree.
This parallels something that's common with cults where the evil force they're opposing is simultaneously a grave danger to the wellbeing of the world, and also subject to defeat by a couple hundred weirdos performing rituals that some guy taught them, and giving said guy more money.

>Yes, but Meghan Markles lived experience is that it was because of his skin color

Fucking lived experience shit. Its the same equivalent as an evangelical just resorting to belief in the 90s, just now its the left doing this.
I'd be curious to know if "lived experience" still counts if the person you're talking to is delusional or prone to hallucinations.
 

Xerxes IX

New cat, who this?
kiwifarms.net
Everyone has been brainwashed by the media and by their college professors to only give a fuck about domestic issues, and only frivolous domestic issues. The focus is always on negative rights that cost the corpos nothing. Any time people start discussing better wages, the unthinkable burden that educational debt has placed on an entire generation
Fuck colleges. They teach people all these far left ideas while on the other hand, coming up with bullshit reasons to increase tuition and promoting the idea that every kid fresh out of high school needs to go to college and get burdened with student debt for increasingly diminished returns. They're part of the problem, and they always get a free pass for this.
 

The Curmudgeon

kiwifarms.net
This thread gives me so much feels! Honestly, there are times I just want to tune out politics and current events altogether. However, I'm a committed news junkie and it's often hard to resist that urge to read or watch the news. I read the news at all levels: local, state, national, and international. I always have this nagging feeling that if I do ignore the news that I'll regret not knowing what's going on. Someday, I would like to just stop sperging, and caring, about politics.

What about you guys? You ever want to tune out politics too?
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
Well spoken, and this is something that was a mind opener for me as well. I'm a left winger or maybe post-leftist who somehow actually volunteers with a left wing group. Youre absolutely right that this is increadibly uncommon. Its really the christians who actually go to soup kitchens, organize food drives, pool money together to get a new rec hall, etc. If the left was 1/10th as good as that, I could accept some of the more absurd positions, but all the left ever seems to do is virtue signal.
for years I suggested to my "liberal" friends to step up their game as the right constantly kicks their asses every day in the charity part..AND the right uses protests as a last resort. They will go to city council meetings, talk to their elected officals and work within the system more often than not.

The left just stands outside and nags everyone to death.

This thread gives me so much feels! Honestly, there are times I just want to tune out politics and current events altogether. However, I'm a committed news junkie and it's often hard to resist that urge to read or watch the news. I read the news at all levels: local, state, national, and international. I always have this nagging feeling that if I do ignore the news that I'll regret not knowing what's going on. Someday, I would like to just stop sperging, and caring, about politics.

What about you guys? You ever want to tune out politics too?
I tuned out of the "news" 30 years ago. I will get tidbits from youtubers like Matt Christansen and Tim Pool. Otherwise, there is really no point in even reading a paper or watching TV at all today since everyone is pushing their agenda at everyone else. I know shit is literally going to hit the fan any day now... and I honestly don't care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RabidWombat

The Lone Marsupial of the Apocalypse
kiwifarms.net
Fuck colleges. They teach people all these far left ideas .
Someone's never heard of Christian colleges. Never heard of Old Dominion? Liberty U?

For all the talk about Commies and Marxism, I can't even recall in my own experience a single college professor who espoused the joys of either. I had ONE somewhat annoying feminist teacher, but even then, that was only in her rhetoric. She was actually pretty fair with her grading standards even if you went against her preaching.

Also, why doesn't every medical worker turn out to be a raging leftist since, as you said, medical schools are all teaching far left ideas?

Not every fucking college is Pinecrest or a liberal arts hugbox. It's a big country.
 
