Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

[AnOminous]

Can someone please translate this?

"REEEE nobody is paying attention to me for this bullshit identity that doesn't even exist!"

 

[ToroidalBoat]

Also said that any man that likes Asian women not only have "yellow fever" but was probably a pedo since Asian women tend to look like kids.

By that "logic", one could claim Asians into whites are likely gerontophiles because whites tend to look older.

Also why is a guy having preferences "fetishes" so taboo in Clown World anyway?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Also why is a guy having preferences "fetishes" so taboo in Clown World anyway?

For the same reason they get pissed off about everything else: they want absolute, total control over every aspect of your life. Having "normative" preferences is a direct challenge to that, so they issue constant demands that you change your preferences to what they say you should prefer. They have to reframe preferences as bigotry to do this; preferring thin blondes now means that you must actually hate everyone who isn't a thin blonde. Expressing that preference marks you as someone to be browbeaten and pilloried until you conform

The implicitly understood reasoning is that someone who can be told what to prefer in a sexual partner can then be controlled in every other aspect of their life.

 

[CoolFool]

By that "logic", one could claim Asians into whites are likely gerontophiles because whites tend to look older.

Also why is a guy having preferences "fetishes" so taboo in Clown World anyway?

It was very stupid, and tbh if the Asian students understood English better I bet they would have complained. Imagine someone saying that anyone who likes you is secretly a pedo, that's legit offensive but also simply not true. These women did not look like kids, maybe you can say that a lot of Asians look younger than non-Asians but they don't look like kids lol. I actually liked that teacher but she did have a few really nutty beliefs.

I think yellow fever is a legit thing for some guys, but there's plenty of people that simply find a certain race attractive and there's nothing wrong with that. You're fucked either way because SJW attraction theory is a contradiction. You're racist if you don't find a certain race attractive, and you're racist if you do. Best thing to do is ignore these people and date who you want.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

For the same reason they get pissed off about everything else: they want absolute, total control over every aspect of your life.

Communism was a mistake.

Best thing to do is ignore these people and date who you want.

A white guy could also claim "I'm transracial and I identify as Asian." to checkmate a SJW.

 

[CoolFool]

One could also say: "I'm transracial and I identify as Asian."

Funny you mention this. Another teacher couldn't come up with a good answer as to why it's okay to identify as a different gender but not okay to identify as another race. Even today, I haven't seen anyone come up with a good argument, they just call you transphobic/racist and never elaborate.

 

[DungeonMaster]

"We Need More “Incel” Villains in Fiction
MEDIACHOMP JULY 29, 2021 1 COMMENT
We do need more self proclaimed “nice guy” (the ones who aren’t actually nice guys) and “incel” villains in fiction. Just to be clear – not because they are awesome characters, but because they are so relevant to the toxicity being called out in current culture. This post uses Tighten from Megamind as an example:"

 

[DoubleD]

Link, Archive

Link, Archive

Can someone please translate this?

First tweet:
'ASEXUALS ARE SERIOUSLY OPPRESSED BY NON-ASEXUAL FOLKS, so we need to recognize and end compulsory sexuality (the idea that it is normal and healthy to want to have sex), allonormativity (the idea that it is normal and healthy to be attracted to people and not asexual), amanormativity (the idea that it is normal and healthy to fall in love), comphet (compulsory heterosexuality = the idea that it is normal and healthy to be straight), and conversion therapy (the idea that one can change their sexual orientation to become straight).

WESTERN SOCIETY HAMMERS THESE BELIEFS DOWN YOUR THROAT and you only contribute to the problem by saying things that are bigoted against asexuals, pansexuals, and bisexuals – such as "cishet aces" (cisgender heterosexual asexuals = asexuals who aren't oppressed in any way besides being asexual, implying they are not oppressed), "fake asexuals" (a phrase that implies Real and Valid™ asexuals are faking it for attention), "pansexuality isn't real" (self-explanatory), and "bihets" (bisexual heterosexuals = a phrase that implies bisexual women are actually straight).'

Second tweet:
'The LGBTQIA+ community has always included asexuality (low or no sexual attraction), aromanticism (low or no romantic attraction), abrosexuality (sexual attraction that changes over time), bisexuality (straight and gay, but wants the benefits of both), and pansexuality (progressive synonym of bisexual). SO WHEN YOU SAY THOSE THINGS IT EMBOLDENS BIGOTS AND THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF ASEXUAL, AROMANTIC, ABROSEXUAL, BISEXUAL AND PASEXUAL FOLKS!'

