Offensive Joke Discussion

[Gendarme]

I posted in this thread because Xeelee asked for a response to her post. ESOC discussions are extremely unrewarding. Take a look at @Dolan's post history; he was the MVP of off-topic but he eventually gave up as his efforts were almost completely wasted.

[deleted_user0]

A sacrifice is to give up something you think is valuable to help a person or a cause. Whether what is being given up upon is a sacrifice or not is relative to how the person perceives it, there are no absolute right or wrong. Because what is perceived as valuable is in itself a relative thing and differ from person to person. What some see as a sacrifice may not be a sacrifice to others. For example, if you skip a day at school/work to help someone move it can be a sacrifice for someone who loves what they do, but for others it may be a chance to get away from something they hate.

You're missing the point. Goodspeed didn't say its not a sacrifice because what he is giving isn't worth anything. It's not a sacrifice because he isn't giving anything up without personally getting something in return. GS said that he get's a kick out of it, and so he's not making a sacrifice. It's not my point, but I merely responded to you because you misunderstood him. When I said just because he believes he's making a sacrifice doesn't mean he is, is just to point out that it's not necessarily conscious. One may believe you are giving up something without getting something in return, but it may turn out that this isn't the case.

How can you know he doesn’t care? Because he said it? There are plenty of people who say they don’t care when they actually do. When they are trying to uphold a certain image for example. Assuming that someone must like something is a dangerous path, it is the same thing that have led some men to be convicted of sexual harassment, “Of course she liked it, you don’t wear that kind of cloths if you don’t want some fun with a strong man”.
If it had been Gendarme that called someone an asshole I could somewhat have understood it, since he makes the case that people take offense way to easily and the way to make them more resistant is to constantly expose them to offensive things. You and Goodspeed seem to argue that there is no gain from simply offending people. Then I don’t see how calling someone an asshole for having a different opinion on a subject in anyway helps your case. If anything, it is contradictive.

I don't know if he cares or doesn't. I can't ever know. I can only know what he says, and I can believe or disbelieve his word accordingly. I choose to believe people at face value, until they give me reason to mistrust them. Whatever you can say about Gendarme, I don't know him to be a liar. If he says he doesn't care, then I assume he doesn't. As for calling him an asshole, which I didn't btw, I doubt GS did so because he merely has a different opinion, he did so because Gendarme intentionally and explicitly uses an approach that is typically described as "being an asshole" by most Western people. I'm pretty sure Gendarme himself will agree to that. GS didn't just call him an asshole in any case. He used the term to describe Gendarme's approach (aka intentionally being an asshole to shock people into debate or whatever his purpose was) and not really to describe Gendarme as a person.

That said, I will stick to what I said in my previous post. If no offense is taken, how can one be given? I'm quite sure this is actually the gist of what Gendarme wants to achieve anyway, and in that I would probably obtain a position between GS and Gendarme. I don't really see the point of needlessly insulting people, but neither do I see a point to go out of my way to avoid words just because people might be insulted.

[deleted_user0]

I posted in this thread because Xeelee asked for a response to her post. ESOC discussions are extremely unrewarding. Take a look at @Dolan's post history; he was the MVP of off-topic but he eventually gave up as his efforts were almost completely wasted.

Because most people, dolan included, aren't willing to actually discuss properly. Besides, discussions are unrewarding in general, as most people won't change their minds by arguments anyway, but do it rather through the gaze of the other.

[Goodspeed]

Thanks for elaborating on my behalf @deleted_user.

but neither do I see a point to go out of my way to avoid words just because people might be insulted.

Surprising. Maybe you meant to say something different, but I can't imagine that being true. Surely you see the point in avoiding potentially offensive language? Are you saying we shouldn't avoid the word "nigger", for example?

And don't get me wrong, people. I think free speech is one of our most important rights, if not the most important. What's worrying is this anti-SJW culture, this "fight" against common decency. It's disappointing that even intelligent people are lured into this "us against them" mentality that is so obviously set up to divide the middle class by those who benefit. And it's based on the false belief that free speech is being undermined by hate speech laws. This is not at all the case. What is outlawed is inciting violence, and it's hard to argue against that. Your free speech is being "undermined" by decent people telling you to fuck off, basically. Not by any laws. This isn't China.

I'm not triggered by any of this, nor do I think Gendarme is an asshole. Maybe he tries to be but fails. I just told him what I think he needs to hear. To me he seems influenced to an unhealthy extent by whatever echo chamber he got this non sense from. He does have a tendency.

[deleted_user0]

Thanks for elaborating on my behalf @deleted_user.

but neither do I see a point to go out of my way to avoid words just because people might be insulted.

Surprising. Maybe you meant to say something different, but I can't imagine that being true. Surely you see the point in avoiding potentially offensive language? Are you saying we shouldn't avoid the word "nigger", for example?

If someone asks me not to use a certain phrase or word, and it's not necessary for me to use that kind of language to say what I want to say, then I see no reason for not dropping that language on their behalf. But it's on them to make clear to me what they are and aren't comfortable with. It's not up to me to guess. There are some things however that are beyond guessing and are commonly marked as "unacceptable" in most contexts. The word you mention is one of them.

Personally I don't really think the word matters all too much. It's the intention and content of the message rather than its wrapping which matters most to me. You can still say the worst kind of racist stuff without using the word nigger once.

[martinspjuth]

What's worrying is this anti-SJW culture, this "fight" against common decency. It's disappointing that even intelligent people are lured into this "us against them" mentality that is so obviously set up to divide the middle class by those who benefit.

I couldn’t agree more, except it’s not only the anti-SJW culture that is worrying, but the SJW culture as well. You don’t seem to have any trouble noticing the problems with anti-SJW culture and the extreme factions of it, but you seem to turn a blind eye to the problem and extremist that is part of the SJW culture. You cannot find common ground to work on or solve a problem without first admitting the faults of both sides.

Let me give you some examples of faults in the SJW culture;

1. There exist a patriarch that all white straight men are part of that has as only goal to oppress women and minorities.

2. If you think that free abortion should be allowed up to, lets say week 12, while they think it should be allowed up until week 18. Then you are a sexist bastard who wants men to control women’s bodies.

3. There is a rape culture in the West where rape and sexual harassment are approved or even encouraged.

4. You think the family should decide themselves who is home at what time with the baby, then you are obviously a woman hater who wants women to only stay at home.

5. White men are not allowed a valid opinion on racism, sexism and oppression, because it is impossible to be oppressed as a white man. It is also impossible to have a valid opinion unless you have been oppressed yourself.

6. If you think there are only two genders, then you are a sexist who wants to reinstate sterilization of undesirable.

7. If you voice concern about the number of refuges entering your country you’re a racist or a heartless bastard with no empathy.

8. If you voice your concern about Islamic extremists’ oppression of women in certain communities, you are Islamophobic and judging everyone for the fault of a few. That you wrote/said “extremist in certain communities”, they never see.

These are obviously (I hope) outrageous statements, but they are sadly often used by SJW. I could add more, but I think this is enough to make my point clear. Many of these are only voiced by the extremist in the SJW culture, but they get an unproportionable amount of attention. The more level-headed SJW should stand up and say, “no that’s wrong and that is taking it too far”, but they rarely do. Most think that “no, we are on the same side, it doesn’t matter if they are extreme, they are that against my enemy, so it is okay”. This would be exactly what you said, people are lured into the "us against them" mentality. There are not only two sides and you can sympathize with one side in one subject and with another in some other subject

[Snuden]

Number 6 really gets on my nerves, to a degree that is unhealthy for me and my surroundings.
Genderqueer is by far the worst of the lot. They prefer to be addressed as Mx instead or Mr or Ms.

