User talk:Aneris/SJWMedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Top Lel[edit]
This article is quite a good kek. It's like a secular conservapedia article, right here on RW. --Trinity (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is to SJW. After all, everyone not subscribing to postmodernist/critcal race theory nonsense is not left wing to people who subscribe to this. That's all known. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 18:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow[edit]
This article is awesome. I'm sure the Social Justice Warriors / Regressive Left / the Faction are quaking in their jackboots with every edit you make. Shine on you crazy diamond. Typhoon (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- We should play 'tragicomically unreliable sources bingo'. I've already spotted Reason, knowyourmeme and The Federalist today. Brietbart is, of course, the free square. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wait, I don't get extra bingo fields for all the other sources from NYT to Atlantic? I'm dismayed as you are that your favourite source hasn't produced an article for inclusion yet. Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have "SJW" as a macro on your keyboard, yet? It may make your ceaseless (and banal) of the term to describe anyone and anything that disagrees with your "social libertarian" perspective easier. The term is already lazy enough, but making it a single button push could make life slightly easier for you.Petey Plane (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I repurposed F5. But I agree. The term is often applied carelessly, and it's not a good term. However, claiming there was no such thing is simply postmodernism 2.o — they also tried to weasel around the fact that some ideology existed at the time. The weaseling continued for several years, until a hoax and wider discussion finally exposed the fraud and led to a "science war". Of course, people have complained about my overuse of "postmodernism", too, or reject any other alternative term. This strikes me a typical postmodernist language game, and is well in line with the origins of many a jargon and idea. After all, ideas from CRT, standpoint theory etc. are noticable, as is other jargon, e.g. safe spaces, trigger warnings, privilege, prejudice plus power and so forth. That's all unique hogwash that highly correlates with one another. The discourse tactics are also always the same. I know this, since I discovered part of that on my own, and then later to my surprise found it echoed by many others, even by scholars (there's a wave of books and material in the works). So however you twist and turn it, there is "something". By claiming there was literally "nothing", the critics expose themselves as not worth taking seriously. Instead of playing the denialists, they could offer alternative explanations and proponents could name themselves. But as everyone knows, SJWs are a particular anti-intellectual brand who make themselves known with smearing, blocking and banning and everything else that is around discourse. And if they enter a discussion, they are most keen on what's called the prerogative of interpretation.
- Besides, I don't subscribe to libertarianism at all. Everyone seems to think something else under it, and the term is strongly associated with Austrian school and paleo-libertarianism. I'm more of a boring "green-tinted social democrat". I intensely dislike authoritarianism, as in so-called right-wing authoritarianism
, which is actually more of a mindset and somewhat misnamed (to me SJWs fit this profile perfectly). ~ Aneris ✻ 21:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Besides, I don't subscribe to libertarianism at all. Everyone seems to think something else under it, and the term is strongly associated with Austrian school and paleo-libertarianism. I'm more of a boring "green-tinted social democrat". I intensely dislike authoritarianism, as in so-called right-wing authoritarianism
- I repurposed F5. But I agree. The term is often applied carelessly, and it's not a good term. However, claiming there was no such thing is simply postmodernism 2.o — they also tried to weasel around the fact that some ideology existed at the time. The weaseling continued for several years, until a hoax and wider discussion finally exposed the fraud and led to a "science war". Of course, people have complained about my overuse of "postmodernism", too, or reject any other alternative term. This strikes me a typical postmodernist language game, and is well in line with the origins of many a jargon and idea. After all, ideas from CRT, standpoint theory etc. are noticable, as is other jargon, e.g. safe spaces, trigger warnings, privilege, prejudice plus power and so forth. That's all unique hogwash that highly correlates with one another. The discourse tactics are also always the same. I know this, since I discovered part of that on my own, and then later to my surprise found it echoed by many others, even by scholars (there's a wave of books and material in the works). So however you twist and turn it, there is "something". By claiming there was literally "nothing", the critics expose themselves as not worth taking seriously. Instead of playing the denialists, they could offer alternative explanations and proponents could name themselves. But as everyone knows, SJWs are a particular anti-intellectual brand who make themselves known with smearing, blocking and banning and everything else that is around discourse. And if they enter a discussion, they are most keen on what's called the prerogative of interpretation.
- Do you have "SJW" as a macro on your keyboard, yet? It may make your ceaseless (and banal) of the term to describe anyone and anything that disagrees with your "social libertarian" perspective easier. The term is already lazy enough, but making it a single button push could make life slightly easier for you.Petey Plane (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, I don't get extra bingo fields for all the other sources from NYT to Atlantic? I'm dismayed as you are that your favourite source hasn't produced an article for inclusion yet. Aneris ✻ (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol[edit]
How dare someone note that you righties have been wining about liberal speech codes for literally longer than you've been alive! Hipocrite (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
- Fuck off Nazi Scum. (user ^ promoted anti-pluralist iliberal positions) Aneris ✻ (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
- What do these words even mean? You need to get your head out of the slymepit, sweatie.—Ryulong (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you meant 'sweetie', but, frankly, 'sweatie' is probably more apt. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is some humour to be had to just sit back and see all substanceless chatter and ado that is made around here, and to break out a mirror on occassion. It isn't the first activist project corrupted by nonsense. Have a sample from the RationalWiki: "(Social Justice) Basic concepts: Levels of analysis* is an excellent way of understanding how sociological forces create oppression and privilege", which* then leads to science article, which then alludes to things like Marr's or political science three level approaches. We learn in the SJ article: "From this ["levels of analysis"] viewpoint, society is separated into layers in order to effectively minimise inequality and maximise social justice". Other sample? "I thought we were against woo" (good point). I guess frauds here need such "theory" to justify banning such evil practices as Yoga. I'll record these things with delight and send them further, which I see as the same kind of "point out and laugh" as what sceptics used to do with Creationists and other frauds who try to appropriate, and corrupt science and rationality. Keep going. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Edit: It should say that I changed my views, I first tried to address this, which I knew wouldn't be easy. I now merely document. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I for one feel your SJWMedia essay is a very fine project for you. Indeed, I support that you spend all of your time here fleshing it out, refining, and exploring the many nuances and ramifications of the SJW corruption of rationality -- a phenomenon that, so sadly, has taken over this wiki. You are nowhere near finished and should toil on it extensively and exclusively until it is complete. Carry on.---Mona- (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Err. No. There are these things called bookmarks and other tools. Usually, SJs (such as yourself) are totally invested in this. I typically either mock it, or try to be productive about it. You are just the latest variety of loon with the added complication that faux liberals are infected by it, too. Same game, different opponents. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I'm completely invested in this. My day is incomplete unless you have added to this essay. Whatever you do: DO NOT STOP.---Mona- (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Carry on? I heard a fairly good horn cover of that Kansas song the other day. WalkerWalkerWalker 17:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I for one feel your SJWMedia essay is a very fine project for you. Indeed, I support that you spend all of your time here fleshing it out, refining, and exploring the many nuances and ramifications of the SJW corruption of rationality -- a phenomenon that, so sadly, has taken over this wiki. You are nowhere near finished and should toil on it extensively and exclusively until it is complete. Carry on.---Mona- (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you meant 'sweetie', but, frankly, 'sweatie' is probably more apt. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- What do these words even mean? You need to get your head out of the slymepit, sweatie.—Ryulong (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Horns are a wonderful instrument, you mean this one. Like it. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)