This "social justice warrior" paranoia reminds me of the old days when everybody was scared of Communists.
Well, if you mean McCarthyism, then your post doesn't make sense since McCarthy's goal was to just accuse everyone of being Communist and had no proof. We have proof of SJWs doing shit, getting people fired, and in Britain, even being arrested for fucking hate speech. So, there's proof of the shit they do.
Outside of that, your post still makes no sense. Because the threat of Communism during the Cold War was very much real given how close to nuclear war we were half the time. But I get the feeling you knew this already.
>>360610
How can you be this big of a sperg and have never heard of the red scare?
>>360594
Sounds like something an sjw would say. Fuck off back to tumblr, you're not fooling me!
>>360614
I have. I even mentioned McCarthyism which was the inspiration behind it. OP's post isn't accurate of the red scare since we have proof SJWs actually do shit and damage things, whereas the red scare is based on McCarthy going "everyone's a Communist!" with no proof. We have proof of SJWs and the shit they say. One even got arrested for it in Britain. I think her name was Bahr or some shit.
So, trying to pass of SJW shit as "lel it's as not scary as Communism" isn't accurate no matter how you slice it. Because the red scare had no evidence for it; SJWs do have evidence of them existing and doing shit. And the Cold War DID have a real threat of nuclear war, so if he's comparing it to the Cold War, he'd be saying SJWs are a threat. And given he's calling it "paranoia" something tells me that's not what he's trying to portray.
>>360594
Communism should be outlawed like fascism
>>360647
Lol the red scare wasn't based on mcarthy at all
>>360648
There is nothing wrong with Communism.
>>360654
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#Second_Red_Scare_.281947.E2.80.9357.29
Unless he's talking about the first one, but that's not even historically relevant and hardly anyone knows of it because nothing happened. Red Scare is usually used to define the first one. Or are you not American?
>>360660
McCarthy capitalized on the second wave, he didn't start it. McCarthyism and the red scare are related but not the same. This is 9th grade US history I'm teaching here.
>>360610
>>360647
A SJW can't get someone fired. They can only bring information to the employer, and only the employer can decide if they want to fire based on that information. /pol/ is anti free speech, they want to suppress the distribution of information. /pol/ does shit their know they would get fired for, then get mad when a SJW brings it to the attention of their employer.
>>360928
An SJW can both bring information to an employer and put pressure on that employer. Look at the protests of college campuses where a faculty member didn't care about their precious safe spaces, and they threatened the college with libel and slander (none of which would be prosecuted, but instead probably supported by the media) until they got what they want. Same thing goes for anywhere, really. Would you like your name to be synonymous with Rape Apologist? How about your company? They can throw around this slander and get the public to ostracize you and anyone connected with you. So unless you think that slander is included in free speech, I don't know what you're talking about.
>>360934
Apparently /pol/, #gg, etc, think lies and slander are fair game, seems to happen all the time, so I'm okay with it. I mean they literally lie all the time, and when one lie gets debunked, they move onto the next one. This seems like a double standard. Also /pol/ shoots people, unlike SJWs.
>>360937
Fuck /pol/ too. I'm not defending /pol/, I'm telling you that you're fucking retarded if you think that sjws can't do anything to you if you don't deserve it.
>>360648
But then that would be fascist.
And McCarthy was right to be paranoid
>>360948
SJWs really can't if you can utterly and completely debunk them. You can make things backfire on over reaching SJWs. SJWs can make a big deal out of something you think is small, but if they get enough popular support, apparently it wasn't all that small. Then you just issue a public apology instead of refusing to back down.
>>360959
>Just issue a public apology
"I sure am sorry that I was accused of raping that girl and that her friends testified that I did in fact rape her, yes siree. I'm just going to go back to my life now, because surely no one will look at me and say that I was a rapist that got away, no siree."
All they have to do is get enough people screaming for your head and then mob mentailty will do the rest. But remember, if you disagree you're a misogynistic MRA!
>>360964
>shoots 5 blacks
I see you lack reading comprehension. False accusations are things you debunk. Them making a big issue out of what you thought was a small issue is something you make an apology for. But that doesn't fit your all-powerful evil SJW agenda. Being so reactionary about it only empowers them more.
>>360968
I see you're retarded then, so let me spell this out for you like you're a third grader. You can't debunk hearsay and character attacks, dipshit. You're supposed to be able to dismiss hearsay and the like, but in this witch hunt culture that's trying to fight evil racist rapist men, nobody will listen to you if you're surrounded by sjws screaming for your head. Again, look at college campuses where people get firedfor saying "that isn't racist." Look at the accused rapists that get the shit beaten out of them before they even get to defend themselves in court. Look at all the companies that pander to these values because they don't want bad publicity. Actually I don't know why I'm asking you to look at anything, since I bet you think that facts always beat lies and you can just debunk your way out of anything. Fuck it. Hope you never see the inside of a courtroom if that's your attitude.
>>360972
>I see you're retarded then, so let me spell this out for you like you're a third grader. You can't debunk hearsay and character attacks, dipshit
Yes you can, pretty much the same way you can absolve yourself of any crime, with an alibi.
