Posted May 25, 2019
low rated
The problem with this, as with ALL social issues, is where people draw the line of acceptability. Some people feel that A and B should be equal, others that B should accept an inferior position, and still others that B should shut the hell up and be grateful they're allowed to live. Here in the US, SOOOOO much of what occurs is radically spun by people into hyperbolic extremes. With less people consuming regular news and instead turning to blogs, pundits, vloggers and the like, people become more ensconced in echo chambers, while their "sources" become ever more extreme and outrageous to remain interesting.
The push for gay rights for example is described as a fight for "equal" rights by those that support it, but "special" rights by those that oppose. When I listen to right wing media, I hear the left constantly described as socialist/ communist/ leninist/ markist AND fascist.... all at the same time. The slandering and strawmanning of issues is SOP for everyone today.
To me, when I hear people complain of SJWs, I hear people complaining of minorities getting even the tiniest bit of respect or representation. To them, zero representation is seemingly preferred, and 1% is "pushing an agenda down our throats". From my perspective, it is a STAGGERING double standard, but from theirs, it apparently seems perfectly reasonable.
So the issue is how to have conversations where the people involved have RADICALLY different ideas of what's acceptable... and at what point, if any, a position changes from reasonable to bigoted.
The push for gay rights for example is described as a fight for "equal" rights by those that support it, but "special" rights by those that oppose. When I listen to right wing media, I hear the left constantly described as socialist/ communist/ leninist/ markist AND fascist.... all at the same time. The slandering and strawmanning of issues is SOP for everyone today.
To me, when I hear people complain of SJWs, I hear people complaining of minorities getting even the tiniest bit of respect or representation. To them, zero representation is seemingly preferred, and 1% is "pushing an agenda down our throats". From my perspective, it is a STAGGERING double standard, but from theirs, it apparently seems perfectly reasonable.
So the issue is how to have conversations where the people involved have RADICALLY different ideas of what's acceptable... and at what point, if any, a position changes from reasonable to bigoted.