Do you think police shoot more black people than white people?
Do you think SJWs consider the potential side effects of their approach?
E.g:
- Establishing diversity quotas causing resentment amongst others that "they were only hired because of diversity" even if they made it there on their own without a quota or special treatment?
- Making women, and minorities feel like the system is always against them and they will not succeed so they should not try.
Thanks for replying! I was actually hoping that you would ask some more general questions,
because I would consider these examples edge-cases, and for me to talk in any useful way about them I would have to do a lot of research (the first link alone has a LOT of background).
But briefly: I thought Joyent was being melodramatic, even if I consider Noordhuis' reactions to be a bit petty.
Its always convenient to consider a change trivial when it only has benificial effects for others.
I don't know if black people are shot more than white people, the thing that most people care about is that the police seems to be a lot more agressive when it comes to black people, even when unwaranted.
Lots of "SJWs" think about side effects, the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet.
People like to pretend that the world has been taken over by PC-culture but the large majority on the internet still firmly hates Sjw's.
This means that they don't really consider the internet a place for "policy"-discussion, but at best as a tool to spread the message.
(Ps, none of this may have been worded very clearly or convincingly, English isn't my first language)
Its so rare to engage in a level discussion with a SJW. My experience is mostly reading stuff on Medium. Then there are the protests at college campuses on YouTube. But its easy to get trapped in a filter bubble on YouTube. You click on one video and then you are endlessly served recommendations.
It comes across as very naive a lot of the time, and its hard to find a video from a knowledgeable spokesperson. What I am always looking for is something where someone acknowledges the arguments against what they are doing and logically refutes them - but I don't think I have ever read anything like that. I think its because people believe they are morally justified and therefore criticism is invalid. It is not about utilitarianism, but that there is a duty to act regardless of the consequences or side effects. I think it is an interesting phenomenon and a very dangerous ideology. Safe spaces probably the most dangerous - where it becomes okay to never have your ideas challenged. I only wish this Trump backlash can bring them back to the table of reason, and allow themselves to be challenged.
> the reason that the conversations that they are having on twitter and reddit aren't more nuanced/allowing for "but"s etc. is that you are fighting an uphill battle with that kind of stuff on the internet.
