What Is A Social Justice Warrior (SJW)?

[Wilikon]

They don't even debate, they just make their talking points and when they're questioned they start making wild accusations and try to harass or stalk the people who criticise them, by the way, if you guys have heard of Thunderf00t this guy is a regular critic of the authoritarian feminists and they tried to stalk him and get him fired RL, however the plan backfired, rather hilariously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81ig9xOKvs

I know some people questioned my involvement when talking about these issues before, normally I don't get involved, but these people are genuine lunatics and hypocrites, they are also trying to invade the games industry, which makes this personal for me in particular so I'm more than happy to take the fight to them if necessary. I think it's important we keep an eye on these people especially the stalkers because they're actively trying to censor and control the internet at large.

Their ultimate goal: kill free speech. That is why they NEVER comment on the abuse on women in some countries, because they agree with those countries. You never hear of anonymous taking over those countries' servers, facebook page, doxxing abusers, etc.. Why is that?

[1714666743]

1714666743

[1714666743]

1714666743

[1714666743]

1714666743

[1714666743]

1714666743

[subSTRATA]

They don't even debate, they just make their talking points and when they're questioned they start making wild accusations and try to harass or stalk the people who criticise them, by the way, if you guys have heard of Thunderf00t this guy is a regular critic of the authoritarian feminists and they tried to stalk him and get him fired RL, however the plan backfired, rather hilariously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81ig9xOKvs

I know some people questioned my involvement when talking about these issues before, normally I don't get involved, but these people are genuine lunatics and hypocrites, they are also trying to invade the games industry, which makes this personal for me in particular so I'm more than happy to take the fight to them if necessary. I think it's important we keep an eye on these people especially the stalkers because they're actively trying to censor and control the internet at large.

theyre trying to invade a lot more than just the games industry imo, these lunatics recently got to speak at a UN conference iirc. in addition, not only do these people go off on every seemingly innocuous statement, they push the issue as far as possible; they dont stop at disagreeing with you, they ensure your life is destroyed to its fullest extent if you so much as disagree with whatever ideology they try to shove down your throat at the time.

Their ultimate goal: kill free speech. That is why they NEVER comment on the abuse on women in some countries, because they agree with those countries. You never hear of anonymous taking over those countries' servers, facebook page, doxxing abusers, etc.. Why is that?

imo its worse, they want to ensure free speech goes one way, and ensure that drastic, negative consequences await anyone who opposes their arbitrary interpretation of free speech.

[Wilikon]

The Term ‘Politically Correct’ Is Now ‘Politically Incorrect’ And A ‘Microaggression’


The phrase “politically correct” is now a microaggression according to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

The university’s “Just Words” campaign is the work of UWM’s “Inclusive Excellence Center” and aims to “raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact”—microaggressions like “politically correct” or “PC.”

Merriam-Webster defines “politically correct” as “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.” The university, however, claims that calling something “politically correct” “has become a way to deflect, [and say] that people are being too ‘sensitive’ and police language.” “Politically correct,” moreover, is just one of a whole host of words and phrases the university has denounced as micro aggressions.

The university also claims the word “lame” is a microaggression that somehow both “ridicules and ignores the lives of amputees” and therefore shouldn’t be used.

UWM also claims that using the phrase “third world” to describe third world countries is a microaggression because it “reinforces heirarchical [sic] attitudes towards nations around the world, [and] establishes Westernized (industrialized) countries and cultures as the ‘standard’ upon which to measure national well-being or economic status.”


http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6907

[practicaldreamer]

Its not the language thats the important factor - its the relations between people - the power relations.

You could surgically alter the larynx of certain people so that they were no longer physically able to articulate, for example, the word "bitch".
 But what would that really change ?

 They would just start saying "whore" instead.