Last edited:

Drain Todger

Unhinged Doomsayer
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I wish we could still hand out winner ratings here. 🏅

I have always hated the brand of feminism that Sarkeesian and her ilk promote because it is still the same old “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” spiel, just from people who insist that Venus is superior so they get a pass for being “feminist”. They still believe that female characters need to fit the stereotype of being emotionally labile creatures who will bawl their eyes out while watching Lifetime movies and eating a gallon of Rocky Road when they're on their period, because otherwise they're just a "man with boobs". (And I’d hazard to guess that it’s because they’re the type of women who enjoy hiding behind their gender whenever they’re expected to act like adults.)
During a great big knock-down, drag-out argument I had with SJWs over Anita Sarkeesian about 8 years back, they insisted that Anita Sarkeesian wasn't gender-essentialist. They insisted that she was just pointing out that "male-coded behavior" is valued and "female-coded behavior" is not.

Two years later, when Mad Max: Fury Road came out, these same hypocritical SJWs got pissed with Anita Sarkeesian after it became quite clear that she really was rather gender-essentialist:

tumblr_inline_noo3cddgvO1sdol21_540.png

"It's not feminist! See? See? The camera is ogling women like a man! Sexism is more subtle and pervasive than a guy in a mask whining about losing his property! Women with guns are actually men! I've never owned a gun, I would never pick up a gun and hurt someone with it, so why do you want me to empathize with a fictional woman who does? The role must have been written for a man, but cast female."

After I went to all the effort to point out how stupid her critiques are, SJWs pilloried me for it, accusing me of being sexist, and so forth. The usual treatment that her critics got. But when it became clear that Anita really did believe in prioritizing depictions of women as pacifists rather than fighters, SJWs eventually all but admitted that I was right all along.

So, where did she get it? To understand Anita Sarkeesian's ideology, you need to read up on Carol Gilligan and the so-called Ethics of Care.


Carol Gilligan is associate professor of education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her 1982 book, In a Different Voice, presents a theory of moral development which claims that women tend to think and speak in a different way than men when they confront ethical dilemmas. Gilligan contrasts a feminine ethic of care with a masculine ethic of justice. She believes that these gender differences in moral perspective are due to contrasting images of self.

GENDER DIFFERENCES MEN WHO ARE FAIR, WOMEN WHO CARE

For centuries, ethical theorists have talked about two great moral imperatives; justice and love. The second term has been interchanged with the concepts of goodness, beneficence, and utility, Gilligan chooses the word care to identify her different voice because she believes it points to a “responsibility to discover and alleviate the real and recognizable trouble of the world.” She says that under an ethic of justice, men judge themselves guilty if they do something wrong. Under an ethic of care, women who allow others to feel pain hold themselves responsible for not doing something to prevent or alleviate the hurt. People who merely browse through Gilligan’s book might conclude that she takes a “we versus they” approach to differences between the sexes. Almost all of the evidence she presents is drawn from the experiences of women. Yet, Gilligan was careful not to title her book “In a Woman’s Voice” because she realizes that there are women who view moral questions in terms of justice, duty, and rights. There are also men who make moral decisions based on whether their actions help or harm the people involved. She merely sees two separate but noncompeting ways of thinking about moral problems. One is associated with men; the other is typical of women. Both sexes have the capacity to see ethical issues from the two perspectives, but they tend to select one focus or the other depending on how they view themselves. Ego psychologists have traditionally recognized the role of the self in determining the extent to which people base decisions on ethical considerations. Gilligan says that self-image also determines whether fairness or caring will be the basis for moral judgment.

What distinguishes an ethic of care from an ethic of justice? According to Gilligan it’s the quantity and quality of relationships. Individual rights, equality before the law, fair play, a square deal - all of these ethical goals can be pursued without personal ties to others. Justice is impersonal. But sensitivity to others, loyalty, responsibility, self-sacrifice, and peacemaking all reflect interpersonal involvement. Care comes from connection. Gilligan rejects biological explanations for the development of a given moral voice. She believes that women’s greater need for relationships is due to a distinct feminine identity formed early in life. The greater need for relationships in turn leads to the ethic of care. Gilligan supports her theory with research of children at play conducted by Northwestern University sociologist Janet Lever. Lever found that boys like games with lots of intricate rules. Disputes often arise over interpretations of the rules, but the argument doesn’t break up the game. In fact, Lever notes that some boys seem to enjoy wrangling over the rules even more than the game itself. Since rules are sacred, a cry of “That’s not fair!” is an accusation with moral force. Girls, on the other hand, play shorter and less complex games. When arguments arise, girls will usually bend the rules so no one will feel hurt. Gilligan believes that this difference carries over into adult life. Women change the rules in order to preserve relationships; men abide by the rules and see relationships as replaceable.


