CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
"I'm proud to fight for social justice and to protect the vulnerable from emotional harm"
I am "emotionally harmed" by the things social justice advocates say, will you please stop saying such things so that I will not be further "emotionally harmed"?
You can try to troll me all you want, I'm not going to take the bait with scum like you.
I know your intention here is to make me snap and to then film an angry left wing liberal and portray all SJW as angry fools but I am not going to take the bait and answer to your blatant bullshit.
There is simply no way that what I just said in the argument you replied to could have offended you.
No, I'm not trolling. I genuinely am "emotionally harmed" by the things social justice advocates say, where is my protection? Or is it only certain people that get protected?
Until you can explain how you have been discriminated against and bullied, I am going to assume you're going for the typical satiric mockery of the left-wing liberal movement and are playing a role to strawman their arguments.
Let me tell you what you should be doing instead of wasting your time trolling people on a noble cause. You should go through the life of someone who is rejected the ability to rent places because they are of a sexual orientation or transferring their gender. You should go through the life of someone who has been bullied every single week of their life to extents that would make most people kill themselves.
Until you understand just how deep and painful being bullied for who you are is, you and others on your side will keep mocking the level of offence that they take. I'm unsure whether most of your kind are sociopaths or intentionally sadistic psychopaths but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're sociopaths who just don't understand how painful it is to be bullied for who you are rather than the latter who are mocking intentionally to ensure they keep their bullying legal.
The answer to all your 3 points is 'yes' but the third point is not any lessened because we interact over the Internet. It's just it won't show on any documents with your name on it officially as I'm not your official psychiatrist.
Let's take note that being bullied for things you consciously decide is something you choose to take on with the decision but being bullied for what you can't help but be is something you didn't choose to take the burden of.
Let's take further note that you have had no emotional harm whatsoever and are simply imitating what you see as feigned pain in the victims but is actual very real despite your perception of their suffering.
I'm glad you don't think that emotional harm matters unless someone is being bullied, however I imagine that your definition of bullying is probably way too inclusive. It's also very interesting that emotional harm only matters to you if discrimination is involved, why is this?
"Let's take note that being bullied for things you consciously decide is something you choose to take on"
So being bullied for peeing your pants is as bad as being bullied for your race?
"Let's take further note that you have had no emotional harm whatsoever"
Really? Define emotional harm. I certainly have an adverse emotional reaction to the things that social justice advocates say.
Yes but being bullied for peeing your pants will usually last a week at max and nearly no one is going to disallow you to rent their place, work for them or be a customer to purchase their service/good due to one-time the peeing of your pants.
I would agree, however, that if you get a reputation for frequently peeing your pants at random (as in a real health issue of the bladder) you could begin to get discriminated against for health and safety reasons (or reasons like you making other customers or colleagues unhappy)... The issue here is that unlike race (which forcing someone to put foundation on their skin to change is very disgusting to do) asking someone who is clinically prone to peeing their pants to invest in teen/adult nappies is not the same thing. The reason the latter is not the same thing is that it's much less humiliating to wear a nappy than to constantly pee yourself so the victim adjusting to the bullying actually does fix the issue. The putting foundation on to hide your real race is EVEN MORE humiliating if not at the very least equally so than being treated badly for your race etc.
Do you comprehend how the same thing (bullying) can be totally different in demands for legal intervention based on what is being bullied and how much one can help it in a non-humiliating manner now?
Are you going to keep on this 'heee hee I'm a funny right-wing libertarian let's troll the SJW woooo' facade? Or, if it's not a facade, then can you at least fuck off and troll some other SJW because I will never take the bait and will calmly decimate your bullshit one point at a time until you surrender.
"Yes but being bullied for peeing your pants will usually last a week at max and nearly no one is going to disallow you to rent their place, work for them or be a customer to purchase their service/good due to one-time the peeing of your pants."
So it isn't about what people can "consciously decide". What matters to you is the actual severity of the bullying? By the way, we have affirmative action and most corporations have diversity targets.
"forcing someone to put foundation on their skin to change is very disgusting to do"
Obviously. Do you think that I think that people should change themselves physically to avoid bullying or something?
"Do you comprehend how the same thing (bullying) can be totally different in demands for legal intervention based on what is being bullied and how much one can help it in a non-humiliating manner now?"
No, regardless of the reason for the bullying, it is wrong and what makes it worse is the actual severity of the bullying, as you yourself seem to acknowledge in paragraph one.
"Are you going to keep on this 'heee hee I'm a funny right-wing libertarian let's troll the SJW woooo' facade?"
It's actually called the "Socratic method". Perhaps I was too adversarial in my first post, however I genuinely am "emotionally harmed" by the things that modern social justice advocates say. As such, if we are to legislate "emotional harm" as a criminal offense, they should be the first to bite the bullet.
Affirmative action is completely opposed by the right-wing libertarian movement and is solely a left-wing liberal cause. Your rebuttal shows how little you know the side you are jokingly supporting.
