What is a Social Justice Warrior?

[Trausti]

So it was me. I'm the one who pissed in your Cheerios.

Every time you make such a post, you remind me of
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=OIP.Md1e013d4aac524b7d526f0d9cc0d553fH0&pid=15.1&rs=1&c=1&qlt=95&w=92&h=120#inline for stupid.

And I'll remind you that you started it, snowflake. Reap what you sow.

 

[laughing dog]

And I'll remind you that you started it, snowflake. Reap what you sow.

Keep banging that drum of stupid during your meltdown.

 

[Trausti]

The problem with political correctness is it stifles debate and conversation.

It does no such thing, rather it just points out when someone is being and asshole for the sake of being an asshole. That kind of person usually has no desire to debate or hold an actual conversation, they just want to be offensive and have their buddies pat them on the back for it.

Do you mean, anyone who disagrees with me is an asshole?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/14/everything-is-political-these-days-even-commencement-speeches/

- - - Updated - - -

And I'll remind you that you started it, snowflake. Reap what you sow.

Keep banging that drum of stupid during your meltdown.

You're the most social justice warriorie of the bunch laughing dog. That's why I like you.

 

[laughing dog]

You're the most social justice warriorie of the bunch laughing dog. That's why I like you.

You underestimate yourself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I thought SJW meant not so much people who are interested in actual social justice, but crybabies interested in getting offended for the sake of getting offended and inventing ridiculous over the top and often oppressive pushes like "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions", etc. Or am I confusing the term with "regressive left"?

 

[Trausti]

I thought SJW meant not so much people who are interested in actual social justice, but crybabies interested in getting offended for the sake of getting offended and inventing ridiculous over the top and often oppressive pushes like "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions", etc. Or am I confusing the term with "regressive left"?

I'd say they're synonymous. It, from my observation, is someone who is both on the left and authoritarian. There are plenty of folks who identify on the left who despise SJWs, e.g., Bill Maher.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good on you, Angry Floof. Avoid substance, just demean. You've been taught well.

And you keep demonstrating the point so well! By the way, have you ever read The Authoritarians? It's a free ebook, very easy to read. I bet you won't be able to, but it's worth the suggestion. (Another hint: the book explains a lot about the callous and stunted mentality that seems to be getting ever more popular with Trump in the election, and also explains why you won't read it.) The link is in my signature.

I have. It is a good read. It has nothing at all to do with what Truasti was saying above.

Attacking somebody as offensive, instead of actually addressing their points, is indeed anti-intellectual, and is indeed what the Christians and Muslims do, and is indeed a big part of what "politically correctness" is.

He has a point. Laughing at him and calling him names does not challenge his point.

 

[Angry Floof]

And you keep demonstrating the point so well! By the way, have you ever read The Authoritarians? It's a free ebook, very easy to read. I bet you won't be able to, but it's worth the suggestion. (Another hint: the book explains a lot about the callous and stunted mentality that seems to be getting ever more popular with Trump in the election, and also explains why you won't read it.) The link is in my signature.

I have. It is a good read. It has nothing at all to do with what Truasti was saying above.

Attacking somebody as offensive, instead of actually addressing their points, is indeed anti-intellectual, and is indeed what the Christians and Muslims do, and is indeed a big part of what "politically correctness" is.

He has a point. Laughing at him and calling him names does not challenge his point.

Are you reading this thread at all? He's done nothing but what you describe. He is all but admitted that he is nothing but a troll here.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I thought SJW meant not so much people who are interested in actual social justice, but crybabies interested in getting offended for the sake of getting offended and inventing ridiculous over the top and often oppressive pushes like "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions", etc. Or am I confusing the term with "regressive left"?

I'd say they're synonymous. It, from my observation, is someone who is both on the left and authoritarian. There are plenty of folks who identify on the left who despise SJWs, e.g., Bill Maher.

