Was quite left leaning, but have slowly been turned off by the left.

[JohnBrown1917]

SJWs are the left equivalent of the religious right. They are left authoritarians that use social issues as a means to gain control of others. It's most definitely not meaningless.

It was already covered under the whole authoritarian part.
But no, they don't exist in politics.

[Machismo]

Yeah, that is an example of a model that I think is actually revealing. I think it does a much better job of predicting people's positions on emergent issues than the right-left model or the economic/social compass model.

It also has the virtue of not having connotative labeling of positions to the same extent that people associate "authoritarian" with being bad.

- - - Updated - - -


Hell, I've seen a crowd change their opinion on Jim Comey in the matter of about 45 seconds when they're told by Colbert what they're supposed to cheer and boo (this clip). It really lays bare how much of politics is "boo outgroup boo!".

Didn't the other side do the exact same thing?

Politics is mostly about groupthink, which is basically just mass ignorance. People whip themselves into a frenzy, and rarely stop to think about how they got there. The same people who loved Comey when he ruined Hillary, have supported Trump firing him when it was politically convenient. Ignorance and hypocrisy are not monopolized by either of the main political parties, both are guilty as hell.

- - - Updated - - -

Fiscally conservative, as it has more to do with taxes and spending than anything else.

Conservatives in the US want more than just lower taxes and reduced welfare. They also want some ridiculous things to control your life, like an abortion ban (which would raise welfare), immigration ban (aka preventing people legally allowed to be here from crossing the border), bans on gay marriage etc.

A friend put it aptly, Democrats want your money, and Republicans want to control you. So you don't want Democrats to touch your money, and you don't want Republicans to touch your laws.

I may steal that last quote. That sums it up rather perfectly.

[Pua]

SJWs are the left equivalent of the religious right. They are left authoritarians that use social issues as a means to gain control of others. It's most definitely not meaningless.

I'm not suggesting that the people you're describing don't exist, or that their influence isn't felt, because that wouldn't be true.

Rather, I'm talking about the term "SJW" being meaningless because it's practically only ever used on the Internet, and as a pejorative. Supporting social justice (as in, the reduction of inequality or better access to social mobility) is a valid and reasonable stance; arguably the only valid and reasonable stance. The people you're describing are an unfortunate conglomerate of deeply contradictory individuals that do nobody any good.

They are as despised by those on the left as those on the right.

[Macaquerie]

SJWs are the left equivalent of the religious right. They are left authoritarians that use social issues as a means to gain control of others. It's most definitely not meaningless.

For all practical purposes, using the term "SJW" says alot more about the political affiliation of the speaker than it does of the supposed target. Also, I don't really buy the PC police as being that much of a threat, given how decidedly politically incorrect most public discourse is these days.

And this is honestly why I have a hard time taking many modern conservatives seriously. The traditional societies they wish to resurrect had many more restrictions on what people could say and do than anything modern people could cook up. Unwarranted nostalgia for a world that never existed is not a valid basis on which to base your political beliefs.

[antelope591]

I don't even care about their social stances that much. The reason I could never be a part of the right wing these days, is because literally all of their economic policies cater only to the 1%. Of course all the plebs, especially in the States think that they'll eventually be a part of that 1% so they have no issue with this. But for those of us who usually take the brunt of the tax cuts for them its not a very convenient arrangement.

[Spectral]

Didn't the other side do the exact same thing?

Politics is mostly about groupthink, which is basically just mass ignorance. People whip themselves into a frenzy, and rarely stop to think about how they got there. The same people who loved Comey when he ruined Hillary, have supported Trump firing him when it was politically convenient. Ignorance and hypocrisy are not monopolized by either of the main political parties, both are guilty as hell.

Yeah, Comey in general has been a hilarious Rorschach test in which Democrats and Republicans have alternated and shown not even the slightest shred of integrity about the matter.

[Machismo]

Yeah, Comey in general has been a hilarious Rorschach test in which Democrats and Republicans have alternated and shown not even the slightest shred of integrity about the matter.

I thought Comey should have been fired long ago. He's the real-life version of a referee who gets too involved in the game. On that note, the timing in which he was fired showed that the justification for his firing was complete bullshit.

[Karrotlord]

It was already covered under the whole authoritarian part.
But no, they don't exist in politics.

I guess they are. It just marks them as a specific brand of authoritarian. And I was more responding to the meaningless part, not where they actually fall on the spectrum.

I'm not suggesting that the people you're describing don't exist, or that their influence isn't felt, because that wouldn't be true.

Rather, I'm talking about the term "SJW" being meaningless because it's practically only ever used on the Internet, and as a pejorative. Supporting social justice (as in, the reduction of inequality or better access to social mobility) is a valid and reasonable stance; arguably the only valid and reasonable stance. The people you're describing are an unfortunate conglomerate of deeply contradictory individuals that do nobody any good.

They are as despised by those on the left as those on the right.

I agree mostly, I just don't mind using pejoratives on people I find abhorrent on either side of the spectrum. Not that it helps discourse, but good luck having discourse with zealots anyway.

