Since I know better, I won't accuse you of not reading Medium articles where those things are the most meaningful things there are. But then that is the point you are making. Are the SJWs doing more harm than good?
Yep, another emphatic "yes" vote here. But for a very simple reason; these SJWs are absolutely uninterested in making things better. Not for black people or poor people or anybody. They're angry, unhappy people who want to normalise and justify that anger and unhappiness. Or they're grifters who make their money by stirring up the anger and unhappiness of their readers.
And the reason I make an accusation like this with such confidence is that they never, absolutely never, reflect the voices of the communities most in need of help. While black children are dying at the hands of black criminals in Chicago, they're writing about micro aggressions in Starbucks.
When a police officer saves the life of a black teenager by shooting a girl who was about to stab her, the fact that he saved that girl's life isn't even an afterthought in their coverage.
When black residents in Minneapolis ask for *greater* police presence on their streets, "activists" convince the city council to defund the police. In fact, BLM in general has been a net negative for protecting black lives. There is no topic in racial discourse that makes me angrier.
". . . they never, absolutely never, reflect the voices of the communities most in need of help." This. A thousand times this.
We all fundamentally understand the universal hierarchy of needs (e.g., Maslow) until we put on the blinders and listen to entitled people pontificate on any potential for microaggression.
No one seeking shelter security or food security is concerned with this because . . . 'survive first'. In a relative world with few absolutes and speaking in absolutes is a pervasive fallacy, I violate all that by claiming that no one in true need cares about SJWs and certainly do not identify with them . . . at all. Only entitled people seeking esteem and self-actualization care.
While SJW voices dominate, they crowd out the needy voices. They certainly are not seeking input from those in true need. This lack of representation of needs that crowds out needs is causing harm and so is a literal microaggression. SJWs, through crowding out actual needs are committing microaggressions against those needing the most help.
I would unhesitatingly and emphatically answer yes. I'm sure a lot of fence-sitters have been disgusted over to voting more conservatively, just for starters.
Chris, this comment you made was potentially subtle while mostly providing a link. Are you implying that an unprepared reader might take something wrong from the article? Are you also implying this for the first statement, that the shift to conservative voting is largely based on a lack of preparation but general dissatisfaction with those in power today? You put a tempting morsel out there without revealing yourself.
Yeah, I don't know your writing style to be able to follow you, especially since some irony might be implied(?) between movement toward conservatives yet potential rejection of a conservative-friendly article. Perhaps I will understand your communication style soon, given a little more exposure to it within this substack. Cheers.
"𝘔𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘴. 𝘚𝘬𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭. 𝘚𝘦𝘹𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭. 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘧𝘶𝘭."
Since I know better, I won't accuse you of not reading Medium articles where those things are the most meaningful things there are. But then that is the point you are making. Are the SJWs doing more harm than good?
"Are the SJWs doing more harm than good?"
Yep, another emphatic "yes" vote here. But for a very simple reason; these SJWs are absolutely uninterested in making things better. Not for black people or poor people or anybody. They're angry, unhappy people who want to normalise and justify that anger and unhappiness. Or they're grifters who make their money by stirring up the anger and unhappiness of their readers.
And the reason I make an accusation like this with such confidence is that they never, absolutely never, reflect the voices of the communities most in need of help. While black children are dying at the hands of black criminals in Chicago, they're writing about micro aggressions in Starbucks.
When a police officer saves the life of a black teenager by shooting a girl who was about to stab her, the fact that he saved that girl's life isn't even an afterthought in their coverage.
When black residents in Minneapolis ask for *greater* police presence on their streets, "activists" convince the city council to defund the police. In fact, BLM in general has been a net negative for protecting black lives. There is no topic in racial discourse that makes me angrier.
a
". . . they never, absolutely never, reflect the voices of the communities most in need of help." This. A thousand times this.
We all fundamentally understand the universal hierarchy of needs (e.g., Maslow) until we put on the blinders and listen to entitled people pontificate on any potential for microaggression.
No one seeking shelter security or food security is concerned with this because . . . 'survive first'. In a relative world with few absolutes and speaking in absolutes is a pervasive fallacy, I violate all that by claiming that no one in true need cares about SJWs and certainly do not identify with them . . . at all. Only entitled people seeking esteem and self-actualization care.
While SJW voices dominate, they crowd out the needy voices. They certainly are not seeking input from those in true need. This lack of representation of needs that crowds out needs is causing harm and so is a literal microaggression. SJWs, through crowding out actual needs are committing microaggressions against those needing the most help.
Charles Blow says Defund the Police is dead.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/31/opinion/defund-the-police.html
I would unhesitatingly and emphatically answer yes. I'm sure a lot of fence-sitters have been disgusted over to voting more conservatively, just for starters.
How would this affect the unprepared reader? https://medium.com/prismnpen/trans-reality-this-will-piss-you-off-5e45cad585ad
Chris, this comment you made was potentially subtle while mostly providing a link. Are you implying that an unprepared reader might take something wrong from the article? Are you also implying this for the first statement, that the shift to conservative voting is largely based on a lack of preparation but general dissatisfaction with those in power today? You put a tempting morsel out there without revealing yourself.
Image: flipping off the reader
Title: this will piss you off
I really felt I didn't need to add anything to that.
The article is mostly "don't expect miracles from the hormones" but I doubt many people got past the raw offense and read it.
Yeah, I don't know your writing style to be able to follow you, especially since some irony might be implied(?) between movement toward conservatives yet potential rejection of a conservative-friendly article. Perhaps I will understand your communication style soon, given a little more exposure to it within this substack. Cheers.