Microaggressions

[Black Dog]

The problem isn't that people CAN do all of the above, but rather that one of the specific goals of the social justice movement is to try to get people to do the above as much as possible to anyone who makes a statement that they disapprove of (especially if that person happens to be a white male). It's one thing if the actual people at a certain workplace or university are legitimately offended themselves in their actual interactions with someone who made an offensive statement and try to do something about it. It's another when we have "internet police" looking for any departure from absolute conformity to their ideology and ready to unleash mobs of "activists" to do everything within legal bounds possible to make the "offender's" life miserable.

Yeah like that whole GamerGate thing that the SJWs perpetrated, right?

[cybercoma]

Free speech means you have to allow others to the right to speak

That's not at all what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't throw you in jail for the things you say and in Canada even that has limitations. Free speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you, nor does it mean they have to host you or provide you with a platform to speak.

[Bonam]

Yeah like that whole GamerGate thing that the SJWs perpetrated, right?

I don't know, is it? I didn't follow the "GamerGate" thing at all and have no clue about the facts of that situation.

[TimG]

That's not at all what free speech means. Free speech means the government can't throw you in jail for the things you say and in Canada even that has limitations.

Free speech has a legal context and a moral context. Legally the laws protecting free speech apply to government actions. Morally they go beyond that and the use of mobs to impose punishment on people for saying the wrong things is not morally justified.

[TimG]

Of course, whether the employer can actually fire the person who made the "offending" statement in question could definitely be subject to various labor laws, and those would then have to become the firewall against people being spuriously dismissed.

Employment law gives employers a lot of latitude when it comes to employee actions that make the company look bad. Basically, if a small group of activists can kick up enough fuss most employers will turf the employee because it is cheaper than trying to manage the PR problem. This can be true even if the allegations are false or grossly misrepresented.

Mobs have an extraordinary amount of power in today's society and it is appalling how many people are ok with it because they (naively) believe the mob culture will never turn on someone that does not deserve it (at least in their opinion). But as I said, if the mobs are free to drum people out of job because of their opinion on gay marriage then they would be free to do same for their opinion on abortion, political affiliation or anything else which the mob deems offensive. I think a line needs to be drawn here and it is not legitimate free speech if you seek to exact retribution on someone for their words. Just like it is not legitimate free speech to advocate for violence.

Edited September 25, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

said statement happens to be a white male.

Yeah, it's not like western universities have diversity officers that tweet #killallwhitemen or anything...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11633305/University-union-officer-who-wrote-kill-all-white-men-tweet-will-remain-in-post.html

Thanks for proving that those who benefit most from white male privilege are the least likely to realize it

What a convenient way of avoiding falsifiability.

Geez, sounds like you and other white males just need to grow a thicker skin.

Meanwhile, you think that those that are triggered by people with a differing opinion from them such as 'the most qualified person should get the job' need to be protected from opposing opinions rather than grow a thicker skin.

It's pretty funny: these guys want free speech and to be free from any consequences of that speech.

Let's apply this mentality to other situations: Charlie Hebdo - well they shouldn't have drawn offensive things and shouldn't be free of the consequences. Political prisoners in Nazi Germany - well they should have known about the consequences of saying offensive things about the Nazis.

Just want to float along on a cloud of privilege. Just a staggering amount of entitlement.

It's amazing how SJW types are able to dismiss the positions of all those that disagree based on their race and gender.

If the person is a white male - he disagrees because they want to maintain their privilege.

If the person is a white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and white privilege.

If the person is a non-white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and internalized racism.

If the person is a non-white male - he disagrees because she has internalized racism and male privilege.

Yes this is just like that, only no one has been fired. But yeah, otherwise exactly the same.

Morzilla's CEO.

Edited September 26, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Yeah like that whole GamerGate thing that the SJWs perpetrated, right?

Yeah, like how Milo Yiannopoulos was sent a dead animal with a razor blade in the mail or how SPJ Miami received 10 bomb threats and had to cancel an event where they had Gamergaters discussing Gamergate with journalists.

Let alone the origins of Gamergate being related to SJWs trying to infiltrate the gaming media, colluding and declaring Gamers to be 'dead'.

