Perhaps I'm unappreciative to think of such groups as a resource, or simply too cynical to respond warmly to assistance, but as much as I would accept assistance from a group for Asians, households with single parents, low-income families, etc. I can't find myself really reciprocating the so-called care I might receive. Imagining myself in a more compromising position like homelessness, the idea of this kind of aid seems dehumanizing, not because of an ego that says I should be able to fend for myself, but because a specialized interest group turns you into a statistic. The faux idea of community because "we're all in this together" makes me sick. Telling me you're polyamorous does not grant you a shortcut to friendship in my book. I know that in various capacities I'm a majority, and in others I'm a minority, but in neither instance do I feel a sense of brotherhood or obligation among people like me. Maybe it's a personal problem that I seem to reject what most would view as a support system, but I feel weird whenever I see two people that are alike presupposing some kind of connection.

The way I see it, much of this dance consists of insecure Millennials with Munchausen Syndrome who find it easier to be a victim in a group than to find their identity on their own. On the other side are people that are no different, trying to find acceptance and community under the pretense of helping others. Being a victim and identifying with victims is the only way some people can feel accepted and reciprocated, probably because ideas of being underprivileged create a vacuum waiting to be filled with a "safe space." Most people that these activism groups are trying to help aren't a part of this network, not because they're ashamed, but because they're too busy having a life to talk about something as inconsequential as sexual identity.

In reality, all altruistic behavior is a way for people to place arbitrary value in themselves when fulfilling their personal agenda isn't possible. Nobody likes to reminisce about how unapologetic and ungrateful they were as a toddler, before society conditioned them to feel good for helping others. Unfortunately, the commonly accepted idolization of equality and generosity create a stigma against selfishness that people adamantly deny. At best, people recognize that our socialization is necessary for cooperation and survival, but after admitting this logically will go back to dogmatically behaving as if these moral standards are absolute. If you've been socialized to the point of feeling good about helping an old lady across the street, fine. There's no point trying to "undo" that conditioning, especially if you find it gives you a reason to feel good about yourself. But if we pride ourselves in using our intellect to overcome our base desires, we should not recognize this kind of fulfillment as anything more than a dopamine rush. It is embarrassing to see someone spend their lives fighting for justice as if some deity is awarding them "morality points" from the sidelines, stubbornly believing that the significance of their actions extends beyond the tingly feeling of self-value that they allow themselves.

It's okay to be a dickbag.

At 7/2/16 04:59 PM, zornuzkull wrote: Social justice would be something that is good...
If middleclass white kids hadn't turned it into an excuse to whine about the "injustice" of there comfortable suburban existence... It's been invaded co-opted and corrupted...
Sunrise sun set...

Not to mention where it even gets corrupted by feminazis that have long since hijacked "feminism", turning it from what was originally a fight for equal rights to women supremacy. The fact that they have become a part of the social regressives who claimed to be fighting for "social justice" made it even worse.

At 7/2/16 06:43 PM, zornuzkull wrote:

I know I'm not racist or sexist... I don't need anyone to tell me what I am and what I'm not...
How these fucking idiots have been put in charge of anything seriously boggles the mind...
Instead of concentrating on what really makes a difference... They've gone down all these stupid tangents and ideological dead ends... All this while everyone else has been getting poorer as a result... It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad...

To make the matters worse is how some of these idiots even have a media platform to spew out that kind of bullcrap. The incident with the new Ghostbusters movie just happens to be one of many examples so it had been around for some time. I mean when the hell is "CIS" a thing? Now there's straight bashing?

At 7/2/16 06:54 PM, zornuzkull wrote:

Iv stopped caring and so have many other people... We're making the world a better place by putting an all female cast in the remake of a classic movie... Take that patriarchy...
They've got everyone running in circles while the real crooks make bank on the mess...
It's ingenious in its simplicity...

It's also the reason why I hope the movie bombs, but it'll probably do alright at the first weekend before the viewers realize how much it sucked. Hopefully the bad word of mouth will kill it, that way maybe we'll get some hilarious response from Feig and the retard who thinks sewing Deadpool's mouth shut is a good idea. The whole thing have became a joke and not the funny kind either.

Judging from the leaked summary, even Ed Wood's movie look Oscar worthy in comparison and one of his movie had an actor wrestling a rubber octopus.

Do the SJWs even like what they're defending? I'd rather watch Sandler's post-Click movies than that.

At 7/2/16 07:11 PM, zornuzkull wrote:

It's not about what they like on an individual basis... It's about lockstep ideological hegemony...
If you disagree you become a pariah and are excluded from the group think...
That's how these groups function...

I know, it's kind of like the group of bitches you find in high school movies. If one of them disagrees with with they believe in, that person gets shunned, that sort of thing.

When you think about it, it seems no one have really grown...

It won't be long until they became sort of a hive mind.

Justice? You know nothing of true justice.

Before your time, the blind lady provided justice, but from the chaos that she created I brought order. No more will these criminals be allowed to wander the streets freely.

I think that some people for social justice are well meaning but then there are a lot of people who are butt hurt for whatever reason. I'd like to give some of these people the benefit of the doubt and say they are working through their issues, it's hard to be different. But that is never an excuse to bully, threaten, manipulate, guilt trip or otherwise mistreat other people.

Bigotry, hatred and ignorance are the enemy. Not someone who was born into a majority they did not choose.

"In reality, all altruistic behavior is a way for people to place arbitrary value in themselves when fulfilling their personal agenda isn't possible. Nobody likes to reminisce about how unapologetic and ungrateful they were as a toddler, before society conditioned them to feel good for helping others. "

Yeah those two sentences really do sound cynical OP. I mean, SJWs get on my nerve as much as anyone else's, but if you think all altruism is nothing more than some form of manipulation and/or Pavlovian response, sounds like you're rather jaded. Or at least trying to act like it (but I know you're more legit than to just pretend about something).

At 7/2/16 06:49 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: To make the matters worse is how some of these idiots even have a media platform to spew out that kind of bullcrap.

There are a couple possibilities here. The most obvious is that extremists draw viewers because everyone likes to gawk. The other is that there are some real misogynists funding these extremist feminists in order to push the movement backward.

At 7/2/16 09:28 PM, CiviLies wrote: Yeah those two sentences really do sound cynical OP. I mean, SJWs get on my nerve as much as anyone else's, but if you think all altruism is nothing more than some form of manipulation and/or Pavlovian response, sounds like you're rather jaded. Or at least trying to act like it (but I know you're more legit than to just pretend about something).

Manipulation implies self-awareness, which I don't think is usually the case. That said, I do think all behaviors are meant to increase comfort or pleasure (or to minimize discomfort.) For a social species, this includes conducive social behaviors and gives the illusion of altruism. The most simplistic evidence for this has to do with different outcomes of an interaction.

Suppose someone approaches you on the street and begs you for money. The choice here is pretty binary; you can give them something or you can refuse. Assuming you have something to give them, your choice will be determined based on whether or not you'll feel guilty about ignoring them, or if you'll feel good about yourself after giving them something. If neither of these are true, you have no motivation to be generous. From a selfless standpoint this should be about the beggar. Namely, are they legitimately needy? But the person isn't really concerned with this; whatever they decide will simply be a rationalization that justifies the rush of pleasure or blocks the sense of guilt after they've made their decision.

Parasyte introduces an interesting counterpoint to this, citing affectionate behavior between animals of different species. The argument that a cat and a bird have no logical reason to play with each other is sound, but it overlooks the fact that oftentimes these interactions are not rationalized at all, but simply behavioral habits coming from two social species. It's the same principle as playing fetch; a dog isn't questioning whether or not what they're retrieving is edible, it's only following a behavioral pattern.

I suppose you could call me jaded, but I can't claim to be someone that's gone through the wringer. Most of my perspectives are adopted from observing self-destructive people that trap themselves with guilt or enable themselves with moral justifications.

The entire premise of your argument is completely wrong, and yes, what you are trying to argue is a textbook case of cynicism. We can certainly go down the rabbit hole of debating how much of our actions are socially engineered, but it would not make a case against altruism or philanthropy. For instance, let's assume that you're more than right; every nice thing we do is solely influenced by years of societal conditioning, there is no distinction between selfishness and self-interest, etc. Well then, what's the motive in conditioning ourselves that way? Are you saying that altruism is a too primitive mindset? It's a very disingenuous assertion, since the need for belonging is a perfectly normal psychological need that would require fulfillment in some way if you live in any sort of modern society. After feeling like they have their place in the community, a healthy individual will naturally become receptive towards whatever their perception is in helping others.

There are legitimate criticisms to be had of this movement that you're referring to, but to say that them organizing for a cause is in itself a flawed idea is just silly.

At 7/2/16 11:49 PM, FinaLee wrote: Well then, what's the motive in conditioning ourselves that way? Are you saying that altruism is a too primitive mindset? It's a very disingenuous assertion, since the need for belonging is a perfectly normal psychological need that would require fulfillment in some way if you live in any sort of modern society. After feeling like they have their place in the community, a healthy individual will naturally become receptive towards whatever their perception is in helping others.

Social conditioning exists to ensure the survival of the collective entity, but because resources are limited, acting in the interest of a group often means acting against our own interests. That's why it's considered honorable for a captain to go down with their ship, and dishonorable for them to bail.

As societies grow, industrialize, and globalize, the number of leaders remains fairly constant despite the number of civilians growing disproportionately large, so the value of each individual is deprecated because the people seeking leadership positions tend NOT to be susceptible to moral conditioning, creating an "all for one and one for one" system. The history of propaganda and nationalism teaches us that the need to belong is not necessarily benign, because willingness to help others is always conditional.

In other words, people act in the interest of a greater good at the risk of themselves and others. They may argue that they care about helping others, but when belonging takes precedent, the mission statement of an interest group takes a beating.

What I am really arguing is that people should not pretend that doing good is its own reward, because no metric exists for that reward. Understanding social interaction as a set of mutual agreements sounds cold, but it opens the gateway for better communication and prevents people from acting against their own interest in the name of what's "right."

You will not feel guilt refusing the second-hander if you realize that you value yourself higher than him.

tl;dr

It is interesting that you say there is no accurate way to measure "goodness" in its own right, but continue to use words like "pretend" to describe people's motives as if there is currently a way to quantify it. We are talking about things relating to psychology and sociology, two fields that aren't exactly known for their number crunching.

You are right that belongingness is not benign, and you may have a point that not satiating that need can make a society more impressionable, but willingness to help others is not a purely conditioned mindset. Empathy is not an emotion that was conditioned through years of selfish leaders. Sure, it can be exploited, but that is not the same thing as inventing it, so to speak.

Justice is justice, when you add a quantifying word in front of it, it becomes a perversion. Social justice isn't justice, it's more a way of saying "we want things this way."

At 7/2/16 04:52 PM, Kwing wrote: Perhaps I'm unappreciative to think of such groups as a resource, or simply too cynical to respond warmly to assistance, but as much as I would accept assistance from a group for Asians, households with single parents, low-income families, etc.

I'm sure not every group is cynical to such requests.

I can't find myself really reciprocating the so-called care I might receive. Imagining myself in a more compromising position like homelessness, the idea of this kind of aid seems dehumanizing, not because of an ego that says I should be able to fend for myself, but because a specialized interest group turns you into a statistic.

so it is more humanizing to avoid social welfare programs in order to resist becoming a statistic?

The faux idea of community because "we're all in this together" makes me sick.

I think it is more of a social construct than for the actual deeds, some people don't have the capacity to help themselves to they would need to rely on a group.

Telling me you're polyamorous does not grant you a shortcut to friendship in my book.

once again, it seems more like a social construct, it seems people feel they must rely on association to feel good about themselves.

I know that in various capacities I'm a majority, and in others I'm a minority, but in neither instance do I feel a sense of brotherhood or obligation among people like me. Maybe it's a personal problem that I seem to reject what most would view as a support system, but I feel weird whenever I see two people that are alike presupposing some kind of connection.

It seems like you are more of a double agent between two groups focusing on the interests of the two. This problem is similar to middle school when people arrange themselves in collective agreements or arguments.

The way I see it, much of this dance consists of insecure Millennials with Munchausen Syndrome who find it easier to be a victim in a group than to find their identity on their own. On the other side are people that are no different, trying to find acceptance and community under the pretense of helping others.

This difference of acceptance has been the same with all age groups throughout history, where the old fights the new.

Being a victim and identifying with victims is the only way some people can feel accepted and reciprocated, probably because ideas of being underprivileged create a vacuum waiting to be filled with a "safe space." Most people that these activism groups are trying to help aren't a part of this network, not because they're ashamed, but because they're too busy having a life to talk about something as inconsequential as sexual identity.

seems like activism groups are more related to a business application.

In reality, all altruistic behavior is a way for people to place arbitrary value in themselves when fulfilling their personal agenda isn't possible. Nobody likes to reminisce about how unapologetic and ungrateful they were as a toddler, before society conditioned them to feel good for helping others.

psychologically, placing value in oneself is just a positive association people give themselves to make themselves feel better .

