Although I’ve pissed off a few anti-SJW’s as of late, I have never labeled myself an SJW. I just am a guy who is looking at evidence and seeing if claims make sense. And a bunch of claims some anti-SJW guys made in a recent video simply…don’t.

Here’s the ridiculous video, for reference, and it includes YouTubers like The Amazing Atheist, Cult of Dusty, Sargon of Akkad, Atheism is Unstoppable, Undoomed, Armoured Skeptic, Chris Ray Gun, and others. It’s…yeah.

*long sigh*

Let’s get started.

1. Why do you claim to speak for LGBT people, women, and ethnic minorities but when lgbt people, women, and ethnic minorities disagree with you, you harass them?

That’s the problem with so many of these questions — I need to see examples to figure out what they’re talking about.

But I’ll try anyway to diagnose what they might THINK is a problem. Generally I, like many thinking people who get labeled SJWs, try to represent overall trends, as far as I can, in a given marginalized group. So there are always going to be some people in the group who are outliers, and sometimes I might say, honestly, that they seem to be outliers. Is that what you’re getting at? I’m not sure that would be “harassing” though — the closest I get to “harassing” is a conversation in which I try to figure out why they have different views from so many in their position.

And I generally don’t claim to speak for other minorities. I usually just share what I’ve heard from them when I’m engaged in conversations about important issues that affect them.

To the extent that people ARE harassed for disagreement, I would draw lines. I know, as a black man who often gets labeled an SJW for being honest, I have been called out by at least one zealous white person I can remember who labeled me a hateful “racist” against black people for sharing my honest opinion about an issue; I thought that was strange. But this would be a case-by-case deal.

2. Do you realize that your war on language through political correctness has made you bedfellows with true rape culture?

In other words, Islam, the world’s most misogynistic ideology?

What the hell is a “war on language”? Language changes by the month; it’s not some hallowed gift from God that has built-in, unchanging laws. It’s something we made up so that we could get stuff done, and we keep refining it and adding to it so that we can get the stuff done better in society. In that way, language has always been a tool for society, which means that it’s been intertwined with “politics” ever since we started negotiating and interacting with each other. This characterization seems to me like someone complaining because a cave man is going beyond grunts and using more complex words because he finds it more helpful. These changes have developed language, not demolished it, over the past 20,000 years or so. That’s why labeling these constant changes in language a “war on language” seems like nonsense.

So let’s discuss the UTILITY of how language is changing, because it’s illogical and clearly ignorant to state that the mere fact that language is changing is a catastrophe.

Looking closer at the question, I think the problem the questioner is getting at is the more specific word “Islamophobia.” Which, I’ll agree, is a problematic word — “Islam” isn’t a race, and that term conflates the religion with the race. It gives racists the ability to say, “Actually I’m talking about the religion” and religious apologists to say to critics of Islam, “You’re being racist.” It’s not a good word, but it’s what we have for prejudice against middle eastern cultures, currently, so we use it. I would be in favor of a different word, though, due to the confusion it generates.

But you have to take the problem dead-on instead of talking around it and misdiagnosing it, like this question does.

3. Do you want women to be equal or do you want women to be a protected class?

You can’t have both.

If you expect society to be treat women as equal with men, why don’t women have to take responsibility for their own safety?

This question didn’t make sense to me, at first. The writer doesn’t seem to know what a “protected class” is.

OK. Let’s bring school in session.

A “protected class” is “a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.” Like, you can’t refuse to serve me simply because I’m black, because race is a “protected class.” You shouldn’t be able to refuse to serve a woman because she’s a woman, because sex is a “protected class.” Literally, the phrase “protected class” as people in the know usually use it means equal. So at first I did a double-take.

But that’s not what he means. I think he means this: Should we treat women as equal, or should we see it as necessary to protect them? Which is still a ridiculous question. You may still need accommodations to function in society that others do not require. That doesn’t mean that you’re unequal any more than a disabled person is a second-class citizen for needing a ramp.

I would, however, like to argue with one of these white men about whether needing protection makes you less than equal. One stipulation: It has to be under a hot Texas sun at midday — no shade, no sunscreen “protection.” And the first person begging for aloe vera loses. Equality, right?

4. What are you afraid will happen when you leave your “safe space”?

While I am probably more in favor of open discourse than others who get labeled “SJWs,” I think that a “safe space” is sometimes necessary for understanding some marginalized groups. What happens outside of that “safe space”? Those marginalized in culture have to put on masks, pretend that things don’t bother them that do, and try to follow social expectations that silence their honest views and expression of their experiences. I want to know what the reality is beyond those expectations, and that sometimes only happens when people feel they can let go and trust.

I think we all have safe spaces. You don’t tell the same things to your boss and coworkers that you would to your family or to your closest friends. And that’s just part of life. It’s fine.

If this is in reference to “safe spaces” at universities — that’s complicated. I think universities are marketplaces of ideas, so on the one hand I think several ideas and honest exchanges should be encouraged. But I also think they are a battleground of ideas, so I think that ideas — including ones we disagree with — should duke it out. This does not mean all ideas are equal, though, so there has to be a winnowing process. The Nazi party might be able to visit, but it’s probably not a good idea to have a vocal Nazi teaching a class on race relations. Like I said, this is complicated and would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

5. How can you possibly justify the idea that it’s somehow racist to disagree with black lives matter?

And yet it’s not racist when a black person tweets something like, “kill all white people.”

Because “racist” has two different meanings, at least. I know many do not like that and think it’s a cardinal sin to the language. That doesn’t mean that there is one way that academia and most encyclopedias would define “racism” (read this — no, really, before you cry bloody murder, read it) and another way it’s used most of the time in everyday communication (especially in white culture).

It may be racist to disagree with Black Lives Matter insofar as that disagreement perpetuates institutional racism — the setup that ensures black people continue to be treated like second-class citizens based on the color of their skin.

It is racist, in a matter of speaking, when a black person tweets “kill all white people” — but if that tweet is not ensuring that white people continue to be treated like second-class citizens, it is not racist according to the sociological definition.

Yeah, I know people don’t like the distinction of the scholarly, encyclopedia-length definition. But it’s basically the difference between your employee saying “You’re fired” and your employer saying “You’re fired.” Technically, both of them “fired” you. But if you look at the overall effect, only the employer’s “You’re fired” actually ended in you being fired. Technically, both prejudice against blacks and prejudice against whites can be, according to Webster (as opposed to the encyclopedia) “racism.” But if you look at the overall effect, only prejudice against blacks (with few exceptions in the United States) results in them actually being treated, on a mass scale, as second-class citizens.

But that might be too nuanced for this video. Anyways, it’s still the answer to the question.

6. Are you aware the present is not the past?

Are you familiar with the concept of linear time?

Because you seem incredibly comfortable traveling back through time by talking about how bad things were for women, or black people, or whomever. And then by using some form of SJW magic, you then claim or imply that those problems in the past exist today.

Are you aware that this trick that you’re doing is not working? Why do you think that would work?

Again with the vagueness. It’s hard to know how to address this question without more specifics, but I’ll try.

First, I’m going to have to take a closer look at this “SJW magic” concept. What is that?

Could it be that the stats showing racism have revealed trends that go back decades? Basically, the past repeats itself, and by understanding the past, we can understand the present.

If we’re trying to solve a current problem, it helps to know how the problem was made. That’s not a trick. That’s just realizing that those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

We don’t just “claim or imply” those problems in the past exist today — we show clear trends, and then discuss the stats that reveal those trends. Most the time.

It’s just that people like this questioner insist on looking at problems without context, like the defendant at the murder trial who says, “She’s dead now, jury. Who cares what happened in the past?” If we’re going to remedy the present, we need to know what memories and experiences have led us as a society and as individuals to perform current behaviors.

7. Why do you think that you can spend your entire life in a state of perpetual emotional immaturity?

Do you actually imagine that you’ll be able to stretch out your adolescence for your entire existence?

You have to wonder if these guys are looking in the mirror, because I thought “emotional immaturity” was living with a diminished sense of empathy, or with a lack of awareness and care about how your actions affected others. Maturity looks out for less advantaged people, in my view. Immaturity shows less nuance and seeks to claim superiority over everyone it can bully, and like a schoolyard bully immature people label others as “weak” instead of seeking to understand or empathize.

What I think this question is referring to, more seriously, is people who have a hard time coping with life. But adults have a hard time coping with life all the time. There’s no God who says that’s not OK (no, the white men in the video aren’t God — who died and made them the king of anything?). Mental health is important, and keeping yourself mentally healthy is a sign of maturity and experience, not of immaturity. And the fact that you struggle with your mental health doesn’t make you immature. It makes you someone who struggles with your mental health. Where are these value judgments coming from?

More exactly and more honestly, I kinda think “immature” is simply a word people use when someone is doing something they don’t like, so this question seems largely meaningless to me. But I tried to make it make some semblance of sense so I could give some semblance of an answer.

8. Did you know there are 13% more women in college right now than men?

So if the whole goal of feminism is “equality,” shouldn’t we have some men-only scholarships in order to equal everything out?

Wait…more women are going to college than men, and women still make less than men, on average? Yes. Yes. Yes. The pay gap is a thing. You don’t think so? Watch this:



That’s bull. Maybe that’s why so many women are in college. Yes, for you doubters, the wage gap is still a thing, even when you take into account different career choices. Get back to me when the playing field is truly equal.

9. If feminism and egalitarianism are both about equal rights, than why does one start with a gendered prefix while the other one is entirely gender neutral?

Semantics. We’re arguing semantics. *sigh*

“Feminism” is called “feminism” because females have historically — at least in the United States — been treated as second-class citizens. So they were the ones originally (and still) fighting for equal rights between the sexes; the men weren’t interested. They got in first, so they got dibs on the name. Like, that’s literally what happened. And although there’s a push towards renaming feminism “gender studies,” it hasn’t caught on. Language is slow like that.

What I’m really, honestly trying to figure out (not being sarcastic at all) is what, exactly, this question is supposed to prove. Really. It just…what is the point of this cheap semantic claptrap?

10. What do you hope to gain by bringing back racial segregation?

Wait…who is trying to bring back racial segregation? What? Oh…wait. You mean the BLM protests? That happens because people want to be heard. They want white individuals to listen instead of taking over the podium. Now, you may not agree with that, but the end goal is not segregation. The end goal is respect.

I think this is somewhat important to underline. If you listen and show you’re listening and empathizing, you’ll see that the major goal is not segregation so much as it is understanding — which is denied when black individuals are gawked at and dismissed because of the misperception that they are just a “victim cult” making up fake grievances.

Again, the point isn’t segregation. The point is to ensure black voices are heard and respected. You may not agree that this is a noteworthy goal for black individuals to pursue, but don’t misconstrue it as an attempt toward racial segregation.

11. When my grand-uncle was dropping bombs on London, did your grandparents get out of their bunkers in the morning to protest with signs that read, “Not all Nazis”?

If this is a reference to Islamic terrorists being “not all Muslims,” it’s not remotely equal. Nazis and Muslims aren’t the same thing. Nazis were racist and had, as a group, hatred of non-Arians — almost all of them were extremists. This does not seem to be the case with Muslims, as only a small number (one in ten in the United States) say that violence in the name of Islam is ever justified. And again — unlike Nazism, Islam does not have race hatred as an essential part of its platform.

12. Why do you think every cis white male is born racist?

Racism is a learned behavior.

Wat? This question doesn’t make any sense.

We don’t think anyone is born racist. And yes, racism IS a learned behavior. In America we have a long and thriving and continuing history of teaching it particularly well. That’s the entire point of fighting it. If it was an essential part of you, why bother? You’d be racist regardless of what we did.

13. How can you possibly say that the phrase “All Lives Matter” is somehow racist?

It sounds like someone the Dalai Lama would say.

When I was marching through Fort Worth with some protestors a few days ago, we (mostly black people) chanted, “All lives matter.” The message was clear and different than shouting “all lives matter” at people yelling “black lives matter.”

If you don’t believe me, try to get BLM to chant “ALL lives matter” during the eulogies of the five police officers killed. The same people who seem to think that “all lives matter” is as innocent as kumbaya will insist that it’s inconsiderate in that context.

Let’s be honest. The real problem is not so much the words, but the context that is saying, “Don’t be sad about those deaths in particular, because they matter as much as every other death.” How would you feel if someone said that at your close relative’s funeral? Forget whether or not that’s “racist.” It’s just rude.

14. Would you rather be right, or popular?

It seems like your primary objective is to score social points and get public validation.

You speak publicly in the same way that people write their dating profiles.

Stop trying to demonstrate how awesome you are, and get real.

Ad hominem. This seems like something someone would say when they can’t understand how someone could honestly hold the position they do. Let’s discuss veracity of claims instead of doubting sincerity at the start (but if we are going to discuss sincerity, I’ll let you know — it’s been clear to me from personal conversations I’ve had that some in this video openly admit that a major reason they make the arguments they do is to be popular. I mean, look at the “like” bar on the video).