The ethics of care (alternatively care ethics or EoC) is a normative ethical theory that holds that moral action centers on interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue. EoC is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century.[1] While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize generalizable standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response to the individual. The distinction between the general and the individual is reflected in their different moral questions: "what is just?" versus "how to respond?".[2] Carol Gilligan, who is considered the originator of the ethics of care, criticized the application of generalized standards as "morally problematic, since it breeds moral blindness or indifference".[3]

Some assumptions of the theory are basic:
  1. Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another.
  2. Other individuals affected by the consequences of one's choices deserve consideration in proportion to their vulnerability.
  3. Situational details determine how to safeguard and promote the interests of those involved.
The more I started digging into this stuff, the more utterly revolted I became by it. It sounds so sickly-sweet on the surface. Its defense is self-contained. After all, what manner of demon would be opposed to people caring for one another?

However, if you look closer, you might see it. Implied in all of this is a sort of extremely crude collectivization of ethics and the replacement of impartial rules with favoritism.

Imagine that a loved one murders someone, but because you care about the killer more than the killed, you comfort the murderer, shelter them, and help them evade justice.

Imagine that someone loots a store, and so long as they come from a disadvantaged sociopolitical position, you find it totally acceptable. After all, rules are made to be bent, and the goods they stole made them happy and contented and fulfilled their needs.

"Care ethics" are incompatible with civilization.

If you really get into the weeds with SJW ideology, a common theme reveals itself. This was never really about fiction at all. It's about philosophy, ethics, ontology, and how people communicate their values to one another. People often react to the wokescolds as if they were a minor annoyance buzzing around in their hair, and not a large-scale cultural movement that has hollowed out our institutions and places of learning and replaced Enlightenment values with their own, crude breed of Neo-Confucianism.

You will never figure these fuckers out unless you arm yourself with a powerful rhetorical array, study what they teach, and conceive of ways to combat it. They will just keep marching through the institutions unopposed, spreading their divisive identity politics everywhere.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
Someone's never heard of Christian colleges. Never heard of Old Dominion? Liberty U?

For all the talk about Commies and Marxism, I can't even recall in my own experience a single college professor who espoused the joys of either. I had ONE somewhat annoying feminist teacher, but even then, that was only in her rhetoric. She was actually pretty fair with her grading standards even if you went against her preaching.

Also, why doesn't every medical worker turn out to be a raging leftist since, as you said, medical schools are all teaching far left ideas?

Not every fucking college is Pinecrest or a liberal arts hugbox. It's a big country.
Sorry, but most universities aside from the Christian ones (which is all three of them) are infested liberal cespeools of filth. The Universities of Alaska in Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage are over run with the hippy dippy bullshit. All the Universities in California ..well, it's fucking California. Ever hear of Evergreen State University in Washington? That is the heart of this hippy dippy bullshit. They even pushed out one teacher who dared to question the agenda.

During a great big knock-down, drag-out argument I had with SJWs over Anita Sarkeesian about 8 years back, they insisted that Anita Sarkeesian wasn't gender-essentialist. They insisted that she was just pointing out that "male-coded behavior" is valued and "female-coded behavior" is not.

Two years later, when Mad Max: Fury Road came out, these same hypocritical SJWs got pissed with Anita Sarkeesian after it became quite clear that she really was rather gender-essentialist:

View attachment 1990364
"It's not feminist! See? See? The camera is ogling women like a man! Sexism is more subtle and pervasive than a guy in a mask whining about losing his property! Women with guns are actually men! I've never owned a gun, I would never pick up a gun and hurt someone with it, so why do you want me to empathize with a fictional woman who does? The role must have been written for a man, but cast female."