^

Good observation. I think I agree with that definition. I'm with Maher on this. I am far to the left of most people (I want universal basic income, legalized pot and hookers, complete separation of church and state with marriage being entirely a personal issue with no state benefits, etc) and yet I find what a lot of liberals say to be cringeworthy, with trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc.... the need to control others and shut them up because their views are offensive. Tossing slurs at people is one thing, but presenting unpleasant ideas or opinions isn't necessarily the same thing, and we should address such views with proper discussion and exploration in the free marketplace of ideas.

We can disagree with Loren about Israel without snapping at him and calling him names. We can disagree with Derec about gender issues without frothing at the mouth. We can disagree with conservatives about gun control, universal healthcare, etc, all without resorting to demands to silence them or calling for them to be fired so we can have safe spaces, trigger warnings etc.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

They represent SJWs in the mind of Sargon of Akkad (real name: Carl Benjamin), an anti-progressive, anti-feminist YouTube celebrity who greatest fame came during the height of the Gamergate controversy when he relentlessly harassed and attacked women who dared complain about being harassed and attacked by guys like him. He's probably done more to promote the Gamergater use of SJW as a pejorative than anyone else, so I suppose that makes him an authority of sorts.

Would I be wrong to call them SJW?

If they are SJW, then the criticisms of SJW are actually valid. If they aren't, then when will the real SJWs tell them to bugger off?

That video is nothing but a collection of tiny snippets of dialog, discourse, and argument. It's impossible to understand the point each speaker is making because we aren't given enough of their words to discern it. We get dropped into the middle of arguments with no knowledge of what started it, or who, or why. In fact, in most cases we aren't even getting complete sentences, just fragments.

So I don't think real SJWs would tell them to bugger off just yet. IMO, real SJWs would know better than to take Sargon of Akkad's YouTube videos at face value, especially one that looks like a mishmash of soundbites spackled into a wall of propaganda. They would be far more likely to try to come to a better understanding of each person's point of view before deciding how to respond.

Because of the accusation of quoting out of context, I found the original video for one of those.

I don't see any dropped context, just some snippage for brevity.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Brqo0vSNE[/youtube]

So when someone featured in the video tells us that all cis-genered people are transphobic, all men are misogynistic, all white people are racist, and all straight people are homophobic, is that representative of SJW thought?

It is representative of incorrect thought. The person telling us that may identify as a SJW, or they may simply be labelled as such by someone else, it doesn't mean that their incorrect thinking represents anyone else who labels themselves, or is labelled by others as, a SJW. I am sure there are libertarians that express thoughts that you disagree with, just as there are progressives that express thoughts that I disagree with. You and I would both object to having those thoughts thrust upon us, as if we agree with them, just because we share a similar political ideology.

So SJW has no definition at all then? No, it does, and that's a classic cop-out. It means something, but those who would be inclined to defend it seem reluctant to state openly what it means.

 

[Angry Floof]

Authoritarianism is very rare among people who hold liberal values and ideology.

I think fear is the basis of what you're talking about. Conservative minds and ideologies are based in fear of change and fear of others. Hate and condemnation make them feel courageous. The growing number of conservatives brandishing firearms and gleefully spewing bigotry only confirms this. They will tell you straight out that they are frightened without their guns.

That is why so many people revert to conservative and religious world views when times are tough. Conservatives reach for protection and comfort. Liberal minds prefer bridges and are not afraid of differences.

 

[laughing dog]

I thought SJW meant not so much people who are interested in actual social justice, but crybabies interested in getting offended for the sake of getting offended and inventing ridiculous over the top and often oppressive pushes like "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions", etc. Or am I confusing the term with "regressive left"?

Or insisting that only "leftists" can be SJWs or getting offended by "political correctness".

 

[laughing dog]

Attacking somebody as offensive, instead of actually addressing their points, is indeed anti-intellectual, and is indeed what the Christians and Muslims do, and is indeed a big part of what "politically correctness" is.

