Diversity in polyamory: why hasn't it worked?

I think the problem here is that some people use SJW as a pejorative and some use it as a point of pride...
 
"Social justice warrior" may be used as a point of pride, but "SJW" is a pejorative used by gamergaters and right-wing trolls. I'm disappointed to see it in use here.
 
SJW doesn't imply "right wing" to me. It's a term that describes a certain self-aggrandizing, self-appointed moral guardianship and I thought it was aptly used in this thread.
 
In the US, a SJW is someone, usually a white person, who goes around getting offended on behalf of other people for things that do not apply to themselves, and they usually do it in an aggressively self-righteous way, as described in Vinsanity's anecdote. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with video games and republicans/right-wing/conservatives, lol. Maybe in Australia it has a meaning which is "disappointing" in the same way that finding out someone in the US is a member of the NRA, but over here it means "obnoxious know-it-all twenty-something".
 
I don't think I've ever heard the term used over here, but thanks for playing. If you managed to miss gamergate and it's associated political fallout, good for you.
 
I don't think I've ever heard the term used over here, but thanks for playing. If you managed to miss gamergate and it's associated political fallout, good for you.

My head is so far up my ass, I can finally chew my own food. :cool:
 
In the US, a SJW is someone, usually a white person, who goes around getting offended on behalf of other people for things that do not apply to themselves
I hope you at least realize that's kinda self-aggrandizing Rightist bullshit. Right?

The "things that do not apply to themselves" line is a wonderfully classic crypto-racist dodge that I cannot countenance. As it's usually spouted mindlessly by self-proclaimed Xtians, I'll point to Genesis 4:9. :rolleyes:

I am a male. Why do YOU feel that I don't have any right to find attacks against women -- as in "women I do not personally know" -- offensive?

I present as heterosexual. Why do YOU feel that I don't have any right to find anti-gay bullshit offensive?

I am caucasian. Why do YOU feel that I don't have any right to feel concern for the well-being & advancement of my black friends?

I was raised Xtian & am currently quasi-Wiccan. Why do I not have any right to find lingering antisemitism nauseating?

Please, step up or shut up.
 
Oh poor Ravenscroft, triggered once again.

No one ever said YOU don't have the "right" to feel any of those things.

Thank you for putting words into someone else's mouth, which is something you do quite a lot. Yes yes i know, "quite" is a weasel word, blah blah, etc.

Bye.

ETA: Re-hi. Maybe my previous choice of words was poor. But before I write anything else, I realize that this is only going to make you more upset, and you'll probably accuse me of back-pedaling. That said, what SJW really is about is telling OTHER people how they "should" feel about certain things... Not me telling YOU how YOU should feel. You as a man can feel as offended as you want about issues that only affect women... that does not make you a SJW. *But* if *you* insist that *I* should be offended by something... let's say someone called me a name that most women would not like, such as "cunt", and it didn't bother me, but YOU insist that I *should* be bothered because "that word is offensive to women". That's SJW. Or if a black person calls another black person "my nigga", and YOU say they "should" be offended because "that's a racist word". Ooh, or better yet, when a person refers to theirself as "Black" and white people insist that it should be "African American". Those are NOT "bad" words. Those are JUST WORDS with certain cultural baggage. When a gay man refers to himself as a "fag", and YOU tell HIM he *shouldn't* do that because "that word is anti-gay". I could go on and on, just like you did. I know a guy who likes to man-splain things like, "Do you realize what it's like to be a woman? Just ask my girlfriend." I mean, he says that TO women. That's SJW.

Now, I don't expect this explanation to have any effect on you, for better or worse. I know how much you love to read your own masterpiece posts and collect them all and say you wrote books, and stuff. You do you. But you don't get to tell me how to do me.

And no, this is not off-topic. Tony started the thread (he has given out his first name on the forum before, no doxxing here, no siree), and he's getting the discussion he craves. Be careful what you wish for, etc.

The End, until I think of more ways to dig myself into a hole with words, LOL.
 
Last edited:
Per Wiktionary, doxx = "to publish personal information on the Internet."
 
So, I posted earlier in good faith. But this is rubbish. If the point of the post is to criticize AMZN (and by association big corporations) for not running services at a loss in regions disproportionately populated by minority groups: ummm, that's the point of government.

Businesses produce stuff efficiently

Governments redistribute stuff to those that need it

OP: You are angry at the wrong people. Vote. The fact that your friends voted poorly doesn't license you to lay into business.

(Full disclosure, I'm not American, but if I were I'd probably be a bit like David Brooks: uncomfortably right wing of the unusually left wing company he keeps at NYT. Because it turns out that government redistribution of things like health care works pretty well here in Australia and in most other Rich countries. for example.)
 
Last edited:
Because it turns out that government redistribution of things like health care works pretty well here in Australia and in most other Rich countries. for example.

In my experience and from my studies, my take would be that it would be quite the stretch to suggest that the governmental bureaucracy of any country could manage anything efficiently. But in the case of health care, it may be the lesser of evils.
 
Last edited:
..government redistribution of things like health care works pretty well here in Australia and in most other Rich countries. for example.)

Australia has 24 million people.
USA has 324 million people.

It never works to compare the USA to any other "rich" country because of our sheer enormity and diversity - not just race, but religious, class, cultural, financial, regional diversity. We might be able to manage health care from a state level (we have 50 of them) but I don't see all-encompassing national healthcare ever working here.
 
Australia has 24 million people.
USA has 324 million people.

It never works to compare the USA to any other "rich" country because of our sheer enormity and diversity - not just race, but religious, class, cultural, financial, regional diversity. We might be able to manage health care from a state level (we have 50 of them) but I don't see all-encompassing national healthcare ever working here.


Exactly. Comparing the united States to Sweden or Norway or countries with a small portion of our population is like saying to treat a great Dane like a Toy Poodle, ludicrous.

If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. Heard that bull shit ad nauseum
 
Great Danes and toy poodles are both dogs. Same category.

Scale doesn't matter in the way people think it does. Collectively, Europe, Australia, New Zealand - all first world economies *except* for the US have universal healthcare, paid for at least in part by taxes. There are variety of models countries have used that vary in the details.

It's a difference in values, not scale that is the problem. The culture of the United States values individuals over any community. The countries who have universal healthcare have decided that health care is a fundamental human right. People should not die or suffer or go bankrupt because health care is too expensive or unavailable for other reasons (no doctors in a given area, no supplies, etc.). People in the United States have collectively decided that it is ok if people die from lack of health care. And this is made easier because the people who die are more likely to not be like the people who are comfortable financially and can afford health care. It is not a coincidence that the people most affected by lack of health care are poorer, not white, not well educated, may not have a home (shelter is another thing the US has decided is not a human right). I personally believe that universal healthcare has not been put into place in the US because most people in the US, consciously or unconsciously, would rather have all kinds of people suffer from lack of healthcare rather than have people who do not look like them 'get ahead' in some way. I've very reluctantly come to this conclusion about my country.

Universal healthcare works just fine everywhere it exists. Yes, there are bureaucratic snafus and frustrations. But those countries have decided that everyone putting some money via taxes towards a common good makes life better for everyone. People in the US are unwilling to put a little towards a benefit that may not immediately benefit them, or may benefit others more immediately and directly.

And the distrust of government bureaucracies has been manufactured since the 1980s very deliberately by Republicans to discredit any and all government solutions for social problems. If people believe that government can't solve any problems because government staff is incompetent, then, guess what! - then no one tries to put into place government run solutions. Government can and has solved medical, social, economic issues of all kinds in the US. It continues to do so. The environmental progress we've seen - and it is real if not far along enough - is largely because of government regulation. Corporations would poison everything around them if they could make more money.

I work for the federal government in the US. I see my co-workers working their butts off serving the American people as best they can. Everyone I work with, and have come in contact with in the federal government, care intensely about serving the people of the United States.

But the American people keep electing heads of government who do not believe in government. Trump is not the outlier here, just the natural outcome of several trends. When you degrade and denigrate the work of public servants, when you refuse to fully fund the government (pro-tip, doing more with less is not actually possible!), then yes, government starts to fail. What we are seeing now is the long term failure of government - not because it failed to serve or was incompetent - but because the American people decided they didn't want a government that served the broad interests of the people. It doesn't matter if this decision wasn't entirely conscious or fully informed.
 
I tend to agree with you opal.
 
Back
Top