> You're supposed to be able to dismiss hearsay and the like, but in this witch hunt culture that's trying to fight evil racist rapist men, nobody will listen to you if you're surrounded by sjws screaming for your head.
Probably because they're providing at least a tiny bit of evidence. It doesn't help that you give them a big group of people to point out as evil racist misogynists.
>Again, look at college campuses where people get firedfor saying "that isn't racist."
Because they won't issue an apology.
>Look at the accused rapists that get the shit beaten out of them before they even get to defend themselves in court.
You got beat up by a bunch of fat women. And they didn't even have guns, like /pol/
>Look at all the companies that pander to these values because they don't want bad publicity.
It's clear the majority sides with SJWs more than you, and you being reactionary about it only lets them get away with being more extreme.
>Actually I don't know why I'm asking you to look at anything, since I bet you think that facts always beat lies and you can just debunk your way out of anything.
The vast majority of these cases are people blaming SJWs with no proof, or because they're confrontational about it, because they think their racist joke or something was justified, even if the employer has a code of conduct.
The thing about SJWs is a retarded victim complex.
>sjws exaggerate things
>make exaggerations about sjws
>sjws go on witch hunts
>do anti sjw witch hunt
>sjws lie and shit
>lie and shit about sjws
>sjws make unfalsifiable and vague accusations
>make unfalsibiable and vague accusations about sjws
>sjws resort to underhanded tactics
>resort to underhanded tactics against sjws
Anti-SJWs are at least as bad. You're just mad you have no moral high ground.
>>360982
>>360997
Thank you for proving that you lack any moral high ground, and you actually are just as bad.
>>360997
I was just trying to find that. Shit couldn't be more appropriate.
>>360979
A peek at human history will show you that every culture has a class of issues that simply being associated with is toxic. The witch hunts and McCarthyism have already been brought up, in part because they are considered undeniable examples of humans allowing their fear or disgust for something as a justification to disregard common sense, evidence, a reasonable burden of proof; and, importantly, they are examples of vocal minorities using that fear and disgust to their advantage to ruin (or end) the lives of "undesirables." Yesterday it was communism; last week it was witch hunts; today it is rapists and child abusers.
It's one thing to say the SJWs aren't like the McCarthyists or Witch Hunters because of X, but it's another to suggest they aren't like them because these kinds of issues don't exist and all accusations of wrongdoing are looked at equally.
>>361023
>kinds of issues don't exist and all accusations of wrongdoing are looked at equally.
Because going to jail or being burned at the stake is equal to getting fired because you are unapologetic about a racist joke, and the scale of McCarthyists and With hunts are totally on the same level as SJWs. Can you play victim more?
>>361032
The consequences don't need to be as severe for it to be an fundamentally the same issue (not to mention McCarthyists primarily caused people to lose their jobs). The issue is that humans are disregarding evidence, common sense, and burden of proof and ruining (or ending) people lives as a result.
If you're suggesting that SJW behavior is limited to complaining about people making racist jokes you're being disingenuous.
>>360997
what a kuck
>>360997
back to 8gag you go
>>361037
>If you're suggesting that SJW behavior is limited to complaining about people making racist jokes
Vast majority of the examples shown to me were as such. Look at the SJWs making a big deal out of nothing and ruining his life.
>The issue is that humans are disregarding evidence, common sense, and burden of proof and ruining (or ending) people lives as a result.
People do that anyways without SJWs. SJWs are not the primary moving force of unfairness in the world. They're actually really really insignificant. Plus, SJWs are a #gg and /pol/ thing as far as I'm concerned, and they disregard evidence, common sense, and burden of proof all the time. But at least they don't ruin people's lives I guess?
>shoots 5 blacks
Oh.
>>361041
Someone's life generally *shouldn't* be ruined because of a racist joke. In particular the issue is that SJWs interpretation of racism isn't the same as normal people's interpretation of it. So you get SJWs losing their shit because some white girl wore a kimono. Obviously that is ridiculous, and it underscores the problem with SJWs in general.
Individuals act irrationally, but it's not acceptable when people or entities with large amount of power do it. Even if it were the case that anti-SJWs acted equivalently to SJWs, which they don't, the fact would remain that SJWs are the ones whose behavior is actually resulting in changes in policy and culture. It was bad when the right-wingers were enemies of liberty and it's bad when it's the leftists too.
>shoots 5 blacks
I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't talk to me in memes.
>>361044
>Someone's life generally *shouldn't* be ruined because of a racist joke. In particular the issue is that SJWs interpretation of racism isn't the same as normal people's interpretation of it.
If an employer can't shrug it off, then it is.
>So you get SJWs losing their shit because some white girl wore a kimono. Obviously that is ridiculous, and it underscores the problem with SJWs in general.
#gg and /pol/ lose their shit over things all the time. Either you're going to talk about life ruining, or you aren't. Pick one.
>Individuals act irrationally, but it's not acceptable when people or entities with large amount of power do it.
And SJWs don't have lots of power.
>Even if it were the case that anti-SJWs acted equivalently to SJWs, which they don't, the fact would remain that SJWs are the ones whose behavior is actually resulting in changes in policy and culture.
That's quite a presumption. Maybe you're just on the losing side of history. McCarthyism made it so no one can be openly socialist, and it still holds true today. Spooky, isn't it?
>It was bad when the right-wingers were enemies of liberty and it's bad when it's the leftists too.
Yeah, but I don't see anything that much worse about SJWs.
I would feel differently if instead of shouting SJW every time someone contradicted your opinions, you focused solely on the lying, false rape accusation, hypocritical SJWs, but you don't. You fags shout SJW every time someone has a different opinion than you, and change the definition when it's convenient.
>I have no idea what you're talking about. Don't talk to me in memes.
Read the news.
>>361047
Part of the tactics of SJWs is to yell loudly and passionately and to use their disproportionate numbers or interest on social media to basically make themselves look more numerous than they are. This is often coupled with using to their advantage a natural aversion people and companies tend to have with being associated with racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Just because you can ruin someone's life by accusing them of being racist, doesn't mean you should. Society looks like it's starting to catch wind of the fact that SJWs represent a very small minority of people with gender studies degrees and twitter accounts, but just because they aren't being flat-out dismissed yet, you can't defend their unethical behavior on the grounds that employers react a certain way to it. If someone falsely accused you of rape, and everytime a potential employer Googled your name this was the first thing to come up, you wouldn't be happy. You wouldn't claim it's right that you couldn't get a good job because of that.
SJWs have plenty of power. First off, pop culture has changed tremendously in the last 5 years as a result of them. What you can express in movies, TV, video games, music has all changed based on their values. The transgender issue, something the majority of the public didn't even know about until this year, and how SJWs have made it so that people now walk on egg shells to talk about something a year ago people would laugh about, is a testament to their power over modern pop culture. Even more concerning is that they can get their bullshit taken seriously among the government. Fabricated nonsense like the wage gap or that a 1 in 4 college girls are being raped has been used as a basis for policy changes. And university campuses are squashing fundamental ideas like intellectual diversity and free expression because of SJW oversensitivity.
>>361047
>b...but gamergate
go back to tumbrl you stupid dyke
>>360594
You mean imminent atomic doom?
/his/ was made for a reason you know.
It's a fact that SJWs are coming to 4chan more often now to subvert and shitpost. OP is probably one as well.
>>360610
>implying proven Communist spies didn't exist
look, from a legit thirld world unpriviliged minority, sjws are literally retarded
>shout about privilege
>live in the capital of the world, attend best universities in the world
>claim to be "latinos" or "asians" because of their parent's nationalities
>live in california
>never put a foot on the region they claim to be from
>have the nerve to act like they are actual thirld-world asians/latinos living in a fascist mid 20's america
>acknowledge the world is going to shit
>decide language and semiotics politics is the thing to engage in
>shout against patriarchy
>go out and behave like a cheap whore
they are walking contradictions, 100% autism generation kids
>>361434
>>361434
>breitbart
Didn't read. Isn't that the same site that is mad about SJWs ruining pixel boobs?
>>360594
Before or after communism killed more then Hitler?
>>361440
Oh but if Salon or Gawker told you George Soros was funding the SJW nonsense you would belive it?
>>361440
Have you seen the kind of edits that are applied to games in Germany? Nobody wants a video game equivalent of the CCA.
>>361462
If it was a reputable news source, the kind you think is the liberal controlled media, and not a clickbait site, yes. I don't read clickbait blog news sites, whether or not the content is true.
>>361467
Well you certainly make it a lot easier to justify censorship by intentionally being malignant instead of using free speech to rationally disassemble the evil SJW menace and their plots.
>>361473
So it loops back to
> I don't like it, therefore it should be censored.
Seriously, go away troll.
>>360997
>Every person who points out anti-SJWs are just as bad is really a SJW
Hmm, you've reduced this into a black and white issue, just like a SJW would. Nice try pal :^) but it's clear who the real SJW is.
>>361486
Yea, anyone who claims that anti-SJWs are as bad as SJWs really is an SJW, or at best incredibly naive, which is just as harmful in this case.
The goal of SJWs is to restrict freedom. They want to dictate what people can say and what art they can express and consume, erode due process for those accused of crimeslike sexual assault, directly control outcomes through nefarious means (wage gap nonsense, for instance). The worst of it is that they've had a fair bit of success of doing so. If the worst thing you can say about "anti-sjws" is "they're overly paranoid about SJWs!," and you think that's on the same level, you can only bean SJW or incredibly ignorant on the issues here.
>>361514
So anti-SJWs are basically mad that even using the same tactics they're not as successful as actual SJWs?
>>361515
Anti-SJWs don't use the same tactics, and they can't, in general. SJWs rely upon claims of oppressed status to get what they want, which is why it's really just an off-shoot of the feminist movement.
Regardless, there is no equivalence here. This isn't two groups struggling to get their side of an issue accepted. This is one group trying to restrict freedom and relying on emotional appeals and propaganda to get there and another group not accepting their bullshit.
>>361519
>SJWs rely upon claims of oppressed status to get what they want
I see anti-SJWs crying victim all the time and being oppressed and suppressed by the evil SJW. I guess victimizing oneself only works when the claims are false, and not true, right?
>This is one group trying to restrict freedom and relying on emotional appeals and propaganda to get there and another group not accepting their bullshit.
Good one, /pol/
>>361520
If a group has the power to censor you because they dislike what you express, it is "oppression."
Again, though, your drawing a false equivalence. There's a difference between merely claiming someone is victimizing you and using victimhood status as leverage for extortion. SJWs use victimhood status as a way to affect change. So they'll get a bunch of women crying that laws need to change for accusers of rape, and try and maximize their success by making policy creators look as if they don't change the policy in the way they want (which requires an erosion of due process), they hate women. This only works because women do have a claim to victimhood status. You couldn't successfully do the same thing with men. And it is irrelevant whether or not a victimhood status is warranted or not. The point is it's never a justification for disregarding common sense and (genuine) liberalism.
God these anti-anti-SJWs are just as bad as the anti-SJWs.
>>361519
>Anti-SJWs don't use the same tactics, and they can't, in general.
Have you never been on /r9k/?
>>361442
Hitler is a person, communism is not
An ideology doesn't kill, people in charge do
>>361522
>You couldn't successfully do the same thing with men.
That seems to be why you're upset. I think you would if you could, so you got a strong case of the jellies. But keep spamming that folder of redpill non-emotional, non-propaganda, non-bullshit infographics to justify restricting freedom on groups you hate.
>>361536
You shouldn't be able to do it with anyone. A culture in which people can use claimed victimhood status as a weapon to get what they want is not desirable to me, period. For one, I have too much pride for such nonsense. Two, I'm too logical and principled for it. Three, and most importantly, I have the foresight to see that no one is really safe in such an environment. Even if you are a part of the "oppressed" class at the present, without notice that could all change. Identity politics gets exponentially ridiculous as you look into the details.
Good job not addressing the point and going the route of pseudo-psychological analysis to obscure your lack of counterargument though.
>>361546
Sorry, I didn't hear you over the sound of 5 gunshots. At least your aim was so bad you didn't end anyone's life.
>>361549
*teleports behind you*
*unsheathes katana*
Back the fuck off!?
>>360594
SJWs are communists, they just ad-lib'ed their terminology
>>360594
Remember how every culture and site claimed for shit was later integrated into the claimers culture or site?
It isn't reminiscent of the Red Scare, it is the Red Scare. These people think social justice is "cultural marxism."
>>360594
Why were people scared of communists? Because they were openly committing genocide, while their "civilized" Western allies cheered all the way, while hypocritically complaining about infinitely smaller issues back home.
SJW's are so much like bona fide communists, it's scary. If this sort of person had more power, they'd definitely kill on a similar scale. You already see them claiming that all white people should be killed. And you think these people wouldn't go through with that if they could?
SJW's and communists also both want to outlaw things based on their feels. Their idealism can't bear criticism, so they want to make criticism illegal.
It's not paranoia when they're really after you, Anon. The response to SJW's reminds you of the response to Communists, because the SJW's basically ARE communists. They have the same idealism, they say the same things, they practice the same methods. And like communists, their goal is to destroy our current society in order to replace it with their hypocritical, oppressive bullshit.
The average Nazi was more reasonable than a typical SJW.
>>361619
You use SJW to mean anyone you disagree with.
From what I gather, "SJWs" can be found in one of two places: colleges, and social media sites. Two places you'll never find me. As such, I have never encountered one, and dedicate little of my waking life to worrying about them.
>>361619
>You already see them claiming that all white people should be killed. And you think these people wouldn't go through with that if they could?
Sounds like something a BLM thug might say, but not so much a whiny white tumblr feminist. The left isn't some unified commie plot.
>>361515
Anti SJWS want to control the way you behave, anti SJWS want SJWS not to control the way you behave.
How is it the same thing?
>>362231
>SJW: this is offensive, change it please
>Dev: OK, you're right, I'll change it
>CMT: YOU'RE PANDERING TO SJWS, CHANGE IT BACK!!!
>Dev: No
>CMT: FUCK YOU SJW IMA BOYCOTT YOUR FREE PRODUCT
>Dev: k
>>360594
Yeah. SJWs are much like the Red Scare. Accusing people of things baselessly, ruining lives without evidence, trying to support themselves by going against the big bad men/communists. Good thread OP.
>>360594
Communists killed 100 million people.
>>361624
>Sounds like something a BLM thug might say, but not so much a whiny white tumblr feminist. The left isn't some unified commie plot.
But that's exactly why one feminist got arrested in Britain for hate speech.
>>362275
Which makes it a perfectly good criticism of, say, Anita Sarwhatever.
>>362275
You sure she didn't call for the compromise position of only killing white men?
>>362277
When they follow the same ideology and support one another? Yes, it does. Because then it stops being about equality and shows a pattern, that they seek to silence anyone who is not them. And their support for one another shows that they do agree on some level with the ideologies presented. Or do you want to make the case that not ALL Nazis were bad because even if they supported one another, there were probably a few who were more reasonable?
And, as a liberal myself, that is not fucking acceptable. Free speech and varied opinions is GOOD for society. You cannot sit there and do that shit and expect to get away with it. It destroys what little liberty we have and they want to wash it away with censorship. And I get it. Blacks and others have been oppressed before. Some still are. But how are you going to account for censorship of everyone who isn't a minority or a woman when things have only gotten better in recent years? You're just dragging shit backwards and focusing more on revenge and perks for X group rather than actual equality the way it should be. That is not okay no matter who is doing it. And, to be honest, I don't even agree with the girl being arrested for hate speech. I support free speech even if I dislike it, but it just goes to show you that their ideas are biting themselves in the ass. To support anything but liberty only ensures you yourself will be up on the chopping block as happened with her. Poetic justice. Maybe now rather than being hateful, she will focus on UPLIFTING everyone rather than dragging down others as revenge for having held others down.
>>362281
>When they follow the same ideology and support one another? Yes, it does.
Please show where Anita has advocated for the killing of all white people.
>>362284
She does not have had to say it. She supports feminism, right? Well, there are massive amounts of feminists like that Bahr girl who call for the deaths and oppression of white men and anyone who isn't in a minority class. If you follow the same ideology (Feminism in this case) then it does show tacit support for others who are also within your group. Otherwise the very people we can all agree are bad, such as Nazis, we couldn't call bad because we know not all of them said to kill Jews. But they did not have to when their support allowed radicals within their movement to accomplish such objectives.
So, Anita doesn't have to say that when the radicals within her group say these kinds of things and supports them. And, to be fair, I don't even think she's a feminist really and is just a con artist using this to her own ends. She says contradictory shit like "I love video games" and then there's a video saying she doesn't like them. So, Anita isn't even really the issue here. She's just using this new movement to make money and isn't one of the radicals who believe the ideology they're spouting. But if she keeps calling herself a feminist or what have you, and feminists keep saying and supporting that kind of shit, then she's gonna have to accept that this will also reflect on her for being part of such movements.
>>362295
>She does not have had to say it. She supports feminism, right?
Which is the ideology advocating the killing of all white people?
I'm a free speech advocate. We should nuke China.
I'm voting for Trump, and I believe manlets should be culled.
>>362296
In modern times? Yes. There is a large subset of feminism like the Bahr girl I mentioned being arrested for hate speech. Or did you miss the hashtag "#killallmen" and other things of that nature?
It's not like these radicals make up a small portion of these groups. They've come to embody a majority. And feminists who do not support them have gone out of their way to distance themselves from such people. Anita, or any of these other big names of the SJW movement currently, to my knowledge, have never once voiced a distaste for such radicals, and often, tend to be part of, or support openly or tacitly, said radicals.
And this is an issue. As I said, I'm a liberal myself. And to me there's a big difference between focusing on actual social problems and complaining about sexist air conditioners, calling for the murder of all cis white men or any other group, and other downright insanity these people openly spout without shame.
>>362304
>In modern times? Yes.
Thank you, I did not know that modern feminism was about killing white people. TMYT.
I'm a liberal. It should be legal to sell unwanted children as meat for poor people.
>>362310
Then google "bahr feminist hate speech" where it details her arrest over the hashtag #killallwhitemen.
>>362318
My bad, I misspelled her name. It's Bahar, not "bahr".
Stop eating babies.
>>360959
The BBC is still parroting the cyber-violence report that Anita and co went to the UN with before it was exposed as being complete and utter bullshit.
Debunking them doesn't work when they literally stop caring about things like evidence, logic or reason.
>SJWs can make a big deal out of something you think is small, but if they get enough popular support, apparently it wasn't all that small.
Using well-meaning platitudes to garner wide support for their often obfuscated or ulterior motives is how they work. This is just excusing the mob justice tactics they resort to.
>>361486
Anti-SJWs aren't the media darlings. They're not the ones turning every major North American university into a groupthink nursery. They're not the ones trying to redefine words and definitions to suit their political goals. They're not the ones who can openly voice their opinions without expecting someone calling for their resignation.
I don't like rabid Anti-SJWs who often behave just like SJWs on the individual level, but to equate them as representing the same thing as a whole or imply they represent the same level of threat to people unaffiliated with either is just silly anon.
>>361473
>I don't read clickbait blog news sites, whether or not the content is true.
So no Guardian or BBC then either?
>>361528
You're being argumentatively pedantic when it's quite obvious what he meant.
Substitute his use of communism with a reference to Mao or Stalin. Substitute the use of Hitler for national socialism and the argument remains unchanged.
>>361621
He's not wrong. I used to think the whole "cultural marxism," label was batshit too until I looked into what a lot of the people who propagate and influence the schools of thought behind modern "social justice," actually say.
Further, I'm finding it more and more strange that there's a huge pushback against the SJW term when similar terms that often end up used as quick insults like MRA see a fraction of the same reaction.
>>361622
That should be a reason of concern anon. Colleges are where our future leaders come from due to the western world's oligarchic foundation and social media is increasingly becoming the prime mode of communication and where international media is focusing its efforts.
>>362242
You miss a part.
>SJW: this is offensive, change it please
>Dev: I can see your point, but I disagree
>SJW: IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS TRANS-MISOGYNY HAPPENING!
>Dev: What the fuck?
>SJW: IMA BOYCOTT YOUR PRODUCT EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T GONNA BUY IT!
>>363667
>SJW is preposterous plus power. I, a person with no media backing, cannot be SJW.
>>363742
Where on Earth did you get that interpretation? Especially from a post that went on to say...
>I don't like rabid Anti-SJWs who often behave just like SJWs on the individual level
It's fully acknowledging that Anti-SJWs can be as bad as SJWs. The anti prefix is simply there to inform a clarity of position, not a definition of antics.
ITT
mccarthy was right. soviets subverted every aspect of america and he was staged to look like a fool for pointing it out.
>>363757
Please show where Anita called for the killing of all white people.
>>360937
>>360928
I really, really hate SJW's like this faggot. I hate how slimy they are, I hate how snakelike they are, and I hate how deceitful they are
I always thought I hated furries more than anything in the world. But I'm learning to appreciate the higher levels of pure unadulterated loathing when it comes to these fuckers.
>>363764
Don't shoot people.
>>360982
>sjw's
>moral high ground
>>361432
I can tell you didn't even read his well thought out post. Why are you even here then?
>>361549
Man 4chan has really gone downhill.
>>363766
Oh ok. Didn't know you weren't supposed to. Thanks for letting me know.
>>363792
Also black people are people, don't forget that part.
>>360648
if it weren't for the communists, all workers would be in deep poverty, dying in their workplaces and the streets, and literally working as slaves
>>363811
I'm not gonna lie, seems pretty questionable. But alright I guess.
>>363822
/pol/ is just mad at the SJWs because they're the ones preventing another Holocaust.
>>363822
You know stuff like that routinely happened under supposedly communist regimes right? They actually have a pretty good record for incurring famines too.
There's something to be said for the labor and civil rights movements, but you do a huge disservice to them by crediting their successes to those of communists who often had very different ideas.
I do think outlawing communism would be a silly and terrible idea, but I also hold that opinion for states that do the same for fascism.
>>363792
>>363823
Why are you entertaining this person's sanctimonious bullshit?
ITT: internet is srs bsns
meanwhile, IRL, the US govt. is:
- illegally torturing people in gitmo and many other places/countries
- destroying middle-eastern countries, directly or by training "friendly" governments and groups of "freedom fighters" (lol). reminder that al-qaeda and other terrorist groups were also "friends"
- also, and related to ^, keeping dictators in power while bullshitting about "democracy". basically, maintaining a neocolonial policy while playing the victim about its consequences.
- keeping hundred of known and secret military bases all over the world
- reading practically EVERYTHING we say and share in the internet, for the purpose of stealing (economic spionage, etc), cheating and lying. they have said they do so against terrorism and for democracy/freedom... it's been proven many times that this is bullshit.
- keeping the highest prison population in the world
- still allowing death penalty
- openly promoting racism and xenophobia, disguised as "diplomacy" and other euphemisms
- transferring drugs and controlling national and international drug trade
- ... and the list of lovely actions goes and goes.
and neither these so called "social justice warriors", nor their opponents care.
as people have said ITT, you are just as bad as the SJWs you hate so much
>>363876
>You know stuff like that routinely happened under supposedly communist regimes right? They actually have a pretty good record for incurring famines too.
capitalists have good records of this, too, plus a range of other horrible things. are you telling me that the wars the US has started are not related to capitalistic expansionism?
also, famous communists have openly opposed totalitarianism. that says nothing about communists themselves.
>you do a huge disservice to them by crediting their successes to those of communists who often had very different ideas.
those ideas literally come from anarchists, communists and socialists.
>>363843
/pol/ is not the one influencing society at large. It's a backwards board on a Mongolian trading card game forum full of loners and societal dropouts.
The other group you mentioned is the one redefining terms like "racism," and "sexism," to justify and excuse their own instances of such and alleviate the heavy conscience of hypocrisy.
There's a phrase I'm probably quoting wrongly, but from memory it goes something like this:
>Beware the man with the most just cause, for you will often find the most unjust of actions.
>>363887
>/pol/ is not the one influencing society at large.
Because they can't win arguments.
>>363886
I made no such argument, but if you're not willing to own the faults of the group as a whole, conversely championing collective virtues is nothing but hypocrisy.
If communist regimes and many famous communists fighting for them have put into place many of the same things you(?) >>363877 detest here, why does it become pertinent to credit them successes while ignoring their abysmally catastrophic failures?
Those ideas came from many places. The religious, the secular, the bigoted and the open-minded. Those same communists and socialists you're waxing poetic over were often as blatantly racist, sexist and xenophobic as any of their foulest contemporaries. Many of their ideas were cast aside and shunned as much as others were adopted and utilized.
Crediting them and them alone by implication of the argued and supposed nonexistence of social safety nets without them is wild conjecture, nor do any of their actions then inform any relevance on the here and now.
Black Americans do not owe their allegiance to the modern GOP for Lincoln and his party's actions in hastening the destruction of slavery. Modern Venetians do not owe thanks to Attila the Hun for brutally sacking Aquileia and providing the refugees and incentive to build their city.
Likewise modern society owes no allegiance to contemporary communism for the actions of passed communists, especially when those actions were often as malfeasant and maleficent as they were not.
>>363893
If that were the sole criteria for influencing others those who end up most often described as "SJWs," wouldn't be doing so either.
In fact, many with that worldview have taken it upon themselves to invalidate the process of logical and consistent argument, viewing the idea of such as an erroneous construct hoisted by their oppressors based on any number of differences to exempt themselves from the burden altogether.
>>363877
We wouldn't have any of this if it weren't for arabs, jews, spics, niggers, chinks, stoners, commies, pedos, criminals, catholics and hippies
>>363934
You might as well argue that we wouldn't have anything without anybody.
>>363934
sure thing. I mean, those are the freedom fighters, the US govt. is just defending them... right?
you are reaaaaaaaally naive. your whole social status depends on those people. it's called capitalism.
>>363915
except that people owe AND praise those who, say, spread scientific theories, or good habits, or their knowledge, or the need of education. sure, many of those ideas may not be "original" by communists, socialists and anarchists (in fact, those ideals are old), but, again, what would have happened if they hadn't spread and kept fighting for them? for example, what if the communists weren't there to defend their countries when the nazis came?
what would be happening today? what will happen tomorrow?
regarding totalitarian communist governments: funnily enough, some people really miss those, even after the disasters they made. how could it be? perhaps people are ready to accept atrocities when they benefit from them? could that be the case of... the US and all of the other current neocolonial powers?
I love how people keep showing the same xenophobia and hate for other ideologies, showing other social groups as examples... whle ignoring their own history on purpose.
again, not better than the pseudo-SJWs you hate so much.
>>363924
>If that were the sole criteria for influencing others those who end up most often described as "SJWs," wouldn't be doing so either.
Naw, SJWs tend to win arguments, and every time they do, 4chan is flooded in the losers' tears. It's almost always about trivial shit, too, like what to name things.
>>363963
Actually I'm rich so I don't really care
>>363963
All you posted can be condensed to "what if" hypotheticals and "some people think" baseless statements and finished by " fug Amerigga :DDDD" and "why people so mean :("
Pure pleas to emotion with nothing to back it up.
>>363975
>I don't really care
of course. you only care about shitposting in 4chan. not surprising.
>>363963
If those ideas are not originally communist ideals then you can't very well say that without those communist those ideals and the innovations that resulted from such wouldn't exist no can you?
Perhaps without influential communists the nazis would have not been a threat to begin with? It was their power after all that gave the German establishment, aristocracy and moderate voices incentive to side with the latter in hopes to stem the tide of the former.
Perhaps without certain communists Russia might have very well fared better given Stalin was militarily inept and repeatedly decapitated the Red Army of its best and brightest like Tukhachevsky.
Perhaps China could have modernized in such a way that didn't damn an entire generation as Red Guards while destroying another in its wake.
I have never once in this argument made any excuses for the US or for capitalism in general. The hypocrisy you think you're exposing is not one I've voiced and is not one I support.
The crux of my contention has been from the start the supposed and very hypothetical presumption of nonexistent social progress without communist influence. Would you in any way watch someone make the same argument in regards to modern capitalism without contending the veracity of such a vague statement given the infinite number of variables required to render such a position true or false?
We could all sit here and make lengthy preconceived guesses pertaining to the hypothetical track of societal policies and human development through the night and not one of any potential would-ofs and could-ofs would have tangible effects on the current reality of our world and the parties therein.
I say again, as someone who was very nearly a communist myself in years past, we do not owe allegiance to the modern incarnation of a political ideology for the actions of individual adherents in the past. Beholding yourself in such a way is how ideas and arguments become faith and dogma.
>>363973
>SJWs tend to win arguments
Most often in ways given to circumventing them completely. I'm under no illusion that everyone opposing them comes from sound mind or even values things like logic or consistency.
However, if they were so apt at doing what you say they are, why do we see time and again their plight in the face of communities where sympathetic individuals do not wield power to circumvent arguing in the first place?
Why do we see so often the pressing need to redefine the rules and definitions of terms so that one party is exempt from their application by their own often arbitrary conventions or words alone?
Why does one side invariably treat as their political currency sympathy for their own stated victimhood above all else?
Why do their popularized talking points begin to crumble beneath the face of honest scrutiny to the point the very idea of such becomes a taboo unto itself?
Why does merely being skeptical of their motivations and methods become tantamount to perpetuating hatred and treated as such despite the ridiculous notion of such a dichotomy?
Again, I don't for a moment think they corner the proverbial market on those trends, but they certainly trade in them and to such an extent it's very difficult not to notice.
>>360594
SJW paranoia is trumped by Reddit paranoia
Call it the REDdit Scare
>>360997
nah
its more of a "I need to appear smarter and different from everyone else...I know! Ill form a contrarian opinion!" type of deal
>>363973
This is what sjw's actually believe.
>>363973
>SJWs tend to win arguments
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>364606
>SJWs don't win arguments
>SJWs influence the industry
pick one
>>364610
What world do you live in where making good arguments always correlates to increased influence?
