Telford UK Sex Abuse and no word from #metoo

[icehorse]

Great, so why are you complaining about SJWs?

I would say that to a large extent, the media is a mirror. The claim here is that most SJW causes are based on the oppressor vs. oppressed worldview, and the media appears largely to be following along in lock step. So in this case SJWs and the media have spontaneously formed an unspoken pact. E.g. "we cannot criticize a movement like BLM because it's advocates are oppressed", "we cannot say Islam is a regressive, totalitarian ideology because it's advocates are oppressed", "we cannot say that trigger warnings and safe spaces are horrible ideas because minority students are oppressed", "we cannot say that sexism is only a minor factor in the gender pay gap because women are oppressed" and so on. These are all SJW ideas and the media plays along.

 

[crossfire]

Well we could have a semantic issue here. I'd say that #metoo is an example of a SJW cause. I used it because it strikes me that in this moment it's a well known SJW cause that lots of people would be easily able to relate to.

Exactly what is it about #metoo that makes it a SJW cause? Are people talking about their being sexually abused instead of remaining silent a SJW cause?

Assuming you're okay with that logic so far,

No, I'm not okay with that logic so far. Please explain how people telling their personal stories is a SJW movement.

 

[icehorse]

Exactly what is it about #metoo that makes it a SJW cause? Are people talking about their being sexually abused instead of remaining silent a SJW cause?

No, I'm not okay with that logic so far. Please explain how people telling their personal stories is a SJW movement.

Fair questions, I failed to connect some dots, and you might not agree with the connections I'm about to make:

I believe that #metoo started with good intentions and that it addresses some serious problems. A couple of things make it smack of SJWism:

- The ensuing mob-rule / guilty without a trial orientation it took.
- The refusal to discuss important distinctions.
- The black and white conclusion that no women were ever, ever even partial culpable.

 

[Estro Felino]

So, Harvey Weinstein gets a lot more press than

I think this comparison is quite inappropriate.
Harvey Weinstein just blackmailed those women, who didn't mind selling their bodies in exchange for favors, as a normal prostitute would.

Btw...the cases of rape in Europe are countless, but this problem has nothing to do with a specific religion. It has to do with a non-selective massive immigration.

The reason why this happens is nothing to do with #metoo, SJWs or any other individual movement and blaming them for displaying a ubiquitous aspect of human behaviour is unfair.

Actually what icehorse means to convey, is much simpler than that: information is politicized, and so therefore political parties are not impartial.
In Summer 2017 four Africans raped a woman on an Italian beach: only right-wing-parties talked about it.

 

[Augustus]

Am I to infer that that's okay by you?

It's not ideal, but is simply a basic aspect of human culture and psychology which is unlikely to change.

The reason why this happens is nothing to do with #metoo, SJWs or any other individual movement and blaming them for displaying a ubiquitous aspect of human behaviour is unfair.

As to why the media reports what is more newsworthy than that which is less newsworthy it's fairly obvious. Blame society for that, it's us who consume the media after all.

 

[Sunstone]

I’m starting to discover a number of people who are trying to understand the SJW movement better (Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haight. Camille Paglia, Douglas Murray, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Mark Steyn, Lindsay Shepherd, Ben Shapiro, the administration at the University of Chicago. FIRE, Lauren Southern, Michelle Rempel, Heather MacDonald, Ella Whelan, and others).

Jerry Coyne offers some of the sharpest commentary and criticisms of the SJW movement that I've seen on his blog, Why Evolution is True.

 

[Estro Felino]

What icehorse wants to convey (Romanesque version with subtitles)

 

[Jesster]

You should create a Twitter hashtag movement about this.

 

[crossfire]

Exactly what is it about #metoo that makes it a SJW cause? Are people talking about their being sexually abused instead of remaining silent a SJW cause?


No, I'm not okay with that logic so far. Please explain how people telling their personal stories is a SJW movement.

Fair questions, I failed to connect some dots, and you might not agree with the connections I'm about to make:

I believe that #metoo started with good intentions and that it addresses some serious problems. A couple of things make it smack of SJWism:

- The ensuing mob-rule / guilty without a trial orientation it took.
- The refusal to discuss important distinctions.
- The black and white conclusion that no women were ever, ever even partial culpable.

The #metoo hashtag is about being able to tell your story and being believed instead of repressing it. It's about expressing the repressed stuff so it doesn't sit there and continue to fester and continue to create poisons so healing can take place. Sure, when you open up a festering wound you can expect some nasty poisons to come out, but that is necessary for healing to take place.

I fail to see how psychological catharsis and first aid is a SJW movement, except maybe as a means allowing this psychological catharsis to be seen as socially acceptable instead of shameful.

 

[icehorse]

The #metoo hashtag is about being able to tell your story and being believed instead of repressing it. It's about expressing the repressed stuff so it doesn't sit there and continue to fester and continue to create poisons so healing can take place. Sure, when you open up a festering wound you can expect some nasty poisons to come out, but that is necessary for healing to take place.

I fail to see how psychological catharsis and first aid is a SJW movement, except maybe as a means allowing this psychological catharsis to be seen as socially acceptable instead of shameful.

That all sounds fine. Sadly, it often morphed beyond that into a non-thinking mob.

 

[crossfire]

That all sounds fine. Sadly, it often morphed beyond that into a non-thinking mob.