[-1=e^ipi]

In other news, unfriending people on facebook can now be a crime in Australia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11890275/Facebook-unfriending-can-constitute-workplace-bullying-Australian-tribunal-finds.html

[Bonam]

Mobs have an extraordinary amount of power in today's society and it is appalling how many people are ok with it because they (naively) believe the mob culture will never turn on someone that does not deserve it (at least in their opinion). But as I said, if the mobs are free to drum people out of job because of their opinion on gay marriage then they would be free to do same for their opinion on abortion, political affiliation or anything else which the mob deems offensive. I think a line needs to be drawn here and it is not legitimate free speech if you seek to exact retribution on someone for their words. Just like it is not legitimate free speech to advocate for violence.

I agree with what you are saying but I don't really see what can be done about mobs that aren't actively doing anything illegal. Trying to make any kind of law regarding this seems like it would infringe on all kinds of fundamental rights. Expanding hate speech laws to also include calls for boycotts, calls to fire someone, etc, would be a drastic expansion of those laws and could be misused in too many ways to count.

From my point of view the problem is with the culture that is giving rise to the social justice movement, rather than with laws that allow the movement to do the kinds of things that it does. It is a flawed and hateful ideology and like other such ideologies you can't really combat it by trying to outlaw it. You can only combat it through education and encouraging critical thinking. But the problem is that the very people who are in charge of education are some of the more likely to subscribe to the ideology to begin with. Like communism and fascism before it, it is quite possible that the movement will have to gain power and demonstrate its excesses incontrovertibly to the human race before the majority of the population realizes its inherent danger, rejects it, and another cultural shift ensues. The only real question is how much blood will be spilled in the name of social justice before it is relegated to the dustbin of history alongside communism and fascism.

Edited September 26, 2015 by Bonam

[TimG]

I agree with what you are saying but I don't really see what can be done about mobs that aren't actively doing anything illegal.

I am NOT asking that the government do anything. What I am doing is presenting a rational argument for a counter-narrative to the facile 'free speech does not mean you are free of the consequences' narrative which the mobs latch onto to rationalize their excesses. Spreading a counter narrative is the only way to push back against the smug self righteousness of these mobs.

I also agree that SJWs are spreading an intolerant ideology that have a lot in common with the people who spread fascism and communism. However, IMO, the only defence is a vigorous defence of the right of people to be offensive.

Edited September 26, 2015 by TimG

[Bonam]

I am NOT asking that the government do anything. What I am doing is presenting a rational argument for a counter-narrative to facile 'free speech does not mean you are free of the consequences' narrative which the mobs latch onto to rationalize their excesses. Spreading a counter narrative is the only way to push back against the smug self righteousness of these mobs.

I agree, I'm just not sure what the counter narrative really is, if one tries to fully flesh it out. Clearly, crowd behavior is unintelligent and often leads to bad results. Yet, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly clearly protect people's right to call for someone to be fired or otherwise punished, as long as all they are doing is calling for it. Is the counter-narrative you want to present to the mob simply that mob justice is bad? That's certainly a true statement, but telling a mob to stop being a mob never saved anyone from a mob. And people are even less likely to be deterred by such arguments when they are safely anonymous online as opposed to in person where they might feel ashamed or embarrassed about their actions as part of a mob if they pause to think about it.

I agree that SJWs are spreading an intolerant ideology that have a lot in common with the people who spread fascism and communism. However, IMO, the only defence is a vigorous defence of the right of people to be offensive.

Yes, but "the right to offend" is just not a very powerful rallying cry to try to present to the masses. I don't see this strategy being very likely to turn the tide.

[TimG]

And people are even less likely to be deterred by such arguments when they are safely anonymous online as opposed to in person where they might feel ashamed or embarrassed about their actions as part of a mob if they pause to think about it.

It is tough but the counter narrative does not have to be understood by the mobs. It just has to be understood by the non-involved people that tacitly support the mob by saying nothing. This is often because people feel they need to defend was the speaker said instead of simply defending their right to say it. It may be as simple as asking someone if they would support someone getting fired from their job for supporting abortion. If they say that is wrong then how can they possibly argue that other political opinions should be grounds for termination?

Yes, but "the right to offend" is just not a very powerful rallying cry to try to present to the masses. I don't see this strategy being very likely to turn the tide.

I am not a word smith so maybe someone else can express the concept better. However, it is only real strategy open if one does not want to turn into what one opposes. Edited September 26, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Yeah, like how Milo Yiannopoulos was sent a dead animal with a razor blade in the mail or how SPJ Miami received 10 bomb threats and had to cancel an event where they had Gamergaters discussing Gamergate with journalists.

You're proving my point here. Thanks.

Let alone the origins of Gamergate being related to SJWs trying to infiltrate the gaming media, colluding and declaring Gamers to be 'dead'.

