• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

The social justice warrior movement and its implications

Barack Obama just used the T word again on NATIONAL TELEVISION. He just used the word THUG to refer to radical Islamist's. Does that mean he's a racist now? I thought the word thug no longer means the word thug? If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the word thug mean the N word now?

Side note: Is "Radical Islam" proper terminology or should I just use the word Terrorist? I don't want to seem like I'm a bigot.
 
Bardeaux said:
2-3 years ago, saying the word "weed" in the lounge would get you a ban. Don't you remember?
Click to expand...
When did saying the word weed get you a ban? I don't remember that. I was here 2 years ago. Why wasn't the word weed aloud in the lounge? That's pretty silly considering, well you know, it's the lounge. Not to mention, when I first came here plenty of people were using derogatory hate speech against homosexuality. I know first hand. That's pretty ironic. I can totally understand banning hate speech, and I even promote that they ban it. But banning the word weed, that's silly.
 
Because drug talk wasn't allowed in the lounge at the time.

So you're in favor of banning some speech, but not if it's the kind you approve of? At bluelight, the main goal is to protect it's members from persecution or exclusion. All of its members. Not just the ones you like or identify with. Hence the BLUA that every one of us signs up for when they create an account.
 
Bardeaux said:
Because drug talk wasn't allowed in the lounge at the time.

So you're in favor of banning some speech, but not if it's the kind you approve of? At bluelight, the main goal is to protect it's members from persecution or exclusion. All of its members. Not just the ones you like or identify with. Hence the BLUA that every one of us signs up for when they create an account.
Click to expand...

I'm in favor of banning the N word yes. And derogatory hate speech against homosexuals. Aren't you? Well the BLUA isn't exactly a concrete rule of law. I've seen plenty of people go against it and receive nothing more than a friendly slap on the buttocks. It's not like you moderators are perfect AI bots that catch every minute act of infringement. You're human, and you make mistakes. Just like in the real world, our constitution and laws are supposed to protect us, but some of us *cough minorities *cough are betrayed by them everyday. Which is really tragic.

Edit: Just in case you misinterpret what I said, I want to add context. I mean, that minorities are innocently persecuted for crimes the don't commit.
 
Last edited:
^ yes the N word needs to be banned but to say the mods are unfair is not an accurate assessment. They are operating within the parameters laid out by the creators which till recent times are on point.
Bardeaux said:
2-3 years ago, saying the word "weed" in the lounge would get you a ban. Don't you remember?

Is it PC to find Donald Trump making fun of a kid with disabilities in bad taste or even disgusting? Is it PC to find Hilary Clinton adopting a southern accent in the south disingenuous? Who exactly is following these PC rules? I tend to see the opposite, I see "Muslim hunting permit" bumper stickers, I see more people bitching and complaining about liberalism than pretty much any other social group or idea. Is it because this behavior isn't branded with buzzwords like "PC" or "SJW" that you're not aware of just how prevalent this stuff is?

I don't think you're oppressed and I don't think you're a victim, I think this is a political maneuver to persuade people to the right. Until liberalism is cool again once there's a conservative administration, anyway.
Click to expand...

Like I said it follows no party line. Lol please tell me you arnt sticking up for clock boy? I think because the media represents the left wing of this country by in large it seems much more prevalent. Sure people rock idiot bumper stickers but they are in the minority.

Was the word weed really banned not that I am surprised? Apparently jamal, fellow, saggot, sagat, etc the list is too long to type is banned. Not that there is anything wrong with it but it is reminiscent of past ideological history which concerns anyone that enjoys all the things included with free speech. IMo comedy might be the biggest sacrifice in the name of political correctness but thats just my asshole opinion
 
Bardeaux said:
Is it PC to find Donald Trump making fun of a kid with disabilities in bad taste or even disgusting? Is it PC to find Hilary Clinton adopting a southern accent in the south disingenuous?
Click to expand...

I don't see how either of those things is PC... just logical.

To me when I think of "PC" I think of what I already described, a whitewashing of culture based on the idea that no one should be offended by anything, which is of course impossible. A great example of why I think blanket labels are silly.

By the way, the idea of Trump making fun of a disabled person goes entirely against my idea of "PC"... more like it would be the banning of the word retarded, regardless of what someone meant when they said it. While meanwhile it's allowed to refer to them in any connotation you feel like as long as you say "differently-abled". Since you said the acceptable word, it's okay, you must not have meant anything by it. So the guy who describes a shitty situation as "retarded" is in the wrong, because he said a Bad Word, even though he wasn't referring to mentally disabled people at all, whereas the person who passive-aggressively refers to someone negatively as differently-abled is all good because he didn't say a Bad Word.
 
Xorkoth said:
I don't see how either of those things is PC... just logical.
Click to expand...

precisely.

To me when I think of "PC" I think of what I already described, a whitewashing of culture based on the idea that no one should be offended by anything, which is of course impossible. A great example of why I think blanket labels are silly.
Click to expand...

Heh, my response to your first sentence is your second sentence.

By the way, the idea of Trump making fun of a disabled person goes entirely against my idea of "PC"... more like it would be the banning of the word retarded, regardless of what someone meant when they said it. While meanwhile it's allowed to refer to them in any connotation you feel like as long as you say "differently-abled". Since you said the acceptable word, it's okay, you must not have meant anything by it. So the guy who describes a shitty situation as "retarded" is in the wrong, because he said a Bad Word, even though he wasn't referring to mentally disabled people at all, whereas the person who passive-aggressively refers to someone negatively as differently-abled is all good because he didn't say a Bad Word.
Click to expand...

I don't believe language is linear and final. Even though it's socially frowned upon to use "retarded" as the nomenclature for a disabled person, as it should be frowned upon - you may disagree, I don't know. it doesn't stop anyone from calling a video game retarded after they lose. No one cares. I think context is key. The whole idea that you're not allowed to say certain words is just unfounded, in the US anyway, there are no laws for using them. It's the reaction from others that triggers the disapproval, which comes right back to context. You wouldn't say "this copier is pretty gay" at a formal job interview would you? No. It's like you said, it's not political correctness, it's logic and reason.

If you're running for president however, I would refrain from using the words period. You're the highest international diplomat on the global stage, and calling your opponents retards is a surefire way to lose all credibility and come off as extremely unprofessional.
 
I think the word 'retarded' is an interesting one. Personally I don't think it should have been taken out of circulation in use to describe children who are, well, retarded. Now we have "exceptional children". How the fuck are they exceptional exactly? No, they're quite plainly retarded. It's quite a good example of PC being used to obfuscate truth, and for other smaller reasons like branding.. who would take their children to the 'Retarded Children's Centre'.. Exceptional Children's Activity Castle sounds much more appealing. The word retarded has a clear definition really.. there was no need to lose it from our language.

Retarded in and of itself is a great and clear word. Thank god flame retardant is still called flame retardant and not flammable situation avoidance compound.
 
Having been on the receiving end of discrimination from righties my entire life, I have to disagree 100% with this. I've never been told by anyone on the left that I'm a fucking faggot who's going to burn in hell, that I deserve to die in the worst ways possible; nor have I see righties propose social policy that really cuts to the heart of the hateful streak I still see in society. And no I don't view lefties as faking it. While we all have racism built into us (myself included) by a system that divides people in groups, those on the left are at least trying to overcome their prejudices by working together and countering their beliefs with real life evidence.

I call BS on the notion that righties are inclusive, as a political force. They want their traditional piece of the unchanging pie to not be threatened and they enact policies to reflect their small view of the world.

I'm being very general here.

The only thing I value conservatives for is their economic and financial restrain - classical conservatives that is, not the modern hypocrites - but when it comes to social policy the righties can just fuck right off.

I perceive nothing fake about diverse groups of people getting along. I agree there are degrees of tolerance vs. acceptance, but on the whole I have not experienced the fakeness you're talking about. Social justice movements give a shit about what happens to disenfranchised aspects of societies, whereas conservatives couldn't give a toss.

I do think that society has to change at a pace it can handle, with everything in proportion. Conservatives hold back that pace, sometimes in reasonable and other times in misguided ways, but nonetheless they tend to determine the pace at which we change. If things change too fast then there's no stability or frame of reference to work with anymore.

On the whole though, I find conservative critiques of social progressivism to be rather misguided. It's all based on ideology and not realpolitik. Has your day to day life seriously been affected by societal modifications which allow others to be themselves more openly? Please name anything that you feel has been seriously impacted in your life because someone else gets some oppression lifted off of them?

-=SS=- said:
The left wing is more inclusive.. but it's all fake. Synthetic. Trying to force peace instead of creating the conditions to allow it to come forward on its own. Which is where we are right now with social justice warriors.. people back slapping each other and circle jerking, how humanity is just so fucking neat and keen.. unless you happen to disagree with an idea being put forward. Then holy shit does hell come forward. It's just bigotry with a different mask.

Personally I believe the right wing is actually the more inclusive and real, unfortunately it gets completely drowned out now with siren calls of racism or nazism etc. There (apparently) seems to only be one solid mass of right-wing, and if you're in it you're a dickhead.

