The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Probably depends on how far back you go. I think this is a product of the 60s and onward, with the stereotype before that being more the elitist old boy's club thing. Not that that'd be much better, but a little middle ground would be nice.

Yeah that's true. I think there is a middle ground left but they just don't get much publicity. There's also the right wing side with he Falwell university now called Liberty. It's basically the evangelical right's version of an insular progressive campus.

Wonderful, evangelical christian right wing conservatism or authoritarian left wing doubleplus ungood newspeak ideology. Some of us thought the enlightenment was on to something, but nooo...

SJW refers to not all Social Justice Activists just those who use intimidation be it bullying, public shaming, hacking, language policing to try and get what they want. People often do throw around the term Social Justice Warrior as a intimidation tactic to silence liberals/progressives and discredit progressive views. that does mean Social Justice Warrior does not describe an actual phemonenon. Cyberbullying a 12 year girl is NEVER, EVER justified and it is even worse when adults do it because the end justifies the means.

It can depending on who is using the term. That is the problem. First off I think there are better ways to describe that phenomenon. "sjw" is used far too often as a slur and its meaning differs from person to person. I also like the point Wolfram made where he said it makes the person using it look like they want social injustice. It's just not an effective way to communicate.

Yes, SJW is difficult to use at times, I have my own criteria for what an SJW is, but recognise the problems with using it. I even made a thread on here with the goal of trying to come up with something better to use in its place, but it was unsuccessful. It's fine for usage among people "in the know", but tricky for people unfamiliar with the subtlety of it. And on top of that it isn't concretely defined.

I don't personally know of any reasonable person who would make the inference you're suggesting, nor can I name any occasion where I've encountered that perspective online prior to reading this post. The term is in common usage and the overwhelming majority of people seem to understand exactly what is meant by it. It would be incredibly foolish to assume a person's political perspective based on their dismissal of SJWs.

The concept of social justice relies on a subjective perception of reality, informed by feelings and bereft of facts. This is what it looks like in practice:



Social injustice is inevitable, whether or not you desire it. There will always be those who are bitter that they aren't as successful, talented or desirable as their peers, who are jealous of the perceived superiority of the lives and experiences of others.

My interest lies in legal justice. Social justice can, frankly, do one.

I haven't personally seen it either. But that's because it always gets used in my experience where people know what it means. Here is one such place, it's a popular discussion point and we know what it means. And until I see better, it's the best we've got. But it's not good at explaining to the uninitiated. I encountered the SJWs before I encountered SJW, and learned the hard way what they were but really struggled to understand and explain what they were. I would like the word to be able to spread what they are to those unfamiliar with them, so they don't have to learn through repeated bitter experience, unprepared for what they are and not understanding what they are, as I did. Know your enemy. People don't understand the nature of this beast, and that's why they fall prey to it. With me they hurt me, but I knew they were wrong. They didn't change me. But others not so confident in that get persuaded they are the ones who are wrong. Or persuaded others are racists or sexists. So you see people making grovelling apologies for nothing and changing things that didn't need to be changed. No doubt some did it just to get them to leave them alone, but as we know, even that doesn't work. Once their claws are in, they own you. Nothing is ever enough. The wheels are slowly turning though. I'm seeing people seeing through the BS more these days. I hope one day they will become as marginalised as other extremist groups.

SJW works great for those who know, but not for those who don't. Regressive left is good, much more Google friendly than SJW, but it doesn't explain the horrible behaviour that's part of the SJW package, and that normal human behaviour works against you when dealing with SJWs.

if people want to understand the general patterns behind that kind of behavior, then they should probably learn about personality disorders

Robach Apologizes Over Racial Slur ‘Mistake’ On ‘GMA’ The ABC anchor used the term 'colored people' live on-air.

So this is what it is coming down to, SJW mentality is effecting the mainstream to such a degree that people are unable to tell the difference between the use of an out of style term and a racial slur.

I prefer autistic people and am tired of seeing in the same media that is so scared to offend the use of person with of autism every damm time. Using person with autism is not ableist. Insisting I use person with autism is ableist.

Since you SJW's do not have the time to be offended for us on the spectrum let me put it this way. "Colored Person" is not offensive, hell even using Negro is not offensive. They are dated descpritors, that's all in most cases. Public shaming a reporter who use the term "colered people" for descriptive purposes is offensive. Speaking of the media sticking a microphone in front of a person whose loved one has just been murdered and asking how they feel is offensive. This happens everyday but reporters never feel the need to to apologize for that, no shaming campaigns for that.

I don't think people are calling her a racist, but it's reasonable to apologize for using out of date terms from the 1950's. I can hear your response forming in your mind now, what about the NAACP!

Pretty much every headline or text in the articles I have read about this mentioned racial slur when it is not at all. There should be a vast amount of difference in amount of offensiveness between a racial slur and an out of date term. Using an out of date term should be understood to be a minor case of ignorance not a reason for mass public shaming. But because of various reasons there seemingly is no difference in offense taken and consequences for the person using the term.

The SJW's go on and on about how language matters. I agree with them. I think they are destroying the meaning of a lot of language because they do not want to understand context and do want to eliminate words from the language.

There is an actual movement of people that call themselves SJWs? I thought it was more or less an insulting term.

It is a pejorative term to describe a phemonenon

It is, used to describe people who think their cause is so righteous and just that it excuses actions that would normally be considered excessive at best. Ironically, many people use the term to distinguish this extreme element from more normal left wing activism, and get attacked by the very leftists they're trying not to smear by making the distinction.

The thing to keep in mind is that opposition to SJWs isn't opposition to social justice per se, but rather to the tactics they use, as much as they like to muddy the waters around this point, painting all opposition as bigots and such. Kind of makes you see why so many people don't like them.

Problems:

They make up terms and definitions to shape the narrative and dismiss logical arguments because they don't pander to said narrative (logic doesn't care for definitions), and it ends up in silly arguments of semantics when they can't respond with their own logic

They're often bullies; if you have to bully people into accepting your opinion, no matter how benevolent, you are still a bully

They want to infringe freedom of speech for people's opinions they don't like; you can't criticize say, immigration, but they're free to criticize "angry white males". Which shows that they're actually racist (but not according to their new definition of racism. Yeah). It also shows that they're simply authoritarian in nature

They aren't happy with equality under law. They want [forced] equality in the social domain, which is often equity too; the social domain is the private domain which needs limited government control, otherwise you have authoritarianism simply because you're enforcing opinions--this is pretty much controlling thoughts, as speech is nothing but thoughts externalized; if you can't put your thoughts out there, you're being controlled

And the main problem: they want this stuff to be law

Yeah, no. I don't care what you believe or your opinions, just keep the extremism out of private lives.

They're no different to religious extremists that want to outlaw private homosexuality (they frame their arguments on their own definitions that are outside the realms of logic too), for example.

On a tangent: social justice is nothing new. Look up various socialist and communist states. They all spoke of it highly and used it for their own ends, prior to being in power and afterwards.