Not being a SJW, but not being totally insensitive

[Virge]

Agreed If "words are just words" then one should not be so married to them that we don't care if they are a trigger for somebody else. It is not a lot to ask that we not use words that are pejorative to another group of people. Use a different word, otherwise what you're saying is "I'm too important to worry about your feelings."

On the flip, I'm reading an interesting book right now that describes "stages of ethnocentrism" and it says we have a whole generation of people who think you are sufficiently evolved just by knowing the list of "Bad words" not to say, and yet become remarkably intolerant of someone who did not grow up with those same taboos, instead of giving them a chance to learn why they are a problem. If we are ever to have a truly just society, we have to get beyond that to understanding WHY certain words are problems and actually listen to each other.

Shifty, I'd like to know more about that book.... it's something both Jay and I would like to read.

Most guys in GS have seen me take on my pet peeves a few times. I'm not as big on being politically correct as I am on being consistent and informed.

Let's look at the issue of Ferguson. In print, on blogs, in video, on news shows and in person people from the social justice end of the spectrum have been consistently reliant on empty talking repeated repeated over and over until all of them accepted it as true and rhetoric totally detached from reality and facts. They could not and still cannot speak on a level in which they are capable of discussing the facts involved with the issue. Anyone with an opinion that differed from theirs was immediately assaulted with allegations of racism, being uncle toms, and worse.

If someone they want to have a discussion and only brings empty talking points and intentionally misleading ideological rhetoric to the table it cannot be a discussion.

Since most of the social justice movement depends heavily on Alinsky's rules for radicals it makes sense they rely on empty talking points and intentionally misleading rhetoric.. after all *everyone * knows * people are more *inspired* by emotional rhetoric than by boring facts and reason. But that does not give empty talking points and intentionally misleading rhetoric anything resembling equal status to facts and reason for the purposes of discussion and problem solving.

........ and this is the reason I say there's little difference between SJWs and the people they usually say they're against... like christian fundamentalists who also depend on perpetually repeated talking points and intentionally misleading rhetoric designed to inspire emotions rather than reason. Change a few nouns and pronouns in their rants and they sound exactly the same.

[ShiftyNJ]

The book is called The Bush was Blazing but Not Consumed by the Rev. Canon Eric H.F. Law. The intended audience is churches that seek to be more culturally inclusive and thus there is a lot of Christian metaphor which non-church folks may find off-putting, but his observances about human behavior are interesting.

Law opines that the American need for a binary in every conflict (someone "wins" and someone "loses") is a large stumbling block toward ever having a healthy conversation around multicultural issues. His take on the violence in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict may interest you:

“As long as we hold on to the win-lose mindset, the unholy ember will continue to hold us hostage, threatening to flare up and destroy if we do not obey and fall in line with the cycle of destruction. This cycle consistently forces us into taking sides. The cycle is a ritual dance we perform when we gather around an unholy fire. The choreography goes like this:

If I am on the side of the minority, I feel that I am always losing when I come up against the system. I allow my anger and rage to build up. When I cannot contain my anger and rage, I will strike back through explosive destruction. When I do, I feel like I have won, and the system seems to be a a little more open to listening to my needs. But then the system clamps up again later, even tighter than before, and I feel like a loser again.

If I am on the side of the majority, I win by taking control of the system that protects my privileges and rights. I lose when I let the minority threaten me with its anger, rage and destruction. In my fear of the destruction's recurring in the future, I create more control in the system that will favor and protect me. I will not lose again.

Each time there is a winner and a loser, this cycle of destruction is energized some more, with the losing side becoming ever more determined to win next time.”

With regards to what motivates the social justice movement, I have no idea what you read, but my opinions are largely driven by statistics including who is charged with the same crime, who is convicted, what is the comparative sentence length, etc. Same for who gets job interviews, who gets SNAP benefits and how they are used, etc.

[Virge]

Thanks [MENTION=21783]ShiftyNJ[/MENTION]. yeah I can tell that would be something Jay would like reading and I like listening to him do it aloud. We are both already on the track about getting away from approaching things as win or lose situations. We go into them to solve problems not win any damned imaginary trophies. That is one thing I intend to keep going with him no matter what. Being able to talk about anything is just about everything.