Did SJWs help create Trump?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

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.

You're right: an SJW isn't just anyone who favours social justice; an SJW is someone who fights for it; actively takes steps to make social justice happen.

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.

Post #40 is mostly a video. Since I'm going to mostly be on cell phone data for the next few days, I'm not going to be able to watch it fir quite a while. Care to describe any examples (from the video or not)?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Everything started before the election.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right: an SJW isn't just anyone who favours social justice; an SJW is someone who fights for it; actively takes steps to make social justice happen.


Post #40 is mostly a video. Since I'm going to mostly be on cell phone data for the next few days, I'm not going to be able to watch it fir quite a while. Care to describe any examples (from the video or not)?

One form of SJW on the video.....
Woman who berates a man as racist, & then proceeds to also berate him for being white.
A true fan of social justice would not perpetrate the very wrongs one decries.
A true fan of social justice does not divide people into victims & perps based upon skin color or gender.

 

[Augustus]

Have you ever actually met an "SJW"?

I put the term in quotes, because I don't actually like it. The points were really more about an overall trend rather tan literal SJWs.

Imo it refers to an excessive focus on 'academic' political correctness and obsessive multiculturalism, rather than actual engagement in the community. The stereotype is a middle class gender studies student or the urban liberal 'dinner party intellectual'.

Someone posted a video a while back of a woman berating a Lyft driver for having a 'hula girl' figure in his car. That's what I see as being a 'SJW'. Someone who provides genuine help to LGBT people could very well not be a SJW.

While the SJW is the extreme stereotype, ideology is present (to some extent) across a significant part of the multiculturalist liberal left which is why a schism has appeared between this part of the left, and the traditional working class left.

This is why, as we see all over the Western world, the working class left is switching to the far right. They are the only people who recognise there are legitimate concerns amongst these people, rather than simply bigotry and racism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Trump won 30 states, Hillary 20.

Indeed. But how many states mattered? About 8. Maybe 10 if we were generous. The electroal college does nothing to solve the one problem people claim it fixes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I put the term in quotes, because I don't actually like it. The points were really more about an overall trend rather tan literal SJWs.

Imo it refers to an excessive focus on 'academic' political correctness and obsessive multiculturalism, rather than actual engagement in the community. The stereotype is a middle class gender studies student or the urban liberal 'dinner party intellectual'.

So not actual engagement? Early in the thread, transgender bathrooms and BLM were mentioned as "SJW" examples. You disagree?

Someone posted a video a while back of a woman berating a Lyft driver for having a 'hula girl' figure in his car. That's what I see as being a 'SJW'. Someone who provides genuine help to LGBT people could very well not be a SJW.

While the SJW is the extreme stereotype, ideology is present (to some extent) across a significant part of the multiculturalist liberal left which is why a schism has appeared between this part of the left, and the traditional working class left.

This is why, as we see all over the Western world, the working class left is switching to the far right. They are the only people who recognise there are legitimate concerns amongst these people, rather than simply bigotry and racism.

If they're basing their rejection of the left on stereotypes (while simultaneously ignoring the problems with the right), then this sounds perfectly in line with bigotry. Why do you think it isn't?

 

[Augustus]

So not actual engagement? Early in the thread, transgender bathrooms and BLM were mentioned as "SJW" examples. You disagree?

As I said, my post was more about the disconnect between the cosmopolitan liberal left and the working class left.

I'm not too concerned about a precise definition of SJW as this isn't really a major issue.

If they're basing their rejection of the left on stereotypes (while simultaneously ignoring the problems with the right), then this sounds perfectly in line with bigotry. Why do you think it isn't?

As I said, the major problem is not the stereotypical SJW, but the disconnect between the cosmopolitan liberal left and the working class left due to the differing social realities in which they reside.

Why do you believe that a significant part of the traditional left voting bloc has switched allegiance?

 

[YmirGF]

Indeed. But how many states mattered? About 8. Maybe 10 if we were generous. The electroal college does nothing to solve the one problem people claim it fixes.

#AllStatesMatter

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you believe that a significant part of the traditional left voting bloc has switched allegiance?

If I had to point to one particular thing, it would be a matter of them lashing out at their economic situation.

Stimulus funding had more of a benefit for cities. When you're funding a lot of, say, interstate highway projects, the big windening projects go to the places where you have the traffic volumes to justify the widening. If you're out in the county somewhere, if you do get stimulus funding, it'll usually only be for minor work like pavement rehabilitation.

And in the rare cases when a rural area did get a big project, the region still doesn't get a huge amount of benefit: if a job is beyond the capabilities of all the local contractors, then some big company will come in from out of town, do the job, and leave... taking their jobs with them. Yes, there will be some local enocomic impact for sub-trades and services, but much less of the impact stays in the area than when you have the same sort of project in a big city.

