Generation Snowflake

[Carrikature]

I don't understand how people can rightfully ask others to not depict fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church as representative of all Christianity, but then in the next breath depict an even more fringe belief as representative of all feminism.

That isn't what's happening. Lest you forget, the context of the discussion pre-comics was the issue with SJWs. SJWs may be the WBC of feminism, but they still exist.

[Carrikature]

edit: at least for non-story, non-art comics, fm, his series that involved black hat in congress, tron paul, and more was amaaaazing and some of his bigger pictures are just ... impossible to categorize

The 1337 series has to be up there, too.

[Jaecp]

That isn't what's happening. Lest you forget, the context of the discussion pre-comics was the issue with SJWs. SJWs may be the WBC of feminism, but they still exist.

Tumblr is its own reality ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I work with the democrats, I'm on the executive board for a partisan political body, and I do that in Washington State, one of (if not the) most liberal states in the country.

I've yet to meet a SJW anywhere but on the internet

[fm93]

That isn't what's happening. Lest you forget, the context of the discussion pre-comics was the issue with SJWs. SJWs may be the WBC of feminism, but they still exist.

Sparko's meme had the caption "This is feminism," as if that bizarre belief was representative of it.

[Jedidiah]

Well, a "safe space" is apparently defined as a place that doesn't tolerate violence, harassment or hate speech towards LGBT folks. You responded by saying "Harassment needs a lot more definition, and hate speech seems to mean anything they disagree with." It seems that your point is essentially "Some of what they consider to be harassment and hate speech aren't actually harassment and hate speech." But surely you agree that whatever you believe constitutes genuine harassment and hate speech is bad.

So I understand if you criticize some particular places that consider themselves "safe spaces" on the basis that they're too loose in their definitions. But it seems that you're criticizing the very idea of safe spaces, which would entail criticizing places that don't tolerate genuine violence, harassment and hate speech.

I accept a place where someone will be protected against violence. Speech is not violence.

[Sparko]

I don't understand how people can rightfully ask others to not depict fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church as representative of all Christianity, but then in the next breath depict an even more fringe belief as representative of all feminism.

I wasn't arguing about all feminism. I was mocking the radical feminists and "social justice warriors." You might want to re-read the topic of this thread and try again.

[Sparko]

Sparko's meme had the caption "This is feminism," as if that bizarre belief was representative of it.

it was a silly meme I found on google after all of the discussions about comic book SJWs.

[Carrikature]

Tumblr is its own reality ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I work with the democrats, I'm on the executive board for a partisan political body, and I do that in Washington State, one of (if not the) most liberal states in the country.

I've yet to meet a SJW anywhere but on the internet

I'm not sure this means very much. Clearly these people do exist.

[fm93]

I'm not sure this means very much. Clearly these people do exist.

I think his point was that, just as I argued on the first page of this thread, the percentage of such people is being grossly exaggerated. Heck, I'd say at least 80% of the time when I see the acronym, it's being applied to someone who's clearly trying to START a conversation about some social issue, and others are the ones who shut it down by calling the author "SJW."

"Oh cool, there's a remake of 'Roots?' I think I'll read this review article."
*First comment: "SJW SJW SJW!!!!!"

"Hmm, a video about 'whitewashing' in the film industry. This should be interesting."
*First comment: "great, another [censored] turning sjw"

"An article that simply explains what terms like 'cisgender,' 'gender binary' and 'ego-dystonic sexual orientation' mean? Finally, I was wondering that myself."
*First comment: "go kill yourself you sjw"

"I need to clear my head. I think I'll watch this movie clip from Star Wars."
*One of the comments is still a complaint about "sjws," somehow


So yeah, I'm sure what you personally mean by the term happens to exist, but I'm inclined to assume that most people who use it are actually the dismissive, conversation-stopping ones themselves. They just get irrationally angry whenever anyone mentions anything related to a social issue.

(And yes, I did actually see a comment moaning and whining about "sjws" on a video of a Star Wars movie clip. Some weirdos apparently go out of their way to complain about them.)

[Adam]

My primary complaint about SJWs was that they would use the term ("SJW") without explaining what it is. I could care less if someone is an SJW, I just want them to have the honesty to represent themselves as what they are, not as if everyone else is a dummy for not being one of them.

[Carrikature]

I think his point was that, just as I argued on the first page of this thread, the percentage of such people is being grossly exaggerated. Heck, I'd say at least 80% of the time when I see the acronym, it's being applied to someone who's clearly trying to START a conversation about some social issue, and others are the ones who shut it down by calling the author "SJW."

"Oh cool, there's a remake of 'Roots?' I think I'll read this review article."
*First comment: "SJW SJW SJW!!!!!"

"Hmm, a video about 'whitewashing' in the film industry. This should be interesting."
*First comment: "great, another [censored] turning sjw"

"An article that simply explains what terms like 'cisgender,' 'gender binary' and 'ego-dystonic sexual orientation' mean? Finally, I was wondering that myself."
*First comment: "go kill yourself you sjw"

"I need to clear my head. I think I'll watch this movie clip from Star Wars."
*One of the comments is still a complaint about "sjws," somehow

I've seen no claim one way or another regarding how many there are. This part of your post seems like a strawman.

So yeah, I'm sure what you personally mean by the term happens to exist, but I'm inclined to assume that most people who use it are actually the dismissive, conversation-stopping ones themselves. They just get irrationally angry whenever anyone mentions anything related to a social issue.

Pro-tip: stop assuming. You want people to interact with the subject while automatically dismissing dissenters for using a certain term. Hypocrite much?

[fm93]

I've seen no claim one way or another regarding how many there are. This part of your post seems like a strawman.

I was simply offering my interpretation of what is point was. There's nothing I could possibly have been strawmanning.

Pro-tip: stop assuming. You want people to interact with the subject while automatically dismissing dissenters for using a certain term. Hypocrite much?

I dismiss certain dissenters after they have proven that they have automatically dismissed the subject. In other words, my dismissal of them is not automatic; rather, it's based on their behavior. Calling someone a term that's intended to be derogatory when the subject is simply about social issues (as opposed to stridently insulting others for not holding certain social views) is clearly dismissive.

[Jaecp]

I'm not sure this means very much. Clearly these people do exist.

I'm basically saying that the relevance of so-called Social Justice Warriors, as it's understood, is largely minimal outside of the echo chamber that is Tumblr and, to echo fm, it's more often used as a pejorative (I'm pretty sure it started that way, too)

People on the internet act more extreme than in real life. Do you think half the people who post here would be as strident in real life?

It's not really the sticking point though. Sure, sjw/wbc exist, but they are fringe minorities unrepresentative of the larger bodies of activists/christians