Gay Agenda's next target: Frozen 2

Well, I think we actually have a productive thread with compromise among people of dissenting opinions.

Frozen 2: Elsa Dykes out - rated PG-13

Why are gays boycotting Dairy Queen Frozen desserts? Is the term Dairy Queen a microaggression?

here we go wrote:

So is there a lesbian couple in the new Finding Dory movie?

If so, it's very subtle so as to not offend anyone.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2016/05/30/does-finding-dory-depict-pixars-first-lesbian-couple/85163270/

Instead of starting a new thread about the new Finding Dory movie and this issue, I returned to this thread yesterday and mentioned it on page 7.

Well, that was certainly useless.

Ironically, around here when I see bigots they tend to look more like you than they do your description. I'm not saying bigots of this stripe don't exist, but in the Midwest, your type of bigotry is more prevalent.

thejeff wrote:

If non-human animals can reason, read, and invent the internet, then you are right, I am behind on my science. If non-human animals delay gratification then yes, I am behind on my science.

You think that we have the same mental and psychological capacities as non-human animals? Come on, man. I used to consider you a bleeding heart liberal. Now, I am starting to consider you a bored troll.

All creatures have some traits that others don't. That's part of what we use to define one species from another. Your post would suggest, at least in part, we became human when we conjured up written language and then later invented the internet. This is rather absurd. Were the millions of people who ever existed without a written word, or the internet, somehow not human?

Animals can indeed reason.

Unique traits and qualities don't delineate ourselves from 'the animals'. We are animals. People are no more separate from the animals than a cheetah is because it can hit 60+mph.

Why do people like you continually reduce gay people to a single physical sex act?

Wrong.

"Moral majority"? There's nothing moral about denying a group of perfectly good people there most basic sense of self respect and human dignity. Courage takes many forms. The simple act of coming out of the closet, even today, is an act of courage, knowing full well that a large proportion of the community still see me as perverted, disgusting, immoral, amoral, mentally deficient, unbalanced, threatening, sick, and, as you've just illustrated, nothing more than a sex act.

The fact that even some gay people grow up in such a world and end up OK is remarkable.

What is a Social Justice Warrior?

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

Part 1

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies.

SJW’s do not view all humans as equal

Using a “privilege” hierarchy, SJW’s calculate the worth of a human being based on perceived injustices or wrongs that group has suffered since the time of ancestral man, using selective and narrow interpretations of history. SJW’s elevate groups that they believe have received the least amount of “privilege” in the past, and then use internet activism in the form of mobs and community purges to target those who are determined to have greater amounts of privilege. The idea of privilege is so essential to SJW ideology that a common debate tactic they use is to say “check your privilege,” which roughly translates to, “you must immediately halt or change your speech because your ancestors may or may not have done bad things to women or minority races.”

For example, if a notable white American male makes a joke about a lesbian black woman who practices Islam, SJW’s will coordinate using a combination of blogs, Youtube, and social networking to dox him (publish his personal information, including where he works). They will then pressure the man’s company by flooding it with calls and messages with the goal to remove his source of income while engaging in a mass reporting campaign to get his online accounts suspended.

Their ultimate goal is to silence all speech that they don’t like and which they find offensive while also punishing the speech offender by removing his source of income. As they grow in power, the acceptable range of speech that would trigger an SJW witch hunt is becoming more narrow, and those who are high up on the privilege hierarchy (white men) have to speak through a careful filter if they don’t want to be subject to an SJW attack.

They believe consensus is more important than objectivity

SJW’s do not believe in objectivity. Instead, speech and ideas must be viewed relatively depending on the source and its intended audience. The feeling of the statement must also be taken into account, which can be affected by current news, cultural moods, and pop trends.

For example let’s consider the statement “Asian people are nerds.” If a famous white man uttered this phrase on Twitter after a major Japanese earthquake, a punitive SJW witch hunt may be triggered, but if a popular gay black female Youtuber said the exact same statement, no action would be taken. The reason is because the black woman is low in the SJW privilege hierarchy and therefore has a greater range of free speech that she could give before triggering a witch hunt. The white man, who is at the top of the privilege hierarchy, has no leeway to make a joke about any race since he is not in a protected SJW class. He would be decried as racist and a bigot, in spite of the fact that a statement like “Asian people are nerds” has low ambiguity regardless of the race or status of the person who said it.

The lack of such objectivity in SJWism is by design. It’s borrowed from Cultural Marxist thought, which argues that objectivity and the idea of right or wrong is less important than consensus. The reason is that consensus can be easily accomplished by controlling the narrative—cultural facts, ideas, and memes that are possessed by a specific population. If one can manufacture consensus by controlling this narrative through domination of the media or by swiftly eliminating speech which goes against what “should” be believed, specific beliefs can be held even if they go against proven scientific thought or basic rationale. SJW tactics evolved by necessity to keep their ideology alive in a modern climate where science—even 100-year-old science—contradicts the bulk of their ideas.

For example, a basic tenet of SJW thought is that there is no difference between men and women besides their physical bodies, that evolution stopped at the neck for human beings and gave both sexes an identical brain. Human biology can not sustain this notion [1] [2] [3], so when a person tries to state that men and women are different to a large audience, the SJW does one of three things:

(1) Attempts to censor the speech through mob action

(2) Calls the person a misogynist who hates women to inoculate the general population from considering the accurate information presented

(3) Destroys the livelihood of the person by contacting his employer so that he is less able to exercise his free speech

You’ll often encounter SJW debate tactics trying to use consensus to persuade you: “How can you think X when so many people think Y?” As you may already know, consensus is a poor judge of facts or morality. Consensus used to believe that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth. Sadly, many great men were imprisoned or executed for going against consensus on beliefs that we know are true today. Consensus in America also supported the institution of slavery, which of course didn’t make it right. And not long ago consensus believed in segregation between whites and blacks, even in the north where slavery was not practiced. Consensus has been shown to be a dangerous method to validate ideas or behavior.

Observers will note that information control is a huge component of SJW ideology. They have no other choice—their ideas do not hold water to basic science and logic so SJW’s evolved mechanisms where they must control and censor speech which goes against their beliefs. By controlling what arguments or ideas people are exposed to, they have a greater chance of convincing others through manipulation and outright bullying of their world view to create the consensus they need to affect societal change. Some individuals buy into their cause because opposing viewpoints were hidden from them, often labeled as “hate speech.”

The messenger is more important than the message

A big chunk of their activism depends on subjective feeling and perceived value of the parties involved. Before an SJW can make a decision on what is right or wrong, she must first know the race, gender, and sexuality of the involved participants so that she can decide whether or not to be outraged. A statement or idea in isolation is not enough for them to come to a conclusion on the acceptability of a statement. For example, consider the following statement:

“Abortion should not be used as a method of birth control.”

An SJW could not definitively respond to this statement unless they knew who uttered it. If I—a Caucasian man—published this statement on a popular site like CNN, the outrage would be immense. Most comments would accuse me of hating women and wanting to control their bodies. A petition would be started to prevent me from ever writing on CNN again. On the other hand, if a popular feminist like Jessica Valenti said this statement in the same publication, the response would be more balanced. She would receive some criticism but even support from individuals who would try to destroy my life had I said the exact same thing.

A person who believes in the scientific method would not be swayed by the messenger. They would analyze the statement and attempt to either verify it or not based on logic. SJW’s avoid such objective behavior.

Some groups are more deserving of equality than others

SJW’s make a big show of wanting “equality,” but as the Animal Farm quote goes: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” They absolutely do not believe that a man deserves the same treatment that should be given to a woman of his same race. When they say “equality,” what they really mean is to apply special benefits to protected groups in order to create equality based on their subjective perception and feeling. They even go so far as to claim that women and non-whites can not possibly be racist against white men. If a black woman calls a white man a cracker, honky, redneck, hick, or peckerwood, she’s correcting historical wrongs and injustices, not being a racist individual.

Since they have no objective measure or guide of equality, it is only achieved when they feel it has been achieved, but then that would destroy the very reason for their existence, meaning that their war on inequality is similar to the war on drugs or terrorism. It’s a perpetual war that will never be won in their minds because there will always be the creation of a new group needing privilege and equality. If you substitute the word “power” whenever they use “equality,” you’ll come to a more accurate descriptor of what motivates their activism.

If you want to do a simple test that hurts an SJW’s argument that she is about equality, ask her the following: “Do you believe a black woman is equal to a white woman?” They will squirm mightily and may look to the left and right at their SJW friends to know what they think first before giving you a muddled answer that is inconsistent with their other stated beliefs.

SJW’s are human label machines

If censorship is not an option, SJW’s attempt to destroy the reputation of the speech offender by labeling him a racist, misogynist, creep, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, or transphobe. This is one of their most reliable tactics to prime the general public against listening to individuals they don’t like because of the negative weight that such terms still carry. I personally have been called every label under the sun and a site I operate, Return Of Kings, was denounced in mainstream blogs sympathetic to SJW’s and then put on blacklists.

While labels are still effective today, SJW’s are diluting the power of them through overuse. If the majority of men are decided to be “misogynist,” the general public will become desensitized to hearing it. We are already seeing signs of this whereby SJW’s have to escalate the labels to outright crimes. A tactic I have been seeing lately is accusing men of “sexual harassment,” which is often when a man did nothing more than factually criticize a woman or flirt with her.

Even worse, SJW’s have started labeling men as rapists based on anonymous internet allegations, even when the supposed victims never reported the crime to police. It doesn’t matter that a conviction is not present via due process of law, and “rapist” labels persist against men even when authorities refuse to file charges. This eradicates the presumption of innocence whereby an individual is innocent until proven guilty, a basic right used since Roman times and included in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It’s possible that we may reach a point where all men are presumed to have raped a woman, and when a men says something improper, this label will be used against him to limit his speech.

Unwilling to engage in open debate

Another feature of the SJW is their total unwillingness to engage in a civilized one-on-one debate instead of mob action through what they call “campaigns” or “pressure groups.” Unable to take criticism or consider factual evidence, a lone SJW will respond to having her arguments defeated by playing the victim card (“Stop attacking me!”, “Stop triggering me!”, “Stop shaming me!”) or engaging in one of numerous argumentative fallacies. These tactics are used to buy time before fading back into the power and safety of her large mob group.

SJW’s avoid engaging in debate because they do not have the logical tools that an objective discussion requires. If your beliefs are held together by subjectivity, feelings, and the perceived worth of an individual based on an imaginary scale of privilege, it would be impossible for you to debate someone else who uses facts. The lack of educational rigor in SJW communities means they are more comfortable re-blogging content on Tumblr or sharing funny images than sifting through scientific data to find proof of what they claim.

On university campuses, it’s common for SJW’s to obstruct speakers they can not defeat with facts. To some observers, this behavior may resemble a child putting his fingers in his ears and yelling as loud as he can. They have no choice but to silence someone else’s speech because their own speech can not properly counter arguments that go against their world view. They simply don’t have the intellectual rigor to do so.

Complete absence of fixed morality

Thanks to the subjectiveness of their ideology, SJW’s lack morality or virtue. The reason this is a feature and not a bug to the SJW is because accumulated knowledge, morals, and wisdom of the past was developed and promoted by white men, who are seen as the harbingers or pain and doom to the classes that they want to protect.

Even if Aristotle, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Thomas Aquinas, or Henry David Thoreau had valuable wisdom that continues to help how millions of people live today, the information derived from their work must be completely discarded since they were white men. Since white men were at the forefront of advancing humanity for the past several centuries, especially after the decline of the Egyptian, Persian, Mongol, and Ottoman empires, this precludes the bulk of moral guidance that we can use to determine right and wrong. SJW’s invent their own moral code but it is often based on what they are upset about in the present moment. It does not serve as a guide for more than a month or two, suggesting that their book of code would have to be written in pencil.

The biggest exception I’ve found to their discrimination against white men is Steve Jobs, inventor of the iPhone, a gadget that SJW’s prefer to use. The irony of this is that SJW’s are against “greedy” capitalism in favor of socialism or communism, but iPhones are made with low-cost labor in Asia where some workers have committed suicide in the very factories the phones are produced because of horrid working conditions. SJW’s are capable of applying blind spots to their most cherished ideals so that their consumer lifestyle is not inconvenienced.

SJW’s don’t believe in god, have no belief in the heterosexual nuclear family as the principal unit of human organization, and have no sense of local community as opposed to ones that exist solely on the internet. Instead of reading historical texts for guidance, they read Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and Reddit. A significant amount of them gets their information from image-based memes that they share enthusiastically on Imgur and Facebook. They are pagans who worship women, minorities, homosexuals, and other non-capitalistic or non-Catholic features of humanity. Since their belief system is based on trends and feelings, an SJW will display rapidly shifting thought from one month to the next depending on what is “hot” or not in SJW discussion forums.

As of late, homosexuality—an alternative lifestyle at best and the disseminator of HIV at worst—seems to be the centerpiece of their activism, especially as the homosexual marriage issue has become suddenly more urgent in America in the past five years. Some predict that the bulk of their activism will now move onto transsexuality, and one must wonder how the movement will handle so many fringe groups that are angling for least privileged status.

SJW’s are sexually confused and admittedly mentally ill

Many SJW’s readily admit to serious mental illness and being bullied or mocked as a kid. They have gone on to be bullies themselves on the internet, a platform where physical strength, courage, or defined identity is not needed to be an effective activist. Even though they are confused about how to live their own lives thanks to the lack of values they possess, and many deal with suicide, cutting, or other mental issues that prevent them from reading certain articles without a “trigger warning” to act as a disclaimer to reality, they have no problem telling society how to live. It’s unclear why they respond to their life problems in such a manner instead of seeking professional help or reading self-help, but we can speculate that they seek to control others to compensate for the lack of control they have in their own lives. SJWism is a form of treatment to their problems because they can focus on the perceived problems of other people instead of their own.

A common problem SJW’s have is confusion about their own sexual identity or outright biological sex. Most of them find out about SJWism when they are in their teen years and not yet absolutely certain of their sexual preference. Once exposed to SJW writing that presents the theory that two sexes don’t exist, proven biology is wrong, and that you are free to place yourself on a kaleidoscope of gender including multiple kinds of homosexuality and transsexuality, the newly SJW activist mixes and matches her sexual identity to seek approval within her new group.

SJW’s have invented new sexes and sexual preferences, the most popular of which being pansexual, the definition of which can vary depending on which SJW you ask but which comes close to bisexuality. Other inventions include polysexuality, genderqueer, pangender, skoliosexual, and the most curious one of all which assumes a new mammalian life form that science has yet to describe—trigender.

While many of their members are plain vanilla heterosexual, they despise any sexuality or behavior that comes from the straight male. A male is someone exhibiting offensive privilege when he rates a girl on her attractiveness, exhibits a preference for thin women, or flirts with a woman he wants to have sex with, but when a woman does the same things, she is making an empowered display of her sexuality and must therefore be encouraged. The male sex drive is considered dangerous and oppressive to women but the female sex drive is wonderful, natural, and deserving of firm praise.

It’s worth noting that some in the SJW community believe that all penis-in-vagina sex is rape, even when the sex is consensual. Masculinity exhibited by men is dangerous and criminal, but masculine behaviors in women (cutting their hair short, becoming burly in body size, cursing, sexually pursuing other women) are promoted. Again, this highlights the subjectivity and inequality of SJW thought.

What do SJW’s want to achieve?

Their goal is power and domination over the Western cultural narrative to manufacture a consensus that is aligned with their extreme far-left ideology. Since their ideas are so far removed from science, logic, and rationale, this requires a complete control of information to disseminate their immoral world view along with the complete silencing of those who contradict them. It is not clear what their end game is when it comes to the white men who they believe are a bane to planet Earth, but it’s not a stretch to predict violence in the future assuming their mobs grow in size, anger, and power, which would put them close to being classified as terrorists according to the FBI. Currently their main strategies are bullying, spreading propaganda, and censoring opponents.

A growing way they have been accomplishing this goals is by installing SJW activists in prominent institution and communities. Many are now active moderators on popular forums, leaders in campus groups, tenured professors, or popular bloggers and entertainers who have huge audiences they spread SJW propaganda to. Some SJW’s, like Zoe Quinn, simply achieved prominent status by having heterosexual sex with men who have access to information that they want to modulate. Since most feminists, progressives, and liberals are sympathetic to the SJW cause, it’s easy to see how they have reached a stunning amount of influence in America to spread their message.

Social Justice Warriors are a threat to Western values

SJW’s utilize censorship, discriminate against white men, and disagree with basic human rights concerning due process that has existed in the Western legal canon for centuries. They are against free speech as granted by the US Constitution and don’t believe that all men are created equal. They disregard science and wrongly apply labels, accusations, and criminal allegations to those who dare cross their path. They have determined that some groups should be elevated to receive more benefits and speech rights than others, and have been successful in silencing the speech of those whom they disagree with through their internet witch mobs. They continue to infect every group, platform, and community that they come into contact with. Their goal is not to add value or to create, but to control the flow of ideas and thereby thought. Their values are opposed to Western values.

SJW ideas have reached a critical mass in America. University students are indoctrinated with progressive thought that is becoming aligned with SJWism, and even students in grade school are becoming exposed to SJW ideas through feminist-friendly teachers who read the same sites as SJW’s. My fear is that their efforts at censorship and cultural domination will become more onerous as they cement positions in prominent media companies, Silicon Valley, universities, and even in politics. If your belief system is against that of SJW’s, it would be prudent to take measures to protect yourself from their witch hunts, because there is no sign that they will be weakening in power anytime soon.

This article was written in 2014 and the author correctly predicted the transgender topic.

Apples and oranges. A lot of this SJW stuff makes valid points, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Not even a little bit. Not even at all. Equating someone not caring what a person does with their body behind closed doors with overzealous and bigoted SJW activism is a monumental stretch.

It's all pathetic pandering to the insane left, but I don't really mind. At least it should make for some interesting rule 34 material.

[quote]SJW-Part 1 wrote:

What is a Social Justice Warrior?

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

[quote]

"perceived injustices"?

lol

Humans are not animals, you dope. Humans have the power of imagination, and as far as I’m aware animals do not. We humans, as well as possessing imaginations, are also self aware.

We have the ability to question our own existence, and we have concepts such as ethics, animals don't. When a human is born, it has the potential to go on and do so much more than any other animal can. It could grow up to make contributions to science, medicine, the arts etc, enriching not just it’s own life but the lives of all around them, human and non-human.

Defending thejeff wrote:

Humans are not animals, you dope. Humans have the power of imagination, and as far as I’m aware animals do not. We humans, as well as possessing imaginations, are also self aware.

We have the ability to question our own existence, and we have concepts such as ethics, animals don't. When a human is born, it has the potential to go on and do so much more than any other animal can. It could grow up to make contributions to science, medicine, the arts etc, enriching not just it’s own life but the lives of all around them, human and non-human.

Having the most powerful brain in the animal kingdom does not mean that humans are not animals. Is a dolphin not an animal because its brain is so much more powerful than a slug, for example? And even if you are to argue that the difference between a human brain and a dolphin brain is greater than that between the dolphin and the slug, it is still just a matter of degree. A linear, not step, function.

Defending thejeff wrote:

Humans are not animals, you dope. Humans have the power of imagination, and as far as I’m aware animals do not. We humans, as well as possessing imaginations, are also self aware.

We have the ability to question our own existence, and we have concepts such as ethics, animals don't. When a human is born, it has the potential to go on and do so much more than any other animal can. It could grow up to make contributions to science, medicine, the arts etc, enriching not just it’s own life but the lives of all around them, human and non-human.

Humans are indeed animals. We're unique among animals in some of our traits, and extremely deficient among animals in some of our others. This is true of all animals.

We "question our existence"? That is a downright stupid thing to question. We exist.

We're no more separated from animals than a platypus is.

wtfunny wrote:

We're no more separated from animals than a platypus is.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.