Same with industry: at the macro level, it may seem similar for a 40-factory city to lose 3 factories as it would be for 3 one-industry towns to lose their main employer while 37 other towns are okay, but in terms of available choices for the people affected, they're very different situations.

So I think that there are a lot of desparate people out there, and many of them have accepted the line that this is all somehow the fault of the Democratic president and not the Republican house.

On top of this, you have plenty of states where the Republican state legislatures blocked the federal measures that would have reduced health insurance costs, so there's a perception that health insurance is more expensive because of "Obamacare".

You have people who are legitimately hurting and dissatisfied with the status quo... and along comes Trump, who is many things, but not the status quo. He gives them a positive message and a new set of people to hate, and they latch onto it... in large part because their other option comes across as "more of the same" and they already know they can't take more of the same.

They're angry: Trump gives them a target for their anger.
They're hurting: Trump promises to help.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said, my post was more about the disconnect between the cosmopolitan liberal left and the working class left.

I'm not too concerned about a precise definition of SJW as this isn't really a major issue.

I think it's very much a major issue. You seem to be talking about people who fret about issues at dinner parties, not people actually getting tear gassed at protests or doing real work to help vulnerable people.

This redefinition of "SJW" makes your position absurd. Disdain and ineffectual comments by people who have no contact with working class people caused those working class people to revolt? This makes no sense.

As I said, the major problem is not the stereotypical SJW, but the disconnect between the cosmopolitan liberal left and the working class left due to the differing social realities in which they reside.

I still think you're dealing in stereotypes. The "SJWs" I know personally mostly work in social work, doing the day-to-day front-line work. Most of the ones who aren't actually employed in social work have jobs in manufacturing.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What do you think?

It's an endless cycle: protest > ascendance > power > oppression > backlash > repeat. SJW's are a symptom of the oppression aspect of this cycle, which fuels the backlash/protest portions we have transitioned to.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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"?

That's what I thought when I first saw the term - someone who is actually out there making a difference. Never would have I thought of a group of rambling bozos that even other Feminists, Marxists, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. literally al. can't stand and wish they'd just drop off the face of the Earth. Whether it's people who are vulgar for vulgarities sake, or those with bubble-thin emotional barriers, does anyone really like when anyone goes beyond "ok, you made your point, now you're just being obnoxious?" Out in the country, instead of "whiny Liberals (though I did eavesdrop on a very over touchy Conservative who was complaining to a Professor stating she was very offended over a documentary featuring the human cost of the War on Drugs)," we have guys who wear wife beaters, blue jeans, and cowboy boots (sometimes hat), drive a truck with their "Rebel Flags" on it, and I often wish I had a bazooka to shoot them with any time they kick up a cloud of exhaust behind me. Or at all.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indeed. But how many states mattered? About 8. Maybe 10 if we were generous. The electroal college does nothing to solve the one problem people claim it fixes.

That must be stated again. Yes, a popular vote leaves us with pretty much the same problem, but the Constitutionality of gerrymandering, Congressional Districts, and even the Electoral College were all designed around keeping the South from getting too much power due a larger population based on slavery, and designed when only property owners could vote, and all property owners were white men. The things designed to keep those stating the Bible gives them the religious right to own slaves from getting too much power is now the thing keeping those stating the Bible gives them the religious right to discriminate in power. Only this time they're also saying it's their religious right to define what is and is not science; to lie in schools to sexually curious and active teenagers about sex and contraception and female sexuality; whether or not certain medical treatments and procedures are funded or even legal or not; to punish and criminalize based on Biblical principles.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That must be stated again. Yes, a popular vote leaves us with pretty much the same problem, but the Constitutionality of gerrymandering, Congressional Districts, and even the Electoral College were all designed around keeping the South from getting too much power due a larger population based on slavery, and designed when only property owners could vote, and all property owners were white men. The things designed to keep those stating the Bible gives them the religious right to own slaves from getting too much power is now the thing keeping those stating the Bible gives them the religious right to discriminate in power. Only this time they're also saying it's their religious right to define what is and is not science; to lie in schools to sexually curious and active teenagers about sex and contraception and female sexuality; whether or not certain medical treatments and procedures are funded or even legal or not; to punish and criminalize based on Biblical principles.

It is the very system you are saying helps defend us against then that has allowed 2 conservative presidents to be elected in office despite not havnig the popular votes. Gerymandering is why the house of representatives is held by republicans. More people voted for democrats in the house of representatives election than republicans and yet we have drastically more republicans in office.

I can understand the historical aspects of the argument. I do. But how does it affect our current system?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is the very system you are saying helps defend us against then that has allowed 2 conservative presidents to be elected in office despite not havnig the popular votes.

