• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How would an SJW society be like?

Imagine a world filled with this...

 
Tigerace117 said:
I want to be an attack helicopter. Where do I sign up? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Well now...do you really really really BELIEVE you are an attack helicopter?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Venezuala is not well known for its social justice accomplishments. Perhaps some reading on the matter of nations ranked high on social justice, aka socially advanced nations, will help you.

10 Most Socially Advanced Countries - Business Insider
Click to expand...
Not sure what the connection is between social justice and socially advanced. Social justice started as a religious/theological idea with St Augustine and the term was coined by a Jesuit priest c. 1845. The most religious countries in Europe, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Portugal arguably follow the spirit of social justice the most and have economies that are suffering under high debt and low productivity. The less religious countries in Europe are the Nordic countries which generally have a more objective and less religiously or moralistic concept of countries doing the greatest good for the greatest numbers. This is quantifiable. The problem most people have with social justice is that it tends to be so moralistic and lacks the reasoned, deliberative, emotionless dialogue of socially advanced countries.
 
Redress said:
You miss the point. Wham an SJW is, mostly, is defined as a parody of what people think they are. It is little different from Trump supporters are racist, libertarians are stoners(tho there is a lot of truth to that one), conservatives are fighting a war on gays and women, and so on. The purpose of "SJW" is to assign every nutty believe to them, then argue against that label.
Click to expand...

So.... you don't have a counter.....
 
Dragonfly said:
Read the thread title out loud. Go ahead.

Then decide if the OP should be criticizing anyone of anything.
Click to expand...

Consider your critique. Read it again. Out loud if need be. Then consider how relevant your comment was to the point of the thread.

Go ahead. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, the title is grammatically messed up. Maybe English is not the posters primary language. Does that change the point they were trying to make?

So, yes, in a SJW society, Grammar Police will apparently be at the ready to ignore what was said, in order to correct how it was said. Best to take care of critical issues first.
 
ocean515 said:
Consider your critique. Read it again. Out loud if need be. Then consider how relevant your comment was to the point of the thread.

Go ahead. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, the title is grammatically messed up. Maybe English is not the posters primary language. Does that change the point they were trying to make?

So, yes, in a SJW society, Grammar Police will apparently be at the ready to ignore what was said, in order to correct how it was said. Best to take care of critical issues first.
Click to expand...

You think there's a point to this thread? :lamo
 
cpwill said:
So.... you don't have a counter.....
Click to expand...

Since you seem to be having a hard time with identifying it, I'll see if I can cut it into a sentence or two: The counter is that pretty much no one believes any of those things, or any of the things in the OP. They are merely the political fever dreams of the least reasonable members of the opposition.

You inventing nonsense from the party hackery line in place of listening to what people think is not a valid argument.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Since you seem to be having a hard time with identifying it, I'll see if I can cut it into a sentence or two: The counter is that pretty much no one believes any of those things
Click to expand...

In fact, when they are polled, Very Liberal types overwhelmingly believe "those things". The Harm/Care foundation, especially as applied to identified and sacrilized victim groups, is far and away the most important moral criteria for the SJW's. Take the test and enjoy your own results, if you like.


You inventing nonsense from the party hackery line in place of listening to what people think is not a valid argument.
Click to expand...

:shrug: you are incorrect. Recommended Reading.
 
Redress said:
To some guys blog who offers a different opinion? Really?
Click to expand...

:doh

Jonathan Haidt.

...Jonathan David Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. Haidt is the author of two books: The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), which became a New York Times bestseller. He was named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine, and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine....​

Right Wing Nutjob? Nope. Liberal Atheist former sympathizer with Occupy Wall Street who originally got into studying political differentiation because he didn't want George W to be President.

If you don't want to buy and read the book on the moral value differentiation between the right and left, or peruse the source provided, perhaps just enjoy the TED Talk.



You seem to be lazily assuming that "Whatever a conservative [me] says about the SJW's is wrong, fed by 2-dimensional stereotypes of liberals". But I'm not telling you that. I'm pointing you to what they consistently say about themselves.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:doh

Jonathan Haidt.

...Jonathan David Haidt is a social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University's Stern School of Business. His academic specialization is the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. Haidt is the author of two books: The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (2006) and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012), which became a New York Times bestseller. He was named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine, and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine....​

Right Wing Nutjob? Nope. Liberal Atheist former sympathizer with Occupy Wall Street who originally got into studying political differentiation because he didn't want George W to be President.

If you don't want to buy and read the book on the moral value differentiation between the right and left, or peruse the source provided, perhaps just enjoy the TED Talk.
Click to expand...

I did not claim he was a right wing nut job, or any kind of nut job. His opinions however are just that, opinions.
 
