Social Justice Warrior

[The Equalizer]

6 minutes ago, jupe1407 said:

 

He should have been emptied for spamming every thread in here with tedious, whiny 4Chan pish, let alone being a racist welt and the alias of poster previously banned for outright homophobia.

 

Well rid.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, I just think if it was for what he posted in this thread alone it was harsh.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

I don't disagree with any of that, I just think if it was for what he posted in this thread alone it was harsh.

Pretty sure it was the equivalent of "persistent fouling" tbh

[banana]

23 hours ago, killiefan27 said:

What do you think the reason for this is?

With any phenomenon, you have to look at, in order:

1. What is the reality? (measure)
2. Why is this the case? (theorise, test theory)
3. What do we do about it? (propose)

However, social justice does this:

1. Why - because racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ... (dogma starting point, we already know why!)
2. Find differences in outcomes along race, sex, ethnicity, etc. lines ('oppression'-hunt to fit dogma)
3. Cry racism/sexism/etc, demand differences are reduced (propose)

As there are always going to be different inputs into a system, there are always going to be different outcomes. For example, different inputs based on wealth, schooling, personal traits, biology, culture, geography, economy, crime, language, family stability, and so forth. Hence, the project never ends, 'equality' is never reached, re:  "endless money-spinning victimhood scam".

The road to trying to socially engineer away such differences in outcomes, one 'solution' after another, either does not reduce the difference in outcomes (sometimes the opposite), or it reduces them at the price of reduced liberty and freedoms, and reduced personal responsibility. It's becomes a tyrannical project based on lies, which we can already see plenty signs of.

---

So, to your question about the specific scenario - many reasons, including what I originally stated, and what you stated in your reply. If anything from the evidence I've seen, I think it's due to the high rates of single-mother/unmarried/absent-father families in parts of the black community, which is tied in with too high incarceration rates, which is linked to poverty and drugs/drug war,  which links back to absent fathers (male role models) in those communities as a whole, is the key to many of the 'why' differences for this demographic. It's a cyclic problem, compounded by social justice activism telling them that their problems are all because of their race, which is demoralising/angering as you cannot escape from this. For the triggered SJW-inclineds reading, note that in the UK for example, white boys from poor backgrounds are the most underperforming.

The end point is, proposing any measures and theories other than what you stated is 'racism'. As has once again been nicely illustrated by the celebration of the banning of our good friend The Progressive Liberal, who regularly put forth some of those other reasons (Whats and Whys), with analysis and evidence.

[NotThePars]

Glad to see our alt-right pal has the weekend off from the divorce proceedings.

[chomp my root]

9 hours ago, banana said:

With any phenomenon, you have to look at, in order:

1. What is the reality? (measure)
2. Why is this the case? (theorise, test theory)
3. What do we do about it? (propose)

However, social justice does this:

1. Why - because racism, sexism, transphobia, xenophobia, ... (dogma starting point, we already know why!)
2. Find differences in outcomes along race, sex, ethnicity, etc. lines ('oppression'-hunt to fit dogma)
3. Cry racism/sexism/etc, demand differences are reduced (propose)

As there are always going to be different inputs into a system, there are always going to be different outcomes. For example, different inputs based on wealth, schooling, personal traits, biology, culture, geography, economy, crime, language, family stability, and so forth. Hence, the project never ends, 'equality' is never reached, re:  "endless money-spinning victimhood scam".

The road to trying to socially engineer away such differences in outcomes, one 'solution' after another, either does not reduce the difference in outcomes (sometimes the opposite), or it reduces them at the price of reduced liberty and freedoms, and reduced personal responsibility. It's becomes a tyrannical project based on lies, which we can already see plenty signs of.

---

So, to your question about the specific scenario - many reasons, including what I originally stated, and what you stated in your reply. If anything from the evidence I've seen, I think it's due to the high rates of single-mother/unmarried/absent-father families in parts of the black community, which is tied in with too high incarceration rates, which is linked to poverty and drugs/drug war,  which links back to absent fathers (male role models) in those communities as a whole, is the key to many of the 'why' differences for this demographic. It's a cyclic problem, compounded by social justice activism telling them that their problems are all because of their race, which is demoralising/angering as you cannot escape from this. For the triggered SJW-inclineds reading, note that in the UK for example, white boys from poor backgrounds are the most underperforming.

The end point is, proposing any measures and theories other than what you stated is 'racism'. As has once again been nicely illustrated by the celebration of the banning of our good friend The Progressive Liberal, who regularly put forth some of those other reasons (Whats and Whys), with analysis and evidence.

I'm a little more 'home spun', its basically people who want to be angry (and noticed) finding some 'noble' cause to get angry and noticed over. Its just a different sub culture, you see the same thing with football fans and other sub cultures, religion being a comparable one, 'my' dogma is right and everyone else's is wrong and must be called on it.

Rinse and repeat down the generations.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, chomp my root said:

I'm a little more 'home spun', its basically people who want to be angry (and noticed) finding some 'noble' cause to get angry and noticed over...