[Mike Christ]

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:

1. They're heavily sheltered from reality, i.e. naive on their perceptions and judgements, leading to quixotic behaviours and overreaction to common and insignificant phenomena (e.g. "micro-aggressions")
2. They exclusively (AFAICT) identify with authoritarian leftism and typically have little tolerance for anything but authoritarian leftism; "if the highest authority isn't doing something about it, then nothing's being done about it"
3. They do not self-assess their own belief systems, they only become self-aware when they are exposed to ulterior thoughts and PoVs; this allows them to go for long periods holding self-destructive or hypocritical beliefs, e.g. anti-white whites who identify as anti-racists; oddly, they are acutely aware of what they are superficially, and will talk in great lengths about, for example, their unique sexual orientation; essentially narcissism, self-centred
4. They seek "safe spaces" where they become sheltered from those ulterior thoughts and PoVs which make them uncomfortable, amplifying the deterioration of the individual's connection with reality
5. They discriminate on everything they tell others not to discriminate on, which rings loud the bell named "psychological projection"; they are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to put off their problems onto others, the "equal sharing of misery" as Churchill said about something closely related; "He for She" comes to mind
6. Poor concept of, aversion to, and/or disrespect for property and the rules associated with it, allowing them to waive crime depending on circumstance (such as those circumstances which benefit them and their causes, which is actually a rampant issue with all authoritarian lefties)

I once shared a small group with a SJW, she was still in her teens, just about to graduate HS.  She had no sense of danger whatsoever.  She believed guns should be completely banned outright and ownership of weapons is futile, seeing them as unnecessary in the modern world, and all form of defence should be handled by the state.  When I asked her what she would do if a burglar broke into her home, she said she would call the cops, and when I asked her what she'd do while waiting for the cops, she said she'd feed the burglar, assuming hunger to be among the only reasons someone would break into her home.  She doesn't realize that burglars are actually out to steal from her, not looking for food as would be the case with a dog.  When I asked her what she would do if the state wound up turning on her after all the weapons were gone, she thought I was crazy, and felt such an outcome would never happen.  She believed capitalism is utterly evil, referring to the system we have now (which is actually interventionist, something her school failed to mention no doubt) as being proof of it.  She was also very uncritical towards written language, allowing her prose to be riddled with typos and misspellings, and encouraged others to be as lax.  She believed that people should be taken care of regardless of who they are and what they've done, and believed the taxpayer should foot the bill for it; when questioned about the practicality of this, she accused me of not caring about people's right to food and shelter, arguing that because these needs are present that they should be satisfied, "how can you let someone go hungry"; in other words nobody can ever have their livelihood threatened, according to her ideal.  The last quality I recall, she believed nationalism was a "disease"; I believe she was referring to the Nazi sort of nationalism, however, which is very actively taught in public schools (at least when I went roughly 7 years ago), so I can't completely blame her for being scared shitless of it.

Granted, when I first came to this forum a few years ago, I shared a lot of these qualities (well, I was never as bad as a SJW but I was around the area) and didn't understand why such qualities were negative, so total turn-around in political orientation is absolutely possible.  What worked for me is constant exposure with other viewpoints, which inevitably showed me how I was wrong in my thinking and forced me to change.  I remember when I hit the breaking point: TheButterZone had grilled me on gun bans and I had to concede that gun bans were ineffective in producing the desired goal of reducing criminal violence (since criminals subvert the law to get weapons in case of a ban); after that it was all downhill, as I also had to concede that law was an ineffective way of curbing criminal behaviour all together which caused my entire belief system to avalanche (i.e. the idea that the highest authority was fixing it, or even could, was destroyed.)  In other words, "attacking" SJWs (i.e. disagreeing with them) is what stops them from being SJWs, and to protect who they are (i.e. windmill tilters), they have to guard themselves from these "attackers" i.e. eliminate the chance of exposure to reality, namely by removing the offending individual from the community all together.  We've seen it on Reddit recently, where censorship is very high as well as corruption, and they ban anyone who contributes to the communal discomfort (or who gets in the way of corrupt schemes)--this caused people to leave in droves once the truth started getting around about how bad it was, and caused anyone still around to severely dislike the site and not want to go to it, which is going to kill it over time like a toxin.  We've also seen this in places like China, Cambodia, USSR, Nazi Germany, where they resorted to jailing, silencing, even killing any opposition to the leading party, in each case focused around community, culture, and anti-business, which inevitably ate those organizations from the inside out (why China's as far from their communist ideal as ever, but won't stop being socialist since all that power would be lost from the organizers the moment that goal dies and nothing replaces it.)

