Alright, so can we talk about annoying SJWs for a second?

[TheKhoz]

Quit assuming you know what and how everyone thinks.

I don't really understand why you say that; it's my entire contribution. I'm trying to explain what I see as the underlying issue that causes this tension between SJWs and anti-SJWs. I presented my theory for why people will react in certain ways based on my observations - I don't see why you would frown upon that. I have friends that are SJWs and I have friends who hate SJWs and from these experiences I came to my conclusion. I'm presenting my own personal theory; you can disagree with it surely, but to tell me that I can't try to understand people's motives is sorta silly. I'm trying not to claim that I have any knowledge about how people think - this is just my theory based on what I've seen. Very often throughout my post I said "I think this is why". It's because I'm merely saying what I think, my opinions and my conclusions. I don't know why you would ask me to not do that

Also, a couple of times you asked me to give examples of racism or discrimination. Now, I'm not going to pretend I have any personal examples of this, but I would like to say that if someone feels as though they are being oppressed by their government, just telling them that they aren't is not really a solution. Some particular recent issues that people are discussing are racism/profiling by the police (Ferguson) and that anti-homo bill in Indiana. I'm not going to tell you that either of those are discrimination - that's really for you to decide for yourself - but people feel as though there is discrimination going on here and I don't know if it's my place to tell them that they are or aren't being discriminated against.

I'm pretty sure most people know what consent is and is not. The whole "teach men not to rape" thing is handicapped because rapists are still going to rape. They know it's morally wrong and against the law, but they do it anyway. It's like saying "don't tell me to lock my doors, teach people not to steal". Obviously, it's wrong to rape and obviously it's wrong to steal, but there are preemptive measures one can take to not be raped or stolen from. It's also assuming that men are already inclined to do that. It's like saying "teach black people not to steal".

I'm pretty sure most people know what constitutes consent. Like I said, rapists will still rape. Thieves will still steal. Murders will still murder.

What "social ideas"? You mean that everyone knows rape and loveual harassment/assault are bad? What kind of world do you think we live in? Have you ever met someone who didn't think rape and loveual harassment/assault were bad?

Actually, I do agree there is a problem with rape. Everyone views man-on-woman rape as horrible, but what about woman-on-man rape? Or man-on-man rape? In fact, men and women are raped at about the same rate (though the majority of male rape victims are from other men, but 38% of male rape victims report a female perpetrator), why aren't there campaigns to help them? Domestic violence happens to women and men at the same rate, why is there a Violence Against Men act? Where are the men's shelters? Oh yeah, that's right, it was shut down from lack of support and funding. I'd recommend watching this video on domestic violence. It's a speech by Erin Pizzey, who was one of if not the first person to open a domestic violence shelter.

What about the deafening silence on prison rape? Why has no one raised an issue with that? Where are the campaigns to stop it? Oh, that's because they're men and they're criminals. Rape is an appropriate punishment for prisoners, even people charged with minor drug offenses.

Yes, rape is terrible and a problem. No, it's not an epidemic. The actual statistic is about 1 in 500.

For the most part, on all of these issues, I agree with what you're saying. By "social  ideas" about rape, I meant that people think of all rape as "violent rape" when a lot of it is spousal or familial aka not just some stranger in an alley. For example, having love with someone while they're intoxicated or otherwise impaired and unable to give informed consent is generally not considered rape by most people. And when SJWs come and say that this should be considered rape, and people get all up-in-arms about it, because they feel like they're being threatened. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not a SJW, I'm not an advocate for anything, but you're definitely right that there is this lack of emphasis by the SJW crowd on men's issues. I simply think that people need to be more open to understanding the other side of an issue and that maybe people should try to understand the motivations and intent of the SJWs. I find myself to be really moderate on issues like this; I understand why SJWs advocate for the things that they do but I also understand that it's annoying and completely ineffective.

