• Jerry Seinfeld: Political Correctness Will Destroy Comedy
    658 replies, posted
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47913608]but I can't think of where the dropoff is outside of how vocal one is about their beliefs.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure there [I]needs[/I] to be any hard line between the two as long as the speaker is clear about where the 'soft' line is. We see this a lot with political terms; there's no dividing line between a strong liberal and a socialist, and in an academic context that's fine because the label is less important than what it describes, but that still allows 'socialist' to be used as an accusation in political arguments. Describing anyone involved in social activism as an SJW is like describing anyone left-leaning as socialist, it's applying an extreme term to a broad majority precisely because there is no obvious separation. Yet it can still be recognized and dismissed for what it is, empty rhetoric, without needing objective distinctions between the groups that are getting conflated. I can't tell you where 'liberal' ends and 'socialist' begins, but I can still tell when someone is using 'socialist' essentially as a guilt-by-association slur.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47913608]The difference is using it as a quick way to insult someone and the other one is for argumentative purposes. That's like comparing calling someone a thug in a derogatory way and referring to thugs in the context of school safety.[/QUOTE] No, the problem is that you have "your own" definition for the expression.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47913653]No, the problem is that you have "your own" definition for the expression.[/QUOTE] Hey Ragekipz, do you think you could provide me an official definition and scope for the following terms? - SJW - Thug - Neglectful parent - Bad moderator - Wine snob - Shitposter If you can't, that's because some things are subjective when there aren't cemented definitions. Your interpretation and my interpretation of what a "wine snob" is could be totally different, and your idea of a "neglectful parent" and my interpretation could be totally different, etc. When you think of a thug, what do you think of? Probably isn't what I'm thinking of. And that's why I'm buying into the argument being made that definitions should be made first. There isn't an official definition of a SJW, so it's up to me to explain what I think a SJW is in order to make a cogent argument.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;47913709]Hey Ragekipz, do you think you could provide me an official definition and scope for the following terms? - SJW - Thug - Neglectful parent - Bad moderator - Wine snob - Shitposter If you can't, that's because some things are subjective when there aren't cemented definitions. Your interpretation and my interpretation of what a "wine snob" is could be totally different, and your idea of a "neglectful parent" and my interpretation could be totally different, etc. When you think of a thug, what do you think of? Probably isn't what I'm thinking of. And that's why I'm buying into the argument being made that definitions should be made first. There isn't an official definition of a SJW, so it's up to me to explain what I think a SJW is in order to make a cogent argument.[/QUOTE] To understand the definition of SJW you have to understand what is the Social Justice and what is the Warrior. The warrior is easy, it's someone that engages in social justice arguments. The social justice is actually a distorted notion of social justice. Instead of true Social Justice we end with something like "Equality for everyone! Except CIS WHITE MALE SCUM!". Of course the people that advocate for this kind of social justice is oblivious to their own biases. Or they're just hypocrites. It's a really simple concept, so are most of the other words you said. Except thug, which I don't really know the context, so I can't say.
except you just went through the effort to show us an example of a caricature
[QUOTE=Ownederd;47913822]except you just went through the effort to show us an example of a caricature[/QUOTE] No, this is a caricature [IMG]http://www.rooshv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/check-your-privilege.jpg[/IMG]
WHAT ABOUT UKIP EHHHH?
Make jokes about whatever the fuck you want and get called out if you actually have mal intent behind them. If you get people who you don't like agreeing with you as if you were serious (Dara O'Brien once got an fundamentalist Christian group thanking him for finding the link between homosexuality and paedophilia lol) then rethink how you tell it. It's all about showing that you don't believe in what you just said and that instead your ridiculing it; it's why people can make jokes about a group they're in because besides very rare cases they don't hold prejudice against their own group. EDIT: If I had to point to a comedian who I think genuinely promotes racist ideas IN MY OPINION it'd be Jeff Dunham mostly because his routines aren't particular well constructed and seem to depend on stereotypes without a sense of irony or some kind of punchlines. Especially with his routines about Muslims which a lot of people who dislike the Muslim people spout in an unironic sense.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47910571]This thread is now about videos filmed off of TV's of comedians who are way better at Seinfeld whose show was only good because of Larry David: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5gyFU3XSgY[/media][/QUOTE] It wasn't only good because of Larry.
[QUOTE=catbarf;47913648]I'm not sure there [I]needs[/I] to be any hard line between the two as long as the speaker is clear about where the 'soft' line is. We see this a lot with political terms; there's no dividing line between a strong liberal and a socialist, and in an academic context that's fine because the label is less important than what it describes, but that still allows 'socialist' to be used as an accusation in political arguments. Describing anyone involved in social activism as an SJW is like describing anyone left-leaning as socialist, it's applying an extreme term to a broad majority precisely because there is no obvious separation. Yet it can still be recognized and dismissed for what it is, empty rhetoric, without needing objective distinctions between the groups that are getting conflated. I can't tell you where 'liberal' ends and 'socialist' begins, but I can still tell when someone is using 'socialist' essentially as a guilt-by-association slur.[/QUOTE] Personally, I think the most important aspect isn't how loud or extreme their views are, but the way their philosophy invariably leads to a complete lack of self-criticism that tolerates any sort of behavior as long as someone appears to be "punching up."
[video=youtube;knIroVvPZU4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knIroVvPZU4[/video]
Why does it matter whether or not if 'SJW' has an exact definition? I can call someone left wing, right wing, communist, feminist-- all being words used to describe someone with a particular set of beliefs. [QUOTE=Kinglah Crab;47908679]haha yeah dude did you catch that episode of south park last week? [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Half the report page is your shitposting" - Craptasket))[/highlight][/QUOTE] One down, just a few more to go.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47916292]Why does it matter whether or not if 'SJW' has an exact definition? I can call someone left wing, right wing, communist, feminist-- all being words used to describe someone with a particular set of beliefs. One down, just a few more to go.[/QUOTE] It doesn't, but they just want to push the idea that it "doesn't exist"
like it's been said time and time again: very few people sans fringe groups identify as 'sjw' (or even actually carry demeaning and hurtful views). who cares about what they do? 'communist' or 'liberal' political views have been around since forever if you're gonna make this kind of side-by-side comparison - and have made long-lasting consequences, both negative and positive
[QUOTE=Ownederd;47916335]like it's been said time and time again: very few people sans fringe groups identify as 'sjw' (or even actually carry demeaning and hurtful views). who cares about what they do? 'communist' or 'liberal' political views have been around since forever if you're gonna make this kind of side-by-side comparison - and have made long-lasting consequences, both negative and positive[/QUOTE] It's not SJW that identify themselves as SJW, it's us that identify them as SJW. People rarely identify themselves with a pejorative term.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47916292] One down, just a few more to go.[/QUOTE] He was the only one actually shitposting in this thread, everyone else has been handling things fairly civilly. You can't just have everyone who disagrees with you banned
Another comedian's standpoint on censorship through political correctness [video=youtube;fwMukKqx-Os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os[/video] Takes him a while to get to the point, but tl;dr: silencing people out of fear that someone might get offended, is a worse act than saying something people might not like. Learn to take a joke, and if you don't think it's funny, either discuss it or ignore it. Don't tell people they don't have the right to say something; it's manipulative.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47916292]Why does it matter whether or not if 'SJW' has an exact definition?[/QUOTE] Because if you're afraid that a certain group of people is coming for your freedom of expression but can't describe what that group actually is you may as well be afraid of your own shadow.
[QUOTE=Monkah;47916292]Why does it matter whether or not if 'SJW' has an exact definition? I can call someone left wing, right wing, communist, feminist-- all being words used to describe someone with a particular set of beliefs. One down, just a few more to go.[/QUOTE] The difference is that all of those groups use those labels on themselves but nobody says "Yeah I'm an SJW", and because those are names of political movements, whereas SJW is a just derogatory term A better comparison would be calling someone a liberal nutjob. Is the set of beliefs of a "liberal nutjob" really that particular? I've seen statements that range from "these liberal nutjobs think abortions should be legal" to "these liberal nutjobs think males are all inherently evil", and both of those things could be referring to very different people, it depends entirely on who's using the term or on what situation, which is why it's a problem for it to be such an unspecified label It's not a term that's used to confront "SJWs" directly. It's a petty insult for people who [I]disagree[/I] with them to use among themselves to discredit people that don't share their views
I've seen SJW used on reddit to describe people who believe the holocaust happened
[QUOTE=Steve Harvey;47916318]It doesn't, but they just want to push the idea that it "doesn't exist"[/QUOTE] Make up you're own word, define it as a set group of people who you individually identify as engaging in certain behaviors you find toxic. And it will still be tossed aside as you trying to pin the blame on some "boogeyman". Seems pointless so I'll stick with SJW. Reminds me of when people were trying to get gg to drop the hashtag because it was invalidated by a shitty minority while simultaneously shrugging off any hyper extremist "killallmen" feminist as not part of their own group. Surprise, neither are representative of their wholes. Throwing the term feminazi or sjw or mra or redpiller is a shitty argument in itself, but if the person is losing an argument and ignoring evidence against their point, it's probably best to just call them out on that, as being an idiot.
Its a stereotype/blanket statement. It really shouldn't be used because its so overused.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47916797]I've seen SJW used on reddit to describe people who believe the holocaust happened[/QUOTE] I've seen "rapist" used to describe people who believe in sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation, and I've seen "misogynist" used to describe people who believe in equal by law If you're going to go the semantic route we can do this all day, the fact is you're either legitimately unaware that there exists an insane, extremist element attempting to steer society toward padded corners in which case I feel sorry for you, or you sympathize with them and downplay it.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;47916633]It's not SJW that identify themselves as SJW, it's us that identify them as SJW. People rarely identify themselves with a pejorative term.[/QUOTE] I knew people who proudly self-identified as "SJW" back in 2012. The term began with them, they just seem to have stopped using it to describe themselves for whatever reason.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47916797]I've seen SJW used on reddit to describe people who believe the holocaust happened[/QUOTE] I was called a racist for telling a romani person to move his horse-cart off the road so I can move my car. What does that have to do with anything, almost nothing, but so does your post. People say stupid shit all the time everywhere you look.
[QUOTE=s0beit;47916988]I've seen "rapist" used to describe people who believe in sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation, and I've seen "misogynist" used to describe people who believe in equal by law If you're going to go the semantic route we can do this all day, the fact is you're either legitimately unaware that there exists an insane, extremist element attempting to steer society toward padded corners in which case I feel sorry for you, or you sympathize with them and downplay it.[/QUOTE] Except those words have an actual meaning and those are examples of people misusing them There's no definition for SJW so you're basically free to call anyone you disagree with one
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47917098]Except those words have an actual meaning and those are examples of people misusing them There's no definition for SJW so you're basically free to call anyone you disagree with one[/QUOTE] Well there's two ways to go here, either SJW is gaining it's meaning or those other terms are losing theirs.
[QUOTE=s0beit;47917168]Well there's two ways to go here, either SJW is gaining it's meaning or those other terms are losing theirs.[/QUOTE] Not really, no, because while "rapist" is almost never used against prudes, SJW is still being used against tons of people with widely different views
[QUOTE=Monkah;47916292]Why does it matter whether or not if 'SJW' has an exact definition? I can call someone left wing, right wing, communist, feminist-- all being words used to describe someone with a particular set of beliefs.[/QUOTE] It doesn't need an exact definition, but people here shout the label 'SJW' the way diehard Republicans shout the label 'Marxist' or 'socialist' or 'fascist'. If you want to argue that fascists are destroying American freedoms, it behooves you to explain what definition of fascist you're using, because if you seem to be labeling to anyone who wants economic reform a 'fascist' you shouldn't be surprised if you catch shit for your overly broad and clearly pejorative definition that is essentially relying on guilt by association. And besides, as I said on the last page 'SJW' seems to almost always be used in the form of a [url=http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/]motte and bailey[/url] argument: [QUOTE=s0beit;47916988]the fact is you're either legitimately unaware that there exists an insane, extremist element attempting to steer society toward padded corners in which case I feel sorry for you, or you sympathize with them and downplay it.[/QUOTE] Do you see what just happened there? S0beit just defined 'SJW' as 'an insane, extremist element attempting to steer society toward padded corners'. He's framing it in a way such that [i]of course[/i] no reasonable person would deny that there are some crazy people with crazy ideas out there. But the core theme of this thread's circlejerk isn't that there are some crazy people out there, it's that there is this pervasive, organized effort by large numbers of people, mostly college students, to shape American discourse. The unspoken definition of SJW that's been used for most of the thread seems to be little more than 'socially-minded activist college students', but when challenged on the idea that those people are destroying free speech, Facepunchers give a more reasonable, unassailable, specific definition- and one which also happens to not support the argument that these SJWs are legion and they're ruining everything, because now the definition no longer applies to the people it was being levied against. These words do not necessarily need concrete definitions. Everything about language is essentially colloquial and contextual. But if you're going to make an argument around a word that has no 'official' definition, you should make it clear what definition you're using for the sake of both clarity and intellectual honesty.
[QUOTE=s0beit;47916988]I've seen "rapist" used to describe people who believe in sex in the missionary position for the purpose of procreation, and I've seen "misogynist" used to describe people who believe in equal by law If you're going to go the semantic route we can do this all day, the fact is you're either legitimately unaware that there exists an insane, extremist element attempting to steer society toward padded corners in which case I feel sorry for you, or you sympathize with them and downplay it.[/QUOTE] My point is that SJW means something different to everyone
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.