i generally just prefer 'idiots' or 'douchebags' at this point tbh but i understand that won't do if you're trying to specifically complain about a particular group of people
it can't be co-opted by social justice activists, but any pejorative for that group of people is susceptible to adoption and broader application by people who oppose social justice itself
That doesn't mean we should just stop trying to come up with terms that can adequately sum up our complaints with certain groups of people, though.
Otherwise, you just have AU incomprehensibly ranting about "nerds" because they don't have a term to express what they really mean when they need to rant about specific people.
Well i guess i'm not too keen on generalizations about groups of people, although i daresay i'm as guilty of them as anybody here. Complaining about particular behaviours, rather than vaguely defined groups associated with those behaviours, is a viable alternative and one that i'm more comfortable with doing, myself.
Yeah, that is very understandable. I've been trying to get out of overt generalizations myself lately.
I'm just still trying to find a compromise between still being able to complain about people like the folks who drove Gigi off of Tumblr, and letting them off the hook because of the unfortunately present risk of inadvertently throwing decent people into that line of fire.
The "SAA" term is the best way to affect that compromise I have thought of so far, at least from my own personal point of view. You don't have to agree, obviously, but I don't think you ever thought that you did.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I am also extremely tired of all the mud-slinging. I've friends who identify as SJWs, who also incidentally happen to use Tumblr a great deal, and they are all fine, upstanding, level-headed and balanced people.
Oh, no, i didn't think you were implying that. (i didn't even think we were debating.)
i feel that identifying as an SJW seems a peculiar thing to want to do and suggests having missed the original criticism, although i suppose at this point it's not surprising that some people are trying to reclaim it.
Ah... i don't actually know the origin of the term.
But i always took it to mean immature, inexperienced attempts at activism, usually by people with a lot of anger and not a lot of sense, prone to conclusion-jumping and missing context and fine distinctions, as well as outright bullying and harrassment at times.
But i always took it to mean immature, inexperienced attempts at activism, usually by people with a lot of anger and not a lot of sense, prone to conclusion-jumping and missing context and fine distinctions, as well as outright bullying and harassment at times.
this was the defenition I saw most often before it came to mean "those zany liberal kids i hate"
Ehhh.... I think we're all a bit too quick to label anyone critical of religion a r/atheist. And I say this as someone who, uh, really isn't fond of antitheism.
I do feel that, if God actually existed (which I actually am willing to entertain the possibility of), he would be weirded out at us for writing a Holy Book that’s meant to represent everything of worth that he ever said.
I dunno, it just seems like he's throwing out a hell of a lot of theological nuance, and it's not like it's an even remotely new thought. If nothing else, Steven Fry's pretty intelligent and I would have hoped for a better answer even if it was one that I disagreed with.
Stephen Fry's gay, so I think I can see where the bitterness is coming from. I certainly wouldn't lump him in with the Angry Teenage Userbase (TM) of /r/atheism
...come to think of it, that principle also applies to "SJWs"
i mean i don't really care what people believe but the variations on the whole judeo-christian model which are centered around the relationship between a loving god who created everything and the person doing the religioning seem
off?
Like the parts dont all add up in a satisfying or coherent way.
i mean i don't really care what people believe but the variations on the whole judeo-christian model which are centered around the relationship between a loving god who created everything and the person doing the religioning seem
off?
Like the parts dont all add up in a satisfying or coherent way.
Well, he sees what he considers to be a strong moral inconsistency regarding how one should act towards this conception of god vs how he acts, and it seems like a very valid condemnation of that conception IMO.
Like there are ways to work around it intellectually speaking, but there's no way I can see to get around his viewpoint that one should not worship an entity who creates a world in which such heinously immoral things occur.
Like there are ways to work around it intellectually speaking, but there's no way I can see to get around his viewpoint that one should not worship an entity who creates a world in which such heinously immoral things occur.
If we allow that there is an omnipotent (or at least significantly more powerful than anything we can conceive of; I'm kinda iffy on omnipotence as a concept) being, why can't we allow that what is bad in our world may seem small with a change in perspective?
Like, what if there are universes that a God could have created that are a million times worse and less fair than ours? Or what if the possibility of an eternal afterlife renders pretty much all the proceedings of one's mortal life not necessarily moot, but small enough so that any suffering they caused is too distant to matter?
Like there are ways to work around it intellectually speaking, but there's no way I can see to get around his viewpoint that one should not worship an entity who creates a world in which such heinously immoral things occur.
If we allow that there is an omnipotent (or at least significantly more powerful than anything we can conceive of; I'm kinda iffy on omnipotence as a concept) being, why can't we allow that what is bad in our world may seem small with a change in perspective?
Like, what if there are universes that a God could have created that are a million times worse and less fair than ours? Or what if the possibility of an eternal afterlife renders pretty much all the proceedings of one's mortal life not necessarily moot, but small enough so that any suffering they caused is too distant to matter?
we can allow it
mr fry simply doesn't think that an entity who allows those things is one he is comfortable worshiping, and he does not understand why others would be
Or, well, not necessarily that, so much as that is a belief that is encompassed by the set of beliefs and is significant enough that it needs to be taken into account. It's certainly the argument I would use against what Fry said.
And I don't particularly care for the tacit statement that Christianity is linked to a Panglossesque belief that everything is fair and just simply for existing.
Comments
i generally just prefer 'idiots' or 'douchebags' at this point tbh but i understand that won't do if you're trying to specifically complain about a particular group of people
I think the idea was to use a term that was blunt enough that it couldn't be co-opted but was still descriptive of that group of people.
I’m sorry if I sounded harsher there than I intended. I have a bad tendency to do that when I get into a debate.
i feel that identifying as an SJW seems a peculiar thing to want to do and suggests having missed the original criticism, although i suppose at this point it's not surprising that some people are trying to reclaim it.
But i always took it to mean immature, inexperienced attempts at activism, usually by people with a lot of anger and not a lot of sense, prone to conclusion-jumping and missing context and fine distinctions, as well as outright bullying and harrassment at times.
it's ugly
off?
Like the parts dont all add up in a satisfying or coherent way.
mainly because im kind of depressed and bitter atm and i strongly dislike offending people
it creates a framework for how the world works which I have no meaningful reason to engage in?
Like there are ways to work around it intellectually speaking, but there's no way I can see to get around his viewpoint that one should not worship an entity who creates a world in which such heinously immoral things occur.
disagree with mr. fry
which is totally ok
mr fry simply doesn't think that an entity who allows those things is one he is comfortable worshiping, and he does not understand why others would be