For all practical purposes, using the term "SJW" says alot more about the political affiliation of the speaker than it does of the supposed target. Also, I don't really buy the PC police as being that much of a threat, given how decidedly politically incorrect most public discourse is these days.

And this is honestly why I have a hard time taking many modern conservatives seriously. The traditional societies they wish to resurrect had many more restrictions on what people could say and do than anything modern people could cook up. Unwarranted nostalgia for a world that never existed is not a valid basis on which to base your political beliefs.

That depends on the context in which it's used. There are appropriate targets for it, as said above those people do exist. It's just that conservatives have co-opted it and use it as a catch all for anyone on the left. The same way the left is now doing with the term Alt-right. I'm still not entirely sure what that means, but again it seems to be used a a blanket term for anyone on the right.

And like the OP, just because I'm disillusioned with the left, that doesn't make me a conservative. If that's what you were implying.

[Macaquerie]

That depends on the context in which it's used. There are appropriate targets for it, as said above those people do exist. It's just that conservatives have co-opted it and use it as a catch all for anyone on the left. The same way the left is now doing with the term Alt-right. I'm still not entirely sure what that means, but again it seems to be used a a blanket term for anyone on the right.

And like the OP, just because I'm disillusioned with the left, that doesn't make me a conservative. If that's what you were implying.

Well, it's sort of a historical pattern that views once considered to be radical become part of the accepted dogma, and are in turn denounced as regressive and backwards. Sometimes this is a product of evolving standards of morality across society, but other times it's just a product of crab bucket mentality you find among leftists, who love to label each other as sellouts and collaborators to establish their revolutionary bona fides.

I think that many of the more conventional liberals who focus more on economic issues tend to see movements like feminism and LGBT rights as being the latter of these, a blip on the radar that will eventually subside. However, the persistence and longevity of these movements are a sign that, like it or not, this brand of identity politics is here to stay, and that it is inconceivable that people will simply ditch these ideas and return to New Deal era economic liberalism.

I personally dislike identity politics, but I recognize that many people do put a lot of weight on these labels and spend much of their lives trying to right the wrongs, whether real or imagined, done to their group. Simply demanding that they drop all this and behave as individuals is not feasible, and certainly many of the people making this demand adhere to some form of identity politics themselves which makes it come off as inherently hypocritical.

[Dekkers]

That's what happens when you grow up.
Libtards convert to normal people.

[Deleted]

No OP, my policy preferences have not changed. On the other hand, I live in a country with multiple parties, so if I don't like one, I can pick another. It's not as if "if I don't like one bad luck, you can only vote for the opposite side because the other votes don't matter" like in the USA.

[Boricha]

I identified as republican as a young kid because that's what my parents were, and I just wanted what they wanted. Ever since I took interest in politics and world history around 17/18 I've been very leftist and dissatisfied by both the repub and democratic parties. That's the only time I've ever swung my stances.

[Powerogue]

Grow as an independent and make decisions based on policy rather than identifying with a side. The more people we have doing that, the more chance we have of ever fixing the state the country is in.

[JohnBrown1917]

Grow as an independent and make decisions based on policy rather than identifying with a side. The more people we have doing that, the more chance we have of ever fixing the state the country is in.

The first problem is having 'sides' in the first place.

[oxymoronic]

No OP, my policy preferences have not changed. On the other hand, I live in a country with multiple parties, so if I don't like one, I can pick another. It's not as if "if I don't like one bad luck, you can only vote for the opposite side because the other votes don't matter" like in the USA.

uhh you live in a country that is ruled by germany.

- - - Updated - - -

I identified as republican as a young kid because that's what my parents were, and I just wanted what they wanted. Ever since I took interest in politics and world history around 17/18 I've been very leftist and dissatisfied by both the repub and democratic parties. That's the only time I've ever swung my stances.

sounds par for the course, took a class and a teacher taught me how to be a liberal. what in particular changed your mind?

[JohnBrown1917]

uhh you live in a country that is ruled by germany.

The things you people believe.

[Baelic]

There's such a thing as social left, fiscal right

[Captain N]

There's such a thing as social left, fiscal right

I'll take things the current Republican Party represents neither of for $500, Alex.

[Pua]

I agree mostly, I just don't mind using pejoratives on people I find abhorrent on either side of the spectrum. Not that it helps discourse, but good luck having discourse with zealots anyway.

It's fair enough.

I, personally, find certain "things" abhorrent, rather than people - people are usually the product of their environments when it comes to certain issues, and it's more the environments that I take issue with.

[baskev]

In what way? I'm Scottish, so you might be right, but dismissing an entire post without a sliver of explanation is both pointless, and rude.



The "extreme right" is well catered for by the authoritarian description. Amusingly, they can be economically to the left or the right.

"SJW" (assuming you mean "social justice warrior") is a meaningless pejorative, almost exclusively used on Internet communication vehicles.

Yeah...authoritatian is very close to extreme right.....but they are not a perfect fit

And yes i mean Social justice warrior....I agree with it being a useless pejorative ( for the most part). But calling them liberals is a injustice and not correct. Left extremist would be better.