Any mature individual sees it this way.
The whole world will not think alike, but SJW cannot wrap their minds around the idea that others have different ways of looking at the world. SJW demand that every construct of society abide to their whim to a tee. I'm all for censoring pornography and video of public executions from being shown on kids' cartoons as any normal person would. SJW aren't out looking to protect kids or society but are instead looking to mute anyone that has a differing viewpoint on legitimate topics.
Not surprisingly this generally a trait of both sides. Whether conscious or not people don't like hearing other people's view points if they contradict their own.
The big difference is that if I hear someone spew off some rhetoric that I don't agree with, I can either have a civil discussion based on logic and facts (not feelings) with the utmost courtesy or I can go on my dandy-way and live my life. SJW infiltrate both med schools and college campuses.
Our conversation seemed to show you're far more emotionally driven than otherwise. Which is fine, emotions are despite their bad rep one of the methods of relating to and understanding people. But lets also not presenting yourself as a paragon of logic or courtesy and then proceeding to follow it up with something that is neither.
The idea is that colleges should play a role in teaching people how to think--not what to think. Hearing other opinions should serve two purpoes: 1) either expose holes and irregularities in one's raitonale/logic or 2) solidify one's rationale because it stood the test of being challenged. SJW don't want to have a civil discussion that challenges them. Rather the whole world needs to pander and conform to these SJW or risk having one of their public, completely voluntarily-attended talks protested on a university campus. Individuals that so much as blow their noses the wrong way risk being inappropriately mislabeled by whatever the buzz word of the month is that ends in -ist or -phobe by these SJW.
Yes. There's however a difference in debating whether someone is hurt or not. There's a difference likewise in the approach and in the expectation. When someone is hurt, you ask and figure out why they're hurt. You listen to their perspective and their stories.
I've seen people gang up on a survivor of sexual and domestic violence who was claiming that rape jokes and the like help lessen the seriousness of rape and be told to suck it up, that it's a joke, and to pull themselves up by their boot straps.
Personally I think there's an interesting story behind every human being. Listening to them speak and hearing them out is something we can do. However it's also a respect that you can lose. You either respect a person's story and their experience as having some validity or you don't have a conversation. You cannot start a conversation with someone who is a victim of racism for example, but claiming that they are not or that their experience isn't valid.
SJW = coddled, anti-intellect
Maybe? It's not exactly an exclusive audience. Some SJWs, which I nickname Tumblr Warriors, do it wrong and are pretty dumb. But many people work and address major issues in our society. And as a physician, social justice is one of our major considerations.
And before anyone on here tries to act like I'm some racist, back-woods patriarch, I have lived in one of the largest cities in the US my entire life. I attend med school in said city. Both of my parents immigrated to the US with their families when they were teens as well. I also didn't vote for Trump.