15. So if a drunk man sleeps with a drunk woman, the woman is incapable of giving consent.

But the man is?

Well, I have not yet been drunk, but my experience in being around drunk people from time to time is that a drunk man is usually stronger and more dangerous than a drunk woman. Also, a man is more likely to rape, in general than a woman, according to the CDC:

In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively. An estimated 15.2% of women and 5.7% of men have been a victim of stalking during their lifetimes. An estimated 4.2% of women and 2.1% of men were stalked in the 12 months preceding the survey. With respect to sexual violence and stalking, female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators, whereas for male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the specific form of violence examined. Male rape victims predominantly had male perpetrators, but other forms of sexual violence experienced by men were either perpetrated predominantly by women (i.e., being made to penetrate and sexual coercion) or split more evenly among male and female perpetrators (i.e., unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences). In addition, male stalking victims also reported a more even mix of males and females who had perpetrated stalking against them.

I think each case should be looked at individually and fairly. And there may be a limited, small number of cases where the woman is the aggressor more than the man; granted. That’s obviously not right, either. But it seems that if someone is crying “rape,” it’s much more likely to be the man’s raping the woman than the other way around. Just the facts, sirs.

16. Is it really easier trying to spend all your life attempting to pacify the world and subdue all around you, instead of accepting that you are the person that has to change?

I’m not interested in pacifying the world. I’m interested in creating environments that don’t condemn people for features they were born with due to attitudes that other people learned. Things about you that come standard and can’t be changed generally should not be marginalized or silenced because of opinions that can.

I can’t change my skin tone, but you can change your racism. So when it comes to this “person who has to change” business, it’s racism that has to change in that case, not my skin.

17. When I sing along with rap music, is it OK if I say the word “nigga”?

My experience is that most people don’t mind in that context. But if you decide not to, it’s going to be seen as an extra step of respect for black culture. It’s like — no, I don’t have to smile and say “thank you, have a nice day!” when the cashier gives me my change. But if I do, that’s an extra sign of respect — and you shouldn’t be surprised if I get treated better than someone who silently takes it.

18. How do you reconcile your opinion that gender doesn’t matter or even exist with your need to invent new genders each day?

I think this displays a high level of ignorance, from what I’ve seen. It’s not like we say gender doesn’t exist. It’s that you have the right to express yourself as the gender in society that most resembles who you feel yourself to be, and still be treated fairly.

Frankly, I really don’t see how that’s a problem outside of individual people’s complexes about forcing people into neat, binary categories.

19. In your version of equality will white men ever have a voice in society or will white men always be too privileged to participate in discussion?

What, white men can’t participate in discussion? How many people have watched this video so far? What does this even mean?

In case you haven’t noticed, white men can participate in discussion now (cf. this video, which has a few hundred thousand views). It’s basically a matter of figuring out — via studies and data — whether they have a voice so loud that they silence other individuals in society, to society’s collective detriment. If data from studies indicate a more level playing field, so should — at least in my mind (although I wouldn’t presume to speak for everyone) — their opportunity to speak.

We’re not saying, so far as I can tell, that white men can’t speak, just that other people should be given the respect to speak, too. And yes, sometimes that means telling white men to shut up. Because everyone can’t speak all the time and listen all the time, equalizing the playing field means that white men may need to spend a bit less time speaking and a bit more time listening. Because being a white man doesn’t give you a monopoly on knowledge, and sometimes loud insistence may be needed to drive that point home.

20. What makes you think that the power of censorship that you are so desperately trying to establish now will at no point be used against you?

I’m not a fan of censorship. I do think that individual companies, individuals, and organizations should have the ability to block, distance themselves from, or decide to block themselves from views they do not wish to endorse (as long as they are acting within the law to do so), and I think this is fair thinking regardless of which views one holds.

21. Why is it that if a woman dresses sexy or even topless in public you support it, but if a female video-game character is dressed sexy, then you want her clothed more modestly?

My understanding is that this is a critique of Anita Sarkeesian. Now, I don’t keep up-to-date with all the drama regarding this person in the anti-SJW community, but my understanding is that Anita Sarkeesian is interested in helping the video game industry work with gaming culture in a way that will prompt more women to participate. Which I don’t think is a bad thing.

Plus, there is an obvious profit motive here, which is why, I understand, Anita gets paid a bunch of money. Women may not be as interested in playing games with male leads that treat women as one-dimensional characters there for men’s amusement alone — they may be more interested in playing video games in which women are multi-dimensional characters and are as important story characters as the men in gaming culture. The whole goal is to make gaming culture as appealing for women as it is for men, as I understand it.