 

[ToroidalBoat]

"Cultural diversity" doesn't work.

When significantly different ways and traditions are in the same place, they'll either cancel eachother out in a bland "melting pot", or clash. Or both. It's like having multiple religions with different worldviews running in the same church. If SJWs can't see that, they're either trying to BS or manipulate, or they've been indoctrinated.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

"Cultural diversity" doesn't work.

When significantly different ways and traditions are in the same place, they'll either cancel eachother out in a bland "melting pot", or clash. Or both. It's like having multiple religions with different worldviews running in the same church. If SJWs can't see that, they're either trying to BS or manipulate, or they've been indoctrinated.

It also does not help when the “diversity“ that they speak of almost always involves (or devolves) into a hint of anti-white discrimination. When it’s anti-black discrimination, they‘ll be the first to holler and scream that this is unacceptable and that people need to be re-educated to fit into that “melting pot” of progressivism for all races and gender(s), but when it comes to displacing or replacing white people, they‘ll just pretend as if people are speaking a foreign language that they can not understand.

Also don’t get me started when you try doing this stuff in different homelands with people from different countries like China, Africa, Israel, Japan or Russia.

 

[InteracialBowelSyndrome]

At the ongoing Women’s World Cup, the Spain and Netherlands teams were not entirely deferential towards the Haka. (Apologies, can’t embed video)

This has made a lot of people (aka shitskins) Big Mad. There’s too many to include so I’m just gonna show the ones with the most interesting profiles. Feel free to browse the thread and choose your own favourite.

View attachment 5256137
View attachment 5256138
View attachment 5256139
View attachment 5256140
View attachment 5256141
View attachment 5256142
View attachment 5256143
View attachment 5256144
View attachment 5256145
View attachment 5256146
View attachment 5256147
View attachment 5256148

The funniest part of that is half the replies yelling "colonizer" are from blue-check accounts paying $8 a month to Elon Musk, the richest African American in the world, and a man descended from "colonizers".

It's like when women complain about white men but seem to like being raw dogged by them and only them.

"COLONIZE ME HARDER DADDY!"

 

[Right Butt Cheek]

honky tax.
View attachment 3028474
Tweet | Archive

I went looking to see if this dude had a thread, and saw this so I might as well reply here. This dude recently got canceled on BlueSky over harassing women and his weird incel ideals. He's got a lot of lolcow tendencies and is very terminally online. His Twitter got suspended. Here's his BlueSky if any Kiwis are bored and just wanna browse the recent posts.

 

[Jonah Hill poster]

 

[Wallace]

A few months ago, Freddie deBoer posted a challenge to his readers.

Spoiler: Text

For a long time now, I’ve tried and failed to get essential questions answered by those who believe in police/prison/criminal justice abolition. Personally, I believe in comprehensive criminal justice reform - reform of how cops are hired and trained, reforms of punishment for cops who behave badly including the end of qualified immunity, reform to lighten average sentences, reforms to make prisons more safe and comfortable and rehabilitative, reform to post-imprisonment practices to better integrate former prisoners into society, an end to the Drug War, decriminalization of sex work, and a host of other changes. But this is never enough for a certain class of reader, who sees only abolition of policing and prisons as sufficient to solve our criminal justice problems.

Very often, I find basic logical inconsistencies at play. For example, I’ve interacted with people who both believe that hate speech should be criminalized and also that police should be abolished. This seems flatly unworkable to me; if there are no police, who enforces the prohibition on hate speech? Or you could ask about Brock Turner - some of those who were incensed by his light punishment went on to become prison abolitionists in the ensuing years. Were they wrong to demand greater punishment for him initially, given their later zeal for a purely rehabilitative/therapeutic approach to criminal justice? Why or why not? I’ve sought basic answers to questions like that for three years, and have very rarely received answers. My problem is not that answers to these questions aren’t convincing. It’s that people get angry at the idea that they should be answered at all. And this is part of the ongoing brokenness of progressive debate - people are still so scared of appearing to criticize the excesses and absurdities of the 2020 political turmoil that the essential work of understanding what our shared political values are goes undone.