I would be more than happy to come up with a few offensive jokes, if I ever met such a thing IRL.

[Dolan]

[Goodspeed]

@martinspjuth Of course there is extremism on both "sides". But ITT, I only see extremism on the one side and I'm just calling that out.
Also I think extremist SJWs are quite rare. This issue is largely overstated by politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet. It's very easy to be stamped an extreme SJW when all you're arguing for is common decency. Plenty of examples on this forum.

[Dolan]

Because most people, dolan included, aren't willing to actually discuss properly. Besides, discussions are unrewarding in general, as most people won't change their minds by arguments anyway, but do it rather through the gaze of the other.

I am willing to discuss in any format. But when mods close topics for the most trifling reasons, like "I'm afraid this might degenerate into X kind of discussion" it's a pointless forum of debate.
There's too much discretion over what should be discussed and not. So, I feel like I'm wasting my time debating anything seriously here, if it could be locked down or deleted at any time for the most random of reasons.

[HUMMAN]

discussing is for masturbating your brain. fap fap fap

[martinspjuth]

@martinspjuth Of course there is extremism on both "sides". But ITT, I only see extremism on the one side and I'm just calling that out.
Also I think extremist SJWs are quite rare. This issue is largely overstated by politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet. It's very easy to be stamped an extreme SJW when all you're arguing for is common decency. Plenty of examples on this forum.

The issue of anti-SJW is also largely overstated by other politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet (and elsewhere). It’s also very easy to be stamped an extreme anti-SJW when arguing for common decency. This comes back to my main point; the debate climate today is often too polarized for any real results to be achieved.


Back on topic from this sidetrack.
Weather a joke is offensive or not depends on if someone is offended or not. This you can never know for sure until after you already made the joke. A person with high self-esteem may laugh with you when he is made fun of and not be offended, while some other person may be very offended by the same joke.

It’s up to the one telling the joke to try and make a qualified guess whether the other person(s) would find it funny or offensive. It’s a guess, sometimes you will be wrong, but it is better to lightly offend someone occasionally but also make lots of people laugh rather than just staying silent and boring (which could also offend people for other reasons). There is also a responsibility of the people listening to not interpret the things said in the most negatively way, but in a positive/funny way instead. If you truly was offended you also have to consider whether the one telling the joke really meant to offend you or if he just made a slight mistake without ill intentions.

You should not offend people if you can avoid it, but you must also accept the fact that you will be offended and that you will have to accept that and deal with it. This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand. There will always be people who are offended, it’s impossible to get away from. Someone may be offended by an action, forced to shake hands for example, while another would be offended if the other person refused to shake hands

[Goodspeed]

@martinspjuth Of course there is extremism on both "sides". But ITT, I only see extremism on the one side and I'm just calling that out.
Also I think extremist SJWs are quite rare. This issue is largely overstated by politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet. It's very easy to be stamped an extreme SJW when all you're arguing for is common decency. Plenty of examples on this forum.

The issue of anti-SJW is also largely overstated by other politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet (and elsewhere).

You were probably mostly trying to be funny here but I have to disagree. I have met many people, mostly online but IRL too, who are passionately anti-SJW, while I have never met anyone who would agree with all (or even half) of the statements you mentioned in an earlier post as being "typical SJW". People who are called SJWs are often simply decent people arguing for tolerance and solidarity.

It’s also very easy to be stamped an extreme anti-SJW when arguing for common decency.

I don't see how that is "very easy". Elaborate?

You should not offend people if you can avoid it, but you must also accept the fact that you will be offended and that you will have to accept that and deal with it. This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand. There will always be people who are offended, it’s impossible to get away from. Someone may be offended by an action, forced to shake hands for example, while another would be offended if the other person refused to shake hands

Can you name a single person who fails to understand this? I believe you are assuming this of people because it fits the narrative you've been fed. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

[deleted_user0]

1. There exist a patriarch that all white straight men are part of that has as only goal to oppress women and minorities.

Way to misunderstand an argument...

2. If you think that free abortion should be allowed up to, lets say week 12, while they think it should be allowed up until week 18. Then you are a sexist bastard who wants men to control women’s bodies.

How many people have you met who've said this?

3. There is a rape culture in the West where rape and sexual harassment are approved or even encouraged.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

4. You think the family should decide themselves who is home at what time with the baby, then you are obviously a woman hater who wants women to only stay at home.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

5. White men are not allowed a valid opinion on racism, sexism and oppression, because it is impossible to be oppressed as a white man. It is also impossible to have a valid opinion unless you have been oppressed yourself.

I agree this is a problematic issue at the core of the American brand of Emancipation movements, and some of its imitators abroad.

6. If you think there are only two genders, then you are a sexist who wants to reinstate sterilization of undesirable.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

7. If you voice concern about the number of refuges entering your country you’re a racist or a heartless bastard with no empathy.

See the refugee thread that we had, and how many people were called racist bastard with no empathy. This debate is highly polarized, and people who are trying to spread a political message often have no use for nuance. This isn't an SJW thing, if SJW is even a thing to begin with...

8. If you voice your concern about Islamic extremists’ oppression of women in certain communities, you are Islamophobic and judging everyone for the fault of a few. That you wrote/said “extremist in certain communities”, they never see.

Same as above, as well as probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

These are obviously (I hope) outrageous statements, but they are sadly often used by SJW.

Outrageous statements indeed, whether the second part is true, that remains to be seen. Have you made a poll and asked the people who identify as SJW? Is there a way to identify people as SJW? What does SJW even mean (yes I know what it stands for, but what defines it?). See, here it starts to get problematic. And this left/right nazi/antifa alt-right/sjw tags just serve no purpose but to reinforce your own group mentality. (not talking about you specifically)

I could add more, but I think this is enough to make my point clear. Many of these are only voiced by the extremist in the SJW culture, but they get an unproportionable amount of attention.

This is undoubtedly the case. Extreme opinions are more juicy for the press and social media than a reasonable opinion that most people would agree with... This isn't really anything new. It's the same within any other political group/movement, basically.

The more level-headed SJW should stand up and say, “no that’s wrong and that is taking it too far”, but they rarely do.

Maybe because there isn't an SJW group and they don't identify with them...? There's just so much wrong with this assumption lol.

Most think that “no, we are on the same side, it doesn’t matter if they are extreme, they are that against my enemy, so it is okay”.

How do you know this, have you talked to "them"?

This would be exactly what you said, people are lured into the "us against them" mentality. There are not only two sides and you can sympathize with one side in one subject and with another in some other subject

I agree with this. But again, nothing new. And there hasn't really been a solution for it in 3k years...

Weather a joke is offensive or not depends on if someone is offended or not. This you can never know for sure until after you already made the joke. A person with high self-esteem may laugh with you when he is made fun of and not be offended, while some other person may be very offended by the same joke.

It's true, you can't know. So what? You can't know whether someone who says they're offended are really offended either. Nor can you know whether someone who says they didn't mean to insult you is actually telling the truth. This is a different problem. One more suited for game theory, how can you trust someone else?

You won't know how a joke will land until after you make it, I guess it's not an entirely true statement, but close enough, I suppose. IMO it's better to get people to speak up and set their boundaries in such a situation than to get people to try and accurately predict what people like and don't like. The former might be difficult, but the latter is impossible.

