Why's classism the only ism SJWs don't take seriously?

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

azulmagia

PureCocainePureCocaine

azulmagia

HMS Thunder Child

azulmagia

Roih Uvet

Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously?

Because it's a form of bourgeois liberal moralism, that's why.

How do you define SJW, then?

rolleyes

I just did.

That's what you think of when you say that.
It's not what everyone hears though, you feel me? Words are powerful, man.

Well, if you want more clarification, obviously I don't think most SJW types self-identify as bourgeois liberals, it's what they wind up becoming, willy-nilly.

To be honest, I have had that much first-hand exposure to SJWs, yet I already find them to be totally insufferable. I also think social injustice is in no danger of going away as long as these pinheads are on the scene.

yeah, tumblr is not an acceptable method for social change

more serious action is needed, and not by people intent on making a scene
only when glorious action is taken by the people will the masses be inspired by their deeds

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Roih Uvet

PureCocainePureCocaine

Roih Uvet

GSK Lives

Roih Uvet

Did you see that? It's the point, and it went right over your head. Yes, it might be so that a poor white has it every so slightly better than a poor black.

But the issue is, when you create a class disparity between people literally nothing else matters when measuring the degree of oppression, period.

Poor people have it worse than literally everyone else. Just stop trying to portray upper middle class white women getting whistled at by construction workers who can't afford dental coverage as being "oppressed" on the same level as those construction workers. They aren't.

"Microaggresions" aren't oppression. "Cultural appropriation" isn't oppression. Calling you a "tranny" on the Internet isn't oppression. Being asked if the clerk in that high end fashion boutique you can afford to shop at can help you find something because you're black isn't oppression. Seeing a woman's tits in a video game isn't oppression. Having beauty standards imposed on you isn't oppression. Being expected to keep up with your competition ("ableism") isn't oppression.

I would take all of those things if it meant I could live a life without having to choose between soul-crushing work or death. I would take all of those things if it meant I would never have to choose between medicine, rent, and food. I would take all of those things if it meant never worrying that I won't be hired for a job I'm qualified because the effects of my poverty have made me look ugly (which they do). I would take all of those things if it meant never having to deal with a vermin (rats, roaches, bedbugs, etc) infestation.

I would actually choose being a black, male-to-female transgender lesbian born into the upper middle class where my parents will pay my way through life and I'll be set up with a great job regardless of my merits over being a poor white man that has to prove himself worthy of living almost constantly any ******** day of the week, easily.

And I'd still gladly trade you, if only to shut people up and have them quit accusing me of being handed everything because of my sexuality or gender.

What can I say? You appear to have a strong pride motivation.

Meanwhile, I just want to get some s**t down and to see my life improved upon incrementally.

Don't knock Gunny for being proud of herself, that's my goonie right there.

Actually, I never held an ounce of resentment for Gunny.

Cool. That's what's up.

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

MuzzieMuzz

It is easier to point fingers at others instead of taking responsibility and ownership of your own faults. The representative force of SJWs have shown time and time again that taking ownership of their own movements short falls is not something they do.

A lot of those of us sitting here debating right now have the chance to do so because of the luxury of the Internet - Many do not have this. That we have this tool is a privilege.

However, to admit that being able to sit around and debate is a privilege means that we can and are taking part in class-ism. Which means "we are part of the problem."

For people who are blindly following the rhetoric of the SJWs, this admittance of fault and participation is something unfathomable. They are not "part of the problem", they deem themselves as "part of the solution."

To admit fault means they first have to recognize their faults, which even those who are not SJWs fail to do often.

Why? Because no one likes to admit the uncomfortable fact that they can be wrong.

I often find it annoying when people knock the ignorant masses for not being able to pay for internet to find out the truth of the wisdom they seek of.

[PureCocainePureCocaine]

Project 429

If you need the -ism, you'll use the -ism.

If you don't need the -ism, you won't use the -ism.

I see a bunch of people who on their public face are fracturing under the stress of their own existence. I see these people arguing with each other about how society should shift to serve them and I finally understand why they are so butthurt.

Why kind of troglodyte needs an -ism, anyway?

So, what do you think? Burn it all?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

Roih Uvet

Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously? They spend hours discussing bullshit non-issues like video games having tits or someone calling them a f*****t on the internet when there are people out there dealing with a lack of funds such that they can't pay for food, medicine, and rent, and therefore have to forsake one of them. Given the frequency they discuss how problematic it is that a man sexually harassed her by saying hello to her or oppressed their entire race by asking if they need help finding something compared to issues of poverty, it leads one to the conclusion that they find these issues to be the real ones, unlike the significantly pettier issues of having no way to obtain food or shelter after an eviction or being denied a job because your teeth are in bad condition.

Why is this?

Simple - its not the case. You just made up some wackiness so you had something to discuss I think.

[MuzzieMuzz]

PureCocainePureCocaine

MuzzieMuzz

It is easier to point fingers at others instead of taking responsibility and ownership of your own faults. The representative force of SJWs have shown time and time again that taking ownership of their own movements short falls is not something they do.

A lot of those of us sitting here debating right now have the chance to do so because of the luxury of the Internet - Many do not have this. That we have this tool is a privilege.

However, to admit that being able to sit around and debate is a privilege means that we can and are taking part in class-ism. Which means "we are part of the problem."

For people who are blindly following the rhetoric of the SJWs, this admittance of fault and participation is something unfathomable. They are not "part of the problem", they deem themselves as "part of the solution."

To admit fault means they first have to recognize their faults, which even those who are not SJWs fail to do often.

Why? Because no one likes to admit the uncomfortable fact that they can be wrong.

I often find it annoying when people knock the ignorant masses for not being able to pay for internet to find out the truth of the wisdom they seek of.

That's not what I was implying or saying at all; I'm saying the Internet is a privilege that many of us take for granted, with many simply over looking the enormous advantage it gives those who have access to it. SJWs seem to take this innate privilege and ignore it completely, therefore not taking ownership of their own privileges.

[SirPuzzle]

Roih Uvet

Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously? They spend hours discussing bullshit non-issues like video games having tits or someone calling them a f*****t on the internet when there are people out there dealing with a lack of funds such that they can't pay for food, medicine, and rent, and therefore have to forsake one of them. Given the frequency they discuss how problematic it is that a man sexually harassed her by saying hello to her or oppressed their entire race by asking if they need help finding something compared to issues of poverty, it leads one to the conclusion that they find these issues to be the real ones, unlike the significantly pettier issues of having no way to obtain food or shelter after an eviction or being denied a job because your teeth are in bad condition.

Why is this?

I'm just speculating of course but I think these are the reasons:

1. They want to feel cool/unique and well nowadays it's fashionable to tell everyone just how much of a victim you are.

2. Because learning about class issues is directly tied to economics. And well learning about economics isn't easy (unless you're a libertarian and believe in Austrian economics BS. But I don't consider Austrian economics real economics). You have to do crazy things like actually read a textbook, actually have some knowledge and competence in lower level math (algebra, calculus, basic stats), and actually learn about a very technical field with lots of jargon you have to remember. You also have to actually solve problems too eek

I may get some flack from science majors on this but learning economics in college is very similar to learning a scientific field. The structure is the same, it's a very technical field and it's all centered around math (by the way I'm not an econ major just to let everyone know. So I'm not tooting my own horn here).

Point is that learning economics is not as easy as learning sociology or some other non-serious field where the rigor is at a bare minimum and quite frankly the course is just focused around bullshit philosophizing where people can pull things out of their a**.

It's easy to complain about sociology "issues" like women's depiction in video games because you don't have to actually have any knowledge to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. You can just yell about how offended you are, and then to make yourself seem intelligent to people who agree with you just throw in a few words like "patriarchy".

Whereas when it comes to economics having a serious discussion actually requires the person to have not just knowledge of economics itself (which requires mathematical training that scares liberal arts people), but also the person has to actually have a lot of background knowledge.

Bottom line is complaining about serious issues like class actually takes hard work to have a decent opinion, whereas with sociology/SJW issues you don't have to put any work in it at all to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. There's a reason why so many people major in these liberal arts because the level of rigor in these fields is laughable.

[zuzehhx]

Valid point, I wish there was more discourse about classism.

But I tend not to hang around SJW types since all the constant arguing leads to a ******** headache, so the ******** do I know what they spend their time talking about.

I assume it's because many are middle class, also.

[Rob the Crowing]

Yoshpet

Because classism affects all of us, and having to admit that white men can be oppressed would be the literal end of the world to them.

Indeed. Appalachia is one of the poorest regions in the nation...and primarily white. Yet it is more socially acceptable to call people of that region 'white trash' than to call blacks or Latinos from the inner city 'ghetto people' or 'hoodlums' or what have you.

[drenchlaka]

Because feminism is hugely based on classism from within.

But be kind to women.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

SirPuzzle

Roih Uvet

Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously? They spend hours discussing bullshit non-issues like video games having tits or someone calling them a f*****t on the internet when there are people out there dealing with a lack of funds such that they can't pay for food, medicine, and rent, and therefore have to forsake one of them. Given the frequency they discuss how problematic it is that a man sexually harassed her by saying hello to her or oppressed their entire race by asking if they need help finding something compared to issues of poverty, it leads one to the conclusion that they find these issues to be the real ones, unlike the significantly pettier issues of having no way to obtain food or shelter after an eviction or being denied a job because your teeth are in bad condition.

Why is this?

I'm just speculating of course but I think these are the reasons:

1. They want to feel cool/unique and well nowadays it's fashionable to tell everyone just how much of a victim you are.

2. Because learning about class issues is directly tied to economics. And well learning about economics isn't easy (unless you're a libertarian and believe in Austrian economics BS. But I don't consider Austrian economics real economics). You have to do crazy things like actually read a textbook, actually have some knowledge and competence in lower level math (algebra, calculus, basic stats), and actually learn about a very technical field with lots of jargon you have to remember. You also have to actually solve problems too eek

I may get some flack from science majors on this but learning economics in college is very similar to learning a scientific field. The structure is the same, it's a very technical field and it's all centered around math (by the way I'm not an econ major just to let everyone know. So I'm not tooting my own horn here).

Point is that learning economics is not as easy as learning sociology or some other non-serious field where the rigor is at a bare minimum and quite frankly the course is just focused around bullshit philosophizing where people can pull things out of their a**.

It's easy to complain about sociology "issues" like women's depiction in video games because you don't have to actually have any knowledge to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. You can just yell about how offended you are, and then to make yourself seem intelligent to people who agree with you just throw in a few words like "patriarchy".

Whereas when it comes to economics having a serious discussion actually requires the person to have not just knowledge of economics itself (which requires mathematical training that scares liberal arts people), but also the person has to actually have a lot of background knowledge.

Bottom line is complaining about serious issues like class actually takes hard work to have a decent opinion, whereas with sociology/SJW issues you don't have to put any work in it at all to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. There's a reason why so many people major in these liberal arts because the level of rigor in these fields is laughable.

No...

The actual reason is that understanding the presence of classism is nothing more than knowledge about the issue. To actually resolve the issue requires a change in society, in economic organisation, rather than merely pointing out people are opposed and suggesting it should be different.

Some SJWs are worried about classism (there are others who are, of course, not), in that they understand it and wish for a world without it, but this is never enough to actually resolve the problem. Economic inequality requires more than simply teaching people about oppression and removing a specific culture (e.g. "gay people are immoral" ) which cause others to discriminate against groups. Resolving classism requires knowledge and action is excess of merely identifying oppression and saying we ought to resolve it. It needs more. It needs people to be motivated to act in specific ways. It needs a specific distribution of resources and the framework for achieving that.

This really has nothing to do with a liberal arts/economic split. Economists are equally unable to provide a solution to this problem, for mere economic theories and measurements do not equate to resolving classism either. Like the sociologist, their area of knowledge is only part of the picture. Can it be useful? Yes. Just as the sociologist's knowledge of oppression can assist in pointing inequality to be fixed, knowledge of how the economy works is important to forming a framework to create a society which mitigates or removes classism. But it can't do it on its own (and we have to be very careful about which economic position we are tlaking, as it is common for some economic position to either ignore or oppose efforts to address classism- e.g. modern day economic rationalism and "trickle down" theory) .

[kirbyazn]

As an "SJW" I acknowledge my privilege and take classism VERY seriously. What an ignorant assumption by the OP to even suggest something like that. Maybe some reading about texts and essays on something other than Gaia would help you understand why this is so ******** stupid.

The audacity of you kids.

[kirbyazn]

The Willow Of Darkness

SirPuzzle

Roih Uvet

Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously? They spend hours discussing bullshit non-issues like video games having tits or someone calling them a f*****t on the internet when there are people out there dealing with a lack of funds such that they can't pay for food, medicine, and rent, and therefore have to forsake one of them. Given the frequency they discuss how problematic it is that a man sexually harassed her by saying hello to her or oppressed their entire race by asking if they need help finding something compared to issues of poverty, it leads one to the conclusion that they find these issues to be the real ones, unlike the significantly pettier issues of having no way to obtain food or shelter after an eviction or being denied a job because your teeth are in bad condition.

Why is this?

I'm just speculating of course but I think these are the reasons:

1. They want to feel cool/unique and well nowadays it's fashionable to tell everyone just how much of a victim you are.

2. Because learning about class issues is directly tied to economics. And well learning about economics isn't easy (unless you're a libertarian and believe in Austrian economics BS. But I don't consider Austrian economics real economics). You have to do crazy things like actually read a textbook, actually have some knowledge and competence in lower level math (algebra, calculus, basic stats), and actually learn about a very technical field with lots of jargon you have to remember. You also have to actually solve problems too eek

I may get some flack from science majors on this but learning economics in college is very similar to learning a scientific field. The structure is the same, it's a very technical field and it's all centered around math (by the way I'm not an econ major just to let everyone know. So I'm not tooting my own horn here).

Point is that learning economics is not as easy as learning sociology or some other non-serious field where the rigor is at a bare minimum and quite frankly the course is just focused around bullshit philosophizing where people can pull things out of their a**.

It's easy to complain about sociology "issues" like women's depiction in video games because you don't have to actually have any knowledge to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. You can just yell about how offended you are, and then to make yourself seem intelligent to people who agree with you just throw in a few words like "patriarchy".

Whereas when it comes to economics having a serious discussion actually requires the person to have not just knowledge of economics itself (which requires mathematical training that scares liberal arts people), but also the person has to actually have a lot of background knowledge.

Bottom line is complaining about serious issues like class actually takes hard work to have a decent opinion, whereas with sociology/SJW issues you don't have to put any work in it at all to have an opinion and have people take you seriously. There's a reason why so many people major in these liberal arts because the level of rigor in these fields is laughable.

No...

The actual reason is that understanding the presence of classism is nothing more than knowledge about the issue. To actually resolve the issue requires a change in society, in economic organisation, rather than merely pointing out people are opposed and suggesting it should be different.

Some SJWs are worried about classism (there are others who are, of course, not), in that they understand it and wish for a world without it, but this is never enough to actually resolve the problem. Economic inequality requires more than simply teaching people about oppression and removing a specific culture (e.g. "gay people are immoral" ) which cause others to discriminate against groups. Resolving classism requires knowledge and action is excess of merely identifying oppression and saying we ought to resolve it. It needs more. It needs people to be motivated to act in specific ways. It needs a specific distribution of resources and the framework for achieving that.

This really has nothing to do with a liberal arts/economic split. Economists are equally unable to provide a solution to this problem, for mere economic theories and measurements do not equate to resolving classism either. Like the sociologist, their area of knowledge is only part of the picture. Can it be useful? Yes. Just as the sociologist's knowledge of oppression can assist in pointing inequality to be fixed, knowledge of how the economy works is important to forming a framework to create a society which mitigates or removes classism. But it can't do it on its own (and we have to be very careful about which economic position we are tlaking, as it is common for some economic position to either ignore or oppose efforts to address classism- e.g. modern day economic rationalism and "trickle down" theory) .

Thank you for you intelligent, honest response. I was literally so offended for a second.

[Lucky Svenn]

I thought Fat Acceptance-ism was the one not being taken seriously.

Social Justice, not even ONCE.

[Disc Horse Enthusiast]

>Why is classism the only -ism SJWs don't seem to take terribly seriously?
Because you're evidently paying attention to the (sadly far too large) portion of people who care about SJ stuff while inexplicably thinking that capitalism is anything but abusive and exploitative.
>They spend hours discussing bullshit non-issues
Oppression doesn't magically become inconsequential as soon as you don't experience it.
>video games having tits
So misogyny in media isn't a problem?
>someone calling them a f*****t on the internet
Same goes for homophobia. How is that not worth attacking?
>there are people out there dealing with a lack of funds such that they can't pay for food, medicine, and rent, and therefore have to forsake one of them
And that's somehow... entirely unrelated to other oppressions? Classism doesn't exist in a vacuum, separate from misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, and other such things.

I'm not going to dignify the rest of your whining with a response, because it's pretty clear that you... literally don't care about any issue that isn't classism against white cishet men.