So, the Womens March ... What Is It For?

by Simon 365 Replies latest social current

  • azor
    azor

    SJW - is also very closely tied to the black lives matter movement. It typically refers to people who are fighting the system for specific victim groups. This particular strain of regressive leftism is in my opinion the most damaging element therein.

  • cofty
    cofty

    97% of deaths at work are men. Do women actually want equality?

    I believe in equality of opportunity. A pursuit of equality of outcome is a fool's errand.

  • Mage
    Mage

    The tech industry is often criticized of the low percentage of women. One question I asked and never really got a clear answer was "what's the percentage you are trying to achieve?" I mean, right now many tech companies have around 20% women (for tech positions, for other positions in tech companies like accounting or recruiting the percentage is way higher), are we trying to achieve 50% women because it would be *fair*? And what is fair? The same percentage as in the population, assuming women take up 50% population? But that wouldn't make sense 'cause clearly women aren't in general as interested in tech fields as men. Are we trying to achieve the same percentage as the women graduates in computer science? But women tend to quit the tech fields more often than men due to finally realizing they are not really interested in CS and they just got into CS because CS jobs tend to pay higher; or they decided to stop working when they have kids and etc. So in the end, no one gave me an answer aside from "we are so far from the ideal percentage that we don't need to concern ourselves with it right now".......

  • bohm
    bohm

    Let's try to discuss some of the things SJWs do wrong and what we might learn from it:

    • Instead of focusing their claims about systematic oppression on large-scale studies they tend to focus on particular cases of oppression and use these (as well as the emotional response they evoke) to garner support and outrage.
      Does that mean this type of focusing on particular examples of what a group does is a bad thing?
    • Their argumentation is build around catch-phrases and cliches meant to evoke a particular response: (the patriarchy, rape-culture apologist, white man tears, racist, white privilege)
      Does that mean we should do our best to avoid similar cliche language? (SJW, cuck, special snowflake, regressive left)
    • Their worldview is black and white: You are either with us or against us. People are labeled very quickly based on their opinion on certain hot-button issues (i.e. what is your view on police brutality?) in a manner that leads your thoughts to witchhunts. If you belong to the wrong group, you are at best a useful idiot
      ...SJW...regressive left....
    • Their argumentation lends heavily on outrage and ridicule: White men who object to them are ridiculous, hypocritical racists who don't understand their own privilege (another loaded word). You can't just disagree, you are then part of the patriarchy. Youtube videos by SJWs are full of snark, ridicule, "reading between the lines" (if he says we don't have a rape culture he is denying that women suffer rape more often than men), hyperbole and adding "implicit" context to someone's argument.
      any video of sargon of akkad
    • SJWs often just know things. For instance, we live in a society permeated by white privilege. What exactly does that mean? What is the factual basis for that claim? At most, it is strenuous and relates to personal opinion, special cases or other circumstances that do not point uniquely to white privilege (as opposed to other explanations). Yet the claim is made with great certainty even though it cannot be backed up with specific pieces of evidence.
      The general lesson here is that specific claims made with certainty should be backed up with exact and objectively verifiable pieces of evidence that uniquely support those claims
    • Male tears: A very interesting aspect of this culture is the preoccupation about how "the other side" reacts. The best thing is that if they are "sad" or somehow does something that can be seen as an emotional reaction ("crying"). Those reactions are then exaggerated and spread. I don't really know why this is seen as important, but it is.
      Nearly every day breitbart.com has a similar story about someone who is "crying" or "sad". It seems like a very dark aspect of human psychology...
  • Simon
    Simon

    This is a really good description of them and the cancer that they are:

    http://australian-news.net/article/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

    The real threat is that they are an easily manipulated weapon that is used by militant Islam to spread it's influence and control, a way to silence any who object to things.

    When Ben Afleck accused Sam Harris of being "racist" in order to shut down the discussion on islam, that was grade A social justice warrioring.

    More seriously, it causes people to turn a blind eye to serious abuse and child sex trafficking for fear of being labelled racist.

    Yes, it causes real damage because decent people become afraid to act, afraid to speak out. It's the new fascism and a bigger threat to society than what was the miniscule fringe right-wing.

    That's why I think it's important to speak up, call it out and not give in to it.

    When I talk about the crazy / regressive left, this is it. If you have liberal or libertarian ideals, it's not you. You probably think of yourself as "left" politically but that term has been tainted by the SJWs.

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    Thanks Simon for starting this topic. We have someone in our neighborhood who took her child out of school on Friday and traveled to Washington for this ridiculous march. I was asking the same question, what's the point, the election is over, what rights do they think they are going to lose?

    The minute Trump even tried to overturn Roe v Wade (assuming there is a way he can actually overturn a Supreme Court decision) the hysteria would be massive. Even conservatives are okay with abortion under a variety of circumstances and I suspect most of the populace are not going to allow this to go through.

    What about other women's rights? Assuming that this man is truly a misogynistic overload who truly sees women as second class citizens (as these women make him out to be) does anyone really think that he has a ghost of a chance of taking away any rights?

    But hey, with the Islamization of the west currently going on women will lose their rights eventually if this does not stop.

  • Simon
    Simon
    But hey, with the Islamization of the west currently going on women will lose their rights eventually if this does not stop.

    There are some horrific stories coming out of countries that opened their doors to immigrants (masquerading as asylum seekers) but who are now suffering huge spikes in rapes and even women being found imprisoned as sex slaves - yes, in western countries.

    The mad PC brigade have child victims of sex assaults in Canada being told to "consider the feelings of their attackers". It's like the worst of the WTS on a massive scale with state-sponsored cover-up.

    The irony is that Trump may ultimately do more for overall womens rights than Obama / Clinton ever did if he's willing to put a stop to it rather than just taking the money and keeping it going (what Clinton was doing).

    Warning: upsetting content:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGbSs2hGI6w

  • garyneal
    garyneal
    The irony is that Trump may ultimately do more for overall womens rights than Obama / Clinton ever did if he's willing to put a stop to it rather than just taking the money and keeping it going (what Clinton was doing).

    This was one of the major reasons why Trump was elected, at least for those who understood the dangers of allowing Muslim migrants into our country. And yes, I know, not all Muslims, yada yada yada. When the Pulse night club shooting happened, Clinton and Obama could not even say that it had anything to do with radical Islam. It was all about the guns. As Sam Harris pointed out, "...that was unforgivably stupid."

  • Simon
    Simon

    Clinton actually said it had "less to do with Islam than any other religion". Because yes, Mormons and the Amish caused it.

    I think she doth protest too much.

    You look at all her various links to Islamic Brotherhood terrorist groups and Islamic states giving her money and you start thinking "what the hell is going on?" ... which is what Trump actually said out loud.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Wow, this "left eating itself" is getting funnier and funnier. Apparently, the women being women is upsetting to some, erm, women.

    It's got to the point that it's hard to tell if people are serious or just posting as a parody (but often you check their feed and, holy crap - they believe this shit!)


Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit