I do not understand why that is cryptic to you.
I am not hard right, nor a progressive talking about extremists. You said those were the only people using it as a pejorative. I asked for an explanation for the people that are not of those two types who are saying it. You asked for an example, I offered myself. I am not of those two types, but I am using it as a pejorative because I think the SJW “movement” is toxic. Obviously, I recognise that not everyone calling themself an SJW is a toxic person or part of the problem, just in case your tempted to hurl “not all!” my way.

Strawmanned me right out of the gate, perhaps you didnt mean to. I didnt ask about people in the “centre”, here is what I said:

“In general to anyone saying the term SJW is a term used as a weapon by the hard right to smear any kind of progressive or anyone invested in social justice:

What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?”

A good portion of your response was a description of the most charitable view of SJW activism. Uneccassary, I understand that already. As Ive said, i do not think SJW activism resembles what you describe (what its supposed to be) but rather has been co-opted by authoritarians under the guise of something benign like you describe.
Anyway, I would still be interested in your answer to my actual question.

In my experience it is not used pejoratively outside those two contexts. If you think otherwise, supply some examples and we can discuss them. — andrewk

Well, Im not hard right or a progressive talking about extremism and Im saying it.

...and the rest of what I said? Do you have an answer for that?

Alright, well I wasnt intending to imply you said anything about god specifically, nor was I trying to be adversarial. It was related commentary for the purpose of discussion, and an explanation about the nebulous state of the topic of god which resulted in your stance about the “yay” or “nay” about god being “guesses”.

And the unanswered prayers of others? No plan fir them? Not worthwhile people? My son dies of cancer even though I prayed, no plan for him I guess? Not worthwhile enough to save?
God works in mysterious ways, right?

It depends on what “god” you are talking about, what attributes are being assigned to the “god” in question. These claims, at least some of them, are testable. The current popular “god” of monotheism is actually a much diluted “god”, after having been tested and found wanting many, many times. Now, “god” is this nebulous pseudo-entity that exists outside any ability to test it or even just differentiate from the various forms delusion we know humans are subject to.
Convenient, but not very convincing.

I think that is exactly right, collateral damage is a consequence of free speech. The degree and nature of that damage should be measured against the damage NOT having free speech results in. Free speech for the win, imo.

So how does that work? You think that god suspended the laws of nature for you and your dog but not for other people whose dogs, children, mothers, fathers and wives died from cancer or whatever else? What makes you and your dog so special? Was it they way you prayed? The timing? Because you prayed twice?

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory). — Terrapin Station

Aren’t those examples of knowledge though? They are only “beliefs” specifically when that knowledge is being acted upon.
If you disagree with that, then is there any useful distinction at all between knowledge and belief in your view or is it just that knowledge can only ever be a kind of belief?

What about when they use the term “SJW” as a pejorative? If its only used that way by the hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists, how do you explain its use as a pajoritive by people who are not hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists?

Well, many terms mean different things to different people, I dont think we should abandon them.
What about people who are lefties and use the term and they do not mean extremists? The lefties who think it is not just a fringe of the SJW “movement”?

In general to anyone saying the term SJW is a term used as a weapon by the hard right to smear any kind of progressive or anyone invested in social justice:

What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?

I mostly agree with what you said after quoting me there, although we might disagree on the prevalence of the ones giving “advocates of a better world” a bad name. Im well aware of the distinction, my sister considers herself an SJW but is an actual social worker who actually helps make the world better rather than the virtue signalling, outrage culture type. She had to go through these same courses that try and indoctrinate you to an ideology and had to deal with professors who wouldnt let her speak based on her skin colour unless she went through the proper subservient motions first. Again, id refer anyone to Evergreen College in the US for an exemple of just how long and well the termites have dined (to paraphrase A man sorely missed in these times) on our academic institutions.
Anyway, sorry to digress there. My point is that I think the SJW movement ,if we can call it that, has been co-opted by the ones giving it a bad name. They have largely succeeded in intimidating (not a word im choosing without care) the rest of the “movement” and indeed academia, media and corporate entities to tolerate if not outright support their toxic ideology. At least, in the US and (moreso) here in Canada where ive focused my attention.
You may be right about the actual numbers, its hard to tell, but I think you might be underestimating the level and scope of the control these people have as well as the control they are after. I dont want to sound to alarmist though, ive noticed a recent, rising trend of people growing weary of their game. I hope it continues.

Ive heard both, biotech to slow and stop, the idea of the former being the extension allows you to reach the biotech level to stop it altogether.

I think we are a lot closer than a billion years. I understand thats not important to the question of should but there seems to be some pretty viable possibilities in a hundred years, even decades according to some. Rather than the mind transfer cyborg, cellular regeneration and gene manipulation are at the forefront. The aging process can be slowed or stopped, even reversed some studies indicate.
As to the question of “should”, I dont think it matters. Its going to happen, like with all technology someone, somewhere will be doing it. You might as well resign yourself to its existence and make sure its an option fir everyone rather than something for lawbreakers, the rich or even just governments/cultures/countries that are less queesy about it.

I am not sure how you mean these statements. It is unclear whether you are agreeing with them, or referring to others that believe in them? Clarification would be welcome. — 0 thru 9

Sorry, yes, i meant that in reference to what other people believe, the way they justify their behaviour.

...im not talking about the word itself, im talking about how the word is used as part of the rationale for behaviour. If you want to be racist against white people without being called a racist then you just redefine racism to not include racism against white people. They can then say “im not being racist, its not about skin color its about prejudice and power and white people have all the power so no racism happening.” But of course racism is precisely about skin color.
Its just like when it was ok to enslve black people but not white people in early US history, it was because they made the term “people”/“person”to not include black people. They were seen as something less than people, and therefore fair game for enslavement.

Another general point about using racism as a reason for firing someone etc, is that the label is very often misapplied by SJW types. What you wear for halloween or rap lyrics you choose to say out loud cannmake you a racist. Here is Canada, a manager was fired for using the word “nigger” in reference to something people should NOT use in a workplace. An SJW was present at the meeting, reported to his SJW social circle and the outrage machine demanded the “racist” be fired, which the company weakly did.

The control you speak of uses free speech as its disguise. They arent interested in expressing a view, they are interested in what they can force other people to do. They call it free speech, but its actually not. I imagine you will disagree, but I would call it an abuse of free speech, like punching someone in the face is an abuse of your freedom to swing your fist in the air.

In what way do you think it is "dangerous". Racism is just a word, surely it can take any definition. If someone coined a new word to describe situations which involved prejudice and power, would that new word be dangerous? And how would that even work? — Isaac

Dangerous because that new definition is then used to justify something like “you cannot be racist against white people”. Once you establish that new definition, you can go after anyone, “white people” can be swapped out for any designated enemy, which is a classic and very dangerous tool of facists.
Its also dangerous because it doesnt really make any sense. Its not rational.

It's problematic to include antifa under the general label of SJW. Antifa is older and it's ideology is distinct from "social justice". — Echarmion

I disagree, i think the current Antifa has the SJW idealogy at its base, and recruits from its bountiful fields.

Yep. The extremists get the headlines, naturally. There is some psychological effect happening, like when a child starts fires to get attention from parents. We are a world of lost, sad, angry children... armed to the teeth. — 0 thru 9

Im not sure its fringe, if that's what you mean by extremist. The movement and idealogy inevitably become “extreme”, for example the idea that words are violence. Now its perfectly justifiable to physically harm people who say things you do not like. You are just meeting violence with violence after all. Worse, you are immoral if you DONT.

I think it goes way beyond the firing of people in the manner you describe, or a university setting.
For example l, According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous.
Often people will object on the basis that its just “fringe” SJW’s, to which I respond with reference to the BBC’s “Big Questions” show...specifically the episode titled “Is it possible to be racist against white people?”. That that is even a serious question should be alarming for everyone.

Social justice has been hijacked by facist idealogues, from something well intentioned to something dark and authoritarian.
Evergreen College is a prime example if you look into what happened there with Brett Weinstein.
Antifa is also a good example. Dressing in masks, enforcng through violence their own ideology.
The humanities have been taken over by the same types of people, training kids to hate under the guise of social justice.
When people say they are anti-social justice, its that stuff that they mean rather than a dislike of equal rights or combating sexual harassment and the like.

Your post was irrelevant to the points I made. Not sure why you put everyone altogether in that as if your short response could adequately cover so many peoples points, but at least I can give a clear answer to your question. Yes, you are being ridiculous.

