The following an attempt to educate, not attack. It has taken decades to reach these conclusions, with careful research and time spent on both ideological sides at various ages.
I have painstakingly attempted to not attack you, nor to equate the position of SJWs with your position. I am merely explaining why mindhunter correctly hates SJWs, which is necessary, because they have become a collective monster. Any use of "you" is proverbial in nature.
Note: I am not identifying anyone in this thread as an SJW, this is merely theoretical discussion.
SJWs have become a cancer to western society. I think we are closer to mass instability now than since the cold war thanks to the cultural divide emerging.
Let's look at your cited definition:
"promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3]"
It is "shameful" that these can be claimed "socially progressive views" for even a second:
Feminism - a sexist female supremacy movement. This is demonstrably true, as the only thing they lobby for is more gender-based benefits, only for them, enforced by a government gun for which they pay less taxes than men and receive more benefits than men (both inarguable facts).
It is further inarguable, at least in the US, that women receive:
- Far lighter penalties for the same crime
- Far more money from alimony and child support (which is almost non-existent for men)
- A presumption of custody in family court
- A presumption of innocence in rape and domestic violence crimes
- Title IX benefits which make women game-theoretically correct to hire for "diversity points" and harder to fire due to having more causes of suing for discrimination and sexual harassment
- Immunity to the draft - this is huge. They are immune to being forced at gunpoint to go die in the mud for someone else's politics or money. Perhaps the biggest one on this list.
- Many other benefits enforced by the state via military force that men do not.
If you attempt to find similar state-enforced benefits in men's favor, you will find relatively none. I have tried, and I have seen what I cite above first-hand in court.
If we changed the gender on everything they did and made it a men's group, we'd be screaming it was the literal KKK. Honestly, minus the lynchings (I am not making light of this), it wouldn't look that far from it, either.
Women will tell us this more stridently even than I will. That's why only 23% of women now will accept the label of feminist, and most of the rest find it toxic. That's because these women can mostly see that feminism has become destructive and that they have already won.
Civil Rights - a vague, virtue signalling term that needs citations. This is no different or better than the Nazis saying they were for "worker's rights". It's some vague PR bullshit.
Spoiler alert: If we look, we'll find no real causes of suffering that SJWs have ever contributed any noteworthy progress to. Jonas Salk alone contributed 100x more to humanity than the entire SJW movement, which mostly just spawns crap like AntiFa and riots at colleges like Evergreen. I just haven't seen too many SJWs at Habitat for Humanity recently.
Multiculturalism - How can we even prove this is positive? We're going to have a near impossible time, given there are 10-15 countries being absolutely destroyed by it right now in Europe. What if we look at Sweden? Or the no-go zones in France? Or the constant terror attacks in the UK and elsewhere? We can't please everyone all the time, a fact "multi-culturalists" apparently never learned. That includes governments, laws, and social structures.
I personally like the fact that France is different from Zimbabwe which is different from Thailand, but apparently SJWs want to forcibly homogenize every last cultural identity and society until humanity is one indistinguishable gray blob. You may think I'm exaggerating, but there's an SJW feminist in the WTO in New Zealand who wants to make it illegal for women not to work or be stay-at-home moms, because she doesn't think women are making enough yet (despite the gender wage gap being a 100% fabricated lie that does not account for type of job or number of hours worked).
I guess they never learned about the necessity for diversity in systems to make them resilient to catastrophe.
Can we name a modern country better off after importing Islam, for example? I couldn't, because some cultures are just not compatible with modern civilization - like the "magical semen drinking-pedophiles of Papua New Guinea". A real thing. I'd suggest you google it, but I don't think you want that in your search history.
I'll save you the trouble - there's a tribe in PNG wherein all young boys (at least) are made to "drink the semen of all older men and elders via oral sex" to gain their "power". This isn't a one-time ritual, they are routinely sexually abused from very young ages (younger than teenage) for constant oral sex for these "elders". However, the SJWs want "their culture respected" because of "muh diversity and muh culture", so nobody has gone in and simply laid down the law on these sociopathic savages.
"identity politics"
A person can only think identity politics are a good thing if you they are naturally prone to stereotyping all people into groups.
(racist/sexist/misogynist/misandrist/misanthropic )
A "real SJW", (a thing you correctly noted once, and still does, exist, but no longer under that term) would strongly distance themselves from the term SJW as it stands today, much like most women have from feminism. They would not even acknowledge identity politics because they would be correctly blind to things like race, sex, and sexual orientation.
The closest term today might be a classical liberal.
If you think SJWs today give a damn about helping anyone but themselves, or virtue-signalling to each other, you've completely lost the plot I'm afraid. Look at what they do, not what they say. All they really do is complain, break stuff, and violate the rights of anyone they disagree with or brand "nazis/fascists". They also have an alarming penchant for communism in a way that's pretty amazing to see given the cultures and countries they are in.
Assuming you want to learn something, start with Sargon here:
I lack the energy to answer your long list of arguments. I disagree on most points, especially on feminism, although I agree that women are favoured in court in child custody cases. I have reached my opinions after careful analysis. I grant that these movements can sometimes go too far, but the opposing sides are way more toxic and unbalanced, in general. I watched the video. I agree that that debate was very unbalanced and illogical.
However, you can't judge a movement based on some fanatical representatives.
PS - The real reason you won't respond to this is not energy. It's cognitive dissonance.
"I disagree on most points"
And yet all the facts I cited are absolutely undisputed, even by feminists. You disagree, but can't argue with reason, so you hide behind handwaving. Your ego knows you will lose, and it wants to protect what it thinks about itself. Part of your identity is tied up in your opinions, because you are human.
When you ignore facts and handwave them away with excuses, you are admitting that you prefer to live in your bubble of cognitive dissonance than in the real world.
It's a much better place out here in reality than it looks at first, I promise.
If your opinions are based on anything real, they could have stood up to scrutiny instead of copping out.
You are still in Stage 2 - wanting to help with social problems, but are still deeply co-opted enough by identity politics that you don't even know what the social problems are.
To pre-empt the foaming reply I usually receive from this:
It's very simple. You have an opinion that flies in the face of all accepted fact. It's therefore demonstrably wrong, yet you not only cling to it, but refuse to even address the facts. Cognitive Dissonance, Mental Illness, or Deliberate Agent Provocateur are the only 3 explanations, and I see no evidence of #2 and #3.
You have not provided any evidence whatsoever for your claims, and your facts are mostly alternative facts. You give me a long rant, full of unfounded claims, calling them established facts. And claiming that I suffer from cognitive dissonance is pure crap.
I have no obligation to enter into a debate with you. I have a burn-out.
I could give you 50 cites for every claim made above, I literally see it in court on a monthly basis. But why would I bother when people's cognitive dissonance usually prevents them from even reading it?
Is the Huffington Post a feminist-friendly enough source for you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html
Maybe you'd prefer a real source, U Michigan Law (this is a "top-ranked" law school, fyi, notch down from Yale/Harvard/Stanford):
"PROF. STARR'S RESEARCH SHOWS LARGE UNEXPLAINED GENDER DISPARITIES IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES"
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
Those were literally the first two google results for "women get lighter sentences". I didn't exactly have to go digging. See what I mean about widely accepted facts?
"alternative facts"
Are those what you call facts you don't like? I don't have time to educate the willfully ignorant all day.
Educate yourself and become free from the cultural marxism overtaking the west today.
PS - Thank you for a civil reply. I, too, share your lack of time and energy. It is only because I value any mind willing to engage so highly that I bother to say things that I know will, in the short-term, only anger people in an attempt to educate them. I certainly see no benefit from it at all; in fact, these discussions cause me great anxiety.
I grant you the point, women get lighter sentences. That was only one of your points, not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the bigger picture. Your point does not prove that there is no discrimination of women,or that there is no patriarchy. Men are also discriminated against, no doubt. Just to a lesser extent.
"Your point does not prove that there is no discrimination of women"
I never argued this point. There is discrimination of everyone.
"there is no patriarchy"
You just granted the point that there is no patriarchy yourself, just now.
Patriarchy (noun) - "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it"
You just conceded that the government discriminates against men in favor of women.
You just conceded that you live in something closer to a matriarchy or gynocracy than a patriarchy.
I eagerly await your cited argument that women are systematically excluded from power when our last presidential candidate who was a "shoe-in" was a woman. Given women pay less taxes, receive more tax-paid benefits, lighter sentences, presumption of custody in family court, presumption of innocence in rape and domestic violence cases, Title IX protections, and many other matters of fact and common public record, you will find your position literally impossible to support.
Here's another bite-sized citation for you:
Yep, looks like men pay 2-3x as much for fewer services alright, and still get to be drafted for war.
Maybe it's that completely fake gender wage gap:
I did not grant the point that there is no patriarchy. I was talking about the feminist theory definition:Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.[37] It often includes any social, political, or economic mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[38]
What is the source of your graph?
I'm a man myself, but the oppression of women is very obvious to me, women are objectified, get lower wages(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap) , are subject to abuse in relations, etc. Please don't make me pull out a lot of statistics. I will, if you force me by denying facts.
Well, I appreciate the honest answer, but everyone one of those feminist points I cited is a fact. You can look them all up if you like.
It's not disputed by anyone that women get far lesser punishment for the same crime and presumption of innocence in various cases, these are matters of public record and police policy.
"I grant that these movements can sometimes go too far, but the opposing sides are way more toxic and unbalanced, in general."
I disagree, but I used to be fooled that this was the case, as you are now. Both sides have fanatics, but basically all feminists are now fanatics because they are pushing for more rights when they are already a protected and favored class. Again, this is a matter of public record, law, police policy, and fact. I'm not presenting any opinions here.
The toxicity you cite is like...4chan and idiots on the internet. They aren't part of any rational rebuttal to feminism. The toxicity I cite is now endemic and institutionalized from the top down.