It’s up to the one telling the joke to try and make a qualified guess whether the other person(s) would find it funny or offensive. It’s a guess, sometimes you will be wrong, but it is better to lightly offend someone occasionally but also make lots of people laugh rather than just staying silent and boring (which could also offend people for other reasons). There is also a responsibility of the people listening to not interpret the things said in the most negatively way, but in a positive/funny way instead. If you truly was offended you also have to consider whether the one telling the joke really meant to offend you or if he just made a slight mistake without ill intentions.

I disagree with this. Sure, a comedian should know its audience, but most people arent professional jokers. I don't think most people just tell jokes because other people find them funny. they tell jokes because they themselves find it funny, and they often (wrongfully) assume other people will find it funny too. Instead of trying to assume what someone else likes and doesn't like, the other person should tell you, I don't find this funny, please don't make these kind of jokes in my presence. Thank you. Then you can make a choice, either you respect that person's wishes, or you don't, but then you know you will offend them if you do and you don't have ignorance to hide behind anymore.

You should not offend people if you can avoid it, but you must also accept the fact that you will be offended and that you will have to accept that and deal with it. This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand. There will always be people who are offended, it’s impossible to get away from. Someone may be offended by an action, forced to shake hands for example, while another would be offended if the other person refused to shake hands

This seems like a pile of unsubstantiated rubbish to me. As GS points out, I think most people do understand this. But as I stated earlier in this thread, it's not just about the joke. It's about balance of power. And if you're always the butt of the joke, that balance isn't present. And the joke is nothing but a catalyst for people to finally voice their anger over the inequality of that balance. To paraphrase myself, if you make sure that balance of power is more or less equal, then you'll find people to be good sports about most things, including most jokes.

[martinspjuth]

1. There exist a patriarch that all white straight men are part of that has as only goal to oppress women and minorities.

Way to misunderstand an argument...

If you think I’ve misunderstood, then maybe you should explain it to me?

2. If you think that free abortion should be allowed up to, lets say week 12, while they think it should be allowed up until week 18. Then you are a sexist bastard who wants men to control women’s bodies.

How many people have you met who've said this?

Quite common in Swedish media.

3. There is a rape culture in the West where rape and sexual harassment are approved or even encouraged.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

Sure, that might be the case, but I don’t see what good it brings to a discussion.

4. You think the family should decide themselves who is home at what time with the baby, then you are obviously a woman hater who wants women to only stay at home.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

Again, quite commonly used in Swedish media.

6. If you think there are only two genders, then you are a sexist who wants to reinstate sterilization of undesirable.

probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

Again, quite commonly used in Swedish media. And whether they are trying to be dramatic or not, I don’t see what good it brings to the discussion.

7. If you voice concern about the number of refuges entering your country you’re a racist or a heartless bastard with no empathy.

See the refugee thread that we had, and how many people were called racist bastard with no empathy.

I haven’t looked at the refugee thread, but I assume there was few/none called racist etc. That only means you are more likely to have had a level-headed discussion and that few extreme SJW was present.

This debate is highly polarized, and people who are trying to spread a political message often have no use for nuance. This isn't an SJW thing, if SJW is even a thing to begin with...

I agree with sentence one. As for sentence two, I don’t think there is a formal definition of SJW, if there is I’m not aware of it. I’m just going with the general direction of what sometimes are expressed of people being called SJW.

8. If you voice your concern about Islamic extremists’ oppression of women in certain communities, you are Islamophobic and judging everyone for the fault of a few. That you wrote/said “extremist in certain communities”, they never see.

Same as above, as well as probably someone trying to be dramatic, might even be you.

Again, quite commonly used in Swedish media. And whether they are trying to be dramatic or not, I don’t see what good it brings to the discussion.

These are obviously (I hope) outrageous statements, but they are sadly often used by SJW.

Outrageous statements indeed, whether the second part is true, that remains to be seen. Have you made a poll and asked the people who identify as SJW? Is there a way to identify people as SJW? What does SJW even mean (yes I know what it stands for, but what defines it?). See, here it starts to get problematic. And this left/right nazi/antifa alt-right/sjw tags just serve no purpose but to reinforce your own group mentality. (not talking about you specifically)

First off, I should not have written often, my mistake. As for who identifies as SJW or what that exactly mean I’m not sure of. I could just as well have used “extreme leftist” or some other term. I’m just using a term to make it easier, if you have any suggestion of what is should call it or how I should express myself better, I’m all ears.

The more level-headed SJW should stand up and say, “no that’s wrong and that is taking it too far”, but they rarely do.

Maybe because there isn't an SJW group and they don't identify with them...? There's just so much wrong with this assumption lol.

Sure there might not be a SJW group and they might not identify with those who expresses them. They should still react when people expresses these extreme opinions, just as they would react if someone said something truly racist.

Most think that “no, we are on the same side, it doesn’t matter if they are extreme, they are that against my enemy, so it is okay”.

How do you know this, have you talked to "them"?

Obviously, I cannot know what they think. It was just mean to clarify what I meant with the statement just above, but it was poorly done so, I agree.

Weather a joke is offensive or not depends on if someone is offended or not. This you can never know for sure until after you already made the joke. A person with high self-esteem may laugh with you when he is made fun of and not be offended, while some other person may be very offended by the same joke.

It's true, you can't know. So what? You can't know whether someone who says they're offended are really offended either. Nor can you know whether someone who says they didn't mean to insult you is actually telling the truth. This is a different problem. One more suited for game theory, how can you trust someone else?

You won't know how a joke will land until after you make it, I guess it's not an entirely true statement, but close enough, I suppose. IMO it's better to get people to speak up and set their boundaries in such a situation than to get people to try and accurately predict what people like and don't like. The former might be difficult, but the latter is impossible.

Fair enough.

It’s up to the one telling the joke to try and make a qualified guess whether the other person(s) would find it funny or offensive. It’s a guess, sometimes you will be wrong, but it is better to lightly offend someone occasionally but also make lots of people laugh rather than just staying silent and boring (which could also offend people for other reasons). There is also a responsibility of the people listening to not interpret the things said in the most negatively way, but in a positive/funny way instead. If you truly was offended you also have to consider whether the one telling the joke really meant to offend you or if he just made a slight mistake without ill intentions.

I disagree with this. Sure, a comedian should know its audience, but most people arent professional jokers. I don't think most people just tell jokes because other people find them funny. they tell jokes because they themselves find it funny, and they often (wrongfully) assume other people will find it funny too. Instead of trying to assume what someone else likes and doesn't like, the other person should tell you, I don't find this funny, please don't make these kind of jokes in my presence. Thank you. Then you can make a choice, either you respect that person's wishes, or you don't, but then you know you will offend them if you do and you don't have ignorance to hide behind anymore.

Imo both what you wrote here and what I wrote are true, I fail to see how they conflict with each other.

You should not offend people if you can avoid it, but you must also accept the fact that you will be offended and that you will have to accept that and deal with it. This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand. There will always be people who are offended, it’s impossible to get away from. Someone may be offended by an action, forced to shake hands for example, while another would be offended if the other person refused to shake hands

This seems like a pile of unsubstantiated rubbish to me. As GS points out, I think most people do understand this. But as I stated earlier in this thread, it's not just about the joke. It's about balance of power. And if you're always the butt of the joke, that balance isn't present. And the joke is nothing but a catalyst for people to finally voice their anger over the inequality of that balance. To paraphrase myself, if you make sure that balance of power is more or less equal, then you'll find people to be good sports about most things, including most jokes.