Im sorry, I just cannot believe that. You are refusing to even disagree with him in any real away, yet on and on you argue. You are having a very dishonest exchange here, which you might feel is justified for personal reasons. If you aren’t fucking with him then its very hard to tell what you are up to here aside from just not listening or engaging. To be honest i do not even agree with S’s framing here, but you keep picking up your ball and threatening to go home but linger in the playground. Its dishonest, and its hard not to see it as trolling or vastly more personal than honest engagement of ideas.

You are being trolled dude. Im guessing because he feels like he’s giving you your own medicine or something but its clear he is being deliberately obtuse and dishonest. I think its a personal issue with you since he isnt always like that...not on purpose like he is here anyway.

Lol, ill be less entertained so on 2nd thought just keep going.

Yes, Ive been following that and some of your other discussions. Word of advice: just lead with a good breakdown of good ol’ Dunning Kruger. Everything you need to know will be included in the responses and you’ll waste less time. ;)

Faith isnt a reason for believing in something. You do not believe in your driving because “faith”. You have actual reasons for believing in your driving, a track record, training, experience etc.
Faith is precisly NOT a reason for believing in something. It is the answer you give only if you have no reason. If you had a reason, you would just say that.
So the “faith” in god is different than “faith” in your driving. The latter is just something people say, a figure of speech.
When asked why someone believes in their driving, they can cite reasons. When someone is asked why they believe in god, they might have reasons for believing in god as well. If that reason is “faith”, they are confused. That is not a reason, it is the answer given when you do not have a reason.
This is what puts the claims “i have faith in the sun coming up tomorrow” or “i have faith in my wifes fidelity” in a different catagory than “i have faith in god”. The former is referencing their belief not their reasons for that belief. The latter references their reason for belief (from their confusion they fail to see that it is in fact not a reason).
When someone claims everyone has faith in something, this is merely an attempt to muddy that distinction so that all belief has equal merit or is in the same catagory so they no longer have to justify their belief in their imaginary fairy tale friend. Excepting of course, for people who cite actual reasons for believing in their imaginary fairy tale friend, as opposed to people who cite “faith” as their reason.

My definition of subjective morality is a moral judgment that has no inherent truth value. That the truth value of the statement, or the mental phenomena , is dependent on or subject to something else. It is not always true, it is only true if (fill in the blank) — Rank Amateur

That is most certainly an idiosyncratic way of viewing subjectivity, but it doesnt matter, just drop the term then.

I see. I used “judgement” to try and put things in a way Rank would easier digest but if that twisted what you meant then apologies. It should teach me not to speak for others but it wont ;)

you did not address the source of these judgments. — Rank Amateur

It actually has been addressed, I think whats tripping you up perhaps is that there is an interaction between objective stuff and subjective stuff. Draw a distinction between morality and moral acts. These happen in different domains so the source of moral judgements is seperate from the morality people live in accordance with. The latter are acts of morality, the objective manifestation of subjective judgements.

I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same. — Rank Amateur

They are subjective because they are mental notions. Again, thats what the subjective realm is. No minds, no subjectivity.

Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. — Rank Amateur

This what subjective means. You referenced a thought...thats the domain of subjectivity. Morals are not found under rocks, or anywhere in the physical world. You find them in minds, and of course those minds manifest in the physical world, in this case they manifest as actions concerned with morality. The moral agreement you speak of doesnt make those notions of morality as happening somewhere else besides in our minds excepting as I described above as manifested in our world by humans. As usual when dubjectivity and objectivity are being used in discussion, the disagreement is almost (dare I say) illusiory, a matter of semantics and categories.

The biology of our brains is what he means, the chemistry of our minds. For example, empathy comes from our evolution. It shouldnt be controversial that empathy is at least related to “near universal” moral agreements. The 10 toes was part of an example about something else (medicine) besides morality where we make “near universal” judgements based on our bodies developing in certain ways.
Correct me if im wrong on that Terrapin.

I agree. The whole of economics is like that, pretty dubious. Its one of those phantoms of society that everyone plays along with because at this point people wouldnt really know what to do without it.

Just fix the tax system so everyones paying the same percentage, make it so the system cannot be gamed so easily.
Our systems are purchasable, thats a big part of the problem and its a human problem, not a rich person problem per say.

I guess I just dont see it. Its exactly what you would expect from someone who thinks morality is somehow objective, just as you would expect someone who views morality as about feelings about things to NOT have this bias against mental phenomenon.