As a general rule, if your first response to an idea you disagree with, even strongly, is to call the person espousing it names and seek to harm them, that makes you an SJW. Arguing that a position is bad does not make you an SJW. In fact, making an argument of any kind is a strong indicator of not being an SJW.
If I had called specific people SJWs and tried to get them fired from their jobs, you might even have a point.
So you’re only an SJW if you try to get someone fired?
Or harmed in some other way (physical violence for example).
I guess it depends on the context.
If it was Nazi Germany in war time, I would see no point in arguing against the NSDAP platform and the only thing I would see as reasonable would be to crush the Nazis and that may entail some name calling as well.
If we’re talking neo-Nazis in America, then name calling, while understandable due to their despicable views, and especially physical harm is uncalled for, unless it’s in self defense. Although a pretty good argument could be made that people who want to see a Mexican and Muslim genocide deserve any violence that comes their way… If I would have seen the guy who “punched the Nazi in the face” and slugged Richard Spencer in the mouth… I wouldn’t have prevented him from doing so. Spencers views make me sick and he deserves anything that comes his way, up to and including eternal damnation.
Oh and I’ll also add - if there was a communist preaching about the need to set up gulags and collectives and someone “punched a commie in the face…” I wouldn’t prevent them either.
My slogan is “down with political and ideological extremism both left and right, for they are two sides of the same rotten coin.”
Which is why as I see the Democrats going further and further left, and Republicans going further and further right, and centrists and moderates becoming more and more rare, I support the American political duopoly less and less.
Spencer’s views would have been more or less normal among the GIs who stopped the actual Nazis.
You’ve demonstrated pretty well why the SJWs are wrong. The sort of people who desire to inflict harm on people for holding differing opinions, generally have no capacity for fact-checking or proportionality.
I agree with you that this is insensitive to put it mildly. At the same time, any mother that would dress her daughter as an aborted fetus would not simply be insensitive, nor racist, but just plain sick. (And I am pro-choice.)
Denouncing extremism while semi-endorsing political violence is ironic.
You’ve expressed the fact that you are sympathetic to Spencers views on here before.
What do you think of Gavin Mcinnes and his Proud Boys?
I don’t know enough about them to have an opinion.
I see no contradiction whatsoever between saying “down with political extremism” and “death to Hitler” with the same breath.
To me that’s just a desire for justice to prevail.
Being opposed to extremist ideology doesn’t mean you have to be a pacifist who sits idly by while evil prevails. Certain types of evil are only overcome by force. Right wing extremists like the NSDAP only respond to overwhelming physical force - there is no reasoning with their madness.
Sure, because this totally took more than two seconds to see a problem with and more than two minutes to voice that opinion.
Sorry for triggering you.
Actually, it might be worthwhile to dump liberal politics on them when they’re young. That way they’ll be conservative during their rebellious phase.
“Social Justice Warrior” is really just a pejorative used by those who get triggered by other people pointing out insensitivity. Being called one isn’t worth getting worked up about. It just shows that the triggered individual would rather attack the person than the argument because they’re strongly opposed to radical ideas like being charitable.
That makes it the perfect Halloween costume!
Hitler is to far right politics what Jesus is to Christian spirituality - he is the perfect embodiment, the archetype if you will.
Invoking Hitler in discussions about far right political ideologies is, IMO, no different than invoking Stalin or Mao when discussing the evils of far left political ideologies.
…yes, lots of men in the 30s and 40s held pretty despicable views on race. This is not the rhetorical masterstroke you seem to think it is.
This is a basic logical fallacy known as an ad hominem.
And no, “but Stalin” is not a valid argument against (insert given left-wing position here).
The greatest punishment would be requiring that they remain teachers in this school for the next two or more decades. No early retirement or sabbatical leave and no firing.
The point, which seems to have eluded you, is that if your definition of a “Nazi” would include the people who stopped the Nazis, then there’s a problem with your definition.
I’m pretty sure an American nationalist would have no problem fighting a German nationalist America and Germany were at war. That’s sort of how nationalism works.