Again, I fail to see how these can’t be true at the same time. If you are unclear with what I mean here, I don’t know what is unclear or how I should explain it, maybe you ask some more specific questions?

[martinspjuth]

@martinspjuth Of course there is extremism on both "sides". But ITT, I only see extremism on the one side and I'm just calling that out.
Also I think extremist SJWs are quite rare. This issue is largely overstated by politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet. It's very easy to be stamped an extreme SJW when all you're arguing for is common decency. Plenty of examples on this forum.

The issue of anti-SJW is also largely overstated by other politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet (and elsewhere).

You were probably mostly trying to be funny here but I have to disagree. I have met many people, mostly online but IRL too, who are passionately anti-SJW, while I have never met anyone who would agree with all (or even half) of the statements you mentioned in an earlier post as being "typical SJW". People who are called SJWs are often simply decent people arguing for tolerance and solidarity.

I don’t think I ever said those things were “typical SJW”, I said those were faults existing in the SJW culture, that is not the same thing. That most people fighting against anti-SJW are decent people I don’t doubt at all, whether they would call themselves SJW though, that I’m not so sure of.
If a person agrees with that those statements I listed are stupid, then he/she should confront the extreme SJW when they use them, just as they would confront a person saying something truly racist. Online I’ve met quite a few people who believes in one or more of those statements, some are even used in MSM in the political debates in Sweden. Even though they are rarely/never used by government officials or people with high positions in a party, said people almost never confronts people in their own organization for standing for such views. Who knows, they might be next in line to be branded a sexist/racist by these “SJW” if they did.

It’s also very easy to be stamped an extreme anti-SJW when arguing for common decency.

I don't see how that is "very easy". Elaborate?

This is admittedly a few years ago but should serve as a good example; a person with high status in an established party pointed out that you had to look at how many refugees Sweden could manage to take in and take care of. He was immediately branded a racist. He never said we should stop taking in refugees, he didn’t even mention a number that would be the limit of what Sweden could manage. All he did was point out that somewhere such a limit exist, that was enough for him to be marked a racist. His party leader and our former prime minister even said (translated quote):

“Is Sweden full? Is the Nordic region full? Are we too many people? We are 25 million people living in the Nordic region. I often fly across the Swedish countryside and I would advise more people to do that. There are endless fields and forests. There is more space than you can imagine. Those who claim that the country is full, they should show where it is full”

As if having lots of empty fields and forests had anything to do with it.

Another example:
In the town council where I live there was a proposition for the town to pay the cost for immigrants to get a driver’s license. When a woman said it would be discrimination to only pay the immigrants’ cost and not the “normal” youngsters’ she was yelled at and called a racist (admittedly by only one person, but still). I could go on if you want me too.

You should not offend people if you can avoid it, but you must also accept the fact that you will be offended and that you will have to accept that and deal with it. This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand. There will always be people who are offended, it’s impossible to get away from. Someone may be offended by an action, forced to shake hands for example, while another would be offended if the other person refused to shake hands

Can you name a single person who fails to understand this? I believe you are assuming this of people because it fits the narrative you've been fed. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

Naming people is never the way to go. I think most/all people understand this, but some (a few) act like they don't. They get easily offended for all kinds of things and mean it is the rest of the society that needs to change so that they don't get offended. That they need to get some self-distance and to “harden their skin” they don’t want to recognize.

I can only draw the conclusion that I’m more exposed to extreme SJW culture than you. In turn you might be exposed to more extreme anti-SJW culture, I’m not sure.

[Gendarme]

I walked past Jimmie and his bodyguards in Arlanda airport a few months ago. It was early morning and I was tired, so I didn't cheer him.

[deleted_user0]

If you think I’ve misunderstood, then maybe you should explain it to me?

I didn't say you misunderstood it. But whomever that sentence came from, has misunderstood it. Patriarchy is not a club which you can join or be excluded from. It's in its simplest form a system or mechanisms to achieve, control and maintain power named after its chief beneficiary, namely, men. It's a simple rule throughout history that people in power generally try to stay in power, even after they stepped down or have died. They pass power on to those who resemble them closest, traditionally family, but no exclusively so. Its no surprise then that when such a system can remain in power, that is made possible because there are mechanisms in place to give advantage to the ruling party. In the west, historically white heterosexual men have been in power for millennia, and women and minority groups (either ethnic, racial or religious minorities) have been excluded. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are many things in place to ensure that it stays that way. In the middle east you can see the same, except for Arab/muslim heterosexual men. If a matriarchy wouldve survived to this day, we would expect to see similar favorable circumstances for women of that ethnicity to keep power. It's not a conspiracy, just survival mechanisms. So far the history lesson. Now it's time to get political. As a person, community and a country, you'll have to decide whether you say, I want to keep it the way it was, where the same people as in the past stay in power as they have always done, or we try this revolutionary idea called democracy where we allot every (active) member of society a fair share of power. If you choose the latter, then you will have to reckon with the fact that there have been, and are still mechanisms and policies in place which favor one group over another. This doesn't mean anyone is evil or guilty of their ancestors actions. It does mean however that you take responsibility for injustices that exist in the present and try not to be a part of perpetuating these imbalances.

You say that calling people names doesn't contribute to anything and should be avoided. Yet that's practically what you do when you employ the term SJW, as its a derogatory name for people with a certain set of beliefs. You can't even really say who are included in this group, and neither could anyone else probably. So how are you surprised that other normal SJW don't call extreme SJW's (seems tautological to me, as SJW's are already supposed to be extreme) out on their extreme extreme opinions. Most likely they aren't even aware they are in the same group. The same kinda goes for left/right and any variation of a similar kind. You employ this phrase without even knowing what it actually means. How does this do any good to the discussion? Perhaps instead of employing terms that obscure meaning, you should use those that clarify it.

Sure there might not be a SJW group and they might not identify with those who expresses them. They should still react when people expresses these extreme opinions, just as they would react if someone said something truly racist.

People do respond. But most likely, when they respond, you immediately declassify them as SJW, and thus you can always say no SJW ever responds to another SJW. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. In any case, within feminism, one of the meta groups most often accused of being SJW, you can see a lot of internal debate about which direction should be taken, which means of action should be employed, etc. Perhaps you aren't aware of them, but that shows only your own ignorance (in the neutral definition of lack of knowledge).

Quite common in Swedish media.

You, yourself said that these comments I quoted before came from a minority, albeit a very loud one. I already mentioned, and I think that you will agree, that the media, globally, covers that which is sensational. So obviously controversial opinions will receive more attention. I'm not asking about how many of these people you can find on TV, but how many people who believe this can be found in general. And how fairly have you or the media represented their arguments? If these arguments represent the general level of debate shown on the swedish media, then thats indeed a sad state of affairs.

Imo both what you wrote here and what I wrote are true, I fail to see how they conflict with each other.

Perhaps I shouldve been clearer here. I disagree specifically with this: it is better to lightly offend someone occasionally but also make lots of people laugh rather than just staying silent and boring. Maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more, but as I understand it now, I don't see why this should be the case. This may be your personal opinion, but I don't see why anyone would share it, and I honestly can't think of many people who do.
I also disagree with this: There is also a responsibility of the people listening to not interpret the things said in the most negatively way, but in a positive/funny way instead. Again, the same as above applies, with the added comment that I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to do this, but I do think that most people generally assume others act in good faith, and thus they won't immediately assume malicious intent. However, when relations have soured already, either between individuals, or when they perceive themselves to be members of a group, between groups, then this may be different.