Edit: Altogether, yeah, you're right on basically every count here. I simply think it would be helpful if people would try to see the opposing side of this issue (and all other ones!) instead of just closing their mind and following a herd mentality (of course this goes both ways; what are the SJWs if not a herd?)

[Ad Bot]

[Electrk.]

I don't really understand why you say that; it's my entire contribution.

Your entire contribution is assuming you know what/how people think?

I'm trying to explain what I see as the underlying issue that causes this tension between SJWs and anti-SJWs. I presented my theory for why people will react in certain ways based on my observations - I don't see why you would frown upon that. ...

Except you didn't present it that way. You didn't present it like "I think that people act like this because..." you just say "People act like this because..." There are parts where you add "I think" but often times throughout your post you didn't present it that way.

Also, a couple of times you asked me to give examples of racism or discrimination. Now, I'm not going to pretend I have any personal examples of this

at least you're honest

but I would like to say that if someone feels as though they are being oppressed by their government

Just because someone feels oppressed doesn't mean they are.

just telling them that they aren't is not really a solution.

You're right. That's why it's good to explore ideas and try to figure out the underlying cause of them, rather than just saying "it's racism" or "it's not racism".

Some particular recent issues that people are discussing are racism/profiling by the police (Ferguson) and that anti-homo bill in Indiana.

I think "racial profiling" is a complex issue. It might involve racism, yes, but I think it has to do with poor/lowerclass/higher crime rate neighborhoods having a higher percentage of black people due to past segregation.

The anti-gay marriage bill is just disgusting and wrong, though; there's no way around it.

I'm not going to tell you that either of those are discrimination - that's really for you to decide for yourself - but people feel as though there is discrimination going on here and I don't know if it's my place to tell them that they are or aren't being discriminated against.

I don't think just saying "you're not being discriminated against" is right either. Like I said, I think we should explore ideas and the underlying causes of them.

For the most part, on all of these issues, I agree with what you're saying. By "social  ideas" about rape, I meant that people think of all rape as "violent rape" when a lot of it is spousal or familial aka not just some stranger in an alley.

What do you mean "violent rape"? Is there any other kind? Rape is a form of violence, is it not?

By "familial" do you mean incest? I don't think incest is rape. I think non-consensual love is rape.

For example, having love with someone while they're intoxicated or otherwise impaired and unable to give informed consent is generally not considered rape by most people.

I don't think it's rape if you're intoxicated, unless you're passed out or whatever.

It's the same thing with drunk driving: when you got drunk, you knew what you were getting into. You chose to drink, you chose to drive the car (you chose to drink, you chose to have love); it's your responsibility.

I mean, what kind of logic is that? If two drunk people have love, did they both rape each other?

And when SJWs come and say that this should be considered rape, and people get all up-in-arms about it, because they feel like they're being threatened.

Here you are again presenting it like you know what people think. You're not saying "I think this is why", you're saying "this is why". I'll stop here, though; I don't want it to turn into an argument over semantics.

I'd like to reiterate that I'm not a SJW, I'm not an advocate for anything, but you're definitely right that there is this lack of emphasis by the SJW crowd on men's issues. I simply think that people need to be more open to understanding the other side of an issue and that maybe people should try to understand the motivations and intent of the SJWs. I find myself to be really moderate on issues like this; I understand why SJWs advocate for the things that they do but I also understand that it's annoying and completely ineffective.

I have tried to, but so many of their beliefs and "issues" are so far detached from reality it's nearly impossible to find some common ground with them. The only common ground I can find is the nebulous goal of "equality".

Edit: Altogether, yeah, you're right on basically every count here. I simply think it would be helpful if people would try to see the opposing side of this issue (and all other ones!) instead of just closing their mind and following a herd mentality (of course this goes both ways; what are the SJWs if not a herd?)

That's a very idealistic view of it and I wish I shared the same optimism, but I don't think SJWs' ideology will let them believe anything else or have empathy for people. And I mean true empathy, not the empathy they pretend to have like the girl in Cappytaino's story.

