You have some personal problem that you're projecting out onto the world at large. Little do you realize these oppressed people or whatever you're taking the side of have their problems too. You just identify with them because you feel oppressed in life yourself. And these people you're insulting are probably mostly well meaning human beings just like you. You are young. In time you will see your mistakes. I used to feel the same about the younger generation but I wanna pump the breaks because of the exact attitude that you have. Don't need to be so extreme.
I feel you're making the mistake of viewing this as a left-versus-right sort of thing or something similar. Notice they didn't say "Republicans" in the post (although of course it's possible they mean it) or something like that. I can't say what OP will say in the future but as currently stood their post merely addressed racists as racists, etc.
So there's not (presently) any burden of proof here regarding whether or not a certain group meets these descriptions. Therefore in this context we're simply talking about straight up, definitive racists, etc. regardless of anything else about them. Surely you wouldn't then insinuate these people should simply be overlooked, perhaps heard out.
"You just identify with them because you feel oppressed in life yourself."
I can't speak for OP but that's a deeply troubling assumption. Why reach that conclusion? Must one fear rape to have a problem with rapists? That takes us to the next common assumption besides personal oppression, virtue signaling.
I'm a straight, white, cis male, so I'm not exactly oppressed, at least no more than anyone is (we all are), and I feel deeply for the victims of all of these issues. Anyone who finds that (even remotely) hard to believe has said way more about their own personality than mine. It's incredibly revealing when people cry "virtue signaling" and the like in response to criticism of xenophobia. If I say I'm against rape I'm not virtue signaling. If I say I'm against the human trafficking of children I'm not virtue signaling. If I say I'm against animal cruelty... oh wait. Uh oh. Lines are already blurring. Maybe virtue signaling? Homophobia, definitely virtue signaling.
I've went over it and over it in my mind and sadly the only thing I can think of is that it's where their own empathy begins to drop off. It's where the issues begin to become non-issues to them regardless of what they say. If it's not, then why have I never once been accused of it when discussing human trafficking? Why am I not just trying to look like a fantastic guy? Is it because we just assume everyone should have a problem with that and don't do the same with these issues because they're... just not that big of a deal? It is. It is what it is and it's fucking sad. These people look at someone who says they have a big problem with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. as if they've just said, "I just donated half of my organs to dying children right after I sold all my possessions to fund my trip in which I personally rescued 200 polar bears."
Not being a xenophobic asshole isn't worthy of a damn gold medal! It's not far from the bare fucking minimum you can ask of a person in modern society. Are we virtue signaling because we mention we don't intentionally piss on the floor in public restrooms as well? Is there an award for that? Maybe a gold star sticker that says, "Congratulations on functioning in society."
People like OP don't have to be personally oppressed and they don't have to be trying to impress anyone either. They just care about issues that leave us feeling mind-boggled as to how others wouldn't also care. I feel that their very understandable anger makes the still-harsh words they have said appear harsher on the surface than they really are. Notice they actually haven't wished a premature death on anyone. They've simply made the mistake of assuming these problems will all but vanish with the older generations and they're quite ready for that to go ahead and naturally happen.
Personally, I'd prefer these people simply change and keep on trucking with us. Like you said, sometimes they mean well. They're often more motivated by a perpetual cycle of ignorance than malice. But I'm not going to act like there isn't an enormous problem.
There wasn't anything to win here and if you read it all you would know I agree with you as far as I can tell except for on the assumption that the OP necessarily feels oppressed.
Much better to hope people change than to impatiently await their death.
Of course. I'm basically right there with you. Even I think these problems are more prevalent in older generations (but not all older people), just oddly not so much in here which is a bit of a right wing circle jerk as you can see.
I don't identify with them, I'm not "oppressed" in my own life, and I hope people who advocate war and the genocide of children are well-meaning human beings who don't mean to traumatize generations of minorities who have access to the internet.
I'm sorry if I made this an age issue, but it really isn't.
