Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset

Post Reply New Topic

SJW is not a political science term. It is a term that comes from that online, social media type world. So if you want to find out how people use the insult you should go to those “own the libs” videos.

SJW is as much if not more of a personality description as it is a a term describing a way to look at sociopolitical issues.

I mean it as hyperbole, if someone isn't matching their gender and you are not sure if they are trans or just a crossdresser or just a tomboy, just ask. I get tired of some trans people out there acting like we can be mind readers and expect us to just know their pronouns when we truly cannot tell if they are not passing so they think we are doing it on purpose. I have seen other trans people speak up against this telling them to get over it and just correct them and move on and also disagreeing with going around asking everyone their pronouns when 99% of people identify with their gender that matches their sex. Also, not everyone who gets misgendered on accident is trans.

No you do not have to wear a dress lol.

I wasn't inciting anyone? your insinuation is baseless.

You were at great pains to link "TIV" with the pejorative slur "SJW" and I would posit that you were the one insinuating that people who are social activists somehow have a tendency for personal victimhood.

Why, other to incite something, would anyone use "before you rush to defend...".

People are free to read the linked study\watch the video and come to their own conclusions. Giving a "dog whistle" such as was provided by your "before you rush to defend" can only be intended to try and deter people from reading\watching what was presented, and so attempting to force an opinion on them without their seeing the source material.

Just because you take a given inferrence (on the assumption you even watched the video\read the linked paper and not simply leapt to a conclusion on what was contained) does not mean that everyone else shares your view on a given topic (nor should they be forced to take anyones), nor does it give you licence to make assumptions\insinuations regarding my beliefs... A simple reading of even the subject states "possible", meaning I did not imply it was the sole (or even the actual) reason for their actions, nor that it only applies to this group, leaving it to the reader/viewer to come to their own conclusions of the information presented.

Similarly, the disingeneous attempt to infer I was referring to "social activists", when this group was not mentioned does nothing to enhance the belief that it was not intended to provoke an attack...

To help you understand the difference between a "Social justice activist" and a "Social Justice Warrior" (the latter which was being discussed, not the former):

Source: https://www.atheistrev.com/2014/06/social-justice-activists-vs-social.html

And pray tell how else one is supposed to interpret your thread title "Possible explanation for the SJW mindset"??
You were the one then to bring in tendency for interpersonal victimhood as the explanation.
That's hardly an accident you weaved that into the thread.

Curiously enough, it is possible for many people to have a given set of beliefs, but be able to present information which they may (or may not) agree with, simply because they believe others may find it interesting...

The reason for posting it was that I found the suggestion included in the video intiguing, and so posted it here to allow others to have visibility of it\discuss the content of what was included in the video - Whether they agree with, or disagree with what is presented is (as far as I am concerned) entirely their own business.

As to my bringing up a "tendency for interpersonal victimhood as the explanation" - Had you watched the video (it seems rather apparent you didn't bother to look at it based on your responces), you would have known why that section of text was included in the original post...

Bric, the issue is:

- You posted this with the title “explanation for the SJW mindset”
- You frame it as being “primarily related to video games”, with the video game community not being known for delicate handling of psychological issues, and being very well known for far-right outrage.
- You have a long history of dismissing vaguely progressive sentiments while contorting yourself in rhetorical knots to justify far-right sentiments.
- The last time you posted a video about “sexism and racism in video games” it turned out to be a far-right guy who was upset that a character in a video game was a black woman, and upset that he was called racist.

When people see another video about the same topic from you, and you yourself are presenting it as an “explanation of SJWs” and “primarily about video games”, people aren’t going to view it as a dry discussion of a psychological phenomenon, as if you posted the paper without any reference to SJWs, they are going to view it as you trying to make a point.

A most apt interpretation.

Please address me by my full "name" in future (Brictoria). Shortening it to give the appearance of friendship is only welcome from certain members who have earned the right.


