Reclaiming SJW

[TakerFoxx]

Ok, so in other words a Social Justice Warrior is a person defending something even if he/she don't care about in reality, just to get attention from the others?

So in other word it is something like a Troll?

Before you ask, yes, this is the first time I heared term the Social Justice Warrior.

You're not far off the mark, there. At least, insofar as the accusation is concerned.

"You're just a SJW" has replaced "You're just a troll", as the default "I disagree with you but I have no rebuttal" response on this forum.

Ah, glad I get a little what a SJW is...
I mean, does they really think they share brains with werewolves? I mean all of them?
Sure, I know the founder will think like that, but the other followers who defend this idea, are 100% true to their words?

Social Justice Warriors can be described as keyboard activists that, for the most part, probably think they're doing good by standing up for the LGBTQ community, racial minorities, women, etc., but more often than not their methods can be described as lashing out viciously at anything they deem offensive, quite often to a very disproportionate degree, to the point that instead of actually helping to enact change, they just piss people off and nothing good comes of it. And over time, this has led to a fair number of smug reverse bigots, who have sort of become the "face" of the SJW movement (if it can be called that). The whole headmates/otherkin is a particularly unhinged subset.

 

[SweetShark]

Ok, so in other words a Social Justice Warrior is a person defending something even if he/she don't care about in reality, just to get attention from the others?

So in other word it is something like a Troll?

Before you ask, yes, this is the first time I heared term the Social Justice Warrior.

You're not far off the mark, there. At least, insofar as the accusation is concerned.

"You're just a SJW" has replaced "You're just a troll", as the default "I disagree with you but I have no rebuttal" response on this forum.

Ah, glad I get a little what a SJW is...
I mean, does they really think they share brains with werewolves? I mean all of them?
Sure, I know the founder will think like that, but the other followers who defend this idea, are 100% true to their words?

Social Justice Warriors can be described as keyboard activists that, for the most part, probably think they're doing good by standing up for the LGBTQ community, racial minorities, women, etc., but more often than not their methods can be described as lashing out viciously at anything they deem offensive, quite often to a very disproportionate degree, to the point that instead of actually helping to enact change, they just piss people off and nothing good comes of it. And over time, this has led to a fair number of smug reverse bigots, who have sort of become the "face" of the SJW movement (if it can be called that). The whole headmates/otherkin is a particularly unhinged subset.

Then I am hope I don't belong to this category like them and I didn't realise it.
I mean, like many others I have my share of personal fetishes and I share them with all of you. However I don't want to annoy no one.
You know, I posted Thread Like "Sharkgirls Pics for a Game" and "Corruption of Champions" "Pocket Pussies Game" etc.
Just for fun ^^

 

[TakerFoxx]

Then I am hope I don't belong to this category like them and I didn't realise it.
I mean, like many others I have my share of personal fetishes and I share them with all of you. However I don't want to annoy no one.
You know, I posted Thread Like "Sharkgirls Pics for a Game" and "Corruption of Champions" "Pocket Pussies Game" etc.
Just for fun ^^

No, you're fine. Fetishes and roleplay are pretty harmless and for the most part are quite fun. The thing about otherkin is that most of them seem to actually believe what they're saying about being part werewolf or what have you.

 

[Quadocky]

Social Justice Warriors can be described as keyboard activists that, for the most part, probably think they're doing good by standing up for the LGBTQ community, racial minorities, women, etc., but more often than not their methods can be described as lashing out viciously at anything they deem offensive, quite often to a very disproportionate degree, to the point that instead of actually helping to enact change, they just piss people off and nothing good comes of it. And over time, this has led to a fair number of smug reverse bigots, who have sort of become the "face" of the SJW movement (if it can be called that). The whole headmates/otherkin is a particularly unhinged subset.

Nah, its more like anyone who remotely expresses ideas along the lines of "Racism is bad." Or "Hating LGBTQ people is bad." qualify as SJWs to the detractors. SJWs in this sense being the 'boogyman' to those very special sorts of folks who can't seem to invoke any ounce of self-reflection or self-critique and think "Hey wait a second, maybe that is a very shitty thing to think or say!".

Instead we got people who legit think there is such things as "Reverse Bigotry" or "Misandry". In droves even, scary people.

Quite frankly, the detractors are just mad because the wider internet no longer caters to the Frat Boy/Man-child/Chan Culture mentality of debasing women and being assholes for no reason and they are finally being held responsible for their shit by being called out for it. Then they have the gall to complain about being called out for being a shitty human being who should very well know better, making all sorts of awful excuses for their pathetic personal issues and hatreds.

It gets so bad on their ends of things because they simply cannot change and only get worse. They either get more and more racist and self-destructive and form echo-chambers or perish on an altar built from their own Willful-Ignorance.

 

[Cecilo]

Social Justice Warriors can be described as keyboard activists that, for the most part, probably think they're doing good by standing up for the LGBTQ community, racial minorities, women, etc., but more often than not their methods can be described as lashing out viciously at anything they deem offensive, quite often to a very disproportionate degree, to the point that instead of actually helping to enact change, they just piss people off and nothing good comes of it. And over time, this has led to a fair number of smug reverse bigots, who have sort of become the "face" of the SJW movement (if it can be called that). The whole headmates/otherkin is a particularly unhinged subset.

Nah, its more like anyone who remotely expresses ideas along the lines of "Racism is bad." Or "Hating LGBTQ people is bad." qualify as SJWs to the detractors. SJWs in this sense being the 'boogyman' to those very special sorts of folks who can't seem to invoke any ounce of self-reflection or self-critique and think "Hey wait a second, maybe that is a very shitty thing to think or say!".

Instead we got people who legit think there is such things as "Reverse Bigotry" or "Misandry". In droves even, scary people.

Quite frankly, the detractors are just mad because the wider internet no longer caters to the Frat Boy/Man-child/Chan Culture mentality of debasing women and being assholes for no reason and they are finally being held responsible for their shit by being called out for it. Then they have the gall to complain about being called out for being a shitty human being who should very well know better, making all sorts of awful excuses for their pathetic personal issues and hatreds.

It gets so bad on their ends of things because they simply cannot change and only get worse. They either get more and more racist and self-destructive and form echo-chambers or perish on an altar built from their own Willful-Ignorance.

Oh yes quite the pinnacle of wisdom this.

I wasn't aware portraying women as sexy in any form of media was portraying them in such a debasing way. Why don't you go up to a woman in the real world and tell her how debasing she is being to other women for how sexy and attractive she looks and tell me how that goes for you?

Also the wider internet?

Really the wider internet no longer agrees with artists in the real world should no longer be allowed to draw and create thing they want to draw and create? That an artist in the game industry must conform to this kind of all invoking great wisdom of how enough is enough?

You believe that it is this movement, in this century, you will undo the hundreds of thousands of years of artists who have portrayed both men and women alike in what they view as the pinnacle of their idea of the human body? That you will show media and artists what is truly what's for, and still maintain a society where free speech exists.

It is people like you who will hold artists responsible for the debasing way they portray people and characters in media, and hold us responsible for what we do and do not choose to participate within that media?

Oh yes, I can totally see this happening in a world that values freedom.

From what I have seen of Tumblr. There is a particular quote I think it appropriate to your "Values" Bit.

"Your rights end where my feelings begin", I am not entirely sure if someone from actually said this on a site like tumblr or if it was written down as a summation of their attitudes. But that is what I see Tumblr as.

And to Quadocky, you disappoint me, maybe there isn't a system that oppresses men, but that doesn't change the definition of sexism, nor does it change the definition of Misandry as much as people would want it to be "This only counts if you have power" It doesn't. If you are going to argue that simply by the definition of being a man, you cannot experience one of the following, prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, you have not been on the internet very long, and oddly enough, the fact that you are trying to argue that, isn't that sexist in itself? That because Men are men we can't be discriminated against?

 

[TakerFoxx]

Nah, its more like anyone who remotely expresses ideas along the lines of "Racism is bad." Or "Hating LGBTQ people is bad." qualify as SJWs to the detractors. SJWs in this sense being the 'boogyman' to those very special sorts of folks who can't seem to invoke any ounce of self-reflection or self-critique and think "Hey wait a second, maybe that is a very shitty thing to think or say!".

Instead we got people who legit think there is such things as "Reverse Bigotry" or "Misandry". In droves even, scary people.

Quite frankly, the detractors are just mad because the wider internet no longer caters to the Frat Boy/Man-child/Chan Culture mentality of debasing women and being assholes for no reason and they are finally being held responsible for their shit by being called out for it. Then they have the gall to complain about being called out for being a shitty human being who should very well know better, making all sorts of awful excuses for their pathetic personal issues and hatreds.

It gets so bad on their ends of things because they simply cannot change and only get worse. They either get more and more racist and self-destructive and form echo-chambers or perish on an altar built from their own Willful-Ignorance.

Reverse-racism and misandry definitely exist. While white-on-minority racism and misogyny are far more common and culturally ingrained, the opposite end of the spectrum is very much a thing, and you really don't have to go far to find it. Hell, someone in this very thread described being a victim of reverse-racism. Granted many misandrists and reverse-racists are probably victims of misogyny and racism themselves, but they've allowed bitterness to turn them into the very thing they hate, while others are just assholes jumping onto a convenient excuse to keep being assholes. Just because one group has more assholes doesn't mean the other doesn't have any, and that it's not a problem when it happens. Bigotry is still bigotry, regardless of the source or the victim.

And yes, the SJW label does get misapplied a lot, often by people who are rightly being called out on their bigotry. But there are plenty of people who fully embody the SJW stereotype and do their cause more harm than good. The sad thing is that, on the base level, I actually agree with a great many of their causes, but the vitriol and over-confrontational nature of their methods is frankly frightening. A sort of "Don't Shoot the Message" sort of situation.

 

[Cecilo]

You literally just dismissed people's experiences because you don't relate to them. I'm sure you have seen people go from the bottom to the top. There's a good chance you've never talked to the people who can't make it anywhere near the top, and because of that you are denying their existence.

What I mean by how I treat people is when making an impression - IE, when meeting them for the first time, I don't care where they're from or their circumstance, I want to treat them with respect and dignity. Rich, poor, minority, grey-area sexual orientation, I want to earn their friendship and respect.

What demographic of person living in the Western World has 0% chance to control their own lives? Obviously no one has 0% control over their lives. A man in prison can still decide to do push-ups every day instead of just lying in bed. We're talking about people who have negligible opportunity to find success and happiness. I'm referring to the mentally ill, the homeless, and really anybody who lives under the poverty line. I'm talking about the woman working two jobs, getting up at 4 in the morning and getting home at midnight, just so she can pay rent and feed her kid. I'm talking about the man who has to sacrifice food for a week so he can afford to fix his car, because if he can't get to work he'll be fired, he won't be able to pay rent, and he'll quickly become homeless. Do you really think these kinds of people can move out of their situation just by "working harder?"

I'm a firm believer in 'don't have children if you're not in a position to support them'. Accidents happen, but reproducing is so easily avoidable that I find it hard to sympathize with people who beat their lives into poverty by inflicting dependants upon themselves. Adoption systems exist, and in the US, a person can hand an infant over to a fire station with no questions asked. Not much else I can say on that topic.

As for your second example, the answer is "Yes, but that's half the equation."
'pay rent' is the problem I'm seeing here. I know people who've lived in their cars, slept under their desks or otherwise chosen to be homeless in order to save money, build capital and embark on investment or educating themselves.

I know a man who earned his carpentry apprenticeship building worker housing on railways, and chose to sleep at the railhouse rather than rent a place. After four years, around the same time he finished his education and started working for himself, he'd gathered enough money to put a deposit on a run-down house, which he then used his own skills to rebuild, then rented it out to someone else instead of living in. Two years later, another. One year later, another. The next house he bought, he actually moved into. Repeat ad infinitum.

Seven years of choosing to live without a home to work toward a plan for the future. Extremist sacrifice and skin-off-your-hands hard work. It's possible, it's doable, but for some reason people are so disillusioned that they don't see the opportunities and possibilities in front of them.

The manufacturing and construction sectors around the world are in desperate need of workers. The positions pay well, require basic training and have sprawling opportunity for advancement. Trades will *always* be in demand, and offer on-the-job training. No student debts, and an income while you learn.

So don't tell me it's impossible when there is so fucking much opportunity for the intelligent, hard-working citizen. Sacrifice, relocation, reconsidering your options, realigning your goals...

I wanted to be a pilot. For reasons, that became impossible for me, so instead of slamming my head against the brick wall of the Everyone Else's Fault building on the corner of It's Too Hard street and But boulevard, I came up with a different plan. That also failed, so I came up with a third. Those 99% riots - stupid kids bitching about a lack of jobs in their 'chosen field'. Yeah, well, life doesn't work that way. Things don't go the way you've always dreamed, so you pull up your big-kid panties and go to plan B. (they... had a backup plan, right?)

I don't care if I sound privileged or objectivist. My mother, sister and I came from nothing after leaving my cheating dictator of a father, and ten years later I'm enjoying my own home with my fiancé.

And, a final note, your two examples don't exist here - New Zealand - because we have a stable welfare system in place to ensure people who need help can get it. The welfare office will even give that guy an interest-free loan to get his car unfucked so he can work. Our homeless rate is less than 1%. So you can check my entire country's privilege.

Being born in a country with an awesome, stable welfare system like New Zealand apparently has is actually a huge form of privilege. We don't really have the same thing in the US. They way you get safety nets like that is by being aware of the huge inequalities that exist, and addressing them (something I really wish our government would do).

We've gotten way way off topic, so I'll try to be brief. I want to zero in on one specific word in your post, which I think highlights my point: "Sacrifice." Sure, that woman could give up her child, but that's a pretty huge sacrifice, and one that a more well-off person wouldn't have to make. That's the whole concept of privilege in a nutshell; some people have to make far greater sacrifices than others, often for stupid reasons (race, gender, poverty, etc.), and it's good to be aware of that. Yes, life is unfair, but we are totally capable of making less unfair, and that's the first step.

So basically the people who work hard and earn a living should have to support someone that decided to make their life harder, without anything to fall back on, and no way to make money for themselves? No. No that is not how society should work. If someone gets injured for a reason beyond their control, THEY should be helped, if someone is stolen from, entire life savings, lives ruined THEY should be helped. Not some woman who decided to have a kid when she couldn't afford one.

 

[Cecilo]

You literally just dismissed people's experiences because you don't relate to them. I'm sure you have seen people go from the bottom to the top. There's a good chance you've never talked to the people who can't make it anywhere near the top, and because of that you are denying their existence.

What I mean by how I treat people is when making an impression - IE, when meeting them for the first time, I don't care where they're from or their circumstance, I want to treat them with respect and dignity. Rich, poor, minority, grey-area sexual orientation, I want to earn their friendship and respect.

What demographic of person living in the Western World has 0% chance to control their own lives? Obviously no one has 0% control over their lives. A man in prison can still decide to do push-ups every day instead of just lying in bed. We're talking about people who have negligible opportunity to find success and happiness. I'm referring to the mentally ill, the homeless, and really anybody who lives under the poverty line. I'm talking about the woman working two jobs, getting up at 4 in the morning and getting home at midnight, just so she can pay rent and feed her kid. I'm talking about the man who has to sacrifice food for a week so he can afford to fix his car, because if he can't get to work he'll be fired, he won't be able to pay rent, and he'll quickly become homeless. Do you really think these kinds of people can move out of their situation just by "working harder?"

I'm a firm believer in 'don't have children if you're not in a position to support them'. Accidents happen, but reproducing is so easily avoidable that I find it hard to sympathize with people who beat their lives into poverty by inflicting dependants upon themselves. Adoption systems exist, and in the US, a person can hand an infant over to a fire station with no questions asked. Not much else I can say on that topic.

As for your second example, the answer is "Yes, but that's half the equation."
'pay rent' is the problem I'm seeing here. I know people who've lived in their cars, slept under their desks or otherwise chosen to be homeless in order to save money, build capital and embark on investment or educating themselves.

I know a man who earned his carpentry apprenticeship building worker housing on railways, and chose to sleep at the railhouse rather than rent a place. After four years, around the same time he finished his education and started working for himself, he'd gathered enough money to put a deposit on a run-down house, which he then used his own skills to rebuild, then rented it out to someone else instead of living in. Two years later, another. One year later, another. The next house he bought, he actually moved into. Repeat ad infinitum.

Seven years of choosing to live without a home to work toward a plan for the future. Extremist sacrifice and skin-off-your-hands hard work. It's possible, it's doable, but for some reason people are so disillusioned that they don't see the opportunities and possibilities in front of them.

The manufacturing and construction sectors around the world are in desperate need of workers. The positions pay well, require basic training and have sprawling opportunity for advancement. Trades will *always* be in demand, and offer on-the-job training. No student debts, and an income while you learn.

So don't tell me it's impossible when there is so fucking much opportunity for the intelligent, hard-working citizen. Sacrifice, relocation, reconsidering your options, realigning your goals...

I wanted to be a pilot. For reasons, that became impossible for me, so instead of slamming my head against the brick wall of the Everyone Else's Fault building on the corner of It's Too Hard street and But boulevard, I came up with a different plan. That also failed, so I came up with a third. Those 99% riots - stupid kids bitching about a lack of jobs in their 'chosen field'. Yeah, well, life doesn't work that way. Things don't go the way you've always dreamed, so you pull up your big-kid panties and go to plan B. (they... had a backup plan, right?)

I don't care if I sound privileged or objectivist. My mother, sister and I came from nothing after leaving my cheating dictator of a father, and ten years later I'm enjoying my own home with my fiancé.

And, a final note, your two examples don't exist here - New Zealand - because we have a stable welfare system in place to ensure people who need help can get it. The welfare office will even give that guy an interest-free loan to get his car unfucked so he can work. Our homeless rate is less than 1%. So you can check my entire country's privilege.

Being born in a country with an awesome, stable welfare system like New Zealand apparently has is actually a huge form of privilege. We don't really have the same thing in the US. They way you get safety nets like that is by being aware of the huge inequalities that exist, and addressing them (something I really wish our government would do).

We've gotten way way off topic, so I'll try to be brief. I want to zero in on one specific word in your post, which I think highlights my point: "Sacrifice." Sure, that woman could give up her child, but that's a pretty huge sacrifice, and one that a more well-off person wouldn't have to make. That's the whole concept of privilege in a nutshell; some people have to make far greater sacrifices than others, often for stupid reasons (race, gender, poverty, etc.), and it's good to be aware of that. Yes, life is unfair, but we are totally capable of making less unfair, and that's the first step.

So basically the people who work hard and earn a living should have to support someone that decided to make their life harder, without anything to fall back on, and no way to make money for themselves? No. No that is not how society should work. If someone gets injured for a reason beyond their control, THEY should be helped, if someone is stolen from, entire life savings, lives ruined THEY should be helped. Not some woman who decided to have a kid when she couldn't afford one.

What about women forced to have children because some assholes in the world still believe abstonence is a proper sex education, making contraception difficult or impossible to obtain based on age or type of contraception and anti abortion policies?

Oh I forgot. Silly me. People like you are fully willing to help that woman ignoring all the emotional strain hardships and adversity she may or may not have to endure because the entire world chooses to decide what she is or is not allowed to do with her body so often, and give her a hand so long as she puts the baby up for adoption. Then instead of helping the mother take care of the child, we pay the state to take care of her child in her stead! Because we can't let the now born child suffer without assistance after its been placed for adoption.

Oh you people and your supposed logics while simultaneously ignoring how the world around you actually works its things out and coming to such well thought out, well versed and so filled with logic concepts.

There is no way a woman could not be forced into this kind of situation and be placed in an emotionally impossible situation for you to ever comprehend, clearly people like your hypothetical woman would never be deserving of our support. Just the state so they can keep a child in "the system" until they outgrow said system.

Genius that.

Edit: This folks, by the way, this is real oppression. People who think woman so often have children they can't afford and are thus undeserving of our help. Rape culture isn't an issue, rape is illegal. Allowing men who raped a woman the ability to harass her for a lifetime if she got pregnant and chose to keep the child, thus he can shoot for custody and the ability to stay in the life of his victim, that's a damned issue that should be fought for.

But this? This social justice for games? A luxury product you have a choice in choosing to buy or not buy for entertainment purposes being called oppression? A need to be fixed? No the idea that a woman has a child she "knew" she couldn't afford existing as a mindset that people think is common as though men don't leave the women they knock up, as though jobs don't get lost. This people is oppression.

As with everything else, you are responsible for yourself. I am not responsible for you being ignorant of the world or the products there are in the world. If the young woman or girl has a child in high school or just out of high school I assume her parents are helping her, then it is taken care of.

But if you are an Adult. Saying "Well I was taught x, y, z" is no excuse for you to be ignorant of safe sex. None. If she is a victim of rape, I feel for her, I do. But I also assume a woman who was raped would give up the child, either through an abortion, or through the state. And I can understand that, and is one of the few times I would support the state taking care of the child. Because that wasn't her choice, it wasn't her decision, hell even in that I would support the mother taking care of the child. Though I would prefer welfare have greater oversight for people who are getting it through children (Though that comes from personal experience, of a shall we say very distant family member who gets welfare and spends it on things like Flat Screen TVs and luxury products, while barely taking care of her children).

Further, I am actually pro choice, not anti-abortion which I think you have assumed about me. Though I am not sure where I stand on the state funding it.. haven't really thought about it.

I am deeply sorry if you have taken me as someone who is just hostile to women, I'm not, I just.. I don't trust people to actually spend money on their children, men or women. I am fine with the state helping people, and let me make this very clear, Who need help. Not people that have made a decision to do something to hinder themselves and get something from that hindrance. Someone who is raped, and impregnated from the rapist. Is not someone who chose that path. Someone who is wounded on the job did not choose that path. They both deserve support and help.

Someone who actively tries to get pregnant, without the ability to support herself, or her new child, DOES NOT DESERVE THE STATES HELP. I will not waver on that point. Ever.

 

[Cecilo]

You literally just dismissed people's experiences because you don't relate to them. I'm sure you have seen people go from the bottom to the top. There's a good chance you've never talked to the people who can't make it anywhere near the top, and because of that you are denying their existence.

What I mean by how I treat people is when making an impression - IE, when meeting them for the first time, I don't care where they're from or their circumstance, I want to treat them with respect and dignity. Rich, poor, minority, grey-area sexual orientation, I want to earn their friendship and respect.

What demographic of person living in the Western World has 0% chance to control their own lives? Obviously no one has 0% control over their lives. A man in prison can still decide to do push-ups every day instead of just lying in bed. We're talking about people who have negligible opportunity to find success and happiness. I'm referring to the mentally ill, the homeless, and really anybody who lives under the poverty line. I'm talking about the woman working two jobs, getting up at 4 in the morning and getting home at midnight, just so she can pay rent and feed her kid. I'm talking about the man who has to sacrifice food for a week so he can afford to fix his car, because if he can't get to work he'll be fired, he won't be able to pay rent, and he'll quickly become homeless. Do you really think these kinds of people can move out of their situation just by "working harder?"

I'm a firm believer in 'don't have children if you're not in a position to support them'. Accidents happen, but reproducing is so easily avoidable that I find it hard to sympathize with people who beat their lives into poverty by inflicting dependants upon themselves. Adoption systems exist, and in the US, a person can hand an infant over to a fire station with no questions asked. Not much else I can say on that topic.

As for your second example, the answer is "Yes, but that's half the equation."
'pay rent' is the problem I'm seeing here. I know people who've lived in their cars, slept under their desks or otherwise chosen to be homeless in order to save money, build capital and embark on investment or educating themselves.

I know a man who earned his carpentry apprenticeship building worker housing on railways, and chose to sleep at the railhouse rather than rent a place. After four years, around the same time he finished his education and started working for himself, he'd gathered enough money to put a deposit on a run-down house, which he then used his own skills to rebuild, then rented it out to someone else instead of living in. Two years later, another. One year later, another. The next house he bought, he actually moved into. Repeat ad infinitum.

Seven years of choosing to live without a home to work toward a plan for the future. Extremist sacrifice and skin-off-your-hands hard work. It's possible, it's doable, but for some reason people are so disillusioned that they don't see the opportunities and possibilities in front of them.

The manufacturing and construction sectors around the world are in desperate need of workers. The positions pay well, require basic training and have sprawling opportunity for advancement. Trades will *always* be in demand, and offer on-the-job training. No student debts, and an income while you learn.

So don't tell me it's impossible when there is so fucking much opportunity for the intelligent, hard-working citizen. Sacrifice, relocation, reconsidering your options, realigning your goals...

I wanted to be a pilot. For reasons, that became impossible for me, so instead of slamming my head against the brick wall of the Everyone Else's Fault building on the corner of It's Too Hard street and But boulevard, I came up with a different plan. That also failed, so I came up with a third. Those 99% riots - stupid kids bitching about a lack of jobs in their 'chosen field'. Yeah, well, life doesn't work that way. Things don't go the way you've always dreamed, so you pull up your big-kid panties and go to plan B. (they... had a backup plan, right?)

I don't care if I sound privileged or objectivist. My mother, sister and I came from nothing after leaving my cheating dictator of a father, and ten years later I'm enjoying my own home with my fiancé.

And, a final note, your two examples don't exist here - New Zealand - because we have a stable welfare system in place to ensure people who need help can get it. The welfare office will even give that guy an interest-free loan to get his car unfucked so he can work. Our homeless rate is less than 1%. So you can check my entire country's privilege.

Being born in a country with an awesome, stable welfare system like New Zealand apparently has is actually a huge form of privilege. We don't really have the same thing in the US. They way you get safety nets like that is by being aware of the huge inequalities that exist, and addressing them (something I really wish our government would do).

We've gotten way way off topic, so I'll try to be brief. I want to zero in on one specific word in your post, which I think highlights my point: "Sacrifice." Sure, that woman could give up her child, but that's a pretty huge sacrifice, and one that a more well-off person wouldn't have to make. That's the whole concept of privilege in a nutshell; some people have to make far greater sacrifices than others, often for stupid reasons (race, gender, poverty, etc.), and it's good to be aware of that. Yes, life is unfair, but we are totally capable of making less unfair, and that's the first step.

So basically the people who work hard and earn a living should have to support someone that decided to make their life harder, without anything to fall back on, and no way to make money for themselves? No. No that is not how society should work. If someone gets injured for a reason beyond their control, THEY should be helped, if someone is stolen from, entire life savings, lives ruined THEY should be helped. Not some woman who decided to have a kid when she couldn't afford one.

What about women forced to have children because some assholes in the world still believe abstonence is a proper sex education, making contraception difficult or impossible to obtain based on age or type of contraception and anti abortion policies?

Oh I forgot. Silly me. People like you are fully willing to help that woman ignoring all the emotional strain hardships and adversity she may or may not have to endure because the entire world chooses to decide what she is or is not allowed to do with her body so often, and give her a hand so long as she puts the baby up for adoption. Then instead of helping the mother take care of the child, we pay the state to take care of her child in her stead! Because we can't let the now born child suffer without assistance after its been placed for adoption.

Oh you people and your supposed logics while simultaneously ignoring how the world around you actually works its things out and coming to such well thought out, well versed and so filled with logic concepts.

There is no way a woman could not be forced into this kind of situation and be placed in an emotionally impossible situation for you to ever comprehend, clearly people like your hypothetical woman would never be deserving of our support. Just the state so they can keep a child in "the system" until they outgrow said system.

Genius that.

Edit: This folks, by the way, this is real oppression. People who think woman so often have children they can't afford and are thus undeserving of our help. Rape culture isn't an issue, rape is illegal. Allowing men who raped a woman the ability to harass her for a lifetime if she got pregnant and chose to keep the child, thus he can shoot for custody and the ability to stay in the life of his victim, that's a damned issue that should be fought for.

But this? This social justice for games? A luxury product you have a choice in choosing to buy or not buy for entertainment purposes being called oppression? A need to be fixed? No the idea that a woman has a child she "knew" she couldn't afford existing as a mindset that people think is common as though men don't leave the women they knock up, as though jobs don't get lost. This people is oppression.

As with everything else, you are responsible for yourself. I am not responsible for you being ignorant of the world or the products there are in the world. If the young woman or girl has a child in high school or just out of high school I assume her parents are helping her, then it is taken care of.

But if you are an Adult. Saying "Well I was taught x, y, z" is no excuse for you to be ignorant of safe sex. None. If she is a victim of rape, I feel for her, I do. But I also assume a woman who was raped would give up the child, either through an abortion, or through the state. And I can understand that, and is one of the few times I would support the state taking care of the child. Because that wasn't her choice, it wasn't her decision, hell even in that I would support the mother taking care of the child. Though I would prefer welfare have greater oversight for people who are getting it through children (Though that comes from personal experience, of a shall we say very distant family member who gets welfare and spends it on things like Flat Screen TVs and luxury products, while barely taking care of her children).

Further, I am actually pro choice, not anti-abortion which I think you have assumed about me. Though I am not sure where I stand on the state funding it.. haven't really thought about it.

I am deeply sorry if you have taken me as someone who is just hostile to women, I'm not, I just.. I don't trust people to actually spend money on their children, men or women. I am fine with the state helping people, and let me make this very clear, Who need help. Not people that have made a decision to do something to hinder themselves and get something from that hindrance. Someone who is raped, and impregnated from the rapist. Is not someone who chose that path. Someone who is wounded on the job did not choose that path. They both deserve support and help.

Someone who actively tries to get pregnant, without the ability to support herself, or her new child, DOES NOT DESERVE THE STATES HELP. I will not waver on that point. Ever.

The world has always made attempts to control a womens body. Pretending this isn't true accross the field including the US is in and of itself monstrous intent and it does make you hostile towards women and ignorant to the laws in the world around you and the push for abstonence only sex ed is a damned reality that you yourself are choosing to ignore as a choice.

And as I told you. Giving the child up for adoption does cause you to help the mother though instead of her raising the child it is the state. You are the one ignorant of reality not me.

The state helps anyone who puts a child up for adoption things you pay for. What the child does not get is there mother. The things you state are generally lacking a basis in reality.

It is you who should open your eyes. Countries deny women pro choice all the time including our own USA. Just because you support it does not make it a choice given to all women and shame on you for being ignorant to that while claiming we should leave women in that position in the dust.

Learn the world around you instead of assuming a woman who values the life of a child through not always optimal means os not wlrthy of our help instead of willfully choosing ignorance to the reality of the world around you.

What I am advocating is not control of women. I am advocating personal responsibility. If you are trying to say that women have the right to fuck whoever they want, have as many children as they want, and then demand that EVERYONE ELSE pay for their lifestyle then yea, fine, I am not on the side of women, that is a load of crap. I, and nobody else should have to pay for that, if you have a child, YOU pay for it.

Personal Responsibility =/= Control

Except in extreme cases of having the ability to account for yourself taken from you.

Edit - I will leave what I said, though I realize, everyone has the right to fuck whoever they please as long as they have consent, I meant it more for the childbearing part. Not the "You can't have sex with x individual"

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Trying to reclaim the title is like PC Elitist adopting the 'Master Race' title, sort of ignoring that the only people who referred to themselves as the "Master Race" usually have swastikas tattooed on their heads.

 

[Cecilo]

You literally just dismissed people's experiences because you don't relate to them. I'm sure you have seen people go from the bottom to the top. There's a good chance you've never talked to the people who can't make it anywhere near the top, and because of that you are denying their existence.

What I mean by how I treat people is when making an impression - IE, when meeting them for the first time, I don't care where they're from or their circumstance, I want to treat them with respect and dignity. Rich, poor, minority, grey-area sexual orientation, I want to earn their friendship and respect.

What demographic of person living in the Western World has 0% chance to control their own lives? Obviously no one has 0% control over their lives. A man in prison can still decide to do push-ups every day instead of just lying in bed. We're talking about people who have negligible opportunity to find success and happiness. I'm referring to the mentally ill, the homeless, and really anybody who lives under the poverty line. I'm talking about the woman working two jobs, getting up at 4 in the morning and getting home at midnight, just so she can pay rent and feed her kid. I'm talking about the man who has to sacrifice food for a week so he can afford to fix his car, because if he can't get to work he'll be fired, he won't be able to pay rent, and he'll quickly become homeless. Do you really think these kinds of people can move out of their situation just by "working harder?"

I'm a firm believer in 'don't have children if you're not in a position to support them'. Accidents happen, but reproducing is so easily avoidable that I find it hard to sympathize with people who beat their lives into poverty by inflicting dependants upon themselves. Adoption systems exist, and in the US, a person can hand an infant over to a fire station with no questions asked. Not much else I can say on that topic.

As for your second example, the answer is "Yes, but that's half the equation."
'pay rent' is the problem I'm seeing here. I know people who've lived in their cars, slept under their desks or otherwise chosen to be homeless in order to save money, build capital and embark on investment or educating themselves.