Where will it end up? I don't really care. I hope it does crash and burn though, and inevitably I think it will.. and it will be a joyous lesson for so many people on the left when they finally realize you can't legislate or dictate around human nature. Nature always wins and humans don't control shit.
Click to expand...
 
Foreigner said:
I've never been told by anyone on the left that I'm a fucking faggot who's going to burn in hell, that I deserve to die in the worst ways possible
Click to expand...

You pick a particular demographic within the right-wing to demonize the entire right side of the spectrum. Legit argument. Not counting the fact that said people probably couldn't even give you a definition of the word economics.. they're barely any wing let alone right wing.

Foreigner said:
Social justice movements give a shit about what happens to disenfranchised aspects of societies, whereas conservatives couldn't give a toss.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This is like the environmentalists claiming they care about the environment and insinuating the rest of the population doesn't give a shit. It's annoyingly untrue. And as the case with both movements they only give a shit about you if you fit into one of their nice boxes or criteria.. if you happen to disagree (this point has been made already in the thread) then you're out and ostracized.

Foreigner said:
If things change too fast then there's no stability or frame of reference to work with anymore.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what has happened in the 20th century. Bunch of whining people who thought they knew and understood better than the accumulated human wisdom of countless generations, overthrowing this established wisdom in favor of untried methods of social contract and such. And look where we are now.. can't call a retarded child a retarded child, so we lie and call them exceptional children to make ourselves feel less guilty for no reason what so ever. Total idiocy.
 
i'm not sure you understand this concept SS but the word 'retarded' has been appropriated as a derogatory insult.

how this exemplifies the fabric of modern society falling apart, idk. nor why it bothers you not being able to call a mentally handicapped child a retard, without looking like a prick.
 
Give me a break. It's a word with a defined meaning. If you have a problem with it, then it is you who has the problem.. which is the crux of all of this really; people perceiving an issue where there isn't one. It wasn't an issue until the PC brigade made it an issue, which again is the whole point of this SJW nonsense.. people interpreting things in a way that they believe they were insulted or someone else is insulted or whatever it is.. believe being the key word.

Retarded is the perfect example of where a word has been reclassified to mean something else. This is PC nonsense, of which the SJW is merely the next evolution. So I disagree with your point Mysterie. It shows quite perfectly the breakdown of society; when a defined word is deemed to mean something else because someone decided their feels were hurt. It is the whole beginnings of the PC phenomina.. where language itself comes under attack, so that someone with an agenda can write a particular social narrative. Which brings is back to the left vs right thing.. you simply can't legislate "niceness", and attempting to do so is fucking stupid. Which is what the left seems to be caught up in trying to do.

I find "mentally challenged" or "exceptional" to be more offensive than retarded because they are clear out lies. You're bullshitting yourself, the child/person, and everyone else by using obfuscating language.. and bullshit inevitably leads to more bullshit.. and then to SJW who have just lost the plot entirely.

There is no need to pussyfoot around the issue.. if a child is retarded, they're retarded. It's not a big deal. If the child is retarded then they probably won't understand any of this anyway! It's the parents or others who are perceiving an issue where there is none.

Again South Park covers this nicely with the character Jimmy, publisher of the school newspaper, using a headline with the word retarded in it.. despite being retarded himself:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/alexa-moutevelis-coombs/2015/11/19/south-park-brilliantly-mocks-pc-culture
 
Last edited:
I think the division of government into a 2-party system was something that was probably beneficial at some point, but in our modern day country it's nothing but damaging. It allows those at the top of the pyramid a really powerful and convenient method of causing discord amongst the ranks. Millions upon millions of people vote 100% to the party's platform they associate with, regardless of the validity of the candidate (of course many don't do this, but a whole lot do). I wish we'd do away with it, somehow, though it's so ingrained I don't know how. And at the top I'm convinced there are no sides at all, it's just a game used to obfuscate the truth so the super-rich can continue to be even more super-rich. There are people on both "sides" who are interested in the good of the people, and there are people on both "sides" who are not. Incidentally I think that on a state/national level there are very few who have not been corrupted by the money in the system.

I suppose that's a little off-topic but I think it's relevant given some of the recent posts. The two-party system is a relic of the past that has been appropriated as a form of social control.
 
I couldn't agree more with the fundamental problem with the 2-party system Xoroth. What value does it create except for the chance to cheer for your favorite team. It creates contention before a candidate even speaks. Plus, I think Marco Rubios comment "We need more welders and less philosophers" created great uproar in the P&S community and lost some sympathy for team red :D
 
SS I am going to have to agree with you on retard. When a word is used in a negative context it is percieved however a person chooses to. On this very site oversensitivity has caused benign words to be banned like Jamal and fellow which may still be on the forbidden list. Once the list starts it is forever growing till things just start to get ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top