Actually, that is an outright lie (as witnessed by the thread subject): I posted it as a 'Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset', as I was not making any claim to whether it was accurate or not, just that it was a potential explanation...I don't neccesarily agree with everything presented, nor do I neccesarily disagre with it. The issue is not a black\white one, and it is possible that people may agree with parts and not with others. Had I titled the thread as you falsely accused me of doing, it would have been coercing any potential readers towards seeing it that way (and to arguments rather than discussions), rather than being (as I intended) a case of various shades of grey which would vary amongst people who read it, and which they may have discussed.


Another (intentional?) misrepresentation: I posted it as the video being "primarily related to the video gaming industry"...The industry consists of more than just "video games"\those who play them and includes publications as well as the actual product. The video looked at certain occurrences across the industry and compared what had occurred against the "TIV" requirements to see whether they were potentially applicable, pointing out possible links.

Again, being (as you put it) "video game community not being known for delicate handling of psychological issues", this could also indicate it would be an area where there may be more cases where the issue being discussed would be most prevalent\identifiable than in other areas of society (and so should allow a comparrison of the "other side" in the interactions included to see if the same points raised regarding one side may not also be applicable against the other)...

Similarly, it is possible to take what is presented within the video and compare it to areas outside that industry, using the same "methodology" from the video to see whether the links made in the video (if correct) also occur in areas outside the industry.


In your opinion...

I'm not sure if you noticed, but I rely on facts and sourced materials as much as possible with my posts - If a persons responce is that they don't agree, I have no problem...I may place higher or lower value on their responce, however, based on whether they can present any factual material to support their claims\statements. If someone provides facts which contradict what I post (and what I post does not neccesarily follow my own personal\political beliefs) I'm always happy to reconsider my opinions based on those facts...If someone, however, denigrates the post while providing no evidence of having done more than glance at it, and is unable to present any facts to support their statements regarding it, then those posts will be treated accordingly.

My posts (which do not neccesarily reflect my personal beliefs) are intended to try to make the ever shrinking portion of the ASD community who do not lean towards the "left" of the political spectrum feel somewhat welcome on the site (a group which has been in (intentional?) decline here for some time). Sadly, there are few of those people remaining here, and (seemingly) significantly fewer outside this group here who give any indication of having an interest in those members\potential members or their views. (Referring to what I post as "far-right" is also quite enlightening as regards where you must consider the "centre" to be...)

If someone disagrees with what I have posted, they are free to present sourced material\referenced facts which contradicts that material which I provide - This leads to a discussion, which is the intent behind my posts, allowing multiple sides to be put forward information in a civil manner. What I find offensive is when someone either makes veiled attacks on my character or misrepresents what I have posted, where their reply evidences a lack of any reading\viewing\understanding of what was posted...


An interesting interpretation...Had you watched that video, it was actually about the reaction from a subset of the viewers to his having mentioned in passing (one line in a lengthy video) that he felt that a character with specific characteristics did not feel right to him in a given role as far as his immersion went - It didn't impact his rating of the game, nor would he have had an issue were the character kept in the game, but with a different role.

As to the "far-right" insinuation: I guess that would depend how far to the left of them the person commentating on it was situated to come to that conclusion...



And that is entirely their choice (People here are allowed to think for themselves aren't they?) - Interesting that you need to refer to a post from around 6 months ago, though, when I have made many posts in the interim - The fact that this is not my intent, and that others claim to know what I am thinking and what my reasons for doing something better than I do, however, I do take as an attack on myself (regardless of whether it is from a normal member or a moderator).

If people have an issue with what I post, they are free to address what I post after taking the time to read\view what was presented, contesting the details contained within it, not insinuate\make assumptions about what I "meant" by posting it in order to try to attack me personally\push me (or anyone else who may agree with what I have posted) away from the site.

I don't see what's wrong with people off their own bat introducing themselves with pronouns or people within my social sphere for eg all doing it. Also it's not time consuming. You literally just say, name and pronouns then move onto the actual chat.

Just cos a predominantly cis group of people wouldn't think to do it, doesn't make it wrong.

After all, if we went back in a time machine to Victorian/Edwardian times my name wouldn't be 'KT67' or even my name or even my birth name. It would be 'Miss [surname]'. Anything else would be seen as odd.