Conflicts of values and internal inconsistencies are not at all disqualifying within a given political movement; they’re inevitable, in fact, and can lead to growth and introspection. The only problem with such inconsistencies is when they aren’t intellectually confronted, and that’s exactly where we find ourselves on this issue.

So here’s a challenge/contest. If you’re inclined, please submit between 250 and 500 words on the topic of what should be done with Derek Chauvin, George Floyd’s murderer, from the standpoint of someone who believes in defunding the police, abolishing prisons, and similar. If we dismantled the criminal justice system under the auspices of that philosophy, what would and should happen to Chauvin, whose shocking crime spawned the very conditions that made defunding the police a salient political issue? You don’t have to actually support those policies to enter, but you do need to do your best to mount a good-faith explanation that takes anti-carceral politics seriously as a plausible future and not just as a symbolic goal. This is not an invitation for satire or parody. Please make your best, brief explanation of what the right approach to dealing with Derek Chauvin should be under a decarcerated system. Email your attempts to fredrik.deboer@gmail.com. The answer I find most convincing will run here, followed by my appraisal of it, and I will Venmo, Paypal, or Zelle the author $500. 250-500 word requirement strictly enforced. Deadline is Tuesday, May 9th. You may choose to keep your identity pseudonymous/anonymous if you win.

This is not a gimmick or trick. The point is not at all to mock. I think this stuff is really important philosophically and pragmatically, I think the proponents of radical abolition have failed to provide answers to elementary questions, and I think the deeply unhealthy discursive conditions on the left right now prevent people from pressing them to defend their worldview. Too many well-intentioned left-leaning people have decided that the potential personal and social costs of appearing to criticize the social justice movement are simply too great to treat that movement with the rigor all serious political ideas deserve. So I’m putting cash on the line. I will read these responses in good faith and with interest. I’m unlikely to change my mind about the big picture, but I am very ready to learn.

Freddie attempted, in good faith, to engage with someone who honestly believed in defunding/abolishing the police and carceral system, by asking them what should be done with Derek Chauvin.

The responses left something to be desired.

Spoiler: Text

My lord, what a mistake. What a terribly misconceived idea. Horribly timed, inspired by short-term frustration and a genuine, frustrated desire to understand, offered with no consideration of the logistics…. A major undertaking launched on a pure whim, with money attached, meaning that I had a duty to take it seriously and really evaluate the various entries. Here’s some issues that immediately became clear with the (paid!) challenge I issued:

1. I was in the middle of buying a house and knew I would be moving in about six weeks.
2. I knew I had a book coming out in a few months and would be running around all over the place doing promo.
3. Unlike the annual book review contest (which yes, is happening this fall!), I did not restrict this contest to subscribers, dramaaaaatically expanding the number of submissions.
4. Despite so much experience of what a huge pain in the ass it is to search through emails in this sort of context, I did not set up some sort of Dropbox submission system to make my life easier. (Which is also something that will be happening this fall.)
5. Because I didn’t indicate that the submissions should be included as an attachment, and the required word count was only 250-500 words, many people simply wrote their submissions into their emails, while many others included attachments, denying me one simply way to organize and search through the various emails.
6. Several people submitted their entries via Google Drive which were accessible for my first read-through, but which had their authorization somehow revoked (I’m guessing automatically) later on, so that for the ones that I had marked to reread as possible contenders I would have to ask to restore authorization, another annoying administrative step.
7. There was no plausible way this contest would drive subscriptions.
8. I planned, and plan I guess, to run a big data-driven piece about the responses, coding and tagging and quantifying the kinds of responses that I got; in part, I intend(ed) to show how deeply contradictory much decarceral sentiment is. But it turns out that making tags and tagging and deciding on which categories different entries fell into was an immense wormhole and I fell into it for hours at a time without actually getting anywhere.

I still would like to do a big data-driven look at these someday, and maybe I will next year. For now, a few responses to some commonalities.