Our opinions can coexist on this matter, I suppose, but I believe mine makes yours redundant. (This doesn't mean I am right, even though, of course, I am ;D )

Again, I fail to see how these can’t be true at the same time. If you are unclear with what I mean here, I don’t know what is unclear or how I should explain it, maybe you ask some more specific questions?

[/quote]
I should've been clearer here too. I specifically objected to this part: This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand.

Why I mentioned balance of power is because for you, and gendarme, this discussion seems to be about freedom of speech and who decides what an insult is and stuff like that. But I think that this is not the main issue. If the main issue, an imbalance in power, is properly addressed, you will quickly see that freedom of speech was never under any threat and that these young 90's 00's people aren't at all more easily offended than generations before or whatever.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

@martinspjuth Of course there is extremism on both "sides". But ITT, I only see extremism on the one side and I'm just calling that out.
Also I think extremist SJWs are quite rare. This issue is largely overstated by politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet. It's very easy to be stamped an extreme SJW when all you're arguing for is common decency. Plenty of examples on this forum.

The issue of anti-SJW is also largely overstated by other politically motivated media and echo chambers throughout the internet (and elsewhere).

You were probably mostly trying to be funny here but I have to disagree. I have met many people, mostly online but IRL too, who are passionately anti-SJW, while I have never met anyone who would agree with all (or even half) of the statements you mentioned in an earlier post as being "typical SJW". People who are called SJWs are often simply decent people arguing for tolerance and solidarity.

I don’t think I ever said those things were “typical SJW”, I said those were faults existing in the SJW culture, that is not the same thing. That most people fighting against anti-SJW are decent people I don’t doubt at all, whether they would call themselves SJW though, that I’m not so sure of.

I'm not talking about what people call themselves, rather what labels are put on them by others. Yes, you said they are faults in SJW culture, thereby implying that they are part of SJW culture. My point was if that is true, then I think the popularity of that culture is vastly overrated, by you anyway.

If a person agrees with that those statements I listed are stupid, then he/she should confront the extreme SJW when they use them, just as they would confront a person saying something truly racist.

I haven't seen them used by anyone in my immediate vicinity, either online or irl. Maybe you are exaggerating, and most of these statements are, when actually used, more mild and nuanced (in which case I might actually agree with some of them)? The wording you used is rather extreme.

Online I’ve met quite a few people who believes in one or more of those statements, some are even used in MSM in the political debates in Sweden.

Just about every opinion imaginable can be found in the media. And as umeu pointed out, controversial opinions get a lot of attention. I've seen opinions like these expressed online, my point was that I haven't met anyone who expressed them and think the issue is overblown.
Have you met anyone like that here, by any chance?

It’s also very easy to be stamped an extreme anti-SJW when arguing for common decency.

I don't see how that is "very easy". Elaborate?

This is admittedly a few years ago but should serve as a good example; a person with high status in an established party pointed out that you had to look at how many refugees Sweden could manage to take in and take care of. He was immediately branded a racist.

And was he branded an "extreme anti-SJW"? Because that's not at all the same as being branded a racist. What he said is also not an argument for common decency, rather one for common sense.

I can only draw the conclusion that I’m more exposed to extreme SJW culture than you. In turn you might be exposed to more extreme anti-SJW culture, I’m not sure.

Sounds likely. Maybe it has gone too far in Sweden. But so far you haven't given me much reason to believe that.

[martinspjuth]

I don’t think I ever said those things were “typical SJW”, I said those were faults existing in the SJW culture, that is not the same thing. That most people fighting against anti-SJW are decent people I don’t doubt at all, whether they would call themselves SJW though, that I’m not so sure of.

I'm not talking about what people call themselves, rather what labels are put on them by others. Yes, you said they are faults in SJW culture, thereby implying that they are part of SJW culture. My point was if that is true, then I think the popularity of that culture is vastly overrated, by you anyway.

Maybe so, but I’d say the popularity of this “anti-SJW culture” and “fight against common decency” that you seem so afraid of are just as overrated.

If a person agrees with that those statements I listed are stupid, then he/she should confront the extreme SJW when they use them, just as they would confront a person saying something truly racist.

I haven't seen them used by anyone in my immediate vicinity, either online or irl.

Whether people in your immediate vicinity use these terms or not is even less relevant than what is shown in different politically motivated media. The likelihood for the people in your immediate vicinity to have a good representation of the opinions throughout a whole society is very small.

Maybe you are exaggerating, and most of these statements are, when actually used, more mild and nuanced (in which case I might actually agree with some of them)? The wording you used is rather extreme.

Yes, the statements I wrote is the extreme versions of them, should not be hard to understand, they are still used though.
Now I’m interested, which of those statements would you agree on? Feel free to rewrite them to less extreme versions first.

Online I’ve met quite a few people who believes in one or more of those statements, some are even used in MSM in the political debates in Sweden.

Just about every opinion imaginable can be found in the media. And as umeu pointed out, controversial opinions get a lot of attention. I've seen opinions like these expressed online, my point was that I haven't met anyone who expressed them and think the issue is overblown.
Have you met anyone like that here, by any chance?

Again, that you haven’t met anyone expressing such opinions are only of little relevance for reasons I explained above.
No, I haven’t met anyone on this forum expressing such opinions, neither have I met any racists (maybe with one exception). I am not always very active visiting the site though, so this is not to say there aren’t any.

This is admittedly a few years ago but should serve as a good example; a person with high status in an established party pointed out that you had to look at how many refugees Sweden could manage to take in and take care of. He was immediately branded a racist.

And was he branded an "extreme anti-SJW"? Because that's not at all the same as being branded a racist. What he said is also not an argument for common decency, rather one for common sense.

The term SJW or anti-SJW is hardly even used in Sweden, so no, he wasn’t. A racist is against social-justice the way I see it, although not necessarily the other way around, so it is close enough for the argument imo. Picking on the definition of a term that have none is quite pointless.
Common decency and common sense cannot be separated from each other. To express or argue for common decency you would most of the time need some degree of common sense.

Maybe it has gone too far in Sweden. But so far you haven't given me much reason to believe that.

First of you haven’t given me much reason to think that this “anti-SJW culture” has gone too far either. I know that in some cases it has, but you have not given any reason for it.
Secondly, I have not given any reasons? Really? The two examples I wrote? That I say some of the statements I wrote are used quite often in debates, even up in the government? Do you not think this is too far? Or maybe it is that you question the validity of what I’m saying? If it is the first, we sure do have different opinions on what is too far. If it is the later, there is nothing I can do about it. I cannot prove anything unless you want to learn Swedish first, which I doubt.
You mentioned confirmation bias earlier, to me it seems you should look at yourself first. Things furthering your view that anti-SJW is a huge threat are swallowed without examining while every argument for there to exist a problem with extremist among SJW are looked highly skeptically upon or maybe even ignored.

Maybe I come off as if I think SJW (or whatever you want to call them) is the greatest threat to society right now, I do not. I consider both sides to have valid points and the threat to come from both sides extremist. That I’m having this argument with you is because you seem to think that the problem is one sided or at least that the problems on your “SJW” side is neglectable compared to that from the “anti-SJW”. To not acknowledge the faults on “your” side only brings further polarization, even though I’m sure it is not your intension.