Unfortunately, the commonly accepted idolization of equality and generosity create a stigma against selfishness that people adamantly deny. At best, people recognize that our socialization is necessary for cooperation and survival, but after admitting this logically will go back to dogmatically behaving as if these moral standards are absolute.

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions. No one gets through life always doing the "right thing".

If you've been socialized to the point of feeling good about helping an old lady across the street, fine. There's no point trying to "undo" that conditioning, especially if you find it gives you a reason to feel good about yourself. But if we pride ourselves in using our intellect to overcome our base desires, we should not recognize this kind of fulfillment as anything more than a dopamine rush.

I think there is a clear difference between intrinsically helping someone else out and being extrinsically associated to another group.

It is embarrassing to see someone spend their lives fighting for justice as if some deity is awarding them "morality points" from the sidelines, stubbornly believing that the significance of their actions extends beyond the tingly feeling of self-value that they allow themselves.

I think it is embarrassing to see people limit their lives on all the binaries in life "good/bad", "us/them", etc.

What you seem to be wondering is a universal standard that sometimes works in a "one size fits all" approach.

Sometimes you need to be particular about certain situations.

Know when to hold, and know when to fold.

Social justice is something older than anyone living today. It has nothing to do with white suburbanites, millennials, etc. It's a term that has, admittedly, been bastardized the last few decades, especially so today, but it's not the bad thing you're making it out to be, OP.

And, no, social justice isn't about turning people into statistics, either. That's paranoia talking.

Now what are we talking about specifically? Social justice? Or the paltry excuse for 'social justice' by people who have next to no idea what it means?

At 7/3/16 11:05 AM, FinaLee wrote: It is interesting that you say there is no accurate way to measure "goodness" in its own right, but continue to use words like "pretend" to describe people's motives as if there is currently a way to quantify it. We are talking about things relating to psychology and sociology, two fields that aren't exactly known for their number crunching.

That's only half of my argument. What I'm saying is that people don't evaluate their motives, but doing so would be in their best interest. This is about turning sociology into diplomacy in order to make it more measurable. For example, you could describe a romantic relationship as follows:

Each partner wants the physical comfort of each other's body when in each other's company, satiation of mammalian social instincts, and a sense of emotional security created by a mutual obligation. Because the agreement might imply certain goals (such as shared living, marriage, and children) it also sets the framework for a future, which is another layer of security. Conventional insecurities dictate that this partnership should be mutually exclusive to make the partnership appear more sustainable.

But do people really say this? No. They say "I want to be with you because I love you." The funny thing is, people say that love is mysterious, but that only rings true because love is a word that people do not want to define. It is a definition kept intentionally ambiguous because the mystery is appealing. But when a relationship falls apart, do people logically evaluate what needs are being met and which needs are not? Sometimes, but only if both people are able to decompose the relationship into its base ingredients. If a problem is repaired, it usually stems from a solution that involves a person communicating a tangible behavior that they want to change and finding a solution.

Empathy is not an emotion that was conditioned through years of selfish leaders. Sure, it can be exploited, but that is not the same thing as inventing it, so to speak.

This is only partly true. The only reason we are susceptible to empathy is genetically we have evolved as a social species, which is why you can teach a human or a dog guilt, but not a reptile. Of course, there are environmental factors too. Russians fleeing the Soviet Union were notorious for selfish behavior as a result of living inside a system that was so broken that bribery was the only way to survive. There is a reason that each country seems to have its own attitude, and it's because each culture conditions its people differently. What I would like to know is why it matters that our empathy can be genetic or environmental. Neither cause makes a case against it being a collective survival mechanism.

At 7/3/16 11:08 PM, Davidzx wrote: so it is more humanizing to avoid social welfare programs in order to resist becoming a statistic?

Not really. It's more the idea of people that claim to care about you even if they've never read your writing, seen your drawings, or heard your music.

psychologically, placing value in oneself is just a positive association people give themselves to make themselves feel better .

I think it's a little more than that. Prioritizing your own needs will protect you against others that do the same (see Prisoner's Dilemma.)

I think there is a clear difference between intrinsically helping someone else out and being extrinsically associated to another group.

When you help out at a food shelter everyone volunteering with you is cheering you on. When you help someone on your own you reproduce the same feeling internally. Either way, you're still feeling pleasure from exhibiting pro-social behavior.

At 7/4/16 10:26 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: i played dan remar's "the world fell silent" a few days ago... it changed my perspective. made me want to seek help in life..

Iji was an outstanding game. I'll make sure to play TWFS as soon as I find the time to.