Ok now you've used an example that is extreme which you hadn't mentioned in your original post. You did not specify advocates of genocide on children..
All the ists and phobes you mentioned get thrown around alot so they've lost some of their meaning. You say homophobe and people don't automatically think of some gay basher like decades ago. They think of someone who disapproves of one aspect or another of lgbtq. Which would include alot of People.
Same thing when you say racist. The word doesn't imply serious hatred or violence anymore. When I hear someone called racist I'm thinking they said the wrong thing in some context. Because that's all I ever see. I've never seen or heard of any racial violence where I live in my lifetime. So when I think of someone who has an unpopular opinion or a different opinion than me, I don't automatically assume they are a monster.
You're really on point with this, dude. Op is trying to do what's known as "moving the goalposts".
No one here wants to direct calls to genocide children. Op knows it and we know it. He's just throwing in there to buttress a point from the dying age of sjwism.
Good luck with that. Just because IIN is a right wing circle jerk doesn't mean "SJWism" is going anywhere. Whether any of you like it or not less than 100 years from now half of the opinions shared here are going to be viewed in the same light as the views of people who weren't so sure about women voting or blacks using the same water fountain. It's incredibly easy to see who is on the right side of history.
In the long game, progressives always win because things, well, progress. That's the arrow of time. That's progression. It's right there in the name. Progressives are just ready to be on with it. Blacks are free. Women vote. Blacks vote. Gays can marry. Now things are getting easier for trans people. You can't stop it. This is the trajectory.
As cringe as some might find SJWs, I find it more cringe something as noble sounding as "social justice warrior" has seen an attempt to have it painted as a bad thing. You bet your ass I fight for social justice. Social justice is obviously a good thing. Justice is a good thing.
Everyone here is a dumbfuck?
← View full post
You have some personal problem that you're projecting out onto the world at large. Little do you realize these oppressed people or whatever you're taking the side of have their problems too. You just identify with them because you feel oppressed in life yourself. And these people you're insulting are probably mostly well meaning human beings just like you. You are young. In time you will see your mistakes. I used to feel the same about the younger generation but I wanna pump the breaks because of the exact attitude that you have. Don't need to be so extreme.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I feel you're making the mistake of viewing this as a left-versus-right sort of thing or something similar. Notice they didn't say "Republicans" in the post (although of course it's possible they mean it) or something like that. I can't say what OP will say in the future but as currently stood their post merely addressed racists as racists, etc.
So there's not (presently) any burden of proof here regarding whether or not a certain group meets these descriptions. Therefore in this context we're simply talking about straight up, definitive racists, etc. regardless of anything else about them. Surely you wouldn't then insinuate these people should simply be overlooked, perhaps heard out.
"You just identify with them because you feel oppressed in life yourself."
I can't speak for OP but that's a deeply troubling assumption. Why reach that conclusion? Must one fear rape to have a problem with rapists? That takes us to the next common assumption besides personal oppression, virtue signaling.
I'm a straight, white, cis male, so I'm not exactly oppressed, at least no more than anyone is (we all are), and I feel deeply for the victims of all of these issues. Anyone who finds that (even remotely) hard to believe has said way more about their own personality than mine. It's incredibly revealing when people cry "virtue signaling" and the like in response to criticism of xenophobia. If I say I'm against rape I'm not virtue signaling. If I say I'm against the human trafficking of children I'm not virtue signaling. If I say I'm against animal cruelty... oh wait. Uh oh. Lines are already blurring. Maybe virtue signaling? Homophobia, definitely virtue signaling.
I've went over it and over it in my mind and sadly the only thing I can think of is that it's where their own empathy begins to drop off. It's where the issues begin to become non-issues to them regardless of what they say. If it's not, then why have I never once been accused of it when discussing human trafficking? Why am I not just trying to look like a fantastic guy? Is it because we just assume everyone should have a problem with that and don't do the same with these issues because they're... just not that big of a deal? It is. It is what it is and it's fucking sad. These people look at someone who says they have a big problem with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. as if they've just said, "I just donated half of my organs to dying children right after I sold all my possessions to fund my trip in which I personally rescued 200 polar bears."