So it’s not as simple as dressing women more modestly. It’s about giving women more agency, respect, and independent personalities in video games — like they, arguably, already have on the beach.

22. What is your favorite song to sing really loud when you’re confronted with a different point of view?

Depends on what the point of view is. If it’s a white-power Nazi screaming that I should die I personally prefer, “Shut up.”

Like…seriously. Not sure what to do with these joke questions.

23. Why are you afraid of dissenting opinions?

Your continued attempts to silence all opposition, either by smearing them publicly, or labeling their content as “hate speech” and having it removed, only serves to insulate your bubble even more and maintain your echo chamber.

It also prevents you from taking on new information and hearing different points of view.

Different points of view that are sometimes superior to yours.

Which tends to happen whenever I talk.

*sigh* I hear few original thoughts from anti-SJWs.

For the most part, it’s not that people are afraid of them so much as that we’re tired of hearing them.

For example, I’m tired of Christians telling me I’m an evil person condemned to burn in hell for the rest of my life. So yeah, I smear that view publicly, and these people generally aren’t my close friends. It’s not that I’m afraid of taking on new information. It’s that the information isn’t new and I’m tired of what it does to my standing as an atheist in society — even if they do think their theories of my hellbound nature are superior to the way I see myself.

And as far as having it removed — private companies like YouTube are not obligated to host people and views on their site that they do not like. Saying they are is a rather strange form of entitlement. You’re not censored if you’re taken off of YouTube. You just have to find another place that’s OK with uploading hate speech. You may not make as much money, but — news flash — nobody’s obligated to give you money, either, especially for content they don’t like.

24. What is reverse racism? Like, what the actual fuck is it?

It’s just racism, right?

“Reverse racism,” usually refers to prejudice towards a race that is treated better by society’s institutions. It’s an overcorrection. So, for example, suppose police find out that studies show they’re pulling over black people more than white people, due to racism. “Reverse racism” would be an overcorrection, where they start disproportionately pulling over white people, instead. You can find an actual example of this kind of thing in action here. No, really, check it out. And while you’re at it, here are over 4,700 other scholarly articles discussing the term. I know you hate it, but the term exists in language.

Is it OK that I gave you an actual answer to your question, or was it just supposed to be rhetorical?

25. Do any of you people actually remember all the pronouns?

You know the list, right? The one with 76 fucking genders.

No, I don’t. But if I have a friend, I call them the pronoun they want to be called. Because they’re my friend. Like…really. Who are you — God? — to determine that there has to be a limited number of pronouns? People are different; so what. My understanding is that few of these are used, anyway, in real life (as opposed to online), so it seems a bit of an exaggeration.

26. Why do you feel entitled to control what artists and entertainers are allowed to express?

Why do you think your sensibilities should be placed above the sensibilities of actual creators?

Because you alone are not the sole creators. You have an audience that has a right to give feedback and judge the value and appropriateness of your creation. You also have a platform that can decide whether it wishes to host your creation or not. Neither is obligated to sign on to endorse your creation.

27. Have you ever considered that using the terms “racism” and “sexism” as haphazardly as you do to describe everything under the sun that makes you feel uncomfortable devalues the word to the point that it actually hurts the people who actually suffer from real racism and real sexism?

Have you ever fucking thought of that?

No.

Because we have this really cool word called “more.” Something can be more sexist or more racist. Or much more sexist or much more racist. Or extremely sexist or extremely racist. Here’s a question: Have you ever thought about how invalidating examples of racism and sexism by pointing out worse cases doesn’t actually solve the problem? Have you realized that a worse wrong doesn’t make a right, and that pointing out worse problems doesn’t solve the original problem? If someone takes a shit in my Pizza, I don’t want them to say I should just take it because it would have been worse if the shit was bloody and filled with diseases. When is that a solution for anything?

If we call out racism and sexism in general, then we can start recognizing and dealing with all forms of it instead of continually setting the bar higher and higher till we’re saying that segregation is no big deal because REAL racism is lynching. Rather, we can say that segregation is wrong, therefore lynching is wrong, not that lynching is worse, and therefore segregation doesn’t matter. I KNOW that’s an example from the past. I’m trying to point out a general principle that shows why this is ridiculous logic.

That’s enough for one day.

Thank you for reading.

P.S. I have a Patreon, if you want to help me do what I do.