Looooooolllllll. The origins of GamerGate is one sad loser's sick vendetta against his ex-girlfriend. That's pretty much all there is to it.

[Freddy]

Looooooolllllll. The origins of GamerGate is one sad loser's sick vendetta against his ex-girlfriend. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Cite required

[WIP]

You're proving my point here. Thanks.

Looooooolllllll. The origins of GamerGate is one sad loser's sick vendetta against his ex-girlfriend. That's pretty much all there is to it.

As someone who lost interest in videogames around the time Wolfenstein III and Max Payne came out....because they started getting ridiculously complicated timewasters, I haven't followed the gamergate saga too closely, other than to notice that the experiences for women entering formerly all-male Nerdsville aren't a whole lot different than the way men act in formerly all-male preserves like a shop or a factory floor...although I have to add that low brow blue-collar types say what's on their minds pretty early on, so the problems for women moving into supposedly brainiac realms like computerworld actually seem more dangerous!

Maybe it's because vengeful nerds have had to go through school and life having not having the same freedom to say what's on their mind, and are more likely to scheme and plot out their revenge.... who knows! But, the pattern long noticed by psychologists and related social scientists: that men in exclusively male occupations feel their jobs have more prestige than those performed by both men and women (even regardless of income level) seems to hold even where it's guys sitting around and staring at a computer screen. And, in non-physical jobs, they have no ready excuse similar to physical occupations, to declare that their jobs are too hard for women.

[kimmy]

I am NOT asking that the government do anything. What I am doing is presenting a rational argument for a counter-narrative to the facile 'free speech does not mean you are free of the consequences' narrative which the mobs latch onto to rationalize their excesses. Spreading a counter narrative is the only way to push back against the smug self righteousness of these mobs.

I also agree that SJWs are spreading an intolerant ideology that have a lot in common with the people who spread fascism and communism. However, IMO, the only defence is a vigorous defence of the right of people to be offensive.

The SJWs didn't invent this, and they're certainly not the only or the first ones to do this sort of thing. It's standard behavior for many religious groups to try and use their numbers to intimidate businesses who make decisions they don't like. It wasn't SJWs who pretty much ended the Dixie Chicks or Sinead O'Connor as headline performers. In the past week we had a couple of politicians resign from their campaigns; a Liberal for joking that an electric fence post at Auschwitz looked like a penis, and an NDPer for making the (entirely fair) comparison of the Haredi Jews' attitudes toward women with those of the Taliban. Were those candidates yanked to appease the SJWs?

Perhaps your real complaint isn't that this sort of influence exists, per se, but rather with who has access to it? Perhaps things were just easier back in the days when it was just church leaders who could raise an army to boycott stuff they didn't approve of, or an influential sponsor or donor who could kill a documentary with a single phone call. This power was generally in the hands of people who could be trusted to support good ol' conservative values. But now with the rise of social media everybody gets a say.

-k

[TimG]

Perhaps your real complaint isn't that this sort of influence exists, per se, but rather with who has access to it?

I am against anyone who seeks to bully someone into silence by threatening their employment or personal well being. In the past, shows may have been pulled off the air because of their subject matter but that is different from targeting individuals for opinions they expressed outside of a work context. The most obvious example was the Mozilla CEO which was an SJW cause. All of the crap about microaggressions seems like a set up to expand the list of offenses that are used for these kinds of persecutions.

I also really don't know where you get the stupid idea that I am somehow more accepting of non-SJWs causes. I thought I spelt it out pretty clearly that defending the right of someone to say something offensive does not imply that I agree with them. If I focus on SJWs it is because they seem to be currently more effective at bullying public figures into submitting to their ideology.

Edited September 26, 2015 by TimG

[Black Dog]

I also really don't know where you get the stupid idea that I am somehow more accepting of non-SJWs causes. I thought I spelt it out pretty clearly that defending the right of someone to say something offensive does not imply that I agree with them.

Hmmm, maybe it's this:

If I focus on SJWs it is because they seem to be currently more effective at bullying public figures into submitting to their ideology.

I expect they "seem to be" because you're looking for it/focusing on it. As I pointed out earlier, the whole GamerGate thing was explicitly about online mobs attacking anyone they perceived to be remotely affiliated with SJW causes (or just for being women), but that got cricket sounds from you.

Let's apply this mentality to other situations: Charlie Hebdo - well they shouldn't have drawn offensive things and shouldn't be free of the consequences. Political prisoners in Nazi Germany - well they should have known about the consequences of saying offensive things about the Nazis.