• To the many of you who answered that Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd before we would have instituted any de-carceral, de-policing reform, meaning that he would not have been eligible to be treated under that system… congratulations, that’s very clever. But it doesn’t help explore these issues, which was the whole point of putting money on the line.
• Many of you gave pretty strong or very strong analyses of the superiority and viability of a de-carcerated state in general, but included some version of “I’m not going to get into Derek Chauvin’s situation specifically, but….” But that was the explicit assignment, guys!
• There were some joke answers, some of which were amusing. There were also people who seemed to be checking to see if I would actually open their attachments; I did, and congratulations, you lost the contest.
• I did not disqualify professional writers from winning this challenge, but I did ultimately give them a pretty big handicap. As you can imagine, a number of the writers who participated sent in strong entries. But I wanted to put a premium on amateur engagement. Still, I was willing to choose a response from a professional writer and considered several as finalists.
• A lot of people broke the length maximum, which I said would be strictly enforced, and had to be disqualified. It was really a bummer to be reading an entry, digging it, then start to think “this feels too long…” and then confirm that when I did the word count check. Follow the directions, guys!
• A preference that emerged in the process of reading these was for responses that were paragraph-based and essayistic, as opposed to bullet points, numbered lists, or similar. Again, using a list format wasn’t disqualifying, but I did develop implicit scoring criteria that favored conventionally written arguments; I just found them consistently more readable and articulate.
• There were a surprising number of answers that insisted that defunding the police and dismantling the prisons was a moral necessity, but which also somehow devised a scenario where Chauvin ended up imprisoned anyway. Some of these were more compelling, some worse, but it was an interesting dynamic. I didn’t end up thinking that any of them were fully compelling as examples of decarceral politics, though.

The very cool thing about this contest is that people could take it in so many directions. The very difficult thing about judging it is that they did - there was such a remarkable breadth of approaches that it became very hard to know how to rank one entry above another. The move and my new book were the biggest reason I’m announcing the winner almost four months after I announced the contest. But another really big reason is because it was hard to know whether to prefer, for example, a remarkably practical answer over a more thoughtful and imaginative answer, or whether to value writing ability over sticking closely to the actual question at hand. In the beginning of this selection process, I was strongly predisposed against entries that had any kind of a thought experiment/sci-fi/satirical bent, as a fair number did. And yet I ended up considering several like that as very real contenders - a piece about making society one big Skinner box, for example, as a means to end crime “without coercion,” which was one of a number of responses that were subtly satirical or dystopian. But ultimately I went with an answer that I think is superficially simple but which reflects on the specific question, offers a solution that does not require any truly unlikely changes to human life, results in real rehabilitation while forcing Chauvin to make amends, and entails a degree of prevention and preemption of future crimes without any formal carceral systems. And after reading so many answers that were (enjoyably and generatively) complex or challenging or clever or based on fantasy, I found this entry refreshing in its straightforward and uncomplicated approach to the prompt.

Here is the entry that Freddie judged to be the best, in a sea of people who couldn't or wouldn't answer his question:

Once Derek Chauvin has been found guilty in a court of law, he is sentenced to a term of community service of a length and type appropriate to the severity of his crime. (So in this case, a lot. Life?) That community service is overseen by agents of the court; I’m thinking more like lawyers or clerks, less like armed bailiffs. Those agents are not charged with forcing him to stick to the community service, but rather just observing whether he does so.

If he forfeits on his community service, as determined by the courts, then he will be considered an “outlaw” - meaning, specifically, someone not protected by the law. Anything done to him that would ordinarily constitute a crime no longer does. No police are necessary; if he refuses to serve his time helping his fellow man, then anybody with a chip on their shoulder can punish him for it. As long as he sticks to his sentence, he’s safe, with his life dedicated to helping others. And if anyone were to commit a crime against him while he was in that situation they would face the same fate he currently faces—an appropriate community service sentence enforced by the threat of being put outside of the protection of the law should he violate that sentence.

Obviously, it’s crucial that the courts are seen as impartial and unimpeachable, since they don’t have a bunch of men with guns to enforce their will. But it’s the best I’ve got. Derek broke the social contract; either he makes amends or we’ll put him outside of the protection of that social contract. Simple as that.

 

[AnOminous]

Obviously, it’s crucial that the courts are seen as impartial and unimpeachable, since they don’t have a bunch of men with guns to enforce their will. But it’s the best I’ve got. Derek broke the social contract; either he makes amends or we’ll put him outside of the protection of that social contract. Simple as that.

So we go back to the Wild West and Billy the Kid gets to go around killing people until someone is quicker on the draw. And if there is no such person, his rampage just continues. Meaning the criminals who stay alive are the absolute worst of the worst.

What a genius "revolution," oh wait, not, it's a throwback to a way more violent, primitive age. Much progressive.

