Model Karlie Kross runs afoul of SJWs !

[The Kilted Heathen]

IOW, it doesn't count as demonization if they're actually demons, and you've convinced yourself that they are.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. If I am demonizing someone, then you should be able to easily provide that. Condemning actions that can very much be observed is not demonization.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say it approaches shutting down speech.

A few posts back, I quoted the specific tweets that were given in the article. You think those comments "approach shutting down speech?" They criticized Kross, but they didn't even ask for an apology. Do you really think that those comments crossed the line? If you do, what comments wouldn't cross the line?

There are probably people who appreciate non-Japanese women dressing like Geishas. In this case, the SJWs are negatively impacting those people's right to see that expression. Of course this is not an extreme case.

We have a right to see western geishas?

I think you're confused about how rights work:

- Kross has the right to dress up like a geisha or not.
- If she decides to dress up like a geisha, everyone else has the right to say what they think about this.
- Kross has the right to take other people's opinions into account to whatever degree she sees fit when deciding what to do in the future.

But it falls into the category of SJWs shutting down free speech. They get speakers uninvited. They ruin lectures. Recently in Berkeley they used violence to create a last minute cancelation. (The Milo incident.)

So no matter how you feel about Milo, you have the right to hear him speak. Perhaps you are a critic of his, and you want to gather data to criticize him. EVERYONE has the right to LISTEN to other's opinions, offensive or not.

Again, I think you're confused about how rights work. The only actual right you touched on is that even Milo Yiannopoulos has the right not to have violence inflicted on him.

"Free speech" isn't the right to speak uncriticized. It doesn't entitle you to a booking at an event venue. The right to free speech is a limitation on governments, not on private individuals or companies. It's your right not to be imprisoned or fined for expressing your ideas... and that's it.

 

[Flankerl]

That's one thing that separates a "social justice warrior" from a legitimate activist; they fabricate controversies instead of addressing real and occurring cases of discrimination.

I mean really, did any actual Japanese take offense to the "geisha" costume, or was it just some whities getting offended on their behalf?

We got a winner.

- a model did a mildly offensive photoshoot.

No she didn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder...
If a non-geisha Japanese woman (or man) dressed up as a geisha, would this be cultural appropriation?
Or is about people of different races crossing an imagined line?

 

[Rival]

I wonder...
If a non-geisha Japanese woman (or man) dressed up as a geisha, would this be cultural appropriation?
Or is about people of different races crossing an imagined line?

If I said that black people can't dress up as Vikings I'd be called a racist lol.

It's imaginary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No she didn't.

So not only are people you disagree with not entitled to speak; now they aren't even entitled to their thoughts?

 

[icehorse]

A few posts back, I quoted the specific tweets that were given in the article. You think those comments "approach shutting down speech?" They criticized Kross, but they didn't even ask for an apology. Do you really think that those comments crossed the line? If you do, what comments wouldn't cross the line?


We have a right to see western geishas?

I think you're confused about how rights work:

- Kross has the right to dress up like a geisha or not.
- If she decides to dress up like a geisha, everyone else has the right to say what they think about this.
- Kross has the right to take other people's opinions into account to whatever degree she sees fit when deciding what to do in the future.


Again, I think you're confused about how rights work. The only actual right you touched on is that even Milo Yiannopoulos has the right not to have violence inflicted on him.

"Free speech" isn't the right to speak uncriticized. It doesn't entitle you to a booking at an event venue. The right to free speech is a limitation on governments, not on private individuals or companies. It's your right not to be imprisoned or fined for expressing your ideas... and that's it.

I'm sorry. I sincerely can't tell if you're being serious or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry. I sincerely can't tell if you're being serious or not?

Completely.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I said that black people can't dress up as Vikings I'd be called a racist lol.

It's imaginary.

I wonder how much scorn I deserve for appropriating the angry Scot persona?
I've only a smidgen of Scottish blood in me....& I'm sure it's all leaked out
already from me many injuries over the years.

 

[Rival]

I wonder how much scorn I deserve for appropriating the angry Scot persona?
I've only a smidgen of Scottish blood in me....& I'm sure it's all leaked out
already from me many injuries over the years.

As a quarter Scot with a Mc surname I feel very offended and I am reporting your message. It's 2017 already.

 

[Kirran]

I wanna just affirm a bit more clearly here: SJWs don't actually exist. That is not actually a thing. It's an exonymous slur used for people supporting progressive causes. Whenever anyone complains about SJWs as a category doing this or that, all they're addressing is this imagined category of people who they're blaming all sorts of problems on and using to attempt to dismiss anyone supporting progressive ideas. The fact that some people turn around and embrace the term in an essentially sardonic manner doesn't make it more real, just like people doing so with the term 'snowflake' does.

Reminds me of the whole 'chav' thing in British society, actually.