Times change. People do what's right for them.

Cis people/passing people who do the pronoun thing are just doing it to support trans people who don't pass. That's a nice thing.

Reminds me of an introduction in American Gods: "Sammy." "He Sammy or She Sammy?" "She Sammy."
The reason wasn't gender fluidity but Minnesota winter clothes

This is unmitigated hyperbole.
Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish. If that falls short of your expectations then I suggest you modify your expectations.

Distinction without a difference I'm afraid. The issue isn't how definitive you are being, it's that you frame it that way at all. If you wanted to discuss psychology then you could have chosen a more neutral title. By tying it into your cultural cause, you're poisoning your own well.

Generally speaking, claiming that you only insinuated something rather than outright said it would not stand up in a court of law if one was sued for defamation.

Again though, this isn't pertinent. When you frame something as being "about video games" (regardless of whether you use the word "industry" or not - this anti-SJW does not seem to be any different from any other outrage merchant, he is just criticising a couple of Tweets rather than talking about the actual industry) in conjunction with "SJW" you're waving a bit of a red flag to anyone who has had a discussion about video games since the Gamergate fiasco.

I don't want this to be more personal than it has to be, so by all means take what I say as "opinion" rather than "fact". After all, at best I can only judge what comes across in your posts rather than what you hold in your heart. So: in my view, your posts lead to you being perceived as having heavy slant towards an extreme right-wing position. You're not an ethnic nationalist but your posts are also a long way from those of a centre-right liberal conservative. If everyone in the West, to use a crude term, lined up from "most culturally conservative" to "least culturally conservative", I think most users of this forum would expect you to be in the top 10% or even top 5% for conservativism.

Maybe that's unfair and you're actually a fairly progressive guy, but the point is when you make a thread about a hot button issue, people are going to perceive you as making a hot-button point. If you actually want to have a dry discussion about a psychological phenomenon then you have to frame it very neutrally. Drawing the connection to SJWs and to video games already moves the frame.

By way of example, I don't think the user RushKing would be offended if I described him as far-left. When RushKing posts a video by a far-left YouTuber I don't think "great, time for a nuanced discussion about economics". If I can immediately spot a mistake then I'll point it out, if I can't then I just won't contribute to the discussion. I'm certainly not going to sit through every 20 minute BreadTube video that gets posted here. If RushKing ever wants to have a discussion about, I don't know, deadweight loss, and posts a video by a creator I don't recognise, then I might watch the video if it is just entitled "what is deadweight loss?", but I wouldn't if it was titled (either by RushKing or the uploader) "deadweight loss is proof that capitalism always fails".

(RushKing, if you read this, I'm choosing you as an example because you're both the furthest left person here and not someone I associate with sensationalism - this is in no way a critique of anything you have done)

As for my perception of the centre - I'm a centre-right neoliberal. While I see some advantages to conservativism, I don't think I could call myself a conservative with a straight face any more than I could call myself a radical. Nonetheless, I spend most political discussions arguing from the right. I think Joe Biden is too left wing and have no trouble naming Republicans who I think would be better Presidents. If someone is consistently arguing from my right, they're pretty solidly to the right. And if they're interested in routinely defending Donald Trump, or opposed to the widespread representation of women and minorities in popular culture, then they're significantly to my right and even further from the right of the centre.


The bolded part illustrates my point: if someone disagrees with you from the left, you assume they haven't watched the video you posted or read the article you posted.

Guy was mad that he was accused of being sexist for saying women can't lift miniguns. Women can lift miniguns. He was being sexist.

Sure, but you can shape their thoughts. If you want a dry discussion, then use a dry title. Don't use a provocative title and then complain that people were provoked!

It's possible that you genuinely don't realise that a title like "possible explanation of SJW mindset" could be perceived as provocative or leading. Fine, but it's still going to shape people's perceptions. If you want to have a discussion about something without people assuming that you're trying to be inflammatory or lead them to a conclusion, then you need to really present the subject in the most neutral way possible. In this case, that would probably have been presenting the paper without reference to SJWs, and probably without the accompanying video which makes the same references. I'm not saying you're bad because you presented material in a leading fashion, I'm saying the way you presented material caused people to perceive that you were attempting to provoke or lead, and that if this wasn't your intention then a different presentation may have been beneficial.