Labelling "leftists" as SJWs is attacking somebody as offensive, instead of actually addressing their points. Whining that someone (or something) is "politically correct" is attacking the person (or thing) instead of addressing the issue. Calling a posters "trolls" is attacking the person instead of addressing the issue. But for some obscure reason, you are oblivious to that simple fact.

One would think that one would be proud to be thought of as fighting for social justice. Both you and your fellow "leftists" seem to accept that fighting for social justice (the clear meaning of the terms social justice warrior) is somehow demeaning and debase the plain understanding of the terms to mean something derogatory.

 

[blastula]

The epithet SJW always tells you more about the person who wields it than about their target.

 

[Trausti]

The epithet SJW always tells you more about the person who wields it than about their target.

Like heretic, witch, racist, bigot, kafir, etc.

 

[blastula]

The epithet SJW always tells you more about the person who wields it than about their target.

Like heretic, witch, racist, bigot, kafir, etc.

No, not all those words are used equivalently as epithets. But I would agree it is very much like using kafir as an epithet.

 

[thebeave]

This pretty much epitomizes today's SJW PC nonsense. She's worrying about offending fuckin' babies who don't even understand language yet!

This is the kind of stupid shit we are referring to when talking about SJWs. Not black people being denied the right to drink from any water fountain they choose.



And let's not forget this social justice warrior for the Mexicans!

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7037314/this-guy-thinks-may-the-fourth-is-cinco-de-mayo

 

[Arctish]

I thought SJW meant not so much people who are interested in actual social justice, but crybabies interested in getting offended for the sake of getting offended and inventing ridiculous over the top and often oppressive pushes like "safe spaces", "micro-aggressions", etc. Or am I confusing the term with "regressive left"?

No, the term has two different meanings. One of them dates back at least several decades; the other arose during the Gamergate controversy.

Head of U.S. dictionaries for Oxford University Press Katherine Martin said the term [social justice warrior] was previously used as a compliment.[3] She observed: "All of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person."[3] Martin noted the phrase had mostly positive usage in the 1990s through 2000s.[3] The Washington Post gave examples of its earlier positive connotation as well as examples from pop culture that illustrated the recent debate surrounding its negative connotation.[3]

During the Gamergate controversy the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][3] Vice reported that the accusation of being an SJW implied a person was engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise their personal reputation.[4] Vice assessed the problematic use of the term: "The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice—and often those people are feminists."[4]
<link>

In the Define SJW please thread it was apparent that the older posters generally used the older definition while the younger posters generally used the newer definition. It was also apparent that the newer definition is pretty much exclusively used as an Ad Hominem and a means of painting a virtual target on an opponent's back. I think that's why certain social justice warriors on this board are so desperate to avoid being called SJWs. They know what Gamergate-type posters do to SJWs. Flaming and pile-ons is the least of it.

 

[Terrell]

This pretty much epitomizes today's SJW PC nonsense. She's worrying about offending fuckin' babies who don't even understand language yet!

This is the kind of stupid shit we are referring to when talking about SJWs. Not black people being denied the right to drink from any water fountain they choose.

View attachment 7805

And let's not forget this social justice warrior for the Mexicans!

http://www.collegehumor.com/post/7037314/this-guy-thinks-may-the-fourth-is-cinco-de-mayo

^Yeah this. There are some cases where it's reasonable to be offended but what's cited above (what bae is saying) isn't one of them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Authoritarianism is very rare among people who hold liberal values and ideology.

I thought that too, until I encountered the modern college campus replete with safe spaces, trigger warnings, etc. That group is definitely full on authoritarian. They demand that everybody march in lock step with them, and are as tribal and authoritarian as the christian far right. There is no room for freedom of speech or even freedom of thought in that gang. Schools have bowed down to it to a scary degree. I was shocked to encounter it, but it is here. You can have authoritarian left.