NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Nilrahrarfan wrote:I define it as a leftist who breaks the rules of websites or is a general threat to the community, especially if they get away with it but those who disagree with them are the ones being banned despite not breaking any rules.

I was banned for spam once, does that make me an SJW?

It doesn't.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So how are we defining "SJW" today?

As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

Ultimately, SJWs and Alt-Rightists fit your definition. With Nazism being closer to the right, I'd say they'd have to be grouped with the latter.

Cappuccina wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:As hateful identitarians who want to start a race war and eliminate identities that they view as evil.

As how I've always defined them. (and yes, under this definition, Nazis are SJWs too)

Ultimately, SJWs and Alt-Rightists fit your definition. With Nazism being closer to the right, I'd say they'd have to be grouped with the latter.

Of course, what I lack is a term to describe them. SJW is synonymous with "stuff conservatives don't like" and that will not do. Also, my description isn't strictly left/right. What would you call people too blinded by identity politics to consider anything aside from bloodlust? I've tried calling them identitarians, but unfortunately, the name's taken

Ifreann wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:You never gave an actual explanation as to why it's "patent nonsense", so you're just trying to dismiss it without any good reason.
That sounds like nonsense to me :^)

viewtopic.php?p=35786715#p35786715
viewtopic.php?p=35786963#p35786963

You should see someone about that lapse in memory.

Neither of those are actual explanations, but weak attempts at a dismissal.
Is your view of reality distorted lately, by chance?

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Well that's gonna be a problem for you. You're gonna say "SJW" and mean "genocidal psychopath", but everyone else will hear "annoying liberal".

Do tell why "SJW", a term that has only ever been used as a joke and insult, should not be thrown around lightly.

And yet you insist on using it to refer to "them", the alleged people who want to kill you for being white. Very smart.

---

viewtopic.php?p=35786715#p35786715
viewtopic.php?p=35786963#p35786963

You should see someone about that lapse in memory.

1. I've actually been trying to stop using it for that very reason. But I have seen the term used to describe genocidal psychopaths, but not usually.

I've seen the term "blonde" used to describe genocidal psychopaths. But I don't say "blonde" and mean "genocidal psychopath".

2. It's precisely because it's used only as a joke or insult. The term has become too much of a catch-all, we're lumping in normal, sane people in with terrible people.

It has only ever been used as a broad and vague insult.

That, in turn, trivializes the term. SJW does mean annoying liberal quite often, but it is being increasingly used to mean maniacs. We can't have both definitions at the same time.

No one does use those two definitions, though. Just you.

Again, the term fascist comes to mind. when real fascists take power, we'll sound like we're crying wolf.

Well I'd be all for right wingers finding some new word for literally everyone they don't like, but I hardly think that them doing so is necessary to prevent some kind of SJW dictatorship.

3. Because no other such term exists. Either I'm going to use the pre-existing term and have annoying liberal lumped in, or I'm going to have to use a different term, but unfortunately, none exist.

Then if you want to communicate effectively you'll have to either coin a new term or, crazy idea, just describe the people you're talking about with more than a three letter acronym.

Also, they don't want to kill me just for being white. They also want to kill me just for being male. And likely for a long list of other reasons all tied into "we hate the identity you were born with".

Sure. Whatever.

Proctopeo wrote:

Ifreann wrote:viewtopic.php?p=35786715#p35786715
viewtopic.php?p=35786963#p35786963

You should see someone about that lapse in memory.

Neither of those are actual explanations, but weak attempts at a dismissal.
Is your view of reality distorted lately, by chance?

Rather than address my points you're going to try to argue that they don't count as an explanation? Cool. I don't think I'll participate though. Kinda seems pointless. I mean, what does it even matter if they're technically explanations or not? The content of my posts does not change based on what you call them, so call them whatever you want.

Ifreann wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:1. I've actually been trying to stop using it for that very reason. But I have seen the term used to describe genocidal psychopaths, but not usually.

I've seen the term "blonde" used to describe genocidal psychopaths. But I don't say "blonde" and mean "genocidal psychopath".

2. It's precisely because it's used only as a joke or insult. The term has become too much of a catch-all, we're lumping in normal, sane people in with terrible people.

It has only ever been used as a broad and vague insult.

That, in turn, trivializes the term. SJW does mean annoying liberal quite often, but it is being increasingly used to mean maniacs. We can't have both definitions at the same time.

No one does use those two definitions, though. Just you.

Again, the term fascist comes to mind. when real fascists take power, we'll sound like we're crying wolf.

Well I'd be all for right wingers finding some new word for literally everyone they don't like, but I hardly think that them doing so is necessary to prevent some kind of SJW dictatorship.

3. Because no other such term exists. Either I'm going to use the pre-existing term and have annoying liberal lumped in, or I'm going to have to use a different term, but unfortunately, none exist.