[WaterOre]

[ultimamax]

This same girl told me that playing russian roulette was safer than dating men because you have a 1/8 chance of dying when you pull the trigger in russian roulette and a 1/6 chance of being raped in your life by a man. I pointed out to her that the statistic doesn't mean 1/6 men are rapists, it's mostly due to repeat offenders. These people are so dumb but think they know everything.

The 1/6 statistic isn't even accurate.
Last year, 2.1 of 1000 women were raped. Rape has declined 85% in the last 30 years.
IIRC the 1/6th statistic is sourced from a survey to college women about loveual assault, which considered even catcalling and unwanted loveual attention as loveual assault. (Not to say these things aren't bad, but rape is much worse)

Looks like some kind of argument blew up in this topic. Social justice is a force for good, people like this are a vocal minority. Do not let them sour an otherwise positive, essential movement.

[TheKhoz]

Except you didn't present it that way. You didn't present it like "I think that people act like this because..." you just say "People act like this because..." There are parts where you add "I think" but often times throughout your post you didn't present it that way.

Well I apologize for that then; what I say is merely my own opinion, I wouldn't like to think that just because I say things people assume I'm trying to assert it as fact. So from now on, and from everything in the past, what I say is simply my understanding of the given issue and my interpretation. Some things may be my understanding of facts or just my own speculation. But I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert, I just want people to understand that they don't have to be enemies. I thought that by providing my interpretation of how and why people act in certain ways, I could help to create more understanding on all sides

What do you mean "violent rape"? Is there any other kind? Rape is a form of violence, is it not?

By "familial" do you mean incest? I don't think incest is rape. I think non-consensual love is rape.

Yeah, maybe 'violent rape' wasn't the right word for it. With that phrase I refer to the sort of rape that is basically "someone gets abducted on the street and is loveual abused." For 'non-violent', I was thinking more along the lines of love without properly informed consent. As in, statutory rape is still rape. And by familial I don't simply mean incest, I mean more like child abuse - where the parent/sibling takes advantage of their position of power to coerce their children/sibling into love. As in, you can have incest without it being rape, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that lots of rape occurs within the family or home setting, but our society has this image that it happens between strangers when you're walking down the street and get abducted or something. Anyway, I simply spoke about rape as an issue because I think that the SJWs are not in the wrong for talking about it. I used it as an example to support my original statement that SJWs have some good ideas and great motives.

As for discrimination, it seems that people who don't feel discriminated against are much more resistant to the idea that maybe people who claim to be are telling the truth. As in, you say that just cause someone claims to be discriminated against doesn't mean they are. Of course this is true, but they deserve to be heard and their issues deserve to be investigated. Like you say, we should investigate the underlying cause. I totally agree

Your entire contribution is assuming you know what/how people think?

Like I say, my contribution is my understanding of how people think based on how they act; it might not be right but it's just the conclusion I've come to from what I've said. As in, the whole point of my original post was my understanding of how people think, based on my own experiences. I think it's silly to frown upon "assuming" what other people think; we do that all the time and that's how we form opinions, for better or for worse. Trying to have an open mind and understand peoples opinions and their points of view is what empathy is - and that naturally involves some "assumptions" about how people feel or think.

Social justice is a force for good, people like this are a vocal minority. Do not let them sour an otherwise positive, essential movement.

And totally, this is the bottom line. Not all "SJWs" are always going to be ignorant starfishs like the people in the OP (unless that's how you define SJWs vs. "people who support justice" in which case I've been using the phrase wrong this whole time.)

[Biostorm]

Woah

when's the last time there's been an intelligent conversation like this on BLF?

[Frequency]

And totally, this is the bottom line. Not all "SJWs" are always going to be ignorant starfishs like the people in the OP (unless that's how you define SJWs vs. "people who support justice" in which case I've been using the phrase wrong this whole time.)

