0
1

[–] gabrielmodesta 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As a child, I was quickly informed that 'life isn't fair' and that 'sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you'. Not everyone is taught these lessons anymore, despite the immutable practicality therein.

0
0

[–] PanRagon 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think Steve Hughes provides a good outlook and what's wrong with modern SJWism. There's nothing wrong with getting offended every now and then, it doesn't kill you.

0
0

[–] notthebatman [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yep, and while people shouldn't casually use intentionally offensive language we've reached the point where just trying to explain a politically incorrect stance without offending anybody is like stepping over glass. When enough people are trying hard to be offended anything you say can be taken as offense, and the free exchange of ideas dies.

Nobody has the right not to be offended, and saying "i'm offended" is not a refutation of any idea. It's whining that ignores the merits or flaws of the idea.

0
0

[–] EllenPaosSmellyCunt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I would just like to point out that you've expressed many severe biases in an attempt to host an open discussion about a particular issue. You dismiss any more right-wing stances on the issue right off the bat. If you want an honest discussion, you have to allow the expression of opinions and stances that you don't subscribe to on the outset. I'm prettttay sure that such bullshittery is exactly what brought many of us to voat to begin with. By dismissing certain stances in your opening, what you've done is opened a circle jerk. I know it is hard to allow for opinions you dislike, but it is necessary for a true and honest discussion.

0
1

[–] notthebatman [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I didn't dismiss any stance, I stated that the focus of my post was the group that exists on the political left playing victim politics. Choosing to focus on a single viewpoint doesn't mean I'm dismissing others and I'm not obligated to give every possible viewpoint on an issue to satisfy every possible reader. If you'd like to add to the discussion you're free to give an alternative view on the issue.

0
1

[–] bigmeanpoopiepants 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Actually OG has stated a political stance. It is your job to refute his statements if you disagree with them and want to be part of the discussion. waving the You're Wrong Wand of Vagueness really isn't participation.

0
0

[–] Dissident_Aggressor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's a good point, we can't forget about Christian victim politics and the neo-fascist "our nation is being betrayed from within" narratives that are prevalent in certain right-wing circles. By ignoring the conservative versions of this bullshit, we could fail to adequately address the power in politicizing victimhood.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] EllenPaosSmellyCunt 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It isn't "Capitalism" of any sort, but it is Socialist imagery. But it isn't Socialism, either. The appropriate term, I think, is "Fascism". Not the traditional Fascism, which calls itself such, but a new form of it, parading around under the veil "social justice" (while not traditional, it isn't novel, either. Fascism likes to call itself 'justice'). Victim politics, which deludes the people and ascribes the cause of society's ills to widespread discrimination, obfuscates the truth that these ills are a result of fascist policy (via the war on drugs, vast interventionism abroad, perpetual war, and mixed-economy). Remember, Capitalism is very principled in it's stance against economic intervention. Fascism, which can appear both capitalist and socialist, depending on the angle, relies heavily on economic intervention. The policies and regulations put in place to fight discrimination, help the poor, protect the common folk from the massive corporations, are all anti-capitalist. Things like the War on Drugs are both anti-capitalist (capitalism, an amoral stance, would embrace any market, including drugs), and anti-socialist (as socialism would never endorse a policy that almost exclusively serves to put poor people in cages). No matter whether the right or the left are in control, these fascist behaviors seem to persist. To me, it's indicative that there is a difference between what we are told our political leaders want to achieve, and what they actually move to achieve. Right or left, the political elite move to advance fascism, which would protect them and their families from any future hardship, at the expense of the massive populous. Think Hunger Games.

0
0

[–] notthebatman [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hit the character limit so had to wrap it up.The main thing i'd like people to take away from this post is that while SJW's warriors answer to discrimination is more discrimination, and while they do look for problems where there are none, institutionalized discrimination does still exist here in the US. The death of victim politics can't come soon enough but is only half of the victory. The other half is the elimination of the remaining bastions of systematic discrimination. Also remember that professional victims are narcissists who feed off attention, do not give it to them and they'll result to making up even more ridiculous and controversial problems.