Social Justice Warriors - Now With Less Feminism Sperging

https://twitter.com/Cynical_History/status/1436712643260190721
https://archive.md/XhmkN

1631510690911.png


Believe that lead pipes and leaded gasoline caused an increase in crime? You're a race realist.
 
SJWs and beta cucks like Alexander Battaglia of Digital Foundry and ResetERA must really hate Project EVE for being sexy and not a black obese trans disabled autistic hair-dyed male-hating mary-sue feminazi like woke western devs would cuck for.
View attachment 2531776

And he's already getting criticized.
View attachment 2531777
Update: Alex the sexy hater from Digital Foundry is getting his beta ass roasted even more.
1631520235615.png


Is this you Alex?
1631520345093.png

1631520353700.png
And this got Quarter Pounder's attention.
1631520440077.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm really baffled how the fuck can anyone be this retarded and genuinely believe what they are doing is righteous. It's just fucking wall of nonsense and mental illness being thrown at you.
Self-righteousness has a tendency to create myopia around one's own perception of things. People like that are very much the reason why their ideas fail to gain much traction because they are both hypocritical and complete assholes to anyone who isn't a complete sycophant. You can be as sincere as you want in the critique but they will automatically dismiss it and then spit on your face for daring to even question such poor strategies.
 

I'm pretty sure the artist also drew this pretty infamous comic:
View attachment 2530929

The root cause of this is the simple fact that SJWs and Liberals in general are literally incapable of forming a theory of mind for centrists (normal people) and especially 'conservatives'. That is to say, that can't see the situation from another viewpoint even as a purely intellectual exercise. Worse than that, they can't even conceptualize having any viewpoint that isn't their own.

This has been demonstrated through some interesting studies where people were sorted into Liberal, Moderates and Conservative groups. They were given a moral question survey, and asked to complete it three times; once honestly as themselves, then again as if they belonged to the other groups. Moderates and Conservatives were pretty accurate at predicting how the others would answer, but the Liberals were completely off base for both.

As a group they cannot conceive of a "theory of mind" for conservative people. They are unable to even fathom that people can think in ways they do not. Hence their inability to write dialog for an ideological opponent.

We asked more than two thousand American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Qyestionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a “typical liberal” would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a “typical conservative” would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people’s expectations about “typical” partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right)’ Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as “very liberal.” The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the Care and Fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with questions such as “One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal” or ”Justice is the most important requirement for a society,” liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree. If you have a moral matrix built primarily on intuitions about care and fairness (as equality), and you listen to the Reagan [i.e., conservative] narrative, what else could you think? Reagan seems completely unconcerned about the welfare of drug addicts, poor people, and gay people. He’s more interested in fighting wars and telling people how to run their sex lives.

If you don’t see that Reagan is pursuing positive values of Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, you almost have to conclude that Republicans see no positive value in Care and Fairness. You might even go as far as Michael Feingold, a theater critic for the liberal newspaper the Village Voice, when he wrote:

Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

One of the many ironies in this quotation is that it shows the inability of a theater critic-who skillfully enters fantastical imaginary worlds for a living-to imagine that Republicans act within a moral matrix that differs from his own. Morality binds and blinds.
 
Last edited:
This passage is from Philip Hook's very amusing book Breakfast at Sotheby's, page 332.

View attachment 2531634
I have so many questions. How can an Austrian be so dismissive of Klimt? How can she not be proud that another son of Austria has earned the world's adoration? And how can someone be so dismissive of art, that she is so confused that she equates the value of art to base utilitarian considerations? Hook's revised justification was extremely unconvincing, because he too fell into the trap of instrumental reasoning, that art works are valuable inasmuch as how people can "use" them. The "inept and evasive" answer he actually gave was perfectly acceptable, and he could have added Sotheby's was not in the business of dictating morals.

And this is the painting in question:
View attachment 2531629
Also her argument assumes that prices are fixed. If more money was directed towards utilitarian things such as hospitals, the price of building hospitals would increase. The only "gain" you'd get from this is that fewer people would become artists and more would become builders and paediatricians, and most likely these extra builders and paediatricians would be quite mediocre at their jobs, only getting in because of the heightened demand and wishing that the economy favoured something better suited to their skills.
 
Last edited:
The root cause of this is the simple fact that SJWs and Liberals in general are literally incapable of forming a theory of mind for centrists (normal people) and especially 'conservatives'. That is to say, that can't see the situation from another viewpoint even as a purely intellectual exercise. Worse than that, they can't even conceptualize having any viewpoint that isn't their own.

This has been demonstrated through some interesting studies where people were sorted into Liberal, Moderates and Conservative groups. They were given a moral question survey, and asked to complete it three times; once honestly as themselves, then again as if they belonged to the other groups. Moderates and Conservatives were pretty accurate at predicting how the others would answer, but the Liberals were completely off base for both.

As a group they cannot conceive of a "theory of mind" for conservative people. They are unable to even fathom that people can think in ways they do not. Hence their inability to write dialog for an ideological opponent.
So basically sjws lack something most of us start developing at what age 5?
 
Back