I know a man who earned his carpentry apprenticeship building worker housing on railways, and chose to sleep at the railhouse rather than rent a place. After four years, around the same time he finished his education and started working for himself, he'd gathered enough money to put a deposit on a run-down house, which he then used his own skills to rebuild, then rented it out to someone else instead of living in. Two years later, another. One year later, another. The next house he bought, he actually moved into. Repeat ad infinitum.

Seven years of choosing to live without a home to work toward a plan for the future. Extremist sacrifice and skin-off-your-hands hard work. It's possible, it's doable, but for some reason people are so disillusioned that they don't see the opportunities and possibilities in front of them.

The manufacturing and construction sectors around the world are in desperate need of workers. The positions pay well, require basic training and have sprawling opportunity for advancement. Trades will *always* be in demand, and offer on-the-job training. No student debts, and an income while you learn.

So don't tell me it's impossible when there is so fucking much opportunity for the intelligent, hard-working citizen. Sacrifice, relocation, reconsidering your options, realigning your goals...

I wanted to be a pilot. For reasons, that became impossible for me, so instead of slamming my head against the brick wall of the Everyone Else's Fault building on the corner of It's Too Hard street and But boulevard, I came up with a different plan. That also failed, so I came up with a third. Those 99% riots - stupid kids bitching about a lack of jobs in their 'chosen field'. Yeah, well, life doesn't work that way. Things don't go the way you've always dreamed, so you pull up your big-kid panties and go to plan B. (they... had a backup plan, right?)

I don't care if I sound privileged or objectivist. My mother, sister and I came from nothing after leaving my cheating dictator of a father, and ten years later I'm enjoying my own home with my fiancé.

And, a final note, your two examples don't exist here - New Zealand - because we have a stable welfare system in place to ensure people who need help can get it. The welfare office will even give that guy an interest-free loan to get his car unfucked so he can work. Our homeless rate is less than 1%. So you can check my entire country's privilege.

Being born in a country with an awesome, stable welfare system like New Zealand apparently has is actually a huge form of privilege. We don't really have the same thing in the US. They way you get safety nets like that is by being aware of the huge inequalities that exist, and addressing them (something I really wish our government would do).

We've gotten way way off topic, so I'll try to be brief. I want to zero in on one specific word in your post, which I think highlights my point: "Sacrifice." Sure, that woman could give up her child, but that's a pretty huge sacrifice, and one that a more well-off person wouldn't have to make. That's the whole concept of privilege in a nutshell; some people have to make far greater sacrifices than others, often for stupid reasons (race, gender, poverty, etc.), and it's good to be aware of that. Yes, life is unfair, but we are totally capable of making less unfair, and that's the first step.

So basically the people who work hard and earn a living should have to support someone that decided to make their life harder, without anything to fall back on, and no way to make money for themselves? No. No that is not how society should work. If someone gets injured for a reason beyond their control, THEY should be helped, if someone is stolen from, entire life savings, lives ruined THEY should be helped. Not some woman who decided to have a kid when she couldn't afford one.

What about women forced to have children because some assholes in the world still believe abstonence is a proper sex education, making contraception difficult or impossible to obtain based on age or type of contraception and anti abortion policies?

Oh I forgot. Silly me. People like you are fully willing to help that woman ignoring all the emotional strain hardships and adversity she may or may not have to endure because the entire world chooses to decide what she is or is not allowed to do with her body so often, and give her a hand so long as she puts the baby up for adoption. Then instead of helping the mother take care of the child, we pay the state to take care of her child in her stead! Because we can't let the now born child suffer without assistance after its been placed for adoption.

Oh you people and your supposed logics while simultaneously ignoring how the world around you actually works its things out and coming to such well thought out, well versed and so filled with logic concepts.

There is no way a woman could not be forced into this kind of situation and be placed in an emotionally impossible situation for you to ever comprehend, clearly people like your hypothetical woman would never be deserving of our support. Just the state so they can keep a child in "the system" until they outgrow said system.

Genius that.

Edit: This folks, by the way, this is real oppression. People who think woman so often have children they can't afford and are thus undeserving of our help. Rape culture isn't an issue, rape is illegal. Allowing men who raped a woman the ability to harass her for a lifetime if she got pregnant and chose to keep the child, thus he can shoot for custody and the ability to stay in the life of his victim, that's a damned issue that should be fought for.

But this? This social justice for games? A luxury product you have a choice in choosing to buy or not buy for entertainment purposes being called oppression? A need to be fixed? No the idea that a woman has a child she "knew" she couldn't afford existing as a mindset that people think is common as though men don't leave the women they knock up, as though jobs don't get lost. This people is oppression.

As with everything else, you are responsible for yourself. I am not responsible for you being ignorant of the world or the products there are in the world. If the young woman or girl has a child in high school or just out of high school I assume her parents are helping her, then it is taken care of.

But if you are an Adult. Saying "Well I was taught x, y, z" is no excuse for you to be ignorant of safe sex. None. If she is a victim of rape, I feel for her, I do. But I also assume a woman who was raped would give up the child, either through an abortion, or through the state. And I can understand that, and is one of the few times I would support the state taking care of the child. Because that wasn't her choice, it wasn't her decision, hell even in that I would support the mother taking care of the child. Though I would prefer welfare have greater oversight for people who are getting it through children (Though that comes from personal experience, of a shall we say very distant family member who gets welfare and spends it on things like Flat Screen TVs and luxury products, while barely taking care of her children).

Further, I am actually pro choice, not anti-abortion which I think you have assumed about me. Though I am not sure where I stand on the state funding it.. haven't really thought about it.