[martinspjuth]

I didn't say you misunderstood it. But whomever that sentence came from, has misunderstood it. Patriarchy is not a club which you can join or be excluded from. It's in its simplest form a system or mechanisms to achieve, control and maintain power named after its chief beneficiary, namely, men. It's a simple rule throughout history that people in power generally try to stay in power, even after they stepped down or have died. They pass power on to those who resemble them closest, traditionally family, but no exclusively so. Its no surprise then that when such a system can remain in power, that is made possible because there are mechanisms in place to give advantage to the ruling party. In the west, historically white heterosexual men have been in power for millennia, and women and minority groups (either ethnic, racial or religious minorities) have been excluded. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are many things in place to ensure that it stays that way. In the middle east you can see the same, except for Arab/muslim heterosexual men. If a matriarchy wouldve survived to this day, we would expect to see similar favorable circumstances for women of that ethnicity to keep power. It's not a conspiracy, just survival mechanisms. So far the history lesson. Now it's time to get political. As a person, community and a country, you'll have to decide whether you say, I want to keep it the way it was, where the same people as in the past stay in power as they have always done, or we try this revolutionary idea called democracy where we allot every (active) member of society a fair share of power. If you choose the latter, then you will have to reckon with the fact that there have been, and are still mechanisms and policies in place which favor one group over another. This doesn't mean anyone is evil or guilty of their ancestors actions. It does mean however that you take responsibility for injustices that exist in the present and try not to be a part of perpetuating these imbalances.

I agree on this definition, well explained too. The rest I agree on as well.

You say that calling people names doesn't contribute to anything and should be avoided. Yet that's practically what you do when you employ the term SJW, as its a derogatory name for people with a certain set of beliefs. You can't even really say who are included in this group, and neither could anyone else probably. So how are you surprised that other normal SJW don't call extreme SJW's (seems tautological to me, as SJW's are already supposed to be extreme) out on their extreme extreme opinions. Most likely they aren't even aware they are in the same group. The same kinda goes for left/right and any variation of a similar kind. You employ this phrase without even knowing what it actually means. How does this do any good to the discussion? Perhaps instead of employing terms that obscure meaning, you should use those that clarify it.

First of you have misunderstood. Goodspeed asked me to name people who didn’t understand. I answered that naming certain people are never the way to go.
Secondly, you were the first in this thread to use the term SJW, closely followed by others. I only used the term to keep consistent with the wording to not cause a confusion with many different terms. It was also because the only alternatives I can think of would be just as bad and generalizing. As I have already told you before in this thread, you are more than welcome to suggest a better term.

Sure there might not be a SJW group and they might not identify with those who expresses them. They should still react when people expresses these extreme opinions, just as they would react if someone said something truly racist.

People do respond. But most likely, when they respond, you immediately declassify them as SJW, and thus you can always say no SJW ever responds to another SJW. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. In any case, within feminism, one of the meta groups most often accused of being SJW, you can see a lot of internal debate about which direction should be taken, which means of action should be employed, etc. Perhaps you aren't aware of them, but that shows only your own ignorance (in the neutral definition of lack of knowledge).

It's not about whether people are SJW or not. I don’t doubt there is internal debate within any democratic movement. My point is that when people are faced with who they think are their main adversary, they rarely want to criticize anyone on “their side”, even if they use absurd arguments (rare compared to how often they would do it if it was the other side saying it or if their main adversary wasn’t present). This goes for any side in any argument. People seem afraid to give even a little ground to the opponent during a heated battle even though it could solidify their ground as a reasonable person and helps to keep the debate civilized. A good example of when this is done right is in the campaign between Obama and McCain.

You, yourself said that these comments I quoted before came from a minority, albeit a very loud one. I already mentioned, and I think that you will agree, that the media, globally, covers that which is sensational. So obviously controversial opinions will receive more attention. I'm not asking about how many of these people you can find on TV, but how many people who believe this can be found in general. And how fairly have you or the media represented their arguments? If these arguments represent the general level of debate shown on the swedish media, then thats indeed a sad state of affairs.

I agree with that media covers what is sensational, as for how well represented the arguments are it is probably just as well/bad as most other subjects covered by the media. You ask me how many people who believe this can be found in general, how would I know? Media is one way to get a general idea, but not very accurate. To base it on who you have personally met, as GS seem to be quite fond of, is hardly any better. That your circle of acquaintances represents the population in a good way is highly unlikely. So, how do you propose you get a fair understanding of people’s opinions over a whole society? And this goes the other way around too, how does GS know “anti-sjw” are such a big thing and not only played up by the media and his circle of acquaintances?

Perhaps I shouldve been clearer here. I disagree specifically with this: it is better to lightly offend someone occasionally but also make lots of people laugh rather than just staying silent and boring. Maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more, but as I understand it now, I don't see why this should be the case. This may be your personal opinion, but I don't see why anyone would share it, and I honestly can't think of many people who do.

The only way to make sure you offend nobody is to never have contact with anyone. My point is that you can’t stop living or participating in activities/discussion just because you might offend someone. You should obviously refrain from saying things you believe would be offensive. If you tell something you think are funny, but someone tells you they find it offensive you should obviously refrain from saying it again. If you really thought it was better to stay silent and boring I don’t see how you can even participate in any debate, you don’t know if I have found your responses offensive or not for example (I havn't, so now you can take my word for it).

I also disagree with this: There is also a responsibility of the people listening to not interpret the things said in the most negatively way, but in a positive/funny way instead. Again, the same as above applies, with the added comment that I don't think it's anyone's responsibility to do this, but I do think that most people generally assume others act in good faith, and thus they won't immediately assume malicious intent. However, when relations have soured already, either between individuals, or when they perceive themselves to be members of a group, between groups, then this may be different.

Well what I said obviously does not apply to all cases. If there already exist hostilities, there are no reason to think positively about everything they say. In other circumstances people should choose to interpret things positively if possible, for example; A guy compliments a girl on her dress, the girl could interpret it as he likes her style, or she might think he is a pervert, she might even think he is ironic and mocking her. If there are no other hints to what the meaning was, there is no reason why the girl should assume the worst. The reason for assuming the best would be that positivity is a positive thing in itself. Some people sadly interpret things as people mocking them much more often than people actually are trying to mock them.

I should've been clearer here too. I specifically objected to this part: This is what some people (especially from the 90’s and 00’s) fail to understand.

Why I mentioned balance of power is because for you, and gendarme, this discussion seems to be about freedom of speech and who decides what an insult is and stuff like that. But I think that this is not the main issue. If the main issue, an imbalance in power, is properly addressed, you will quickly see that freedom of speech was never under any threat and that these young 90's 00's people aren't at all more easily offended than generations before or whatever.

Freedom of speech, what is an insult and not, imbalance of power etc are all problems and cannot be separated from one another. I’ve tried to focus on the first two because I didn’t want to go too far off topic, not because I think they are the main issue in society. As for whether people from the 90’s and 00’s are more easily offended than others is something I’ve no basis for other than personal experience. Whether they are more easily offended than other generations when they were young idk, maybe I should have written “especially young people”.

[Goodspeed]

I don’t think I ever said those things were “typical SJW”, I said those were faults existing in the SJW culture, that is not the same thing. That most people fighting against anti-SJW are decent people I don’t doubt at all, whether they would call themselves SJW though, that I’m not so sure of.