After I went to all the effort to point out how stupid her critiques are, SJWs pilloried me for it, accusing me of being sexist, and so forth. The usual treatment that her critics got. But when it became clear that Anita really did believe in prioritizing depictions of women as pacifists rather than fighters, SJWs eventually all but admitted that I was right all along.

So, where did she get it? To understand Anita Sarkeesian's ideology, you need to read up on Carol Gilligan and the so-called Ethics of Care.





The more I started digging into this stuff, the more utterly revolted I became by it. It sounds so sickly-sweet on the surface. Its defense is self-contained. After all, what manner of demon would be opposed to people caring for one another?

However, if you look closer, you might see it. Implied in all of this is a sort of extremely crude collectivization of ethics and the replacement of impartial rules with favoritism.

Imagine that a loved one murders someone, but because you care about the killer more than the killed, you comfort the murderer, shelter them, and help them evade justice.

Imagine that someone loots a store, and so long as they come from a disadvantaged sociopolitical position, you find it totally acceptable. After all, rules are made to be bent, and the goods they stole made them happy and contented and fulfilled their needs.

"Care ethics" are incompatible with civilization.

If you really get into the weeds with SJW ideology, a common theme reveals itself. This was never really about fiction at all. It's about philosophy, ethics, ontology, and how people communicate their values to one another. People often react to the wokescolds as if they were a minor annoyance buzzing around in their hair, and not a large-scale cultural movement that has hollowed out our institutions and places of learning and replaced Enlightenment values with their own, crude breed of Neo-Confucianism.

You will never figure these fuckers out unless you arm yourself with a powerful rhetorical array, study what they teach, and conceive of ways to combat it. They will just keep marching through the institutions unopposed, spreading their divisive identity politics everywhere.
Mike Harlow (one of the faces of the #WalkAway movement) is a gay man who was raped about 5 or 6 years ago. Back then, he was a screaming liberal. When he told his "compasionate" and considerate" friends that he was raped, guess what every single one of their responses was? "Now you know what a woman feels like when she gets raped"

That is why they all need to be shipped off to Somolia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RabidWombat

The Lone Marsupial of the Apocalypse
kiwifarms.net
Sorry, but most universities aside from the Christian ones (which is all three of them) are infested liberal cespeools of filth. The Universities of Alaska in Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage are over run with the hippy dippy bullshit. All the Universities in California ..well, it's fucking California. Ever hear of Evergreen State University in Washington? That is the heart of this hippy dippy bullshit. They even pushed out one teacher who dared to question the agenda.
Evergreen was one of the examples I was thinking, and yes, it's a wokescold (not even liberal) trash heap. Still, there are FAR more than three Christian academies, bruh. The US is a big place.


During a great big knock-down, drag-out argument I had with SJWs over Anita Sarkeesian about 8 years back, they insisted that Anita Sarkeesian wasn't gender-essentialist. They insisted that she was just pointing out that "male-coded behavior" is valued and "female-coded behavior" is not.

Two years later, when Mad Max: Fury Road came out, these same hypocritical SJWs got pissed with Anita Sarkeesian after it became quite clear that she really was rather gender-essentialist:

View attachment 1990364
"It's not feminist! See? See? The camera is ogling women like a man! Sexism is more subtle and pervasive than a guy in a mask whining about losing his property! Women with guns are actually men! I've never owned a gun, I would never pick up a gun and hurt someone with it, so why do you want me to empathize with a fictional woman who does? The role must have been written for a man, but cast female."

After I went to all the effort to point out how stupid her critiques are, SJWs pilloried me for it, accusing me of being sexist, and so forth. The usual treatment that her critics got. But when it became clear that Anita really did believe in prioritizing depictions of women as pacifists rather than fighters, SJWs eventually all but admitted that I was right all along.

So, where did she get it? To understand Anita Sarkeesian's ideology, you need to read up on Carol Gilligan and the so-called Ethics of Care.





The more I started digging into this stuff, the more utterly revolted I became by it. It sounds so sickly-sweet on the surface. Its defense is self-contained. After all, what manner of demon would be opposed to people caring for one another?

However, if you look closer, you might see it. Implied in all of this is a sort of extremely crude collectivization of ethics and the replacement of impartial rules with favoritism.