I'm done responding to your bullshit. I told you I'm not going to let you troll me and you keep trying so I'm simply not going to respond to your BS from this point on unless it has an ounce of brainpower put into it.
There are special snowflakes, and there are people like Martin Luther King Junior. They're both 'SJWs'. There's something wrong with SJW as a pejorative when it can be applied to the leader of the civil rights movement.
I think most of these angry far-right posters of the modern Libertarian movement are actually special snowflakes of their own kind.
Try to ask them to reason their opinions and they will bully you into shutting up, they are just more volatile and unattractive special snowflakes than the timid left-wing type.
Oh, definitely. There are special snowflakes of all sorts, even though the right love to use it as a label for someone on the left - they usually do it when they get triggered. Funny how that works, huh?
Come on my friend, the timid left wing? You mean like people who tear down centuries old statues because it hurts their fragile feelings. Or how about when a verdict does not go the lefts way and they riot and burn down cities, close off freeways, etc.
I take it you didn't notice that the conservatives did NOT riot when Kate Steinle's murderer walked.
It's a bit fucking hard to riot when the thing you'd riot about would oppose gun rights that you so passionately say everyone should be entitled to. :)
You don't understand the context of the statue(s) to which you are referring and are cherry-picking to paint a picture of the left wing liberals that is not fucking true.
The right wing society is poor enslaved by rich with judges bribed and juries blackmailed with corporate dominion.
You want proof? All African societies and most corrupt societies in South America and Asia revolved originally around free market capitalism and got disfigured by the rich running the nation to their corporate interests rather than the interests of the many.
I think it's REALLY going to depend on the situation. There was an instance where some lady blasted a child having a Japanese Tea Party birthday party. The little girl dressed in Geisha style and had a very cute Japanese theme but she was white and this random white stranger hauled off and blasted the parents for allowing "cultural misappropriation". It took an actual Japanese woman to tell her to stop talking on behalf of the Japanese and this representation was actually flattering.
I think in this instance it's not unfair to say that calling the accuser a SJW was meant as derogatory term and she did deserve it as she was trying to express views following a warped (in my mind) philosophy of a SJW. Much like Feminism has garnished a bad name for itself, the views started off as great, commendable even, but some louder people have taken it so far into extremism that it's tarnished both the names and the cause.
In ancient Japanese culture, it wasn't nearly as degrading to be a prostitute as it is in conservative-sided states of USA. In Japan, sex is a lot less sacred than it is to most Christian or Islamic based cultures and is literally an off-the-cuff thing to trade. It's so extreme that cheating was (not is anymore) a given thing for men to do to their wives.
If you think I'm making this up, research the concept of lying in Japanese culture. According to them, in their older times, lying was simply what men had to do to make their wives feel good. In Japan monogamy is based on efficient lying. The men lie about fidelity and how sexy their wives are, the wife lies about her body and her man's ability in bed and in general (will usually say he's a rank higher than he really is in his workplace to their friends etc).
I'm aware of some their culture. It's pretty fascinating, back before Confucianism took hold women held more or as much power as the males. They weren't forced to give their property to their husbands or take their husbands name, heck even prostitution was seen as a position of power. Afterwards when Confucianism took hold the woman's power was held only to the inside of their house and they couldn't speak to matters outside of their house.
I feel that if you're going to label yourself as something like an "SJW" (which has already been meticulously extremized), that you're asking for someone to come accuse you of such assumed views. I wouldn't stick to a term like that just because of aforementioned extremization. The main problem most see with the blanketed group is that they do more than just fight for equality, and sometimes go as far as discriminating a "privileged" race and gender. While I still somewhat do believe in the wage gap, I do not see the purpose of trying to further push your dominance when equality has already been achieved. Overall, I agree that saying someone is an "SJW" is a unjust way for someone to ignore your concerns, but sometimes not views.
I think "so called social justice warrior" would be better. Calling them social justice warriors gives them too much credibility... Like, you know, they actually represent what it is they call themselves. What if you are being very unjust while claiming to be about justice? What if they demand justice when justice is already there?
Whatever the case, for all you real deal "social justice warriors"....
"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me. Intelligent people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Stupid people talk about other people.
Instead of acting all butt hurt, liberals should remind right wingers that when they have NO answers, they hurl invectives.
Social Justice Warrior sounds comparable to Holy Roller or Gun Nut. The Left uses those, unapologetically, all the time. And in comparison, SJW isn't even all that bad.
Labels do spmetimes get applied unfairly. But like others have said, whether or not it is unfair depends on the context.
If the context of the term is 100% of the time negative and taunt-based then isn't the term itself so?
I mean this is not even hypocritical for the left to say as we support the idea that the term itself can be too offensive to be used in any context.
On the other hand, for the right-wing-lib movement to complain that we use a term to them is hypocritical as they say free speech that offends is alright (which is bullshit and is not how society works).
i wouldnt say so... doesnt it fit perfectly? most SJWs call themselves SJWs now days... so even they seem to think its pretty accurate, if it isnt... why?
