Poll of the Day > Are the US leftists sjws the same hippies back in the days protesting the war?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like if this movie was made today with this scene. Would they complain. Just curious. Since everything now is political, they cant create their own movies so they complain when some independent ones makes it. Like that to me is what i hate about them, they just cannot make anything but they sure can complain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc2OvrpzjvM

No, because hippies were protesting real wars whereas SJWs protest imaginary wars like the war on women.
---

---

Zeus posted...

No, because hippies were protesting real wars whereas SJWs protest imaginary wars like the war on women.

Yeah true, but just the overall "not knowing what they protest about" like maybe they were told stuff they had zero clue about if the war was justified or not. I know zero to nothing about vietnam war, but if someone told me USA only did it for greed and show some pics how inhuman they were. Well its all about who is telling the truth really. Considering wars are brutal, but yeah i dont know, like example i support Israel over Palestine just due to fundamentalist differences, mixing religion with politics or having fundamentlist government, no thanks. As much crap Israel gets i pick them over the other side in terms of system of rule. That is what in the end is mostly important to me is what is the end result gonna be, but i am very anti war myself.

many of those hippies ended up growing up and now are republicans. people change over time. some of the SJW's now will end up looking back on this and cringing, decades from now.

Not all anti-war protestors are what you'd call "SJWs" (or necessarily even left-wing), in the same way that not all liberals -- or leftists -- are "SJWs". In fact believe it or not, but not everyone who's active in genuine social justice campaigning actually fits the profile of what you'd probably think of as a typical "SJW".
---

Funkdamental posted...

Not all anti-war protestors are what you'd call "SJWs" (or necessarily even left-wing), in the same way that not all liberals -- or leftists -- are "SJWs". In fact believe it or not, but not everyone who's active in social justice campaigning is actually what you'd call an "SJW".

Yeah true. But i feel the appeal to emotion seems more rapid with young people, social media etc. But i am not saying lack of brain is lacking, but considering how much ravidness of "not discussing issue is"

like let me take one example, jontron got in trouble for what he said. I recommend seeing H3H3 video podcast on it, thats how you tackle it, you have dialouges with that person and say why he is wrong. But what US leftists do is essentially fearmongering and dont even try to understand the other side by using facts to disprove their position. Thats what i hate about modern leftism with policing thoughts, its just pure propaganda bullying.

Sonic92e posted...

Zeus posted...

No, because hippies were protesting real wars whereas SJWs protest imaginary wars like the war on women.

Yeah true, but just the overall "not knowing what they protest about" like maybe they were told stuff they had zero clue about if the war was justified or not. I know zero to nothing about vietnam war, but if someone told me USA only did it for greed and show some pics how inhuman they were. Well its all about who is telling the truth really. Considering wars are brutal, but yeah i dont know, like example i support Israel over Palestine just due to fundamentalist differences, mixing religion with politics or having fundamentlist government, no thanks. As much crap Israel gets i pick them over the other side in terms of system of rule. That is what in the end is mostly important to me is what is the end result gonna be, but i am very anti war myself.

Keep in mind that information was far more restricted at the time and reporters *were* painting unfavorable pictures of Vietnam, in addition to people not really being sure why we were there.

Humorously, LBJ once said, "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves," *before* putting boots on the ground. LBJ was a fucking terrible president.
---

Sonic92e posted...

Yeah true. But i feel the appeal to emotion seems more rapid with young people, social media etc. But i am not saying lack of brain is lacking, but considering how much ravidness of "not discussing issue is"

I think it's what happens when politics gets boiled down to a soundbite, a slogan or a button badge and there's a toxic political culture in which opponents aren't simply opponents, they're enemies, and they're not simply wrong, they're bad. Believe me when I tell you there's nothing uniquely either left- or right-wing about that kind of knee-jerk intolerance, bullying and appeal to crude emotion.
---

Funkdamental posted...

Sonic92e posted...