Imagine that a loved one murders someone, but because you care about the killer more than the killed, you comfort the murderer, shelter them, and help them evade justice.

Imagine that someone loots a store, and so long as they come from a disadvantaged sociopolitical position, you find it totally acceptable. After all, rules are made to be bent, and the goods they stole made them happy and contented and fulfilled their needs.

"Care ethics" are incompatible with civilization.

If you really get into the weeds with SJW ideology, a common theme reveals itself. This was never really about fiction at all. It's about philosophy, ethics, ontology, and how people communicate their values to one another. People often react to the wokescolds as if they were a minor annoyance buzzing around in their hair, and not a large-scale cultural movement that has hollowed out our institutions and places of learning and replaced Enlightenment values with their own, crude breed of Neo-Confucianism.

You will never figure these fuckers out unless you arm yourself with a powerful rhetorical array, study what they teach, and conceive of ways to combat it. They will just keep marching through the institutions unopposed, spreading their divisive identity politics everywhere.
You're the first person I've heard in ages to bring up "Care Ethics." Color me very impressed and proud of you. It is indeed incompatible.

But sorry to sound like I'm walking it back by saying that the wokescolds are NOT the al-devouring and universally entrenched goliath I'm told to treat them as. Color it my bias by being in a region that is decidedly evangelical Christian and hard right wing to the death, but there it is.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
Evergreen was one of the examples I was thinking, and yes, it's a wokescold (not even liberal) trash heap. Still, there are FAR more than three Christian academies, bruh. The US is a big place.

All the Ivy League universities are totally infested with the SJW bullshit.
 

DiscoRodeo

kiwifarms.net
Imagine that a loved one murders someone, but because you care about the killer more than the killed, you comfort the murderer, shelter them, and help them evade justice.
I don't mind care ethics- though agree with you here. The problem with care ethics from what I can tell is that people wind up choked by their pity or sympathy. They often completely throw the victim under the bus, or throw them under the bus far more than anyone has business to do so.

Theyll go through mental gymnastics to justify it, about how a perpetrator had a tough life, broken family, etc. I get that, they have my pity- maybe punishment should take that into account and maybe there should be an education program in jail or something.

But how it often turns out, its "your businesses have insurance, the St Floyd crowd arent doing good, but you have to accept what they are doing in the grand narrative of things".

Fuck that. The fact that this is how "care ethics" honestly manifests itself more often than not, its not about care, its about political cuckstanding to the perp and ignoring the victim.
 

Kornula

kiwifarms.net
You're the first person I've heard in ages to bring up "Care Ethics." Color me very impressed and proud of you. It is indeed incompatible.

But sorry to sound like I'm walking it back by saying that the wokescolds are NOT the al-devouring and universally entrenched goliath I'm told to treat them as. Color it my bias by being in a region that is decidedly evangelical Christian and hard right wing to the death, but there it is.
nope
 

Bosmadden

kiwifarms.net
Troons. I was disillusioned with Obama, but hadn't fully given up on Democrats at that point. Troons pushed me over the edge. Biden calling troon's rights the "civil rights of our time" disgusted and shocked me. The BLM riots during the middle of a pandemic and how they made excuses for that was the nail in the coffin. I realized there wasn't just a slippery slope -- it was a nosedive off a cliff. Critical race theory + troons turned an old lady from a lifelong SJWish liberal into a "maybe the fundies were right all along" probably going to vote Republican for the first time in my life kind of person.
I was far left in my teens and early twenties. Product of my environment, dirt poor white trash. I slowly transitioned out during college and now I'm basically a Nazi.

I 100% agree with you about the troon stuff. I came to the realization a long time ago that much of the social justice posturing is simply a cover for sexual degeneracy. The fixation on children is particularly loathsome. I don't know if targeting kids with troon ideology will wake enough people up or it will be compartmentalized in the usual NPC manner.