 

[Rival]

I wanna just affirm a bit more clearly here: SJWs don't actually exist. That is not actually a thing. It's an exonymous slur used for people supporting progressive causes. Whenever anyone complains about SJWs as a category doing this or that, all they're addressing is this imagined category of people who they're blaming all sorts of problems on and using to attempt to dismiss anyone supporting progressive ideas. The fact that some people turn around and embrace the term in an essentially sardonic manner doesn't make it more real, just like people doing so with the term 'snowflake' does.

Reminds me of the whole 'chav' thing in British society, actually.

SJW is the nicest thing we can call them.

 

[Kirran]

SJW is the nicest thing we can call them.

Who is them? This isn't a thing.

 

[Flankerl]

So not only are people you disagree with not entitled to speak; now they aren't even entitled to their thoughts?

Some stupid American SJWs who think that they speak for Japanese people were offended. But that doesn't make the event offensive.

Show me some Japanese who were offended. Let's start with a low number, 10.

But you won't find them. It will be the same as in the Kimino "incident" where American SJWs were offended while actual Japanese found it wonderful.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wanna just affirm a bit more clearly here: SJWs don't actually exist. That is not actually a thing. It's an exonymous slur used for people supporting progressive causes.

I suppose I could say that "white supremacists", "fascists", "racists", etc don't exist.
They're just snarl words that liberals use to demonize them.

Of course, "liberals" don't exist either.

 

[Kirran]

I suppose I could say that "white supremacists", "fascists", "racists", etc don't exist.
They're just snarl words that liberals use to demonize them.

Of course, "liberals" don't exist either.

Well plenty of people would actually embrace all these terms. I agree that to just use 'fascist' etc as a snarl word isn't particularly clever, I think it muddies the waters. But to point out the similarities between people's ideas and those of fascism is different to that.

Racism's more a structural problem anyway - I think that we're pretty much all racist, just some of us are against that and wanna work against it, whether or not they own up to its presence within themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well plenty of people would actually embrace all these terms. I agree that to just use 'fascist' etc as a snarl word isn't particularly clever, I think it muddies the waters. But to point out the similarities between people's ideas and those of fascism is different to that.

Racism's more a structural problem anyway - I think that we're pretty much all racist, just some of us are against that and wanna work against it, whether or not they own up to its presence within themselves.

We must face the reality that the much derided species, SJW, does indeed exist.
They shall be known by their shrill or violent over-reactions to micro-aggressions
& other things of low significance.

 

[Kirran]

We must face the reality that the much derided species, SJW, does indeed exist.
They shall be known by their shrill or violent over-reactions to micro-aggressions
& other things of low significance.

Phrasing it like that paints the picture that people who disagree are disagreeing that we should recognise their reality rather than disagreeing it exists. A somewhat dishonest tactic.

It's a derogatory slur referring to progressive activists. It produces this catch-all slur for progressives which can be used to dismiss them and their concerns. Name-calling has always struck me as childish. If there are issues with over-zealousness and misapplication of rhetoric among social progressives, then look at that honestly for what it is. But it demonstrates insecurity when anything like that is jumped on and used to condemn everyone even vaguely progressive in their thinking.

I am supportive of feminism, of queer rights, of minority rights, of a class-based politics, of secularism, of breaking down categories which separate humans from each other unnecessarily. As part of that I think it's important we continue to address the deep-rooted nature of many of our prejudices, and recognise how their manifestations can be very widespread and normalised. Certain elements on the right who enjoy doing so may call me names and s****** with their friends about having done so, or they can engage in actual discourse.

 

[Revoltingest]

Phrasing it like that paints the picture that people who disagree are disagreeing that we should recognise their reality rather than disagreeing it exists. A somewhat dishonest tactic.

That would be to misunderstand disagreement.
There are those who manage to disagree with civility, maturity, & cogent argument.
But there are others who shout, hit & burn in lieu of the above.
The latter typifies the SJW.

It's a derogatory slur referring to progressive activists.

But it doesn't apply to all....just that annoying SJW minority.

I am supportive of feminism, of queer rights, of minority rights, of a class-based politics, of secularism, of breaking down categories which separate humans from each other unnecessarily. As part of that I think it's important we continue to address the deep-rooted nature of many of our prejudices, and recognise how their manifestations can be very widespread and normalised. Certain elements on the right who enjoy doing so may call me names and s****** with their friends about having done so, or they can engage in actual discourse.

Supporting those things does not an SJW make.
If you wanted to be one, you'd have to set a car on fire or accuse me of gaslighting you.
But since you don't do those things, you're only a progressive.
(So am I, btw.)

 

[Kirran]

That would be to misunderstand disagreement.
There are those who manage to disagree with civility, maturity, & cogent argument.
But there are others who shout, hit & burn in lieu of the above.
The latter typifies the SJW.

But it doesn't apply to all....just that annoying SJW minority.

But again, there isn't like some group called SJWs. It's purely an external term.

Supporting those things does not an SJW make.
If you wanted to be one, you'd have to set a car on fire or accuse me of gaslighting you.
But since you don't do those things, you're only a progressive.
(So am I, btw.)

Theoretically, that makes sense - but in practice I find it's basically used to slag off all progressives, and dismiss them whenever they raise their concerns.