 

[OutInTheRain]

Freddie attempted, in good faith, to engage with someone who honestly believed in defunding/abolishing the police and carceral system, by asking them what should be done with Derek Chauvin.

I am always intrigued by people who want to ban police and prisons. They always create the same thing but under a different name, or they don't realize that rehabilitation only works when the person wants to change.

That community service is overseen by agents of the court; I’m thinking more like lawyers or clerks, less like armed bailiffs. Those agents are not charged with forcing him to stick to the community service, but rather just observing whether he does so.

I do like how their solution is he becomes a slave of the state and if he refuses you can kill him.

 

[Local Fed]

Once Derek Chauvin has been found guilty in a court of law, he is sentenced to a term of community service of a length and type appropriate to the severity of his crime. (So in this case, a lot. Life?) That community service is overseen by agents of the court; I’m thinking more like lawyers or clerks, less like armed bailiffs. Those agents are not charged with forcing him to stick to the community service, but rather just observing whether he does so.

If he forfeits on his community service, as determined by the courts, then he will be considered an “outlaw” - meaning, specifically, someone not protected by the law. Anything done to him that would ordinarily constitute a crime no longer does. No police are necessary; if he refuses to serve his time helping his fellow man, then anybody with a chip on their shoulder can punish him for it. As long as he sticks to his sentence, he’s safe, with his life dedicated to helping others. And if anyone were to commit a crime against him while he was in that situation they would face the same fate he currently faces—an appropriate community service sentence enforced by the threat of being put outside of the protection of the law should he violate that sentence.

Obviously, it’s crucial that the courts are seen as impartial and unimpeachable, since they don’t have a bunch of men with guns to enforce their will. But it’s the best I’ve got. Derek broke the social contract; either he makes amends or we’ll put him outside of the protection of that social contract. Simple as that.

So how exactly do they keep a high profile person like him or any other prisoner (or would they even be that?) safe in a realistic way? What's to stop someone who simply doesn't care about their own life and/or someone who's in a situation where they're close to or facing imminent death from taking him out with them? In a regular prison you already have the risk of someone shanking you, but this whole scenario seems like it's even more likely to happen.

What exactly would the community service entail; is it in public where the person's chance of being attacked goes through the roof and where the chance of them being a constant distraction and spectacle is a guarantee? Is he expected to have his own residence or does he have to return to a centralized location every day? If the former, how does he afford it if he has to do community service all day? If the latter, it's just prison in the end anyway. If these prisoners get all crazy and decide to attack the people watching over them (clerks and lawyers, apparently) who is to stop it if there aren't armed bailiffs or cops?

 

[Wallace]

So how exactly do they keep a high profile person like him or any other prisoner (or would they even be that?) safe in a realistic way? What's to stop someone who simply doesn't care about their own life and/or someone who's in a situation where they're close to or facing imminent death from taking him out with them? In a regular prison you already have the risk of someone shanking you, but this whole scenario seems like it's even more likely to happen.

What exactly would the community service entail; is it in public where the person's chance of being attacked goes through the roof and where the chance of them being a constant distraction and spectacle is a guarantee? Is he expected to have his own residence or does he have to return to a centralized location every day? If the former, how does he afford it if he has to do community service all day? If the latter, it's just prison in the end anyway. If these prisoners get all crazy and decide to attack the people watching over them (clerks and lawyers, apparently) who is to stop it if there aren't armed bailiffs or cops?

You're going to want to sit down for this one, but woke is not particularly concerned with generating workable solutions, only things that sound good as slogans and hashtags and make elites feel good about themselves.

Even in their dream scenario, woke has no forgiveness. The oppressed are the real victims of society, so if a PoC shoots up a building, it's a reaction to their victimhood, and they get holistic healing. A white man like Chauvin, on the other hand, will never receive forgiveness. because forgiveness is the end of victimhood, and victimhood is the social capital of woke.

 

[TruffleSpark]

Has any asexual ever explained how asexuals are oppressed? In any way other than "people are allowed to make fun of us?"

 

[ToroidalBoat]

I can't read too many articles like this. They are simply so insufferable they cause me migraines over the next few hours.

I think that's a goal of "woke": to demoralize. Like I said, if a white were to sincerely follow the cult, they'd be backed into a corner of misery with no fun allowed.

(was reading a news article thread from last year and saw that post)