JK Rowling was the defining figure in social justice culture just a few years ago (Harry Potter are the only books many SJWs have read). When she came out as a troon skeptic she was immediately black balled and treated like shit. Has this made her self actualize and re-appraise her commitment to social justice? Has it made her realize that her previous behavior in using her social media followers to target and harass people whose opinions she didn't like was wrong? Of course not, she's still the same entitled cunt she's always been. People are weird man.
 

Sneedlord

<Lumbermaster>
kiwifarms.net
Occupy Wall Street was the big turning point for me. I was fairly pro-OWS and other leftist movements until I was introduced to the concept of the "progressive stack" and swiftly realized just how fucking stupidly racist it was to categorize everyone by race/gender and weigh how much influence they have on that alone.
 

PaleTay

kiwifarms.net
Mike Harlow (one of the faces of the #WalkAway movement) is a gay man who was raped about 5 or 6 years ago. Back then, he was a screaming liberal. When he told his "compasionate" and considerate" friends that he was raped, guess what every single one of their responses was? "Now you know what a woman feels like when she gets raped"

That is why they all need to be shipped off to Somolia.
That's something I've noticed about liberal women in particular, especially during and after university. Everything is politicized but they don't actually experience compassion so they won't even do the bare minimum check in on their depressed friend or do anything to try to cheer them up/be there for them.
 

King Ghidorah

kiwifarms.net
Ever since I was old enough to be considered genuinely politically aware beyond the understanding of a child I always leaned right and the more able to understand and research myself I was the more i stayed that way and entrenched I became when these people just kept doubling down and down and down on the inane crazy toxic bullshit

I guess just as a result of the constant downpour of shit I've had to witness and being the an amateur history buff have I guess somewhat cynicized me about the world maybe democracy isn't one size fits all for every country, the death of rhodesia was one of the great modern tragedies of our day, no war outside of ww2 is as black and white as the history books entail ect.

And I've come to the conclusion that there is no nebulous "other" or "elites" behind the curtain pulling the strings there really is no easy explanations for the ills of modern society beyond perhaps that post modernist thought combined with the milquetoast liberalism status quo has either destroyed or tarnished the image of religion, community, and objective truth leaving many in its wake so starved for an identity to cling on to that they'll latch on to this eternal purity spiraling cult in he desparate hope of finding belonging of some kind. Because most people don't join cults because they're true believers in the cause (at least not at first) but because they are presented with a sense of community and belonging they lack in reality
 

The Curmudgeon

kiwifarms.net
Imagine that someone loots a store, and so long as they come from a disadvantaged sociopolitical position, you find it totally acceptable. After all, rules are made to be bent, and the goods they stole made them happy and contented and fulfilled their needs.
I don't mind care ethics- though agree with you here. The problem with care ethics from what I can tell is that people wind up choked by their pity or sympathy. They often completely throw the victim under the bus, or throw them under the bus far more than anyone has business to do so.

Theyll go through mental gymnastics to justify it, about how a perpetrator had a tough life, broken family, etc. I get that, they have my pity- maybe punishment should take that into account and maybe there should be an education program in jail or something.

But how it often turns out, its "your businesses have insurance, the St Floyd crowd arent doing good, but you have to accept what they are doing in the grand narrative of things".

Fuck that. The fact that this is how "care ethics" honestly manifests itself more often than not, its not about care, its about political cuckstanding to the perp and ignoring the victim.

This is another issue that disillusioned me with social justice. A running theme I've seen on various liberal websites is their urge to defend the worst people. For example, they'll valiantly defend a child rapist and insist he's a victim too, but how dare you mention the children hurt by that rapist. I get what they're trying to do, but it still seems so awful and misguided. Standing up for a clearly evil, dangerous person doesn't make you the second coming of Jesus Christ. Sometimes, liberal Christians are the forefront of these over-the-top efforts to protect bad people. They don't want to punish anyone who actually deserves to be punished. Of course, that goes for all SJWs whatever their beliefs may be. They want people locked up for racist jokes, but will do whatever it takes to ensure that a child rapist can live their life to the fullest.

Put another way, SJWs hate the real victims of crime and treat the criminals like victims. It doesn't make the criminals better people or improve society in any way. All they're doing is enabling criminals and bad people in general. It's even worse when they resort to identity politics.
 