I am deeply sorry if you have taken me as someone who is just hostile to women, I'm not, I just.. I don't trust people to actually spend money on their children, men or women. I am fine with the state helping people, and let me make this very clear, Who need help. Not people that have made a decision to do something to hinder themselves and get something from that hindrance. Someone who is raped, and impregnated from the rapist. Is not someone who chose that path. Someone who is wounded on the job did not choose that path. They both deserve support and help.

Someone who actively tries to get pregnant, without the ability to support herself, or her new child, DOES NOT DESERVE THE STATES HELP. I will not waver on that point. Ever.

The world has always made attempts to control a womens body. Pretending this isn't true accross the field including the US is in and of itself monstrous intent and it does make you hostile towards women and ignorant to the laws in the world around you and the push for abstonence only sex ed is a damned reality that you yourself are choosing to ignore as a choice.

And as I told you. Giving the child up for adoption does cause you to help the mother though instead of her raising the child it is the state. You are the one ignorant of reality not me.

The state helps anyone who puts a child up for adoption things you pay for. What the child does not get is there mother. The things you state are generally lacking a basis in reality.

It is you who should open your eyes. Countries deny women pro choice all the time including our own USA. Just because you support it does not make it a choice given to all women and shame on you for being ignorant to that while claiming we should leave women in that position in the dust.

Learn the world around you instead of assuming a woman who values the life of a child through not always optimal means os not wlrthy of our help instead of willfully choosing ignorance to the reality of the world around you.

What I am advocating is not control of women. I am advocating personal responsibility. If you are trying to say that women have the right to fuck whoever they want, have as many children as they want, and then demand that EVERYONE ELSE pay for their lifestyle then yea, fine, I am not on the side of women, that is a load of crap. I, and nobody else should have to pay for that, if you have a child, YOU pay for it.

Personal Responsibility =/= Control

Except in extreme cases of having the ability to account for yourself taken from you.

Edit - I will leave what I said, though I realize, everyone has the right to fuck whoever they please as long as they have consent, I meant it more for the childbearing part. Not the "You can't have sex with x individual"

Understand then this then. Giving birth is not currently a freedom of choice more often then not.

Men can fuck whoever they want whenever they want with the consequences being essentially up to not picking up the phone. Our society requires woman in many areas to birth a child irrelevant of her choice. Making people responsible for their lifestyle while denying them the ability to avoid one of the largest problem is something we have done to people for mellinias.

And like I said. Placing them for adoption makes you and I automatically responsible. We, as a society, must give women as many potentials as possible. In regards to reproduction.

Except that attitude denies that the woman had any choice in it. With the exception of rape, and I will happily say that the VAST Majority of births are not the product of rape, the woman has to choose to have unprotected sex with the man who was the father of the child. Yes the father also made the same choice, but you have to give consent to have sex. If you are unwilling to take care of your body, unwilling to, do the basic research as to what happens when you have sex, unwilling to research or even know basic biology. Then it is not mine, or yours or anyone's responsibility to take care of the child. Especially with the large amount of ways to deal with potential children, Morning After Pills, Preventative measures, all of which an adult should have looked into before having sex, and after that, if you have done the searching any adult should have done, and BOTH adults agree to have a child. Then and only then should you agree to either have unprotected sex, or sex without preventative measures, or.. I guess post-measures(?).

 

[Malty Milk Whistle]

I'm afraid there's no way you're going to reclaim the title SJW after the wackos at tubmlr defecating upon it,

Here's a few examples at the looniest bits from tumblr

http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction

To be fair to Tumblr, not only is it not a hivemind, but also for every one of those posts there's about a lot more people calling them out on their BS from tumblr itself.

Also, as a straight white male from an affluent family, my best friends are a semi-impoverished Irish girl (who's a staunch advocate of feminism) who's had enough sexual abuse directed at her that it's somewhat understandable if she goes all radical on me, and another affluent white straight guy. We get on marvelously. I honestly think the whole SJW is horrible thing isn't about the movement, but the people it's made up of. It's entirely possible to be a strong believer in anything (one or two exceptions, of course) and still be a charming and person of enjoyable company. I bet that once you go into the real lives of most of these rabid tumblrinas, many of them are either widely disliked or just have very unhappy lives.

Iunno, just seems weird getting so heated up over so many little things.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Iunno, just seems weird getting so heated up over so many little things.

Not if you want to discredit social justice as a whole.

 

[SweetShark]

Then I am hope I don't belong to this category like them and I didn't realise it.
I mean, like many others I have my share of personal fetishes and I share them with all of you. However I don't want to annoy no one.
You know, I posted Thread Like "Sharkgirls Pics for a Game" and "Corruption of Champions" "Pocket Pussies Game" etc.
Just for fun ^^

No, you're fine. Fetishes and roleplay are pretty harmless and for the most part are quite fun. The thing about otherkin is that most of them seem to actually believe what they're saying about being part werewolf or what have you.

Ah, glad to hear that then from you.
But I would love to being an awesome shark
Sadly Logic and Real Life get in the way for becoming one.....

 

[SweetShark]

Btw, I get confused with the whole thing.
I am trying to get a general idea of the discussion, but I end up misguided...
How do we reach from Brain sharing werewolves to Men can f*ck everybody?
Maybe this is why the Werewolves can share their thoughts with us? Because we f*ck them?

Of course I am joking, I AM A SHARK SO I CAN'T F*CK A WEREWOLF, but seriously, a SJW person must be always the one defending the "taboo" ways of some people?
What if it is the opposite? If a SJW was a person trying to protect the sick opinion of a specific person [they think he/she is a sick person], should he/she call him/herself also a SJW person?