You have.

Not attacking you, but your entire argument is based on "people who support justice" as opposed to Social Justice Warriors.

[ultimamax]

It's the same thing with drunk driving: when you got drunk, you knew what you were getting into. You chose to drink, you chose to drive the car (you chose to drink, you chose to have love); it's your responsibility.

I mean, what kind of logic is that? If two drunk people have love, did they both rape each other?

If a creepy guy got some girl drunk to the point where she could barely stand so he could take her home, would you consider that rape? Intent should be brown townyzed in these cases. Rape is too complex to be drawing lines.

[Frequency]

if the world was under martial law we wouldn't have problems like these ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[TheKhoz]

You have.

Not attacking you, but your entire argument is based on "people who support justice" as opposed to Social Justice Warriors.

fair enough then

I guess I assumed that SJW simply referred to "people who support justice but are particularly annoying about it" aka talk about it all the time

[Aces]

fair enough then

I guess I assumed that SJW simply referred to "people who support justice but are particularly annoying about it" aka talk about it all the time

there is no concrete definition though

nobody who is called an SJW identifies as an SJW, someone who has a problem with a particular thing will probably be called an SJW because their words aren't sugarcoated or upset someone

[Frequency]

fair enough then

I guess I assumed that SJW simply referred to "people who support justice but are particularly annoying about it" aka talk about it all the time

[Electrk.]

Well I apologize for that then; what I say is merely my own opinion, I wouldn't like to think that just because I say things people assume I'm trying to assert it as fact. So from now on, and from everything in the past, what I say is simply my understanding of the given issue and my interpretation. ...

alright, sorry about the confusion

Yeah, maybe 'violent rape' wasn't the right word for it. With that phrase I refer to the sort of rape that is basically "someone gets abducted on the street and is loveual abused." For 'non-violent', I was thinking more along the lines of love without properly informed consent.

Human loveuality is a very ambiguous thing. Obviously, there's very clear-cut consent and non-consent, but there's also a lot of in-between too. I mean, do you really want to have to ask if someone is consenting before having love?

As in, statutory rape is still rape.

I agree, but not when it comes to age of consent laws. What's the difference between a 17 year and 11 month old and an 18-year-old? People mature at different ages. You can't just have a single age of consent that says "every single person past this age is old enough to consent, and everyone before this is not". Because it won't be true.

And by familial I don't simply mean incest, I mean more like child abuse - where the parent/sibling takes advantage of their position of power to coerce their children/sibling into love. As in, you can have incest without it being rape, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I simply meant that lots of rape occurs within the family or home setting, but our society has this image that it happens between strangers when you're walking down the street and get abducted or something.

ah okay

Like I say, my contribution is my understanding of how people think based on how they act; it might not be right but it's just the conclusion I've come to from what I've said. As in, the whole point of my original post was my understanding of how people think, based on my own experiences. I think it's silly to frown upon "assuming" what other people think; we do that all the time and that's how we form opinions, for better or for worse. Trying to have an open mind and understand peoples opinions and their points of view is what empathy is - and that naturally involves some "assumptions" about how people feel or think.

I get ya

And totally, this is the bottom line. Not all "SJWs" are always going to be ignorant starfishs like the people in the OP (unless that's how you define SJWs vs. "people who support justice" in which case I've been using the phrase wrong this whole time.)

unfortunately they're either becoming more vocal or are growing in numbers
I support the concept of equality of opportunity, but I don't want to take any labels

If a creepy guy got some girl drunk to the point where she could barely stand so he could take her home, would you consider that rape? Intent should be brown townyzed in these cases. Rape is too complex to be drawing lines.

I don't know, but I agree on not drawing lines

[Sitrus]

I am a straight white male with short hair but identify as a large black man with dreads and star shaped sunglasses that don't come off.

[Col. Derontchi]

Someone lock this topic before it gets too intelligent