What contributes to the creation of a safe space?  Primarily, freedom of speech needs to be abolished; there can be no safe space if people are free to stray from the accepted list of that which can be talked about.  Individuals who violate another's right to be comfortable must be removed from the community and treated as any rule-breaker would, which also removes them from the conversation (no voice.)  In order to remove individuals from the community, you need ownership over the community, the power to decide who is welcome in the community and who is not; therefore, those who seek safe spaces must also be amongst company; to turn the given community into a safe space, you need a high level of safe spacers along with a high level of people who don't naturally recognize obstruction of information transfer, both of which make up some clear majority, particularly a majority which outspends the minority, thus giving greater incentive to community organizers to cater to the safe spacers; since the safe spacers are incompatible with non-safe spacers, one group has to go, and once one group is dominant, the other is naturally locked out--they aren't completely barred from using the site, but it becomes practically useless to their purposes, which pushes them away from it, again Reddit is a great example.  When it comes to communities which are greatly opposed to safe spacers (but which the safe spacer wants to be a part of), the only route for a safe spacer to take is "middle of the road", where the safe spacers encourage the existing community to compromise on their current situation by a small increment now and small increment later, to allow the safe spacers more and more control over how they can be interacted with; this encourages heavy moderation of how the community members can and cannot interact with one another, which inevitably increases that community's rule-breaking behaviour as more and more rules are piled on as to what is and is not acceptable (thus, one by one, kicking the previous community out.)  This goes on until the safe spacers can reach a communal majority, which pushes the now incompatible minority out almost entirely.  With that minority gone, there can be no more meaningful conversation, as the truth is real and reality is no bueno for the safe spacer.  Naturally, the community can simply reject the safe spacer rather than compromise, which forces the safe spacer to seek elsewhere for their desire; I've seen this happen many times in our Meta subforum, where users complain about there being a lack of control and other users yelling at them for being such wimps   Not seeing a whole lot of this on the national level, at least not in the west, in fact it's probably closer to the safe space tipping point than it ever has been (heck, it's tipping as we speak.)

When it comes to sites like this one, the dominant force is in transfer of information rather than sharing of community, and to properly transfer information dictates freedom of speech, so safe spacers will always be locked out (assuming the net remains free, of course; odds are, safe spacers would sooner shut this site down than try to be a part of it.)  I feel that it is normal to accept both community quality and freedom of action and thought as important to a thriving organization, and I believe that people naturally notice and favour one over the other at varying degrees of magnitude, which creates these imbalances in priorities and organizational make up; this necessitates some mix of the two types of people to maintain a healthy organization, so as not to dip too far into either realm.  A safe space is not a healthy organization, it is an organization comprised of dysfunction, which purposefully seeks to eliminate the transfer of information on any meaningful level so as to stop that which causes them discomfort, the discomfort they need to feel to make anything better (thus, instead of a cooperation between the two types, the elimination of one entirely, essentially any form of extremism or "far" ideologies on the left/right spectrum); this dictates total control over the community's behaviour, a situation which breeds corruption as the community organizers, such as the politicians, the website owners, and so forth, see a way to profit from this control: at this point, the community gets into a dangerous predicament where the organizers attempt to control the community for the organizer's gain, rather than the community's gain, and that profitability rises the more "safe" (i.e. sheltered) their safe space is, which worsens the conditions of those individuals participating in the corrupted community as it further separates them from what's real, preventing them from seeing the nature of their relationship with the organizer.  It is as true for any nation as it is for any social site as it is for any family home and should be treated for what it is: social cancer.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:
....

Great post. I could never understand why people would want to discuss ideas in a place where there is no one who has a conflicting opinion. Discussing ideas with people who won't disagree with you is like talking to a wall, arguing with your echo.

[Lethn]

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:
....

Great post. I could never understand why people would want to discuss ideas in a place where there is no one who has a conflicting opinion. Discussing ideas with people who won't disagree with you is like talking to a wall, arguing with your echo.

To be fair I think it does depend on the people, there are people I've seen on either side that are absolutely horrible at 'debating' not because of whether they agree or not, but because they either don't understand their own ideology or they simply resort to spamming when you try and point out what's wrong with their arguments.

I'm sure you lot will have seen this all over the internet, person A makes a point, person B refutes it and provide evidence, person A resorts to spamming the point, very very frustrating.

[subSTRATA]

http://goboiano.com/original/3588-tumblr-users-drove-an-artist-to-attempt-suicide-and-it%2527s-not-clear-why

tl;dr: the cancerous sjw's of tumblr push a fanartist to attempt suicide, refuse to claim responsibility or feel remorse for the fact that their actions pushed a person to this. even after a video was posted from a hospital, comments such as "i hope you die," "stop lying youre not in a hospital" continue to be thrown at the victim.

these people are a cancer to this world and need to be purged.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

http://goboiano.com/original/3588-tumblr-users-drove-an-artist-to-attempt-suicide-and-it%2527s-not-clear-why

tl;dr: the cancerous sjw's of tumblr push a fanartist to attempt suicide, refuse to claim responsibility or feel remorse for the fact that their actions pushed a person to this. even after a video was posted from a hospital, comments such as "i hope you die," "stop lying youre not in a hospital" continue to be thrown at the victim.

these people are a cancer to this world and need to be purged.

This page about what they posted to her over and over again is sick.

I don't even know what to say. They act like she's hurting people and it's the end of the world, when they're the ones hurting her.

[subSTRATA]

http://goboiano.com/original/3588-tumblr-users-drove-an-artist-to-attempt-suicide-and-it%2527s-not-clear-why

tl;dr: the cancerous sjw's of tumblr push a fanartist to attempt suicide, refuse to claim responsibility or feel remorse for the fact that their actions pushed a person to this. even after a video was posted from a hospital, comments such as "i hope you die," "stop lying youre not in a hospital" continue to be thrown at the victim.

these people are a cancer to this world and need to be purged.

This page about what they posted to her over and over again is sick.

I don't even know what to say. They act like she's hurting people and it's the end of the world, when they're the ones hurting her.

im going to sleep forever

thats just fucking depressing to hear from anyone.

[UliJonHoth]

Reading through that account made me sick and enraged, these SJW's are warped beyond belief.

[Wilikon]

Unsafe space: Fascist Missouri protesters physically remove reporter from public demonstrations


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o


"I need some muscle over here..."

https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/663873070126362624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Wilikon]

Modern Educayshun


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

[subSTRATA]

Modern Educayshun


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

spot fucking on. kinda scary that, as exaggerated as that 10/10 skit was, universities are actually trending towards this "equality / safe space / sjw haven" ideology.

also, south park was pretty spot on as always, pretty much predicted the future with what went on over at mizzou:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXQkXXBqj_U

[UliJonHoth]

Modern Educayshun


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0tsiZM

And sadly, this is not far from what we are actually witnessing. I'd like to see the reactions of some of the stars of the recent videos we've seen from Yale and Missouri as they watched this film.

[Wilikon]

That. Was. Painful. To watch...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

[TECSHARE]

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:

1. They're heavily sheltered from reality, i.e. naive on their perceptions and judgements, leading to quixotic behaviours and overreaction to common and insignificant phenomena (e.g. "micro-aggressions")
2. They exclusively (AFAICT) identify with authoritarian leftism and typically have little tolerance for anything but authoritarian leftism; "if the highest authority isn't doing something about it, then nothing's being done about it"
3. They do not self-assess their own belief systems, they only become self-aware when they are exposed to ulterior thoughts and PoVs; this allows them to go for long periods holding self-destructive or hypocritical beliefs, e.g. anti-white whites who identify as anti-racists; oddly, they are acutely aware of what they are superficially, and will talk in great lengths about, for example, their unique sexual orientation; essentially narcissism, self-centred
4. They seek "safe spaces" where they become sheltered from those ulterior thoughts and PoVs which make them uncomfortable, amplifying the deterioration of the individual's connection with reality
5. They discriminate on everything they tell others not to discriminate on, which rings loud the bell named "psychological projection"; they are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to put off their problems onto others, the "equal sharing of misery" as Churchill said about something closely related; "He for She" comes to mind
6. Poor concept of, aversion to, and/or disrespect for property and the rules associated with it, allowing them to waive crime depending on circumstance (such as those circumstances which benefit them and their causes, which is actually a rampant issue with all authoritarian lefties)

I once shared a small group with a SJW, she was still in her teens, just about to graduate HS.  She had no sense of danger whatsoever.  She believed guns should be completely banned outright and ownership of weapons is futile, seeing them as unnecessary in the modern world, and all form of defence should be handled by the state.  When I asked her what she would do if a burglar broke into her home, she said she would call the cops, and when I asked her what she'd do while waiting for the cops, she said she'd feed the burglar, assuming hunger to be among the only reasons someone would break into her home.  She doesn't realize that burglars are actually out to steal from her, not looking for food as would be the case with a dog.  When I asked her what she would do if the state wound up turning on her after all the weapons were gone, she thought I was crazy, and felt such an outcome would never happen.  She believed capitalism is utterly evil, referring to the system we have now (which is actually interventionist, something her school failed to mention no doubt) as being proof of it.  She was also very uncritical towards written language, allowing her prose to be riddled with typos and misspellings, and encouraged others to be as lax.  She believed that people should be taken care of regardless of who they are and what they've done, and believed the taxpayer should foot the bill for it; when questioned about the practicality of this, she accused me of not caring about people's right to food and shelter, arguing that because these needs are present that they should be satisfied, "how can you let someone go hungry"; in other words nobody can ever have their livelihood threatened, according to her ideal.  The last quality I recall, she believed nationalism was a "disease"; I believe she was referring to the Nazi sort of nationalism, however, which is very actively taught in public schools (at least when I went roughly 7 years ago), so I can't completely blame her for being scared shitless of it.

Granted, when I first came to this forum a few years ago, I shared a lot of these qualities (well, I was never as bad as a SJW but I was around the area) and didn't understand why such qualities were negative, so total turn-around in political orientation is absolutely possible.  What worked for me is constant exposure with other viewpoints, which inevitably showed me how I was wrong in my thinking and forced me to change.  I remember when I hit the breaking point: TheButterZone had grilled me on gun bans and I had to concede that gun bans were ineffective in producing the desired goal of reducing criminal violence (since criminals subvert the law to get weapons in case of a ban); after that it was all downhill, as I also had to concede that law was an ineffective way of curbing criminal behaviour all together which caused my entire belief system to avalanche (i.e. the idea that the highest authority was fixing it, or even could, was destroyed.)  In other words, "attacking" SJWs (i.e. disagreeing with them) is what stops them from being SJWs, and to protect who they are (i.e. windmill tilters), they have to guard themselves from these "attackers" i.e. eliminate the chance of exposure to reality, namely by removing the offending individual from the community all together.  We've seen it on Reddit recently, where censorship is very high as well as corruption, and they ban anyone who contributes to the communal discomfort (or who gets in the way of corrupt schemes)--this caused people to leave in droves once the truth started getting around about how bad it was, and caused anyone still around to severely dislike the site and not want to go to it, which is going to kill it over time like a toxin.  We've also seen this in places like China, Cambodia, USSR, Nazi Germany, where they resorted to jailing, silencing, even killing any opposition to the leading party, in each case focused around community, culture, and anti-business, which inevitably ate those organizations from the inside out (why China's as far from their communist ideal as ever, but won't stop being socialist since all that power would be lost from the organizers the moment that goal dies and nothing replaces it.)

What contributes to the creation of a safe space?  Primarily, freedom of speech needs to be abolished; there can be no safe space if people are free to stray from the accepted list of that which can be talked about.  Individuals who violate another's right to be comfortable must be removed from the community and treated as any rule-breaker would, which also removes them from the conversation (no voice.)  In order to remove individuals from the community, you need ownership over the community, the power to decide who is welcome in the community and who is not; therefore, those who seek safe spaces must also be amongst company; to turn the given community into a safe space, you need a high level of safe spacers along with a high level of people who don't naturally recognize obstruction of information transfer, both of which make up some clear majority, particularly a majority which outspends the minority, thus giving greater incentive to community organizers to cater to the safe spacers; since the safe spacers are incompatible with non-safe spacers, one group has to go, and once one group is dominant, the other is naturally locked out--they aren't completely barred from using the site, but it becomes practically useless to their purposes, which pushes them away from it, again Reddit is a great example.  When it comes to communities which are greatly opposed to safe spacers (but which the safe spacer wants to be a part of), the only route for a safe spacer to take is "middle of the road", where the safe spacers encourage the existing community to compromise on their current situation by a small increment now and small increment later, to allow the safe spacers more and more control over how they can be interacted with; this encourages heavy moderation of how the community members can and cannot interact with one another, which inevitably increases that community's rule-breaking behaviour as more and more rules are piled on as to what is and is not acceptable (thus, one by one, kicking the previous community out.)  This goes on until the safe spacers can reach a communal majority, which pushes the now incompatible minority out almost entirely.  With that minority gone, there can be no more meaningful conversation, as the truth is real and reality is no bueno for the safe spacer.  Naturally, the community can simply reject the safe spacer rather than compromise, which forces the safe spacer to seek elsewhere for their desire; I've seen this happen many times in our Meta subforum, where users complain about there being a lack of control and other users yelling at them for being such wimps   Not seeing a whole lot of this on the national level, at least not in the west, in fact it's probably closer to the safe space tipping point than it ever has been (heck, it's tipping as we speak.)

When it comes to sites like this one, the dominant force is in transfer of information rather than sharing of community, and to properly transfer information dictates freedom of speech, so safe spacers will always be locked out (assuming the net remains free, of course; odds are, safe spacers would sooner shut this site down than try to be a part of it.)  I feel that it is normal to accept both community quality and freedom of action and thought as important to a thriving organization, and I believe that people naturally notice and favour one over the other at varying degrees of magnitude, which creates these imbalances in priorities and organizational make up; this necessitates some mix of the two types of people to maintain a healthy organization, so as not to dip too far into either realm.  A safe space is not a healthy organization, it is an organization comprised of dysfunction, which purposefully seeks to eliminate the transfer of information on any meaningful level so as to stop that which causes them discomfort, the discomfort they need to feel to make anything better (thus, instead of a cooperation between the two types, the elimination of one entirely, essentially any form of extremism or "far" ideologies on the left/right spectrum); this dictates total control over the community's behaviour, a situation which breeds corruption as the community organizers, such as the politicians, the website owners, and so forth, see a way to profit from this control: at this point, the community gets into a dangerous predicament where the organizers attempt to control the community for the organizer's gain, rather than the community's gain, and that profitability rises the more "safe" (i.e. sheltered) their safe space is, which worsens the conditions of those individuals participating in the corrupted community as it further separates them from what's real, preventing them from seeing the nature of their relationship with the organizer.  It is as true for any nation as it is for any social site as it is for any family home and should be treated for what it is: social cancer.

The most accurate description of Bitcointalk yet. Good read.

[subSTRATA]

10/10

The most accurate description of Bitcointalk yet. Good read.

somehow missed reading that, glad i caught it now.

that aside, the same people are pulling shit like this, and its actually apalling to me that people around my age (give or take a few) are dumb enough to pull stunts like this, in a library, where people are trying to fucking study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAuVQlLxD0

exactly what do these shits think they'll achieve with a stunt like this? get hated by every student in that library for ruining their study time?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

10/10

The most accurate description of Bitcointalk yet. Good read.

somehow missed reading that, glad i caught it now.

that aside, the same people are pulling shit like this, and its actually apalling to me that people around my age (give or take a few) are dumb enough to pull stunts like this, in a library, where people are trying to fucking study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJAuVQlLxD0

exactly what do these shits think they'll achieve with a stunt like this? get hated by every student in that library for ruining their study time?

What idiots. Someone actually thought it was a good idea to upload that video? I wonder how they feel when they look at all the thumbs down.

[Wilikon]

Here are some qualities I've noticed about SJWs:

1. They're heavily sheltered from reality, i.e. naive on their perceptions and judgements, leading to quixotic behaviours and overreaction to common and insignificant phenomena (e.g. "micro-aggressions")
2. They exclusively (AFAICT) identify with authoritarian leftism and typically have little tolerance for anything but authoritarian leftism; "if the highest authority isn't doing something about it, then nothing's being done about it"
3. They do not self-assess their own belief systems, they only become self-aware when they are exposed to ulterior thoughts and PoVs; this allows them to go for long periods holding self-destructive or hypocritical beliefs, e.g. anti-white whites who identify as anti-racists; oddly, they are acutely aware of what they are superficially, and will talk in great lengths about, for example, their unique sexual orientation; essentially narcissism, self-centred
4. They seek "safe spaces" where they become sheltered from those ulterior thoughts and PoVs which make them uncomfortable, amplifying the deterioration of the individual's connection with reality
5. They discriminate on everything they tell others not to discriminate on, which rings loud the bell named "psychological projection"; they are not trying to solve problems, they are trying to put off their problems onto others, the "equal sharing of misery" as Churchill said about something closely related; "He for She" comes to mind
6. Poor concept of, aversion to, and/or disrespect for property and the rules associated with it, allowing them to waive crime depending on circumstance (such as those circumstances which benefit them and their causes, which is actually a rampant issue with all authoritarian lefties)

I once shared a small group with a SJW, she was still in her teens, just about to graduate HS.  She had no sense of danger whatsoever.  She believed guns should be completely banned outright and ownership of weapons is futile, seeing them as unnecessary in the modern world, and all form of defence should be handled by the state.  When I asked her what she would do if a burglar broke into her home, she said she would call the cops, and when I asked her what she'd do while waiting for the cops, she said she'd feed the burglar, assuming hunger to be among the only reasons someone would break into her home.  She doesn't realize that burglars are actually out to steal from her, not looking for food as would be the case with a dog.  When I asked her what she would do if the state wound up turning on her after all the weapons were gone, she thought I was crazy, and felt such an outcome would never happen.  She believed capitalism is utterly evil, referring to the system we have now (which is actually interventionist, something her school failed to mention no doubt) as being proof of it.  She was also very uncritical towards written language, allowing her prose to be riddled with typos and misspellings, and encouraged others to be as lax.  She believed that people should be taken care of regardless of who they are and what they've done, and believed the taxpayer should foot the bill for it; when questioned about the practicality of this, she accused me of not caring about people's right to food and shelter, arguing that because these needs are present that they should be satisfied, "how can you let someone go hungry"; in other words nobody can ever have their livelihood threatened, according to her ideal.  The last quality I recall, she believed nationalism was a "disease"; I believe she was referring to the Nazi sort of nationalism, however, which is very actively taught in public schools (at least when I went roughly 7 years ago), so I can't completely blame her for being scared shitless of it.

Granted, when I first came to this forum a few years ago, I shared a lot of these qualities (well, I was never as bad as a SJW but I was around the area) and didn't understand why such qualities were negative, so total turn-around in political orientation is absolutely possible.  What worked for me is constant exposure with other viewpoints, which inevitably showed me how I was wrong in my thinking and forced me to change.  I remember when I hit the breaking point: TheButterZone had grilled me on gun bans and I had to concede that gun bans were ineffective in producing the desired goal of reducing criminal violence (since criminals subvert the law to get weapons in case of a ban); after that it was all downhill, as I also had to concede that law was an ineffective way of curbing criminal behaviour all together which caused my entire belief system to avalanche (i.e. the idea that the highest authority was fixing it, or even could, was destroyed.)  In other words, "attacking" SJWs (i.e. disagreeing with them) is what stops them from being SJWs, and to protect who they are (i.e. windmill tilters), they have to guard themselves from these "attackers" i.e. eliminate the chance of exposure to reality, namely by removing the offending individual from the community all together.  We've seen it on Reddit recently, where censorship is very high as well as corruption, and they ban anyone who contributes to the communal discomfort (or who gets in the way of corrupt schemes)--this caused people to leave in droves once the truth started getting around about how bad it was, and caused anyone still around to severely dislike the site and not want to go to it, which is going to kill it over time like a toxin.  We've also seen this in places like China, Cambodia, USSR, Nazi Germany, where they resorted to jailing, silencing, even killing any opposition to the leading party, in each case focused around community, culture, and anti-business, which inevitably ate those organizations from the inside out (why China's as far from their communist ideal as ever, but won't stop being socialist since all that power would be lost from the organizers the moment that goal dies and nothing replaces it.)

What contributes to the creation of a safe space?  Primarily, freedom of speech needs to be abolished; there can be no safe space if people are free to stray from the accepted list of that which can be talked about.  Individuals who violate another's right to be comfortable must be removed from the community and treated as any rule-breaker would, which also removes them from the conversation (no voice.)  In order to remove individuals from the community, you need ownership over the community, the power to decide who is welcome in the community and who is not; therefore, those who seek safe spaces must also be amongst company; to turn the given community into a safe space, you need a high level of safe spacers along with a high level of people who don't naturally recognize obstruction of information transfer, both of which make up some clear majority, particularly a majority which outspends the minority, thus giving greater incentive to community organizers to cater to the safe spacers; since the safe spacers are incompatible with non-safe spacers, one group has to go, and once one group is dominant, the other is naturally locked out--they aren't completely barred from using the site, but it becomes practically useless to their purposes, which pushes them away from it, again Reddit is a great example.  When it comes to communities which are greatly opposed to safe spacers (but which the safe spacer wants to be a part of), the only route for a safe spacer to take is "middle of the road", where the safe spacers encourage the existing community to compromise on their current situation by a small increment now and small increment later, to allow the safe spacers more and more control over how they can be interacted with; this encourages heavy moderation of how the community members can and cannot interact with one another, which inevitably increases that community's rule-breaking behaviour as more and more rules are piled on as to what is and is not acceptable (thus, one by one, kicking the previous community out.)  This goes on until the safe spacers can reach a communal majority, which pushes the now incompatible minority out almost entirely.  With that minority gone, there can be no more meaningful conversation, as the truth is real and reality is no bueno for the safe spacer.  Naturally, the community can simply reject the safe spacer rather than compromise, which forces the safe spacer to seek elsewhere for their desire; I've seen this happen many times in our Meta subforum, where users complain about there being a lack of control and other users yelling at them for being such wimps   Not seeing a whole lot of this on the national level, at least not in the west, in fact it's probably closer to the safe space tipping point than it ever has been (heck, it's tipping as we speak.)

When it comes to sites like this one, the dominant force is in transfer of information rather than sharing of community, and to properly transfer information dictates freedom of speech, so safe spacers will always be locked out (assuming the net remains free, of course; odds are, safe spacers would sooner shut this site down than try to be a part of it.)  I feel that it is normal to accept both community quality and freedom of action and thought as important to a thriving organization, and I believe that people naturally notice and favour one over the other at varying degrees of magnitude, which creates these imbalances in priorities and organizational make up; this necessitates some mix of the two types of people to maintain a healthy organization, so as not to dip too far into either realm.  A safe space is not a healthy organization, it is an organization comprised of dysfunction, which purposefully seeks to eliminate the transfer of information on any meaningful level so as to stop that which causes them discomfort, the discomfort they need to feel to make anything better (thus, instead of a cooperation between the two types, the elimination of one entirely, essentially any form of extremism or "far" ideologies on the left/right spectrum); this dictates total control over the community's behaviour, a situation which breeds corruption as the community organizers, such as the politicians, the website owners, and so forth, see a way to profit from this control: at this point, the community gets into a dangerous predicament where the organizers attempt to control the community for the organizer's gain, rather than the community's gain, and that profitability rises the more "safe" (i.e. sheltered) their safe space is, which worsens the conditions of those individuals participating in the corrupted community as it further separates them from what's real, preventing them from seeing the nature of their relationship with the organizer.  It is as true for any nation as it is for any social site as it is for any family home and should be treated for what it is: social cancer.

This post reminds me why I love reading or sharing on bitcointalk. Thank you.