Then if you want to communicate effectively you'll have to either coin a new term or, crazy idea, just describe the people you're talking about with more than a three letter acronym.

Also, they don't want to kill me just for being white. They also want to kill me just for being male. And likely for a long list of other reasons all tied into "we hate the identity you were born with".

Sure. Whatever.

1. I've actually seen those definitions used quite often. The problem, no one is able to understand it. Again, I've already pointed out the need for a new term, why do you still see the need to argue it?
2. Indeed, society doesn't hinge on rightist coming up with new words what they don't like, but by letting them define the terms, it leaves none available to describe actual threats to society.
3. And I do use more than an acronym. The problem is that just about every term is taken. Even "identitarian is taken. Coining new terms, whether short acronyms or long drawn-out descriptions, is difficult when there are no suitable words that don't already have other meanings.
4. Your dismissal of their threatening nature is disheartening, to say the least. When confronted with those who seek to cause harm, shrugging it off is the last thing we need. But sure, whatever.

Ifreann wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Neither of those are actual explanations, but weak attempts at a dismissal.
Is your view of reality distorted lately, by chance?

Rather than address my points you're going to try to argue that they don't count as an explanation? Cool. I don't think I'll participate though. Kinda seems pointless. I mean, what does it even matter if they're technically explanations or not? The content of my posts does not change based on what you call them, so call them whatever you want.

Hey, you dismissed part of my post as """"irrelevant"""" with no reason, so I see it fit to dismiss your entire attempt at a "rebuttal" and "having points" as balderdash, with vaguely more reason.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Ifreann wrote:I've seen the term "blonde" used to describe genocidal psychopaths. But I don't say "blonde" and mean "genocidal psychopath".

It has only ever been used as a broad and vague insult.

No one does use those two definitions, though. Just you.

Well I'd be all for right wingers finding some new word for literally everyone they don't like, but I hardly think that them doing so is necessary to prevent some kind of SJW dictatorship.

Then if you want to communicate effectively you'll have to either coin a new term or, crazy idea, just describe the people you're talking about with more than a three letter acronym.

Sure. Whatever.

1. I've actually seen those definitions used quite often. The problem, no one is able to understand it. Again, I've already pointed out the need for a new term, why do you still see the need to argue it?

I'm not arguing against you coining a new term. I'm arguing against you applying an entirely novel definition to an existing phrase for no good reason.

2. Indeed, society doesn't hinge on rightist coming up with new words what they don't like, but by letting them define the terms, it leaves none available to describe actual threats to society.

I don't know why you say "letting them" as if it's an option to not let them constantly churn out new memes and shitpost them to death.

3. And I do use more than an acronym. The problem is that just about every term is taken. Even "identitarian is taken. Coining new terms, whether short acronyms or long drawn-out descriptions, is difficult when there are no suitable words that don't already have other meanings.

Cool?

4. Your dismissal of their threatening nature is disheartening, to say the least. When confronted with those who seek to cause harm, shrugging it off is the last thing we need. But sure, whatever.

Well I can't speak to your experiences, but as a straight, white, cis man myself, I don't worry about someone coming after me because of my identity. I'm sure that there's some people out there, somewhere on the internet, who've said "Kill whitey" or "Die cis scum" or whatever, but I don't feel threatened by them.

---

Proctopeo wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Rather than address my points you're going to try to argue that they don't count as an explanation? Cool. I don't think I'll participate though. Kinda seems pointless. I mean, what does it even matter if they're technically explanations or not? The content of my posts does not change based on what you call them, so call them whatever you want.

Hey, you dismissed part of my post as """"irrelevant"""" with no reason,

I went on to explain why they were irrelevant.

so I see it fit to dismiss your entire attempt at a "rebuttal" and "having points" as balderdash, with vaguely more reason.

Okay? Have fun with that.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Nilrahrarfan wrote:I define it as a leftist who breaks the rules of websites or is a general threat to the community, especially if they get away with it but those who disagree with them are the ones being banned despite not breaking any rules.

SJWs (or more accurately identitarians, SJW is a bad term) are about as far from leftist as you can get. Ironically, they share more in common with fascists, such as yourself.

horseshoe theory amirite

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:SJWs (or more accurately identitarians, SJW is a bad term) are about as far from leftist as you can get. Ironically, they share more in common with fascists, such as yourself.

horseshoe theory amirite

Everyone I don't like has basically the same politics. *nods*

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Cappuccina wrote:
Ultimately, SJWs and Alt-Rightists fit your definition. With Nazism being closer to the right, I'd say they'd have to be grouped with the latter.