>>365121
I didn't say they made good arguments, I said they won arguments. And upon losing, their opponents come to 4chan seeking affirmation and hugs. That's why it's the duty of every anon to insult and demean the opponents of SJWs.
>>365227
Hello reddit.
>>365227
I think you need to stop projecting yourself onto others.
SJWs are the ones that come to 4chan.
>>365262
Typical thread:
https://rbt.asia/g/thread/50824146
>>365227
Can't help but notice you ignored >>364076 which is kind of funny given that post mentions SJWs just avoiding arguments and calling it a win.
I mean, >>364606 even provided an example of them flat out codifying their complete dismissal of evidence, facts, logic or reason and when that approach doesn't work the response is usually a block, an appeal to a higher power to make the dissent go away, more avoidance of facts or a moralistic insult designed to form a quick though termination.
You couldn't have it anymore backwards if you tried. Someone merely saying "I disagree," is enough to put these people in melt down these days in case you haven't noticed.
>>360594
The "bigot" paranoia reminds me of the old days when everybody was scared of Communists.
No, but seriously, OP, if you can't see why SJWs are the new McCarthyists, I think you have some serious psychological issues you need to work out.
>>365605
That .bro argument was won by doing exactly what >>364076 mentioned in that it was a forced decision by people with power sympathetic to them. They didn't win the argument, they appealed to authority by wielding their victim hood.
And that Twitter screenshot is a perfect encapsulation of this growing trend among SJWs in completely discounting arguments because of the identity of the person behind them or the existence of evidence contrary to their position instead of refuting the argument itself.
>>365981
>argue case
>person making decision decides in opponent's favor
>they didn't win!
Sorry bby, they won, you lost. Doesn't necessarily mean they were right, but please don't come to 4chan looking for a hugbox when you lose.
>>365999
Even if I lose, I win, because I didn't lose the war, feel me?
Another example, on more even ground:
https://github.com/bmuller/gender_detector/pull/14
Whiny faggots:
https://rbt.asia/g/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=bmuller
You know the red scare was justified right? Soviets literally wanted to take over the world and have been subverting us since the beginning.
>>360594
You weren't alive in the 1950s you fucking liar.
>>365999
It's quite illuminating that the only examples you can find of them winning arguments is through authority either sympathetic to them or part of their clique to begin with. You keep ignoring >>364076 as well.
You're also wielding some lovely hypocrisy too what with condemning the idea of a hugbox for Anti-SJWs but seemingly arguing for one here >>365227. You are very much in favor of a hugbox, just one that caters to your own sensibilities.
>>366221
>people naming their own shit is "authority"
>people ridiculing idiots is a "hugbox"
>>366251
>...it's the duty of every anon to insult and demean the opponents of SJWs.
Why would you consider it the duty of every anon to berate Anti-SJW sentiment if not to deter it from cropping up around here thereby establishing a hugbox for your own sensibilities?
Does it offend you that SJWs and Anti-SJWs might occasionally have arguments around here?
>>366269
>Why would you consider it the duty of every anon to berate Anti-SJW sentiment if not to [nonsense]
The reason I said.
>>366269
>SJWs and Anti-SJWs might occasionally have arguments around here?
This does not happen, anti-SJWs are coming here because, as you might expect, basically everyone here doesn't think the old name is offensive. The arguments are between anti-SJWs and people calling them faggots.
>>366282
SRS and Ghazi posters have openly admitted both here and on their subs that they post here.
What's the point of starting a contention if you admit that the general Anti-SJW sentiment is shared at large? If that's true why would there be a fight to begin with? I know plenty of Anti-SJWs who're as bad as their opponents, but all I'm seeing here is whining about other people whining.
>>366273
So in essence meta-bitching and complaining about people complaining?
>>366290
>SRS and Ghazi posters have openly admitted both here and on their subs that they post here.
Then they should do more advocacy for their positions, because I don't see a lot of it.
>So in essence meta-bitching and complaining about people complaining?
Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between complaining to the people you're complaining about, and complaining to unrelated people you expect sympathy from.
>>366300
You don't see a lot of it because they recognize, like you did, that the general mood and opinion of them around here is not favorable.
You'd be surprised though to see how many former (and current) anons are SJWs who frequent those places. Some come right out and say it or are rather obvious about it while the more savvy among them probably realize their current brand of political ideology runs congruent to most chan "culture," and so end up obfuscating it to better fit in.
As an example: no one around here is going to seriously take someone advocating for the deletion of /pol/ or the implementation of new rules using language SJWs do, but they might if it looks like that sentiment comes from other anons.
It might seem a bit paranoid, but we are talking about groups who have been caught subverting shit before.
As to the second point; I think it's a perception issue. They might see it as wanting to discuss with like-minded people while you might see it as trying to garner sympathy. The only difference between the two is which side you're on.
>>366336
>*doesn't run congruent
>>361044
>shoots 5 blacks
I don't even like /pol/ or /k/, but there's a pretty good argument that that was self defense and you using it as your only example like you definitely know what happened is obnoxious.