I'm not talking about what people call themselves, rather what labels are put on them by others. Yes, you said they are faults in SJW culture, thereby implying that they are part of SJW culture. My point was if that is true, then I think the popularity of that culture is vastly overrated, by you anyway.

Maybe so, but I’d say the popularity of this “anti-SJW culture” and “fight against common decency” that you seem so afraid of are just as overrated.

Idk man. For one, Trump is president and he's pretty much the embodiment of that culture. Plus, like I said, I've actually met people both online and irl who would fit the description. Can't say the same about extremist sjws.

If a person agrees with that those statements I listed are stupid, then he/she should confront the extreme SJW when they use them, just as they would confront a person saying something truly racist.

I haven't seen them used by anyone in my immediate vicinity, either online or irl.

Whether people in your immediate vicinity use these terms or not is even less relevant than what is shown in different politically motivated media.

It's relevant because it gives some idea of how widespread it actually is, as opposed to the media and politics. Media outlets want attention, and politicians want exposure.

The likelihood for the people in your immediate vicinity to have a good representation of the opinions throughout a whole society is very small.

Certainly not a perfect representation, but it does make me doubt the issue is as widespread as you and others think it is. Again though, maybe it's more widespread in Sweden. Still it seems more likely to me that you're basing your opinion mostly on what you have heard/seen in the media and politics, where the issue would undoubtedly be exaggerated.

Yes, the statements I wrote is the extreme versions of them, should not be hard to understand, they are still used though.

Not by anyone I know and not by any politician that I know of.

Now I’m interested, which of those statements would you agree on? Feel free to rewrite them to less extreme versions first.

In turn I am interested if you disagree with me on any of them.

"1. There exist a patriarch that all white straight men are part of that has as only goal to oppress women and minorities."
There is no such goal, but it seems obvious to me that straight white men are in a position of power in Western society relative to other groups. Umeu already elaborated on this.

"3. There is a rape culture in the West where rape and sexual harassment are approved or even encouraged."
It's not hard to find stories of rape where it was actively encouraged by bystanders. Sexual harassment is still widespread, and very often encouraged.
I don't think our culture as a whole approves of rape, or encourages it, so "rape culture" is overstating things a little in my opinion. But there is definitely a problem there.

"5. White men are not allowed a valid opinion on racism, sexism and oppression, because it is impossible to be oppressed as a white man. It is also impossible to have a valid opinion unless you have been oppressed yourself."
Everyone is allowed an opinion, but often enough people express "opinions" on the issue as a way to actually express racism. It can come across maliciously convenient to fall back on "I'm allowed an opinion, aren't I?" when your opinion is basically masked racism. There's a fine line, and racists often step over it.

"7. If you voice concern about the number of refuges entering your country you’re a racist or a heartless bastard with no empathy."
Voicing concern can be done in a lot of different ways. If it's really just that, then there is nothing wrong. But the wording used by people who "voice concern" about immigrants is often... questionable. So I can see why that would lead to certain people calling them racists or heartless bastards.

This is admittedly a few years ago but should serve as a good example; a person with high status in an established party pointed out that you had to look at how many refugees Sweden could manage to take in and take care of. He was immediately branded a racist.

And was he branded an "extreme anti-SJW"? Because that's not at all the same as being branded a racist. What he said is also not an argument for common decency, rather one for common sense.

The term SJW or anti-SJW is hardly even used in Sweden, so no, he wasn’t. A racist is against social-justice the way I see it,

Oh I bet they would be, but it's still something different than what Gendarme expressed earlier ITT, which is an active fight against PC culture.

Common decency and common sense cannot be separated from each other. To express or argue for common decency you would most of the time need some degree of common sense.

Common decency is how you act towards other people. Taking their feelings into account, for one, is common decency. Common sense is something completely different. You said it's easy to be branded anti-SJW when arguing for common decency. So show me an example of that. Your example is not that.

I have not given any reasons? Really? The two examples I wrote? That I say some of the statements I wrote are used quite often in debates, even up in the government? Do you not think this is too far?

Your examples weren't detailed enough for me to draw any conclusions based on them. By the lack of detail and my understanding of how politics works, I think it's likely that you are either misrepresenting what was actually said or failing to mention important contextual details. It's very easy to misconstrue things that happened in the past, whether it's on purpose or not. I don't rule out that PC culture is much bigger in Sweden than in the rest of the world, however.
Regardless, we should probably focus on the global stage. Reminder: Trump is president.

You mentioned confirmation bias earlier, to me it seems you should look at yourself first. Things furthering your view that anti-SJW is a huge threat are swallowed without examining while every argument for there to exist a problem with extremist among SJW are looked highly skeptically upon or maybe even ignored.

I don't think anti-PC culture is a huge threat. I think it's worrying because it shows a general lack of empathy in the population, and it shows how sensitive people are to shock politics and propaganda. We have bigger problems though.

Maybe I come off as if I think SJW (or whatever you want to call them) is the greatest threat to society right now.

I don't see why you would come off that way, you haven't said anything even close to that. Gendarme, on the other hand...

[martinspjuth]

Show hidden quotes

I don’t think I ever said those things were “typical SJW”, I said those were faults existing in the SJW culture, that is not the same thing. That most people fighting against anti-SJW are decent people I don’t doubt at all, whether they would call themselves SJW though, that I’m not so sure of.

I'm not talking about what people call themselves, rather what labels are put on them by others. Yes, you said they are faults in SJW culture, thereby implying that they are part of SJW culture. My point was if that is true, then I think the popularity of that culture is vastly overrated, by you anyway.

Maybe so, but I’d say the popularity of this “anti-SJW culture” and “fight against common decency” that you seem so afraid of are just as overrated.

Idk man. For one, Trump is president and he's pretty much the embodiment of that culture. Plus, like I said, I've actually met people both online and irl who would fit the description. Can't say the same about extremist sjws.

I agree with that Trump belongs to that culture, but I don’t think he represent it very well. He is way too unstable and resistant to facts to represent any serious opinion in any way. If anything, he embodies the fake news era.
I don’t think “anti-SJW” should be synonym with “fight against common decency”. Idk, maybe some would say I have been “anti-SJW” in this thread, but I sure hope I don’t seem to be fighting against common decency.

Show hidden quotes

If a person agrees with that those statements I listed are stupid, then he/she should confront the extreme SJW when they use them, just as they would confront a person saying something truly racist.

I haven't seen them used by anyone in my immediate vicinity, either online or irl.

Whether people in your immediate vicinity use these terms or not is even less relevant than what is shown in different politically motivated media.

It's relevant because it gives some idea of how widespread it actually is, as opposed to the media and politics. Media outlets want attention, and politicians want exposure.

Sure, it can give an idea how widespread it is, but I disagree with that it would be more trustworthy than media (although not necessarily less either). The extreme or controversial opinions will always be overrepresented in free media compared to their representation in the population, that’s fine as long as you are aware of it.

The likelihood for the people in your immediate vicinity to have a good representation of the opinions throughout a whole society is very small.

Certainly not a perfect representation, but it does make me doubt the issue is as widespread as you and others think it is. Again though, maybe it's more widespread in Sweden. Still it seems more likely to me that you're basing your opinion mostly on what you have heard/seen in the media and politics, where the issue would undoubtedly be exaggerated.