Defending the government from them in the past, but keeping them in power today.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Defending the government from them in the past, but keeping them in power today.

Yes. When it required a white land owner to vote the massive number of land owning white farmers did pose a threat to Northern buisiness interests. However now that the right to vote is extended to all races and genders who are citizens what is the current argument? Leave it up to Florida? Listen I live here. That is far worse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why, as we see all over the Western world, the working class left is switching to the far right. They are the only people who recognise there are legitimate concerns amongst these people, rather than simply bigotry and racism.

I remember a quote I saw online that I agree with. It went something like this:

"Trump supporters aren't necessarily racist themselves, but they are people who don't consider racism to be a deal-breaker."

 

[JakofHearts]

I'd say SJW's were part of the reason, yes.

Spoiler: Dear Democrats and Liberals

Dear Democrats and Liberals,

I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.

Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask.

You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.

You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.

You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.

You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.

You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.

You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.

You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.

You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.

You created "us" when you attacked our flag.

You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.

You created "us" when you began to immasculate men.

You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.

You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.

You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.

You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.

"You" created "us" the silent majority.

And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.

And we did it with ballots, not bullets.

Source: https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2436

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'd say SJW's were part of the reason, yes.

Spoiler: Dear Democrats and Liberals

Dear Democrats and Liberals,

I'm noticing that a lot of you aren't graciously accepting the fact that your candidate lost. In fact you seem to be posting even more hateful things about those of us who voted for Trump.

Some of you are apparently "triggered". Because you are posting how "sick" you feel about the results.
How did this happen you ask.

You created "us" when you attacked our freedom of speech.

You created "us" when you attacked our right to bear arms.

You created "us" when you attacked our Christian beliefs.

You created "us" when you constantly referred to us as racists.

You created "us" when you constantly called us xenophobic.

You created "us" when you told us to get on board or get out of the way.

You created "us" when you forced us to buy health care and then financially penalized us for not participating.

You created "us" when you allowed our jobs to continue to leave our country.

You created "us" when you attacked our flag.

You created "us" when you confused women's rights with feminism.

You created "us" when you began to immasculate men.

You created "us" when you decided to make our children soft.

You created "us" when you decided to vote for progressive ideals.

You created "us" when you attacked our way of life.

You created "us" when you decided to let our government get out of control.

"You" created "us" the silent majority.

And we became fed up and we pushed back and spoke up.

And we did it with ballots, not bullets.

Source: https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2436

Going to keep this post for when I need an example of the sort of puerile bumpersticker politics Trump fans like.

Because if anyone thinks that taking their opposition and trying to discredit then with 'You're fat, smelly and ugly' is anything but sophistry then that says a lot more about then than it does their opposition.

While we're at it, let's go through the 'dear john' letter.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequence. Enforcing consequence for hateful speech is not in any way a violation of free speech. For the third time this week (maybe even this tgread) for Trump voters who don't apparently seem to know what free speech is, it is a law that prohibits government from limiting speech, not private businesses, institutions, etc. Nor does it mean speech without consequence.

As much as I think gun culture and gun dudebros are vile, I own a gun. In the thread that talked about partisan gun ownership, pretty much most of the gun owners were liberal or independent, and the liberals had no problem with guns or gun ownership. And, in fact, there has been no legislation for 'taking muh guns' and, like much of the hysterical paranoia these gun dudebros have, the push to remove guns is mostly NRA bs to frighten then into buying more.

If by attacking your Christian beliefs you mean enforcement of separation of church and state. Though I am not, a goodly chunk of liberals ARE Christian. More than half, in fact. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2012/09/Dem.png

And yeah, if you approve racial profiling, a general Muslim registry, are afraid of that 'angry looking black man,' if you think a Mexican judge can't be objective, if you think that America is the only free nation and that only negatives can be gained through multiculturalism or serious looks into foreign policies, then yeah. You probably are a racist, xenophobe, or both. Doesn't take long of wading through the more of /pol/ or youtube or Twitter or Facebook to find AMPLE EXAMPLES of this behavior and worse. And if you think you don't fit the bill, explain why instead of turning into a hateful prick and blame it on 'us.'

Also for the forth or fifth time, Obamacare is virtually identical to the Republican created Romneyplan they all loved until Obama's name got attached to it by trying (and failing through obstructionism) to make a single-payer option.

Gonna pause here and maybe I'll write more when it's not on a phone.

 

[JakofHearts]

Going to keep this post for when I need an example of the sort of puerile bumpersticker politics Trump fans like.

I don't know, the "bumpersticker" seems rather accurate. SJW's are ripe for satirical context when they continue to be out of touch with reality.