...to deal with emotional problems that they have.  People like that are doing more damage than good at the moment given the backlash generated and swing to the crankier versions of right wing populist politics that can be observed in most western countries. Meanwhile it's all a distraction from the very real macroeconomic problems that need to be tackled by the traditional parties of the left:

 

[chomp my root]

30 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

I don't agree with the ban on Progressive Liberal.  He was expressing his views and I couldn't see any racism in any of his posts.  Granted, many of his posts were factually incorrect or dubious, but because people don't agree with a person's point of view is no reason to ban them.  Maybe the word snowflake could be used here?

From this forum I have learned that it has a majority of pro Independence supporters.  When I first joined the forum a few months before the referendum, I was a unionist.  I was in favour of keeping Scotland in the union.  After having debate on this forum, it made me realise that the views I had were wrong.  It took a while, but the members of this forum managed to convince me that voting YES was the best thing to do for the future of Scotland.  And I am thankful for that.  

What I am saying is that banning him was maybe not the best option.  Educating him by pointing out facts may have been the better option.

I agree with what you're saying, there have maybe been other posts that have been removed by mods though, dunno, just a thought.

[chomp my root]

3 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

...to deal with emotional problems that they have.  People like that are doing more damage than good at the moment given the backlash generated and swing to the crankier versions of right wing populist politics that can be observed in most western countries. Meanwhile it's all a distraction from the very real macroeconomic problems that need to be tackled by the traditional parties of the left:

 

An interesting watch, plenty of stuff that I hadn't considered but still an opinion (albeit one more knowledgeable than mine).

Also way more up the chain than my take on the (usually young ie under 30) who are passionate about pretty much everything and desperate to buy into something (anything that catches their eye) and then use it as a justification to behave like a dick.

[Ira Gaines]

10 hours ago, Stinky Bone said:

I don't agree with the ban on Progressive Liberal. 

Stopped reading here.

He was a bigot and deserved to be banned. Quite how banana has survived despite being openly sexist as well as pretending to be every other bigot under the sun is baffling.

[chomp my root]

9 hours ago, Randy Giles said:

Stopped reading here.

He was a bigot and deserved to be banned. Quite how banana has survived despite being openly sexist as well as pretending to be every other bigot under the sun is baffling.

Isn't sexism the exception to the 'BIGOT FOUND' rules of P & B ? Most people are very happy and comfortable with the differences in the sexes.  My wife is very happy to palm all the 'boys jobs' off to me.

[Gordon EF]

PL has been 'no-platformed'. Looks like the cuck libtards got too triggered.

[Gordon EF]

59 minutes ago, chomp my root said:

My wife is very happy to palm all the boys off

[BFTD]

11 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

PL has been 'no-platformed'. Looks like the cuck libtards got too triggered.

Don't get too carried away. He'll be back in a few weeks, and it'lll take another year for him to get the bullet, yet again.

[chomp my root]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

Everyone's entitled to a hobby. 

[Ira Gaines]

Isn't sexism the exception to the 'BIGOT FOUND' rules of P & B ? Most people are very happy and comfortable with the differences in the sexes.  My wife is very happy to palm all the 'boys jobs' off to me.

Why are you white knighting a racist?

[chomp my root]

35 minutes ago, Randy Giles said:

 

Why are you white knighting a racist?

 

Am I ? He's just been accused of being a sexist and only pretending to be other flavours of bigot.

[Jambomo]

On 03/12/2017 at 11:42, Stinky Bone said:

I don't agree with the ban on Progressive Liberal.  He was expressing his views and I couldn't see any racism in any of his posts.  Granted, many of his posts were factually incorrect or dubious, but because people don't agree with a person's point of view is no reason to ban them.  Maybe the word snowflake could be used here?

From this forum I have learned that it has a majority of pro Independence supporters.  When I first joined the forum a few months before the referendum, I was a unionist.  I was in favour of keeping Scotland in the union.  After having debate on this forum, it made me realise that the views I had were wrong.  It took a while, but the members of this forum managed to convince me that voting YES was the best thing to do for the future of Scotland.  And I am thankful for that.  

What I am saying is that banning him was maybe not the best option.  Educating him by pointing out facts may have been the better option.

To be stating factually incorrect information (and I think, knowingly doing so) in order to portray a particular group of people in a particular way is bigoted. You don't have to be using explicit language to be trying to promote ideas against others.

He deserved his ban, not sorry to see him away.

[coprolite]

P&b is not the whole of public space.

This is not censorship. Or a rights issue.

This is the online equivalent of a monotone bore with one obsession being told to sling his hook from a respectable (although downmarket) hostellry for annoying the other pissheads.

[banana]

Social Justice Warriors at it in 'Progressive' Californian media with the usual Doublespeak.

[banana]

On 12/4/2017 at 14:58, Jambomo said:

To be stating factually incorrect information (and I think, knowingly doing so) in order to portray a particular group of people in a particular way is bigoted. You don't have to be using explicit language to be trying to promote ideas against others.

He deserved his ban, not sorry to see him away.

I can't recall seeing you challenging him at any time, adding to the discussion. Which factually incorrect information?