Media does exaggerate things, but they have immense power in guiding the general debate and information to the general population. So, no matter how widespread (or lack thereof) these opinions are among normal people this is a real problem. When these opinions/arguments occur on government and established party level it’s even worse. Those people are after all the ones who are set to run our countries.
Yes, my arguments are mostly based on media and politics, but I have met some people irl who stand for those opinions too. I don’t see how we shall discuss politics without referring to media and politics, especially on a global basis. I can hardly know enough people from all over the world and all their different states, social groups etc to get fair view.

Yes, the statements I wrote is the extreme versions of them, should not be hard to understand, they are still used though.

Not by anyone I know and not by any politician that I know of.

Lucky you

Now I’m interested, which of those statements would you agree on? Feel free to rewrite them to less extreme versions first.

In turn I am interested if you disagree with me on any of them.

"1. There exist a patriarch that all white straight men are part of that has as only goal to oppress women and minorities."
There is no such goal, but it seems obvious to me that straight white men are in a position of power in Western society relative to other groups. Umeu already elaborated on this.

I agree there have been structures in society that favors straight white men, I would however argue that the quantity of these that remain often are exaggerated. A typical example would be that women get paid less. First off, you should not compare overall average, but only people within the same job and same experience. That there are more CEO’s and board members that are men is not strange at all. Those positions often require much experience and high education. Therefor there are mostly older men who sit on those positions. Why not older women? Because when they started their career there existed very real and widespread discrimination of women that prevented them from having the same career as their male counterpart did. If we instead look at people below 30 years of age, women in general often earn more than men in general in quite a few western countries. Is there suddenly a discrimination against men now? No, it is simply a result of that women overall do better in school and that more of them go to the university.
There are other things to be considered as well, women in general tend to work more for the state and men more for private organizations for example.
I’m not saying there doesn’t exist places where a women and men with the same qualifications are payed differently. But I think people exaggerate how widespread this is today, I also think they base many of their argument on rubbish, comparing the wages between two completely different occupations for example.

Rape culture is overstating things a little

Todays understatement. Rapist have one of the hardest sentences you can get and I don’t know anyone more despised in today’s society than a rapist, except pedophiles. I hardly see how our culture at the same time would be approving rape.

It's not hard to find stories of rape where it was actively encouraged by bystanders.

Really? I haven’t heard of many at all in our western cultures. If you go to the middle east or India, that would be different matter.

Sexual harassment is still widespread, and very often encouraged.

Is this also your conclusion from your circle of acquittances or from media?

But there is definitely a problem there.

To this I agree, sexual harassment are way too common. But to bunch up sexual harassment with rape is completely wrong, there is too large of a difference in the dignity of the crime. It is like comparing a physical slap to the face with murder. Both are physical assault but still hardly comparable.

"5. White men are not allowed a valid opinion on racism, sexism and oppression, because it is impossible to be oppressed as a white man. It is also impossible to have a valid opinion unless you have been oppressed yourself."
Everyone is allowed an opinion, but often enough people express "opinions" on the issue as a way to actually express racism. It can come across maliciously convenient to fall back on "I'm allowed an opinion, aren't I?" when your opinion is basically masked racism. There's a fine line, and racists often step over it.

What you wrote is true, but the statement above doesn’t bring anything constructive to any discussion. All it does is shut down a whole group of people as not allowed to have an opinion. It is a way to not need to listen to, or meet the other sides argument, since they are not even allowed to have an opinion. It also makes up a picture of white men always being superior since they can never be oppressed. It’s like they want to lock themselves into the victim role.

"7. If you voice concern about the number of refuges entering your country you’re a racist or a heartless bastard with no empathy."
Voicing concern can be done in a lot of different ways. If it's really just that, then there is nothing wrong. But the wording used by people who "voice concern" about immigrants is often... questionable. So, I can see why that would lead to certain people calling them racists or heartless bastards.

Obviously, there are also racists voicing their concern about refugees in a racist way and they should be called for that they are. However, it is not rare for people who voice concerns in a respectful way to be bunched up with the racists. This creates frustration and polarization.

The term SJW or anti-SJW is hardly even used in Sweden, so no, he wasn’t. A racist is against social-justice the way I see it,

Oh I bet they would be, but it's still something different than what Gendarme expressed earlier ITT, which is an active fight against PC culture.

It sure is, but I’d say SJW or anti-SJW covers a quite large number of opinions where no clear line can be drawn. To me a racist would certainly be “anti-SJW” but not necessarily the other way around. Being called a racist should be much worse than being called “anti-SJW”. Anyway, I don’t see the meaning in debating this definition of SJW etc. I’m pretty sure you understood my original point of it being wrong to call him a racist for only voicing a legitim concern.

Common decency and common sense cannot be separated from each other. To express or argue for common decency you would most of the time need some degree of common sense.

Common decency is how you act towards other people. Taking their feelings into account, for one, is common decency. Common sense is something completely different. You said it's easy to be branded anti-SJW when arguing for common decency. So show me an example of that. Your example is not that.

I would say it is common sense to consider other people’s feelings. If common sense cannot be related at all to how you treat other people, I’ve misunderstood the definition of the expression.
Maybe I’ve still not completely understood the difference between the two expressions, but I’ll try to give you an example of people being branded anti-SJW when arguing for common decency:
Someone argue for not calling everyone who voices concern about refugees a racist, but in return are themselves called a racist/anti-SJW.

Your examples weren't detailed enough for me to draw any conclusions based on them.

The examples should be detailed enough for you to at least have an opinion of them even if not the overall political climate. As I wrote I could list many more similar examples, doubt it would really bring anything new to our discussion, but I could if you want me too.

By the lack of detail and my understanding of how politics works, I think it's likely that you are either misrepresenting what was actually said or failing to mention important contextual details.

The first example I’ve only seen reposted by different media, it may be important contextual details missing. I fail to see in what context such a statement would be valid though. As for the second example I’m pretty sure of there is no important context missing since I know a few of the people present at the time quite well.
To automatically assume people expressing something you have a hard time believing are exaggerating, misrepresenting things or putting them out of context are a dangerous assumption. Once you realize something really is wrong, it may be much harder to correct it. I’m not saying you are doing this or that you shouldn’t be skeptical or question my examples, because that is always important. I only hope you consider the possibility of them being true and not misrepresented, exaggerated or put out of context.

I don't think anti-PC culture is a huge threat. I think it's worrying because it shows a general lack of empathy in the population, and it shows how sensitive people are to shock politics and propaganda. We have bigger problems though.

I agree with you here with the addition of that I’m worried about people shutting down discussion with things like “you’re a racist” or “you’re a white straight male, you can’t understand/have a valid opinion”. I’m worried about the extremists at both sides growing in influence, while you seem to only be worried about one of the sides.

[deleted_user0]

Number 6 really gets on my nerves, to a degree that is unhealthy for me and my surroundings.
Genderqueer is by far the worst of the lot. They prefer to be addressed as Mx instead or Mr or Ms.

I would be more than happy to come up with a few offensive jokes, if I ever met such a thing IRL.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/lioness-manes/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_term=20181102&utm_content=1849730741&utm_campaign=NOVA+Next&linkId=58721964

[Ashvin]

I posted in this thread because Xeelee asked for a response to her post. ESOC discussions are extremely unrewarding. Take a look at @Dolan's post history; he was the MVP of off-topic but he eventually gave up as his efforts were almost completely wasted.

Because most people, dolan included, aren't willing to actually discuss properly. Besides, discussions are unrewarding in general, as most people won't change their minds by arguments anyway, but do it rather through the gaze of the other.

I second this, a discussion is a two-way interaction, you just don't say your thing and not understand their perspective at all.