Notes

The thing is, sometimes they have good points, but all of their points come from other people, mindlessly blabbered with no context across the web, once someone says something they just copy it till it becomes cancer

No original thought or judgement, that's why they don't like differing opinions

It's kinda like the word of the Church. Thing is, their Church is anyone saying something with their ideals but heightened, so the bar is just going higher and higher till there is no tolerance for anything but tolerance

Do they know that?
Also, it's not the new church, it isn't big enough. It isn't because they rule the Internet that they rule the world. Political correctness in day to day life is a different matter and people who aren't jackasses but say things as is are pretty much admired in daily structure

The thing is,it's getting there.They're not just on the Internet anymore,they're starting to affect college campuses with their idiotic decrees.Some of their ''figureheads''even spoke at the UN for heck's sake

New wave conservatism. Keeping certain left ideas but leaving out others. Because we have to look at things like a spectrum, there will always be conservatives like there are today, and they end in the extreme, the new wave falls in a moderate war zone

The problem that they don't see with their world view is that they also cover certain extreme right ideas,like segregation and the likes,under new hip names like safe spaces,and with a new boogeyman.Instead of the scary/evil minorities that whatever group chastised,now they're putting it on the back of white people.

1)Generalizations aren't a good idea, same goes for vulgar language and insults. In this kind of thing, I believe it's best to keep things neutral and not let our upbringing and emotions cloud our judgement. Completely valid opinion until proven otherwise. Even then, tolerance, patience, and understanding of how they got such ideas is to be applied. We never know if we, ourselves, are in the wrong.

2)Safe spaces will never be safe. They'll automatically become targets for people who dislike the group that uses them, only safe space per se is the person's home. Public places are a forum where all ideas can thrive.


To address point #1:I agree that we have to view this objectively,however, you cannot say that the points I brought up are false.The tricky thing with using logic to try and prove people wrong is that more often than not,they'll just ignore or attack it(And in their case,it is far from uncommon that they simply attack the person who brought up valid points just because they challenged their worldview.)While we may not know if we are wrong,we still can take an example from history,to avoid repeating it.
For the point number 2,I agree that safe spaces are unpractical even in concept,but let's take liberal campuses for instance.It isn't uncommon that they hold 'debates'' where some form of person is discouraged to go,be it a male,a white person,you get the point.Same goes with trigger warnings.Even though I know that PTSD is a real and serious thing,their use and abuse and overuse of the term rendered it moot.

I'll start with trigger warning, I think it's ok to use them if you're about to go into something you don't usually go into, but only when it's written or something the person chooses to listen to (let's say it doesn't count for day to day conversation, unless the person specifically says they're quite sensitive about a specific subject), yes it can seem weird to some, but if it helps people, well why not. This, though, is NOT PTSD. Unless there is a diagnostic I won't acknowledge they have it, I'll believe temporary or full, but not self-diagnostics because I personally think they're ridiculous (I see them a lot with Aspies).

If I was you, I wouldn't go into one of their debates, you need a minimum of finesse to meddle with those folk and you have as much as a hippo on a tightrope :')

It doesn't help I'm a cis straight white male,they'd just grab the torches and pitchforks :^)

I've seen som CSWMs defend themselves with wonderful finesse, it can be done. I've tried once in a forum to pass as one, it is possible to talk with them. Just lots of patience, repeating and saying your opinions with their words making them think it's their own

Yeah,but I'm allergic to stupidity,I'd choke on my own words 10 seconds in.

What I particularly don't understand is the great number of white people in the movement. If I was to look at it with a high up and snobbish point of view I could almost say they're there out of innate pity and guilt of what their ancestors have done. This going against their principles of equality for all. Also, because it's a bandwagon, the fear of becoming the bad guy and being rejected, left alone by society. Seeing everything change so they hang on for their dear lives and try to find something (often a disability) to secure themselves to the moving wheel. So motivations, in the mind of a high up, impartial, arrogant ass hole, would be: pity, feeling of superiority (because they know best), guilt and fear of being alone.

Do I sound stupid?
No,except in certain parts,where you give them too much credit.

I wrote what I wrote for a reason. Putting the person forming that opinion makes it not my own, so it's easier to swallow and people are more likely to listen to it. Also, since it's tinted with emotion I prefer to not make it my own since it's personal analysis. This makes the point of view compassionate and non-judging, so no attacking. No attacking= no aggressivity. It's not something I used to do but let's just say Adapt to survive.

I understand why you wrote it that way,and it is probably correct to use in an actual debate,but I misunderstood your intention at first because I thought that was your opinion,not your opinion that you made easier to swallow.

I don't speak my mind, like never, because it's a cruel place I dislike.