Not being a xenophobic asshole isn't worthy of a damn gold medal! It's not far from the bare fucking minimum you can ask of a person in modern society. Are we virtue signaling because we mention we don't intentionally piss on the floor in public restrooms as well? Is there an award for that? Maybe a gold star sticker that says, "Congratulations on functioning in society."
People like OP don't have to be personally oppressed and they don't have to be trying to impress anyone either. They just care about issues that leave us feeling mind-boggled as to how others wouldn't also care. I feel that their very understandable anger makes the still-harsh words they have said appear harsher on the surface than they really are. Notice they actually haven't wished a premature death on anyone. They've simply made the mistake of assuming these problems will all but vanish with the older generations and they're quite ready for that to go ahead and naturally happen.
Personally, I'd prefer these people simply change and keep on trucking with us. Like you said, sometimes they mean well. They're often more motivated by a perpetual cycle of ignorance than malice. But I'm not going to act like there isn't an enormous problem.
--
Pilum
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I guess my heart bled all the way out in my early 20s. I don't care to even read all that, so you win professor.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
There wasn't anything to win here and if you read it all you would know I agree with you as far as I can tell except for on the assumption that the OP necessarily feels oppressed.
Much better to hope people change than to impatiently await their death.
My 20s were something as well.
Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Of course. I'm basically right there with you. Even I think these problems are more prevalent in older generations (but not all older people), just oddly not so much in here which is a bit of a right wing circle jerk as you can see.
I don't identify with them, I'm not "oppressed" in my own life, and I hope people who advocate war and the genocide of children are well-meaning human beings who don't mean to traumatize generations of minorities who have access to the internet.
I'm sorry if I made this an age issue, but it really isn't.
--
Pilum
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Ok now you've used an example that is extreme which you hadn't mentioned in your original post. You did not specify advocates of genocide on children..
All the ists and phobes you mentioned get thrown around alot so they've lost some of their meaning. You say homophobe and people don't automatically think of some gay basher like decades ago. They think of someone who disapproves of one aspect or another of lgbtq. Which would include alot of People.
Same thing when you say racist. The word doesn't imply serious hatred or violence anymore. When I hear someone called racist I'm thinking they said the wrong thing in some context. Because that's all I ever see. I've never seen or heard of any racial violence where I live in my lifetime. So when I think of someone who has an unpopular opinion or a different opinion than me, I don't automatically assume they are a monster.
Genocide on children? OK that's different.
--
bigbudchonger
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
You're really on point with this, dude. Op is trying to do what's known as "moving the goalposts".
No one here wants to direct calls to genocide children. Op knows it and we know it. He's just throwing in there to buttress a point from the dying age of sjwism.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Good luck with that. Just because IIN is a right wing circle jerk doesn't mean "SJWism" is going anywhere. Whether any of you like it or not less than 100 years from now half of the opinions shared here are going to be viewed in the same light as the views of people who weren't so sure about women voting or blacks using the same water fountain. It's incredibly easy to see who is on the right side of history.
In the long game, progressives always win because things, well, progress. That's the arrow of time. That's progression. It's right there in the name. Progressives are just ready to be on with it. Blacks are free. Women vote. Blacks vote. Gays can marry. Now things are getting easier for trans people. You can't stop it. This is the trajectory.
As cringe as some might find SJWs, I find it more cringe something as noble sounding as "social justice warrior" has seen an attempt to have it painted as a bad thing. You bet your ass I fight for social justice. Social justice is obviously a good thing. Justice is a good thing.
--
bigbudchonger
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Lmao ye dude, people who don't agree with you? Must be a right wing circle jerk!
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
Back to the circle.