RabidWombat

The Lone Marsupial of the Apocalypse
kiwifarms.net
All the Ivy League universities are totally infested with the SJW bullshit.
Whuppity shit. The Ivy League are a grand total of 8 schools and overrated as fuck. There are plenty of other universities just as exclusive, as if not more academically intense, and more successful.

There is no SJW monopoly on universities except to people who don't bother to do some looking around.

I repeat; AMERICA IS A BIG PLACE.
 

Pokemonquistador2

Electric Boogaloo
kiwifarms.net
Whuppity shit. The Ivy League are a grand total of 8 schools and overrated as fuck. There are plenty of other universities just as exclusive, as if not more academically intense, and more successful.

There is no SJW monopoly on universities except to people who don't bother to do some looking around.

I repeat; AMERICA IS A BIG PLACE.

You're a liar, RabidRat. You're also trying to use a logical fallacy to push your beliefs. "Hey GuyZ. America's like, a BIG COUNTRY. You could just, like, MOVE or some shit lol." The geographical size of the country has no bearing on how much influence some groups within it have. The media might only have a few studios and TV stations located in bigger cities, but it has an extremely strong influence over the minds of the people who watch it. The media has pushed political agendas, candidates, social trends and has even shaped our views on morality. It also has a huge reach that goes well beyond the borders of America itself.

Great Britain started out as a small country, but in the 16th to 20th centuries, it colonized much of the world to the point where the sun always shown on some part of its empire. Japan also started out as a small island, but it conquered huge parts of China during WW2, and its influence on Pop Culture even today is sizable thanks to manga, anime, and live action cinema. Size doesn't matter, as there are ways to circumvent the effects of geography via technology, which is making the world a smaller place day by day. It's becoming easier and easier to monitor and manipulate a population thanks to computers and cameras. The government can also make life hell for someone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if you think escaping to the Woods is going to keep the Feds off your backs, then there are some folks who'd like to have a word with you.

As for the universities, when even a Lefty rag like the Washington Post is saying liberal professors outnumber conservatives by a large margin, then you know that any claims to the contrary are full of shit. If you're angry because you live in Godbother Land and are tired of Christians trying to beat Jesus into your brain, then maybe you're the guy who has to move.
 

RabidWombat

The Lone Marsupial of the Apocalypse
kiwifarms.net
You're a liar, RabidRat. You're also trying to use a logical fallacy to push your beliefs. "Hey GuyZ. America's like, a BIG COUNTRY. You could just, like, MOVE or some shit lol." The geographical size of the country has no bearing on how much influence some groups within it have. The media might only have a few studios and TV stations located in bigger cities, but it has an extremely strong influence over the minds of the people who watch it. The media has pushed political agendas, candidates, social trends and has even shaped our views on morality. It also has a huge reach that goes well beyond the borders of America itself.

Great Britain started out as a small country, but in the 16th to 20th centuries, it colonized much of the world to the point where the sun always shown on some part of its empire. Japan also started out as a small island, but it conquered huge parts of China during WW2, and its influence on Pop Culture even today is sizable thanks to manga, anime, and live action cinema. Size doesn't matter, as there are ways to circumvent the effects of geography via technology, which is making the world a smaller place day by day. It's becoming easier and easier to monitor and manipulate a population thanks to computers and cameras. The government can also make life hell for someone caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and if you think escaping to the Woods is going to keep the Feds off your backs, then there are some folks who'd like to have a word with you.

As for the universities, when even a Lefty rag like the Washington Post is saying liberal professors outnumber conservatives by a large margin, then you know that any claims to the contrary are full of shit. If you're angry because you live in Godbother Land and are tired of Christians trying to beat Jesus into your brain, then maybe you're the guy who has to move.
Then ask yourself this; how IS there even a Godbother land in the first place if what I'm saying isn't true?

Also, where am I going to run to? It's either Godbother land here, or as so much of this thread is insisting, Wokescold World everywhere else. Only other way out is a gun in my mouth and a pulled trigger.
 
Top