Did SJWs help create Trump?

[Revoltingest]

I agree, that's too wrong. Nobody was forced to listen to the presentation for Pence, and it was done at the end of the show where people could (and did) walk out.

But I'm not for keeping quiet to keep people from doing dick stuff like this for the same reason I'm not against same-sex parenting to keep their children from getting bullied, or compromising values to Russia to keep them placated.

Well, we have alternatives....
Actors will protest in entertainment venues, & counter-protests will do the same,
cuz what goes around comes around.
....or....
They can all let the show & customers enjoy without booing, lecturing & heckling.

I say we should voluntarily adopt the latter approach.
It's no less effective, & it serves civil discourse.

Another take on the matter....
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/the-real-problem-with-the-hamilton-shout-out-to-pence/

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well, we have alternatives....
Actors will protest in entertainment venues, & counter-protests will do the same,
cuz what goes around comes around.
....or....
They can all let the show & customers enjoy without booing, lecturing & heckling.

I say we should voluntarily adopt the latter approach.
It's no less effective, & it serves civil discourse.

Another take on the matter....
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/the-real-problem-with-the-hamilton-shout-out-to-pence/

Silent protests do jack. But it's their show. Edit: removed the last part because it was an angry slip.

Also, incredibly nuanced 'American sniper' wasn't criticized for not being 'pc,' it was criticized because it was lauding a chronic liar who bragged about doing all sorts of violent and illegal behavior like it was something to be condoned. But anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

Silent protests do jack.

And rude ones are productive?
I don't think so.

But it's their show. They should have thrown the Trump supporter out on his ***.

But isn't theater appropriate for political protest?
Isn't silence ineffective?
The protester was exercising free speech.
Someone told me this.....

I think anyone who thinks the theater should be politically silent hasn't much experience with the theater.

So when the actors engage the audience in political discourse, they audience just might respond in kind.
One action breeds the other.

 

[columbus]

They'd be just as much in the right to tell Pence to gtfo (and I wouldn't blame them, he's a colossal dick who supported ex gay conversion camps)

They, or rather the management, did have the right to keep Pence out. But once they took the money and showed him to a seat he was a guest. And a paying one at that. Treating him that way was not appropriate.
And trust me, I know a lot about Pence. I was one of the people he ran for governor promising to limit my civil rights. I am from his home town.
Tom

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And rude ones are productive?
I don't think so.

But isn't theater appropriate for political protest?
Isn't silence ineffective?
The protester was exercising free speech.
Someone told me this.....

If the guy wants to put on his own show that lambasts people upset by Trump fine by me. If the guy wants to go into a production by someone else and interrupt their show to be a dick? Yeah, he should be removed. And so would someone shouting at a Republican play. (If they ever made one). Free speech doesn't protect you from a private business or production from limiting your speech, just the government (it's kind of sad how often I have to explain how free speech works on political forums)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

They, or rather the management, did have the right to keep Pence out. But once they took the money and showed him to a seat he was a guest. And a paying one at that. Treating him that way was not appropriate.
And trust me, I know a lot about Pence. I was one of the people he ran for governor promising to limit my civil rights. I am from his home town.
Tom

Or they could kick him out and refund his money, we've done that plenty of times with problem clients back when I was at the clinic.
I'm not saying they should, what they did was obviously way more respectful and measured. I just don't think he deserved it. Probably more effectual, definitely more effectual than keeping silent or waiting to post something on Twitter where he'll never read it. And they didn't interrupt his show nor did they stop him from leaving (aand he did.)

 

[Revoltingest]

If the guy wants to put on his own show that lambasts people upset by Trump fine by me. If the guy wants to go into a production by someone else and interrupt their show to be a dick? Yeah, he should be removed. And so would someone shouting at a Republican play. (If they ever made one).

I don't think he's a Republican, but David Mamet is an outspoken conservative.
And he's done a couple plays.

Free speech doesn't protect you from a private business or production from limiting your speech, just the government (it's kind of sad how often I have to explain how free speech works on political forums)

I understand your argument.
But the actors must understand that if they go after the politics of an audience member,
there will likely be a response in kind (same venue). Right or wrong, it's predictable.
And if it's too hot in the kitchen, they shouldn't go there.
Moreover, what you describe is civil disobedience (often annoying & illegal), which is a
popular tradition here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree, that's too wrong. Nobody was forced to listen to the presentation for Pence, and it was done at the end of the show where people could (and did) walk out.

I've read that a number of comedians have been having problems with this. Apparently Amy Schumer is telling people to shut up or she will have them kicked out.

 

[fantome profane]

But the actors must understand that if they go after the politics of an audience member,
there will likely be a response in kind (same venue). Right or wrong, it's predictable.

This I agree with. I don't know if the cast of Hamilton understood this when they decided to take the opportunity to speak to Pence or not. But maybe they did understand. Maybe they did understand that not only will there be counter protests and disturbances, but the play Hamilton will from here on out be associated with being anti-Trump. Maybe they understood this and thought it was worth it. I hope so.

Because somethings are worth it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another problem with politicizing things as they did is retaliation.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/20/trump-supporter-disrupts-chicago-performance-of-hamilton/
This too is wrong....even wronger.

Performing arts have always taken stabs at politics. Court jesters were even considered a position of prestige because they could insult anyone, including the King, and not get into trouble for it. Political statements in art is a very ancient tradition. What the troupe did was not wrong in any ways.

 

[Revoltingest]

This I agree with. I don't know if the cast of Hamilton understood this when they decided to take the opportunity to speak to Pence or not. But maybe they did understand. Maybe they did understand that not only will there be counter protests and disturbances, but the play Hamilton will from here on out be associated with being anti-Trump. Maybe they understood this and thought it was worth it. I hope so.