Does the mob dismiss the fact that the individuals need healing? Like I said, when you open up a wound and clean it out, you can expect some poisons to come out. It's part of the healing process. The "mob" is the poisons.

 

[icehorse]

Does the mob dismiss the fact that the individuals need healing? Like I said, when you open up a wound and clean it out, you can expect some poisons to come out. It's part of the healing process. The "mob" is the poisons.

I don't think we should ever sacrifice discussion, and that's what mobs do, remove discussion.

 

[Curious George]

The #metoo hashtag is about being able to tell your story and being believed instead of repressing it. It's about expressing the repressed stuff so it doesn't sit there and continue to fester and continue to create poisons so healing can take place. Sure, when you open up a festering wound you can expect some nasty poisons to come out, but that is necessary for healing to take place.

I fail to see how psychological catharsis and first aid is a SJW movement, except maybe as a means allowing this psychological catharsis to be seen as socially acceptable instead of shameful.

Because anything related to social justice is an SJW movement. That is how some people view anyone who works to correct social injustice.

 

[crossfire]

I don't think we should ever sacrifice discussion, and that's what mobs do, remove discussion.

There is a difference between having a discussion and hijacking a discussion.

 

[crossfire]

Because anything related to social justice is an SJW movement. That is how some people view anyone who works to correct social injustice.

You forgot the W part in SJW. Doesn't the W stand for promoting a specific view, rather than just telling your own story, or simply saying #MeToo to get an idea of the scope of the problem?

 

[Curious George]

You forgot the W part in SJW. Doesn't the W stand for promoting a specific view, rather than just telling your own story, or simply saying #MeToo to get an idea of the scope of the problem?

Nope, the warrior part is just a part that is attached in order to make fun of/tease/demean any particular social justice cause.

"Hey look at this extremist on youtube; that is you if you say anything about your boss sticking his/her fingers inside of you against your will."

 

[icehorse]

Nope, the warrior part is just a part that is attached in order to make fun of/tease/demean any particular social justice cause.

"Hey look at this extremist on youtube; that is you if you say anything about your boss sticking his/her fingers inside of you against your will."

I would say that the characteristics of the "w's" I'm discussing is that they have a simplistic "oppressor vs. oppressed" worldview, and they are not willing to discuss their beliefs. There are many people doing good work in social justice who do not behave this way.

Again, I'm not locked into using the phrase "SJW", but it's important that we give a label to that subset of activists who operate from the "oppressed vs. oppressor, not up for discussion" stance.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope, the warrior part is just a part that is attached in order to make fun of/tease/demean any particular social justice cause.

"Hey look at this extremist on youtube; that is you if you say anything about your boss sticking his/her fingers inside of you against your will."

Btw...this thread actually focuses on how much solidarity the so called SJW movements in the US have expressed towards the rape crisis in Europe...which is a really huge problem.

For example I've never heard the great feminist Hillary say something about this.

The sidebar issue after which the OP chose to name the thread, is a mere jab at a specific group. This jab may be relevant to the OP's issues with this specific cause, but it is by and far not the central point.

No...the discussion goes even further and the OP explains why the left traditionally doesn't target minorities (immigrants in this case) even when they become a potential danger to society. That is, minorities are untouchable a priori.

To conclude, the POTUS did express his solidarity towards us Europeans, and I really, really appreciate that.

 

[Curious George]

Btw...this thread actually focuses on how much solidarity the so called SJW movements in the US have expressed towards the rape crisis in Europe...which is a really huge problem.

For example I've never heard the great feminist Hillary say something about this.

And had she, would you not just find another famous person who has identified as a feminist that had not?

It is an interesting phenomenon this "they need to talk about this, in this way, in order to prove they are not associated with it.

It happens with blm, it happens with feminism, it happens with Muslims. This idea that silence is tacit acceptance or outright rejection.

To be honest, I am unaware of anything Hillary Clinton has said recently. I am surprised to hear that you follow all of her conversations.

That said, the focus of this thread is not the lack of Solidarity. It is not asking why the west is silent. Or why many groups are silent. It is asking why a specific group is silent. As if by virtue of being part of x group you must also oppose y cause or you are a hypocrite. It is a thinly veiled attack on a specific group. The OP brings up some interesting points. Namely, does advocacy of some of their causes or how those causes are advocated create more injustice?

The sidebar issue after which the OP chose to name the thread, is a mere jab at a specific group. This jab may be relevant to the OP's issues with this specific cause, but it is by and far not the central point.

 

[Curious George]

I would say that the characteristics of the "w's" I'm discussing is that they have a simplistic "oppressor vs. oppressed" worldview, and they are not willing to discuss their beliefs. There are many people doing good work in social justice who do not behave this way.

Again, I'm not locked into using the phrase "SJW", but it's important that we give a label to that subset of activists who operate from the "oppressed vs. oppressor, not up for discussion" stance.

The term has little meaning. You can not claim that any individual in a group has a simplistic oppressor vs oppressed worldview, yet you apply this simplistic approach to all members of a group with broad strokes.

You want to use the term SJW, that is fine. My words to Crossfire are what you are communicating when you do. I do not know which social justice causes you think are worthy of exemption, but I imagine it varies among people who use the term SJW. I don't want to assume to much here, but the term is very much meant to conjure up a pejorative image. Please do not pretend otherwise.