The FIRST Social Justice Warrior.
Posted on 04/09/2016 6:16:20 AM PDT by rktman
As we watch our nation becoming more and more divided, one troubling trend is accelerating with amazing speed: the increase in “-ist” accusations.
If you’re white, you’re automatically a racist. If you’re a man, you’re automatically sexist. If you’re a boss, you’re automatically an oppressive capitalist. If you live in Idaho, you’re automatically a white supremacist (trust me on this). And on and on it goes. Judgmental. Hater. Intolerant. Phobic. Did I miss anything?
Accusations of “-ist” became widespread because they were so effective. Ever try to engage a liberal in conversation? The moment – the moment! – you say something they don’t like, the accusations start. “Hater!”
How do you argue against that? Most people immediately move into defensive mode, sputtering denials the other party soaks up like water, causing their baseless accusations to bloom and flourish. “Hater! Racist pig! Sexist jerk!” And on and on it goes.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
rktman, when did this “social justice warrior” thing start???
That is such a ridiculous so-called title...
One of the reasons for Trump’s popularity.
He has led the charge against comment from the snowflake SJW’s.
Or you can respond to them with my old stand-by:
F**k you, you @$$40l3!
If the want more, I’ll ask them if they are willing to bleed for their cause.
But get enough snowflakes all at once and you have an avalanche.
Not sure who started that ridiculous title but I’ve seen it used in quite a few writings. What an absurdity but I guess it makes “them” “feel” better in their fight for equality. Or something. Rule #1——LIFE AIN’T FAIR! As I’ve said, these ungrateful snots should be kissing the ground every frickin’ day for being in the U.S. They have no clue what goes on in the “real” world.
Every time I see the term “social justice warrior”, I see that picture of “pajama boy” in my mind...LOL
LOL...Very well put.....
It started in the 1840’s in Italy with a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli.
In the US, it began in the early 20th century with progressive lawyers, Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound.
“In the US, it began in the early 20th century with progressive lawyers, Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound.”
Actually it may have started about 1890 with John Dewey.
Their Only Weapon
A correspondent on Lawrence Auster’s site,
commenting on republican Arkansas Governor Huckabee’s feeling that racism is fueling the anti-immigration sentiment, wrote:
“All he has to do is stand up there, give one inane comment after another and use the word that puts trembling in the hearts of the American people and shut them down. Racist.”
A cartoon I saw recently showed a Mexican-flag-waving illegal snarling at a white man, saying something like “Let me into your prosperous country, you damned racist xenophobe.” It captured perfectly the dynamic involved in the immigration debate: people who have no leverage other than guilt are using it to control us.
What are they going to do the day that white people stop running from that word, “racist”?
I have begun, among my white friends, to acknowledge that I am a racist. I say, “If by racist, you mean that I think there are actual differences, genetic differences, between racial groups that have real consequences, then yes I am a racist. If you mean that I feel more of an affinity for people of my ethnic group, that I feel more comfortable and at home with them, then yes I am a racist. If you mean I put the interests of my people, my ethnic group, ahead of the interests of others just as I put my family’s interests over others, then yes I am a racist. But if by “racist” you mean someone who believes in genocide or slavery or hatred or oppression of other ethnic groups, then no, I am not a racist.”
I sense that many white people have had enough of being bullied with the “racist” label. But there are two ways of handling that accusation. One is to claim that you’re not actually a racist. This is the approach most whites take right now, but it hands all of the power over to the non-white person, who can then act as judge and jury on the evidence to decide whether the white person is a racist or not. The other approach is to say, “yeah, I’m a racist; so what?” There is no answer to that. If you prefer your own people and put their interests ahead of others’ without engaging in hatred or violence, what’s it to them?
Perhaps the non-whites and liberals are flinging the “racist” accusation with such vehemence because they sense that the white majority is losing patience. Their one tool, their one way of controlling white people, is losing its efficacy, so they ramp up the volume and the bitterness to try to keep the upper hand. Their worst nightmare is that white people stop flinching at the word because that will be the day that anti-whites (both non-whites and whites who scorn whiteness) lose their only weapon.
But while we need to assert that we, like every other healthy people on earth, are indeed “racists”, what we want to avoid this time is letting the pendulum swing back the other way into hatred. We don’t want another Hitler. We don’t want burning crosses. We don’t want oppression and injustice. We just want to assert our right to survive as a distinct people and to separate ourselves physically and politically from those who threaten our safety, prosperity, and unique identity.
The term “racism” was invented by communists. Leon Trotsky was one of the first to use it. When whites engage in favoritism toward other whites (and therefore discrimination against non-whites), it’s called “racism”. When other groups engage in favoritism, it’s called “ethnic solidarity”. When you buy into these word games, it’s called being a useful idiot.
Racist is an interesting word, after all who are the real racists? A person that loves their race, is proud of all it’s accomplishments, wants to live with their own kind and preserve their heritage. Or is a racist someone that is trying to destroy someones heritage through diversity, multiculturalism and race mixing?
The multicult condemns genocide as the ultimate crime while at the same time actively engineering the immigration-genocide of the entire white population of the planet.
“Most people immediately move into defensive mode”
My response is always: I am following the teachings of the QURAN AND ISLAM on Homosexuality and Womens Rights, Why DO YOU HATE MUSLIMS AND ISLAM??
Liberals always fall back to ad hominem attacks because they don't have a real argument for their positions, and they know it. Well, some of them do, anyway.
Another tactic is always changing the subject, so "the point" is a moving target.
Sums up the best response I’ve seen.
“Rule #1——LIFE AIN’T FAIR!”
Rule #2 - The World Doesn’t Owe You A Living
You could be right.
The FIRST Social Justice Warrior.
***************
Its hard to win at anything when you're always on defense. And that is exactly where these people want us to be so that they can use their tactics of intimidation and shaming. They expect their crazy rhetoric and accusations will triumph over reason.
The best ways to deal with their self-righteous verbal assault is to go on offense, preferably with a little mocking humor that points out their hypocrisy, absurdities, and mean spiritedness. Liberals are ideologues who take themselves seriously and therefore have a very hard time dealing with their radical ideas being belittled by humor and witty sarcasm. They don't like being laughed at or being the butt of jokes and will generally leave the scene rather than risk continued humiliation.
Facts don't matter to liberals so you can't rely on them to convince anyone. They will only attack you from a different angle in an attempt to avoid addressing inconvenient facts. Best to ridicule their naïve obsessions and ALWAYS stay on offense.
If they attack you, call THEM racist. Over and over. Don't let up.
Ask them open ended questions like "Why do you hate black people?" or. "Why do you hate women?"
Do all of the above. Do it aggressively and repeatedly.
Do NOT cite facts, statistics, history or try to use logic or your superior debate skills. DON'T cite the effing Constitution or the Bible. You'll lose.
Only attack. Hard.
I've tried it. It works.
I have been doing that for quite some time now. Done correctly it completely disarms the SJWs who will be completely unprepared for this kind of rhetorical jujitsu.
But really, engaging dishonest people in conversation at all is a losing game. It’s all risk and no reward. They simply need to be defeated, full stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.