Because somethings are worth it.

Some things & all the inevitable consequent things?
Well, it all is more interesting than the play itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Performing arts have always taken stabs at politics. Court jesters were even considered a position of prestige because they could insult anyone, including the King, and not get into trouble for it. Political statements in art is a very ancient tradition. What the troupe did was not wrong in any ways.

What about the counter-protest?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the sake of discussion, how would someone define a SJW? It is always thrown around as a condescending, negative label. So long as we are going to continue this tradition, I think it is fair to define it first.

"SJW" is a euphemism that describes those who demand that all people be treated with basic respect and decency. It's used by the segment of society that doesn't want to treat all people with respect and decency, usually because they have a handful of groups that they want to continue treating like crap.

 

[Revoltingest]

@Quetzal ....make sure you ignore this definition....

"SJW" is a euphemism that describes those who demand that all people be treated with basic respect and decency. It's used by the segment of society that doesn't want to treat all people with respect and decency, usually because they have a handful of groups that they want to continue treating like crap.

It's really an attack upon those who find SJWs annoying (or worse), & identify them using this term.

And SJW isn't just anyone who favors social justice.
That's a fine thing.
An SJW is one who goes about it in a counterproductive way, eg, delusional rants, assaulting
others, histrionic hypocrisy, imagining that a difference of opinion is a personal attack upon'm.
Post #40 gave excellent examples.

 

[Quetzal]

And SJW isn't just anyone who favors social justice.
That's a fine thing.

It's tough sometimes because the term/abbreviation means different things to different people and it is all relative. Whenever I hear the term tossed around, I can't help but to feel I am somehow involved because I, too, find social justice very important. In fact, it is in the top 3 of what I find attractive in political candidates. In short, I find the use of the term SJW in a negative way a lazy attempt to address a collective of people which may or may not be accurate, how could it be? (Since the definition varies widely from person to person.) I would prefer that the discussion revolve around specifics.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's tough sometimes because the term/abbreviation means different things to different people and it is all relative. Whenever I hear the term tossed around, I can't help but to feel I am somehow involved because I, too, find social justice very important. In fact, it is in the top 3 of what I find attractive in political candidates. In short, I find the use of the term SJW in a negative way a lazy attempt to address a collective of people which may or may not be accurate, how could it be? (Since the definition varies widely from person to person.) I would prefer that the discussion revolve around specifics.

I like social justice too.
I venture that most people do.
We each have different ideas of what it is, & different levels of interest.
So just as with other labels (eg, "liar", "nincompoop", "racist", "conservative"), "SJW" will be misapplied at times.

You are not a social justice warrior.
You're merely a progressive.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's tough sometimes because the term/abbreviation means different things to different people and it is all relative. Whenever I hear the term tossed around, I can't help but to feel I am somehow involved because I, too, find social justice very important. In fact, it is in the top 3 of what I find attractive in political candidates. In short, I find the use of the term SJW in a negative way a lazy attempt to address a collective of people which may or may not be accurate, how could it be? (Since the definition varies widely from person to person.) I would prefer that the discussion revolve around specifics.

I like social justice too.
I venture that most people do.
We each have different ideas of what it is, & different levels of interest.
So just as with other labels (eg, "liar", "nincompoop", "racist"), "SJW" will be misapplied at times.

You are not a social justice warrior.
You're merely a progressive.

 

[Quetzal]

nincompoop

WHAT DID YOU CALL ME?! Reported!

You are not a social justice warrior.
You're merely a progressive.

Fair enough and to be fair, some extreme forms of "help help im oppressed" are quite absurd. I will give ya that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What about the counter-protest?

Sure. But being disruptive during the performance is rude and disrespectful towards the performers and audience alike. From what I've been reading from various performance artists, there are a good number of Trump supporters who either don't know this or don't care. And this started happening before the election.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 'SJW' left hold the white working class pretty much in contempt. They will bend over backwards to excuse intolerance, as long as it is intolerance performed by a 'persecuted' group. The only group not allowed to have an identity is the white working class.

They also lack any sense of scale and cry wolf too frequently. When someone who mere lacks understanding of the finer points of liberal PC etiquette is labelled as racist, this makes it much harder to call out the actual racists and bigots.

This is more the icing on the cake than the substance behind the rise of Trump and the right though.

The main problem is that reality has caught up with ideology. The ideology of liberal globalisation has failed large sectors of society and you can't keep telling people things that don't match the reality in which they are living.

The disconnect between the working class voters and cosmopolitan liberals has been growing for a long time.

While the elite tends to support and benefit from globalisation and multiculturalism, the social harms are borne by the working class. People who can afford to isolate themselves from the problems use the issues to signal how virtuous and tolerant they are, then compound this by labelling as 'racist' and ignorant anybody who thinks differently.

This is really more of a centre-left/centre-right issue than a purely partisan one. Their ideologies lost the war with reality, and as of yet they don't seem to have accepted this fact. Blaming fake news, FBI directors and Russian hackers is a comfort blanket, but isn't going to make them more electable.

They have subscribed to the myth that ultimately all educated and reasonable people should agree with their values. Those who disagree must therefore be stupid or unreasonable.

What is truly unreasonable though is their myth of inevitable liberal progress towards a society comprised of people exactly like themselves.

Have you ever actually met an "SJW"?

Thinking to people I've met who the label applies to, the first group that comes to mind is the local LGBT resource centre. In this community, they're mostly white and almost all working class (or below working class). They're mainly concerned with saving lives: getting LGBT youth off the streets, running suicide prevention workshops for the community, etc. When they aren't saving lives directly, they're giving vulnerable kids a place to talk with someone or just play a game of cards in an environment where they won't get beaten up.

Are these the sort of people who you're describing when you say "SJW"?