False equivalency. No one is advocating extrajudicial or state repression of anyone.

It's amazing how SJW types are able to dismiss the positions of all those that disagree based on their race and gender.

If the person is a white male - he disagrees because they want to maintain their privilege.

If the person is a white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and white privilege.

If the person is a non-white female - she disagrees because she has internalized misogyny and internalized racism.

If the person is a non-white male - he disagrees because she has internalized racism and male privilege.

I made no reference to race or gender in the quoted post. You're so monomaniacal when it comes to "SJWs" that you can't even read a word like privilege without losing your shit. Funny stuff.

Morzilla's CEO.

Asked and answered.

[TimG]

As I pointed out earlier, the whole GamerGate thing was explicitly about online mobs attacking anyone they perceived to be remotely affiliated with SJW causes (or just for being women), but that got cricket sounds from you.

To be honest I ignored the gamergate thing because I could never be bothered to figure out what it was about. I looked into it and now understand that people who expressed opinions about video games were harassed and bullied because of their opinions. This is as wrong as the SJW mobs that I am complaining about. I guess one of the reasons it was not on my radar is it appears to have been pretty ineffective compared to the SWJs that got the Mozilla CEO fired. Edited September 26, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

You're proving my point here. Thanks.

When your belief system is unfalsifiable, all evidence 'proves your point'.

@ WIP - Men also experience online abuse when playing online games. And studies have shown that it is on average more than women. The problem is confirmation bias, if people are dogmatically trying to find evidence to fit a narrative they will find evidence for it. Interpreting all online abuse women face to be due to sexism is wrong. I've received death threats, rape threats and other online abuse all the time, but I don't go around saying 'oh it must be due to sexism'. A few minutes ago I was told to get cancer on an online game.

The SJWs didn't invent this

Yeah, the fundamentalist christians certainly have their share of this behaviour. The problem is that right now it's the SJWs in positions of power in our society.

I expect they "seem to be" because you're looking for it/focusing on it. As I pointed out earlier, the whole GamerGate thing was explicitly about online mobs attacking anyone they perceived to be remotely affiliated with SJW causes (or just for being women), but that got cricket sounds from you.

A lot of it is about ethics in gaming journalism, but that doesn't fit the mainstream narrative.

False equivalency. No one is advocating extrajudicial or state repression of anyone.

My examples weren't examples of state repression, but repression by mob violence/intimidation.

[Hal 9000]

It all comes down to Cultural Marxism.

[WIP]

@ WIP - Men also experience online abuse when playing online games. And studies have shown that it is on average more than women. The problem is confirmation bias, if people are dogmatically trying to find evidence to fit a narrative they will find evidence for it. Interpreting all online abuse women face to be due to sexism is wrong. I've received death threats, rape threats and other online abuse all the time, but I don't go around saying 'oh it must be due to sexism'. A few minutes ago I was told to get cancer on an online game.

And I've already mentioned I don't know online gaming, but I will go out on a limb and guess that there are likely a lot more men than women spending hours online playing games. That's not really the issue that interests me. The gamergate issue was about the small numbers of women who had entered the game design industry. That's why I was asking if the culture of these formerly male workspaces going coed, was following the same pattern as other male occupations that are opened to women, and a lot of guys have a hard time adjusting to having women doing the same jobs and some act out in all sorts of strange and unexpected ways.

[-1=e^ipi]

The gamergate issue was about the small numbers of women who had entered the game design industry.

No, it was about ethics in journalism and later fighting SJWs trying to infiltrate journalism.

But some of the females that disagree with gamergate dismiss all arguments gamergate puts forth because they view disagreement as due to sexism.

And people like you blindly accept the mainstream/SJW narrative because it fights with various narratives that have existed for a while.

Anyway, Anita Sarkeesian and others are now at the UN trying to convince the UN to censor everyone:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/

That's why I was asking if the culture of these formerly male workspaces going coed, was following the same pattern as other male occupations that are opened to women, and a lot of guys have a hard time adjusting to having women doing the same jobs and some act out in all sorts of strange and unexpected ways.

Dude get out of the 50's. As I said before, just because you have internalized misogyny doesn't mean everyone else does. Stop projecting.

[cybercoma]

Kotaku in Action really showed those SJWs too.

Actually, they proved the point the SJWs were making by giving myriad examples of the bulls*** women put up with in the industry.

[Argus]

Informing people about "microaggressions" is intended to help people understand how things they say might unintentionally cause offense.

Only a fool takes offense where they know offense was not intended.