SJW's, cry bullies, mentally ill snowflakes, and social "justice" predatory psychopaths —→ stop subsidizing bad behaviour
zen at freedbms.net
Thu May 10 04:51:05 PDT 2018
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:54:11PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 06:34:23PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > > …The solution, of course, is to stop subsidizing bad behavior.
> > Those who would subsidize bad behaviour, create safe spaces for the
> > melting snowflakes, remove the need for "trigger warnings" and
> > otherwise subsidize the cry bullies, are rife within the ranks of our
> > "modern" "Western" "culture":
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/753646/
> > Sad days...
> > Wait a second. You are saying you can assume someone is agreeing
> > with you, if they don't respond?
> It's called "tacit agreement" - yes, it's agreement by default - it
> is an effective (whether intentional or not) surrender to the "vocal
> majority" even though that vocal majority may be an absolute or
> relative minority.
> But, in a public forum (or "modern democracy") tacit consent also
> implies a high likelihood of the tyranny of the minority - i.e. those
> who squawk the loudest get to "win" (or get the government benefits,
> Those who seek "safe spaces" (whatever the hell they are) are also
> called cry-bullies.
> The SJWs or "social justice warriors" who actively "create safe
> spaces" by for example (to pick a totally random example) removing a
> short yet politically incorrect joke from documentation, are often
> engaged in some level of "white knighting" or virtue signaling and in
> any case are subsidizing bad behaviour.
> Now, what could also arguably be alleged as the "bad behaviour" of a
> politically incorrect joke, is also a healthy poke in the ribs of the
> cry bullies, those trigger-ready snowflakes who self proclaim to melt
> at the sight of any of a million trigger words - and by publishing
> their melting quality far and wide, publicly and loudly, they are
> bullying the rest of us.
> We owe it to our dignity to NOT surrender our freedom of speech or
> our "freedom to trigger" in our public, work and play spaces, to the
> dictates of the covert passive aggressive cry bullies.
> And remember folks, EVERYTHING we say, all our speech, is effectively
> political in some way. Those who remove a short yet
> politically-incorrect joke from documentation are making a political
> statement, doing a political action, saying "this is a safe space for
> cry bullies, you will not pollute our safe space with politically
> incorrect jokes", even though it is (usually) in the guise of "we
> want no politics in our docs".
> See also:
> Good luck,
> Both. RMS should not make political decisions for glibc anymore,
> and it is not right for him to seek “integrity of the prose he
> wrote” (where said “prose” is a bad joke completely disconnected
> from the rest of the manual).
Yes, many seek to remove any concept of morals (or even ethics), to
remove any hint of the founder's original intentions, to remove all
politically incorrect prose and the ever-expanding menagerie of
trigger words and phrases from all "upstanding and upright" technical
material such as documentation.
Let us all submit to the passive aggressive, cry bully
trigger-melting "unique snowflakes" by making the entire public world
a safe space.
Or, let's not‼
Let's honour the intentions, ethics, vision and grace of the founders
on whose shoulders we stand (such as Richard Stallman).
Let's admit that we are above submission to an endless march of
passive aggressive cry bullies demanding the entire world become
their safe space.
Let's admit that everything we say and do is in some way, on some
level political, and at the very least honour the intentions of the
founders of those projects we benefit so handsomely from.
Do. Not. Subsidize. Bad. Behaviour.
And do not subsidize the passive aggressive safe-space demanding cry
To paraphrase you: "The work to avoid offending the various
categories of snowflake safe-space-junkies, can be a real cost, can
be significant, is a detriment, and the chilling effect this all has
THAT is the reason this particular joke (by RMS) should stay in the
"The triggered" and "the oppressed" are redefining permissible speech
- which is ironically apropos RMS' original joke.
The redefinition of allowed speech is dangerous and literally
tyrannical in the underlying intent of doing so (whether conscious,
or unconscious) - refer Dr Jordan Peterson who puts this exact point
Create your world,
More information about the cypherpunks