Yeah true. But i feel the appeal to emotion seems more rapid with young people, social media etc. But i am not saying lack of brain is lacking, but considering how much ravidness of "not discussing issue is"

I think it's what happens when politics gets boiled down to a soundbite, a slogan or a button badge and there's a toxic political culture in which opponents aren't simply opponents, they're enemies, and they're not simply wrong, they're bad. Believe me when I tell you there's nothing uniquely either left- or right-wing about that kind of knee-jerk intolerance, bullying and appeal to crude emotion.

It usually resorts to huge internet echo chambers in a case. Not saying the right isnt guilty of this either, but i feel the biggest bully currently are the ones on the left since i feel they dont try to understand and are ironically creating more neo nazis that way. Bill Maher as much as i dont always agree with him on everything, he is atleast willing to talk sense or atleast attempt to discuss how much he dont agree. Which is different than to stand inside his pool and just call everyone who is not with him losers, degenerates, deplorables... and you know those stuff. No wonder why division is a thing now. TYT comes to my mind as mostly that on the left, aswell as late night shows. Right i just think is more about trolling it but their stance on issues i feel are wrong but that is just my opinion.

I've noticed there's a real tribalism among a lot of people who strongly self-identify as either conservative or liberal: a sheep-like compulsion to trot into the pen along with the rest of the flock. It's as if they feel they need to tick every box on a long checklist of approved positions to feel sure of "belonging".

I'm a Brit. I served my political apprenticeship on the Left -- back before its global vision, internationalist spirit and campaigning energy shrank to complaining about trivial non-PC fluff in Western democracies. Back when protests targeted death squads instead of videogames.

What grew to disillusion me was the cranky contrarianism of the Left in its blind, knee-jerk opposition to any military action, in any context whatsoever, undertaken by any Western government even when it was clearly mandated by humanitarian imperatives. They oppose it apparently for the simple reason that these governments are Western -- and are therefore to be despised and distrusted unconditionally by all properly self-hating Westerners.

The Falklands, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Kosovo: time and again I've read scathing condemnations of British military intervention ("neo-imperialism") even in those cases where there's actually been a clear moral mandate for action. (During the Falklands War my mother-in-law bought Argentinian corned beef to flaunt her support for a junta whose hands were filthy with the blood of thousands of victims of torture and murder, just for the sake of giving Thatcher a poke in the eye. That's the kind of cosy British left-wing hypocrisy that turned my stomach.) People who demanded that "something" be done to stop Saddam gassing Kurds suddenly backflipped when that "something" eventually involved bombing, no-fly zones and sanctions backed by American muscle -- because if there was one thing more important than stopping Saddam from gassing Kurds, it was hating Uncle Sam for doing anything at all.

On GameFAQs, I've read lefties on other boards even argue that it was a good thing that the West, and especially the US, did not intervene in Rwanda in 1994 to stop the genocide -- because, apparently, it would have been "imperialist" for the West to infringe upon the sovereignty of another country, and it would somehow have "made things worse". Seriously: this is what it's come down to.

Western governments are condemned when they do something, and they're condemned when they do nothing. I've read leftists rail against the "imperialist" overthrowing of dictators like Marcos, Cdras, Saddam and Gaddafi -- often the very same leftists who, rightly but with no apparent sense of irony, lambasted Reagan and Thatcher for mollycoddling other dictators. The Left used to attack the CIA for bumping off democrats; now it savages Uncle Sam for deposing autocrats. Someone should tell today's contarian, "plague on both your houses" Left that sitting on the fence is not the same thing as standing on the moral high ground.
---

oh fuck i was coming in here about to be literally just like zeus

hmm
---

Not every argument has a left or a right side, I don't understand why this is the case now..... Only people bringing up Hilary are on the right... Nobody else cares
---

*******troll feed********
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oAhCA8FZBU

A good video about why SJWs aren't liberals.
There's an earlier part, but if you don't have time to watch either, the short answer to your question is no.
---

To answer the OP, no. I dislike hippies but they weren't fundamental hypocrites.
---