Redress said:
Challenge for you: list what you think SJWs believe, with some evidence to support it beyond some random person said something on the internets. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...

The followig link covers the SJ concepts somewhat. The part that I have the most difficulty with is the equaliy of outcome yardstick used to define income inequality as the being primarily the result of bad social (socio-economic?) policy.

The concept that economic winners created, or are at least responsible for supporting, economic losers is where I part comany with calls for "fairness" when defined simply as income redistribution programs to assure a "decent" outcome regardless of the level of effort put forth to self support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
 
Redress said:
I did not claim he was a right wing nut job, or any kind of nut job. His opinions however are just that, opinions.
Click to expand...

Sure. And it is just 538's opinion that currently Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning the Presidency than Donald Trump.

What lends both of their opinions credibility? They are backed with data.

Responding to math with "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man" is a Trumpkin argument - you are far smarter than that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The followig link covers the SJ concepts somewhat. The part that I have the most difficulty with is the equaliy of outcome yardstick used to define income inequality as the being primarily the result of bad social (socio-economic?) policy.

The concept that economic winners created, or are at least responsible for supporting, economic losers is where I part comany with calls for "fairness" when defined simply as income redistribution programs to assure a "decent" outcome regardless of the level of effort put forth to self support.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Click to expand...

You are really getting to be pretty awesome. Just wanted to say that. Noticed it a bunch lately.

"Income equality" is not a belief(at least among most) that income should be the same for every one, but that the amount of difference should not be as big as it is, or even more accurately probably that the gulf between the middle class and upper class is too large. I am probably not the best one to really explain it since I don't focus on income equality. I think it is a poor measure. It is important to point out that equality of outcome is something only really desired by a few. Minimum opportunity is a much more important and used desire.
 
ocean515 said:
Consider your critique. Read it again. Out loud if need be. Then consider how relevant your comment was to the point of the thread.

Go ahead. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, the title is grammatically messed up. Maybe English is not the posters primary language. Does that change the point they were trying to make?

So, yes, in a SJW society, Grammar Police will apparently be at the ready to ignore what was said, in order to correct how it was said. Best to take care of critical issues first.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the fingers are not always 100% connected to the brain like in some older posters.
 
Redress said:
You are really getting to be pretty awesome. Just wanted to say that. Noticed it a bunch lately.

"Income equality" is not a belief(at least among most) that income should be the same for every one, but that the amount of difference should not be as big as it is, or even more accurately probably that the gulf between the middle class and upper class is too large. I am probably not the best one to really explain it since I don't focus on income equality. I think it is a poor measure. It is important to point out that equality of outcome is something only really desired by a few. Minimum opportunity is a much more important and used desire.
Click to expand...

You, personally, may not be calling for reparations or massive income redistribution and social programs up to and including a basic income guarantee but most current SJWs are doing just that. I tend to agree that widening gulfs between the working class and the investor/manager class are not in the best interest of society but do not see that as the cause of poverty.
 
cpwill said:
In fact, when they are polled, Very Liberal types overwhelmingly believe "those things". The Harm/Care foundation, especially as applied to identified and sacrilized victim groups, is far and away the most important moral criteria for the SJW's. Take the test and enjoy your own results, if you like.

:shrug: you are incorrect. Recommended Reading.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to answer many of those questions. I would limit power on some metrics, but not others (not physical wealth, if you're curious, and I am dramatically more "progressive" than most people here, to the point where I don't even fit the label anymore -- and yet here I am, defying your dumb stereotype). What does it mean to distribute things according to people's value? Who decides value? How are we defining social unity? The answers to all of those questions would alter my answers.

I imagine anyone of even modest political nuance will struggle to take such a blunt survey. That you think it's so simple speaks volumes.

Anyway.

That liberals and others are concerned about social justice does not mean they want to impose a borg-like law systemically disempowering the current majority power holders. I have never heard of that, and I seriously doubt you have either. It's just your baseless extrapolation born from trying to stuff the debate full of strawmen to the point of making it unconversable. So yeah, sounds like your fever dream of what you'd like us to believe, rather than what we do.
 
Dragonfly said:
You think there's a point to this thread? :lamo
Click to expand...

It's a bit extreme, but some of the points are quite valid. I can name of number of cities in California that have embraced a number of the points listed.

You've proved they have some merit.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You, personally, may not be calling for reparations or massive income redistribution and social programs up to and including a basic income guarantee but most current SJWs are doing just that. I tend to agree that widening gulfs between the working class and the investor/manager class are not in the best interest of society but do not see that as the cause of poverty.
Click to expand...

What do you see as the cause of poverty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom