I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's more than that. It also used like: 1. AmiMojo is a well known SJW 2. SJWs literally support murdering men. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Or I made it up, but it sounds like it's true, so it is. 3. Therefore AmiMojo literally supports murdering men
I've had a lot of similar claims made about me. When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses. The more I demand evidence that I actually said something, the angrier the accusers seem to get. Only evil SJW want evidence of claims it seems.
Haha your post is currently at +4 troll. I'm rooting for 5 since I've not seen one of those in ages.
And about Philip Green: couldn't have happened to a nicer man. He's a skeezy bastard and I hope he gets taken down for something (i.e.losing his knighthood) because he richly deserved it. He got to keep it only because it was better for the pensioners he screwed to receive half their pension (with sir green keeping his title) than for them to receive nothing.
He still ended up hundreds of millions better off even with buying his knighthood back and an end to further investigations with £375,000,000.
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
I'm coming to the conclusion that your advice is excellent for anyone who believes it. In other words of the nuance of such situations is lost on you (and many of us do find such things difficult) then you're better off steering clear because you're much more likely than average you mess up bad.
I do however know several long term married couples who met at work. I don't personally know anyone who's fouled up badly by dating at work, but then I don't know anyone who's done any really ill advised things like dating someone in their immediate team.
I thought this was an instance of Poe's law. Having seen your other posts, it's appears more likely that you're serious.
I would say that the advice of "never date at work" would be a very good idea for you to follow, since I think with your current views you're likely to fuck up badly otherwise.
What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.
I think that's why the idea is so incredibly popular. People in a bad situation can now do the easy thing of blaming someone else and getting a loud, angry and comforting pity party at the same time.
It's very similar to the current incel world in that regard, it's feminazis, HR and #metoo instead of Chads, biotruths and canthal tilts. Either way the effect is the same, it absolves people from any blame (in their mind) and of the need to make difficult changes to how they act.
Sure: I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic. On the other hand, most of the people quoting this stuff as some sort of truth can't either and can barely read the early modern English in KJV properly.
(And we all know that smiting Philistines is not murder . . . unless, of course, you're the Philistine being smited.)
I read/heard the prevailing wisdom that giving a platform and a voice to everyone would lead to a massive democratization of ideas, a boon of quality information, and massive enlightenment. I admit to buying that. Today, that notion seems hopelessly naive.
Have you read the machine stops? It's old enough to be on project Gutenberg. Well worth a read. Doesn't cover everything of course but it's got a very interesting and insightful look at what kind of things people do with mass communications.
People just shouldn't post photos of kids to Facebook. That's half the reason I'm not there. "Oh did you see the 7,000th photo of little baby eating food that I just posted?". "Oh sorry no, I'm not on Facebook".
Don't post photos of kids, no one wants to see your kids, and they won't thank you for it when they're teenagers.
Whether it's anti, well, anything depends on where you look. It's utterly incoherent.
I mean "thou shalt not kill" is pretty specific and hard to find loopholes in but in other places it's all about stoning the Greeks (I.e. Homosexuality), smiting the Philistines and generally massacring the Canaanites. And that's just Part I. Once it gets into something as complicated as sex it's way worse.
But none of that stops fundie asshat (seriously "conservative Christian"? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one) from cherry picking whatever they like as an excuse to oppress.
You're mistaken as it happens. You see, "SJW" is a meaningless phrase incessantly screeched by idiots who can't stand free speech if it means they might get criticised. A few people ironically adopt it as a label because that makes the said screechers really furious, sad and confused and that's just pretty funny!
Of course we get it: he's just like the lol I trol u guy. As it says in the well known comic, having your own ill informed opinions pointed out isn't remotely the same as cunning trolling. But if having your own foolishness pointed out is how you get you jollies, by all means continue.
If virtue signaling is forbidden then your incessant whining about virtue signaling is forbidden because it's virtue signaling about how you so object to virtue signaling.
Ergo, the only sane solution is to say that all advances are unwanted in that community, which is called chastity.
Simply Saying "ergo" makes you neither smart nor rational.
If you have nothing inbetween chastity and using an OSS project mailing list as your personal hunting ground then yes, chastity is the best option for you. But that's a rule for you and you along, not grown ass adults.
Wow you really don't know what happened with Brexit do you. It's quite astonishing how you think Boris Johnson and Reese-Mogg's plan was "the people's choice".
No the Government didn't have to respect the vote: it was advisory. If it wasn't advisory then they'd have to have re run it by law because of the election fraud.
And which side are our betters? The Eton toffs who wanted to remain or the Eton toffs who wanted us to leave? Is David Cameron the real man of the people or is Reese-Mogg?
Nonetheless our economy has been growing at a much slower rate than all comparable countries in Europe, the £350 million a week has vanished and the current government are still talking about raising taxes to make up for the missing money when we do leave.
Slashdot Mirror
I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.
It's more than that. It also used like:
1. AmiMojo is a well known SJW
2. SJWs literally support murdering men. I'm sure I read that somewhere. Or I made it up, but it sounds like it's true, so it is.
3. Therefore AmiMojo literally supports murdering men
I've had a lot of similar claims made about me. When I demand for sort of evidence like a link to where I ever said such a thing, I get angry, evasive responses. The more I demand evidence that I actually said something, the angrier the accusers seem to get. Only evil SJW want evidence of claims it seems.
You can define SJW however you want.
And that is the definition of "SJW" in a nutshell.
Haha your post is currently at +4 troll. I'm rooting for 5 since I've not seen one of those in ages.
And about Philip Green: couldn't have happened to a nicer man. He's a skeezy bastard and I hope he gets taken down for something (i.e.losing his knighthood) because he richly deserved it. He got to keep it only because it was better for the pensioners he screwed to receive half their pension (with sir green keeping his title) than for them to receive nothing.
He still ended up hundreds of millions better off even with buying his knighthood back and an end to further investigations with £375,000,000.
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
I'm coming to the conclusion that your advice is excellent for anyone who believes it. In other words of the nuance of such situations is lost on you (and many of us do find such things difficult) then you're better off steering clear because you're much more likely than average you mess up bad.
I do however know several long term married couples who met at work. I don't personally know anyone who's fouled up badly by dating at work, but then I don't know anyone who's done any really ill advised things like dating someone in their immediate team.
I thought this was an instance of Poe's law. Having seen your other posts, it's appears more likely that you're serious.
I would say that the advice of "never date at work" would be a very good idea for you to follow, since I think with your current views you're likely to fuck up badly otherwise.
What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.
I think that's why the idea is so incredibly popular. People in a bad situation can now do the easy thing of blaming someone else and getting a loud, angry and comforting pity party at the same time.
It's very similar to the current incel world in that regard, it's feminazis, HR and #metoo instead of Chads, biotruths and canthal tilts. Either way the effect is the same, it absolves people from any blame (in their mind) and of the need to make difficult changes to how they act.
IOW in a perverse way it's safe and comforting.
Sure: I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic. On the other hand, most of the people quoting this stuff as some sort of truth can't either and can barely read the early modern English in KJV properly.
(And we all know that smiting Philistines is not murder . . . unless, of course, you're the Philistine being smited.)
Quite so!
I read/heard the prevailing wisdom that giving a platform and a voice to everyone would lead to a massive democratization of ideas, a boon of quality information, and massive enlightenment. I admit to buying that. Today, that notion seems hopelessly naive.
Have you read the machine stops? It's old enough to be on project Gutenberg. Well worth a read. Doesn't cover everything of course but it's got a very interesting and insightful look at what kind of things people do with mass communications.
People just shouldn't post photos of kids to Facebook. That's half the reason I'm not there. "Oh did you see the 7,000th photo of little baby eating food that I just posted?". "Oh sorry no, I'm not on Facebook".
Don't post photos of kids, no one wants to see your kids, and they won't thank you for it when they're teenagers.
Which rule? I don't think there's anything wrong with promiscuity in general.
Whether it's anti, well, anything depends on where you look. It's utterly incoherent.
I mean "thou shalt not kill" is pretty specific and hard to find loopholes in but in other places it's all about stoning the Greeks (I.e. Homosexuality), smiting the Philistines and generally massacring the Canaanites. And that's just Part I. Once it gets into something as complicated as sex it's way worse.
But none of that stops fundie asshat (seriously "conservative Christian"? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one) from cherry picking whatever they like as an excuse to oppress.
Wow you've really got obsessed over me. I guess it's kind of flattering but your projections reveal rather deep seated issues of yours.
weaponized CoCs rammed down the [...] throats
Not sure if grievance or sex fantasy.
You're mistaken as it happens. You see, "SJW" is a meaningless phrase incessantly screeched by idiots who can't stand free speech if it means they might get criticised. A few people ironically adopt it as a label because that makes the said screechers really furious, sad and confused and that's just pretty funny!
Of course we get it: he's just like the lol I trol u guy. As it says in the well known comic, having your own ill informed opinions pointed out isn't remotely the same as cunning trolling. But if having your own foolishness pointed out is how you get you jollies, by all means continue.
If virtue signaling is forbidden then your incessant whining about virtue signaling is forbidden because it's virtue signaling about how you so object to virtue signaling.
Ergo, the only sane solution is to say that all advances are unwanted in that community, which is called chastity.
Simply Saying "ergo" makes you neither smart nor rational.
If you have nothing inbetween chastity and using an OSS project mailing list as your personal hunting ground then yes, chastity is the best option for you. But that's a rule for you and you along, not grown ass adults.
If the truth isn't in your favor, resort to libel.
No wonder you're a Brexit supporter. Clearly the concepts of truth, ethics, decency and rationality are utterly lost on you.
SJW are threatening you and and your family for what they think you SHOULD say.
Congratulations for using the most over the top emotional language I've seen today.
Wow you really don't know what happened with Brexit do you. It's quite astonishing how you think Boris Johnson and Reese-Mogg's plan was "the people's choice".
WTF are you talking about. The Tories lost their majority at the election.
Interesting that you feel the need to bang on the "muh freeze peach" drum no matter how irreverent it is to the comment you're replying you.
No the Government didn't have to respect the vote: it was advisory. If it wasn't advisory then they'd have to have re run it by law because of the election fraud.
And which side are our betters? The Eton toffs who wanted to remain or the Eton toffs who wanted us to leave? Is David Cameron the real man of the people or is Reese-Mogg?
We haven't actually left need you moron.
Voting leave isn't the same as actually leaving.
Nonetheless our economy has been growing at a much slower rate than all comparable countries in Europe, the £350 million a week has vanished and the current government are still talking about raising taxes to make up for the missing money when we do leave.