Of course, what I lack is a term to describe them. SJW is synonymous with "stuff conservatives don't like" and that will not do. Also, my description isn't strictly left/right. What would you call people too blinded by identity politics to consider anything aside from bloodlust? I've tried calling them identitarians, but unfortunately, the name's taken

All politics are identity politics, mate.
There are not enough people "blinded by identity politics to consider [nothing] aside from bloodlust" to warrant a term for them.

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:SJWs (or more accurately identitarians, SJW is a bad term) are about as far from leftist as you can get. Ironically, they share more in common with fascists, such as yourself.

horseshoe theory amirite

It's not horseshoe theory though. Cool strawman, I must admit.

Note, I said "As far from leftist as you can get" not "LMAO LEFT AND RIGHT ARE EXACTLY TEH SAME ECKS DEE". Also, a genocidal asshole is a genocidal asshole, doesn't matter what they call themselves or who they want dead. That's what they have in common with fascists. Also, rampant totalitarianism, endless repression, all the other terrible stuff people come to expect from these shits.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:horseshoe theory amirite

It's not horseshoe theory though. Cool strawman, I must admit.

Note, I said "As far from leftist as you can get" not "LMAO LEFT AND RIGHT ARE EXACTLY TEH SAME ECKS DEE". Also, a genocidal asshole is a genocidal asshole, doesn't matter what they call themselves or who they want dead. That's what they have in common with fascists. Also, rampant totalitarianism, endless repression, all the other terrible stuff people come to expect from these shits.

bc genocide is the only requirement to be a fascist and because a significant amount of ess jay dubyas support genocide and extreme totalitarianism

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Nilrahrarfan wrote:And that is why I'm AnCap

But in your sig it says you're a Fascist...

I often flip through right-wing ideologies, but I never update my signature.

Nilrahrarfan wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:But in your sig it says you're a Fascist...

I often flip through right-wing ideologies, but I never update my signature.

I feel like if I'd been a fascist, but had now stopped being a fascist, one of the first things I'd do would be to take down all my "I am a fascist" signs.

Unless, I guess, I was still so sympathetic to fascism that most people would see no difference.

YouTube is a company trying to sell itself by being the least controversial as it can. What fucking mask?

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

Nilrahrarfan wrote:I often flip through right-wing ideologies, but I never update my signature.

I feel like if I'd been a fascist, but had now stopped being a fascist, one of the first things I'd do would be to take down all my "I am a fascist" signs.

Unless, I guess, I was still so sympathetic to fascism that most people would see no difference.

You say that, but how do we know that you haven't stopped being a gay platypus?

Ifreann wrote:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I feel like if I'd been a fascist, but had now stopped being a fascist, one of the first things I'd do would be to take down all my "I am a fascist" signs.

Unless, I guess, I was still so sympathetic to fascism that most people would see no difference.

You say that, but how do we know that you haven't stopped being a gay platypus?

I will never stop being a gay platypus.

Cekoviu wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Of course, what I lack is a term to describe them. SJW is synonymous with "stuff conservatives don't like" and that will not do. Also, my description isn't strictly left/right. What would you call people too blinded by identity politics to consider anything aside from bloodlust? I've tried calling them identitarians, but unfortunately, the name's taken

All politics are identity politics, mate.
There are not enough people "blinded by identity politics to consider [nothing] aside from bloodlust" to warrant a term for them.

Not all politics are identitarian to the degree that they focus exclusively on different identities and assume the difference in race, gender or orientation to be the primary differences.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:All politics are identity politics, mate.
There are not enough people "blinded by identity politics to consider [nothing] aside from bloodlust" to warrant a term for them.

Not all politics are identitarian to the degree that they focus exclusively on different identities and assume the difference in race, gender or orientation to be the primary differences.

That's true, because no politics do that.

Cekoviu wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Not all politics are identitarian to the degree that they focus exclusively on different identities and assume the difference in race, gender or orientation to be the primary differences.

That's true, because no politics do that.

Most forms of ethno-nationalism do that.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:That's true, because no politics do that.

Most forms of ethno-nationalism do that.

They primarily focus on that, but they do not exclusively focus on different identities (the "shared national identity" idea, for example, contradicts that).

Cekoviu wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Most forms of ethno-nationalism do that.

They primarily focus on that, but they do not exclusively focus on different identities (the "shared national identity" idea, for example, contradicts that).

Their national identity is tied to racial identity.

Nakena wrote:Speaking about the real world:

How the hell is banning Swastikas from friggin vidya games supposed to prevent an apparently imminent return of Zombified Cyborg Hitler in 2025?

For the same reason that banning boobs in games protects all gamers from instant pregnancy. Sometimes child protection people get overzealous. That's why I said this was not worth spending time on.

But with that sorted, we now have a great opportunity for you to address the rest of the post. Or, alternatively, the same line of thought put forward very ably by Platypus Bureaucracy.