It was from mid-October, which was a little over three months ago. While you have made posts in the interim, I do not intend to tear your character to shreds. As there is relatively little churn of users here, most will recall a post from only three months ago, and it is directly pertinent.


That's exactly what I did in the second post in this thread, where I said that you and the video's creator were engaging in pop psychology to discredit those you disagree with, with a veneer of a scientific approach but no scientific substance.

While OP makes it sound like they are being treated unfairly, and that Walrus' example is just a one-off singular instance from ever-so-long-ago, the reality is, OP has a pattern of behavior. They may deny it, but they do. Most people seem to see it. This gets dismissed as "groupthink" or "mob mentality" rather than "people share an opinion of me, possibly for a valid reason".

While intent may be a necessary component for many legal situations (though certainly not all of them require intent, such as manslaughter), intent is NOT a necessary component when it comes to making a determination of someone's behavior. Just cos someone doesn't INTEND to act in a certain way, that doesn't preclude them acting in that manner, even if not intentional. Just cos my waitress didn't INTEND to spill my soup all over me doesn't magically clean me off for her saying so.

Equally so, just cos you don't INTEND to provoke or antagonize people doesn't mean that's not the end result. Just cos you don't INTEND to offend people doesn't mean people's offense is merely a blind and mindless attack directed at you personally for merely having innocently shared your opinion, or perhaps not even your own opinion but someone else's opinion you merely wished to innocently share, so it's really not even you saying it...

OP has a well-documented post history. But OP acts like it's not THEM, it's everyone *else* with a bone to pick. They just be posting stuff! They don't INTEND to provoke people! It's merely a coincidence that much of the things posted HAPPEN to be provocative (or in defense of something provocative), even though they act like they aren't so they can gaslight those who are provoked by it. "It's not provocative! You just LOOK for stuff to attack!" they say.

Ironically - acting just like the very SJW's this post was supposed to be about, shrieking at people "DID YOU JUST ASSUME MY INTENT?!" like some kinda sjw meme, or demanding to be addressed by their full arbitrarily chosen anonymous pseudonym that they identify with like an angry apache attack helicopter, as though names on here don't get shortened and abbreviated all the time. And implying that other people are the ones that should be open to new ideas (usually OP's ideas) while making no attempt to deviate from OP's own ideas.

Now, OP can post whatever they want (within WP guidelines, of course). But OP does NOT get to dictate how other people feel about the content they post, nor how other people respond (so long as it doesn't break WP guidelines) to the content you post.

As for the video itself, it's garbage. It claims to be based on scientifically backed research, but psychology and other cognitively based studies, while "studied" as in "observed", have no actual scientific basis for them, as there is no way to scientifically objectively measure or prove things like intent - as the OP just made a big flaming deal about - or other cognitive or emotional states. The scientifically backed methodology is behaviorism, which by it's own tenets, must ignore imagined cognitive events that try to invent hypothetical mental process that happen to explain the behaviors they are seeing - and the whole video is nothing but supposition regarding imagined mental processes as for why they think other people act that way - while failing to realize how their own personal bias is going to reflect and distort why they think other people are doing things. Simply put, of course you think that's why they're doing it - that's already what you thought to begin with. Video literally opens with the idea that they are going to RATIONALIZE and explain why they think what they think. It's cherry picked confirmation bias at best.

Honest political discussion is dead. the digital age has begun. the culture war is a total war. a deep rooted psyop of epic proportions. bullys trying to secure moral highground. deliberate war on linguistics. deliberate atttempt at msemantic control. easiy to control the body when you have the mind. control the political milieu. control the people. control the future. control the past. 1984 came and went.... and nobody noticed. the swj mindset? just the latest of many a public relations creation.

O hai guyz, I brought enough lefty gay popcorn to share with e'erybody!