Define PC and SJW!

Post Reply New Topic

SJW: Means social justice warrior. Typically these people are committed to progressive causes such as ending racism, black lives matter, LGBT rights and feminism. However the reason commitment is likely to be more to do with emotions rather than being done due to reason and truth. These people are talked about as being almost bigoted and closed off to different perspectives and debate dismissing them as racist.

Being Politically correct is when someone who believes in avoiding using certain language or doing certain languages to avoid offending others that is perceived to be damaging to certain groups. Like SJWs these people support progressive causes, feminism, ending income inequality, ending racism and supporting LGBT rights. However while someone who is politically correct are mostly left wing, they are not like SJWS as they do not share the same closed mindset the latter is known for.

I've heard the term "social justice warrior" being used in a sarcastic manner. It tends to be applied to people who seem to take "political correctness" too far.

There is the tendency for those called "SJW's" to take offense when none is intended.

And to feel "microaggressions" so small that the "micros" are reduced to the level of a "nano."

I have called out the bad examples who react with hostility rather than polite explanation myself, as recently as this morning. Yes, there are those who will have a go at someone for an innocent mistake made out of ignorance, but once that ignorance is cured then yes, I think the rest of us need to be careful not to make those mistakes, and yes that goes for those people who hate or shun Aspies, and I have said that to some of them, again as recently as this morning.

Unfortunately, you remember the bad examples. Those described as SJWs are seeking the precise opposite of "enforced conformity", but when I see someone posting links here objecting to acceptance of refugees or the LGBTQ community then I see a problem, because that is a demand for enforced conformity, where refugees are left to die and those in the LGBTQ community are expected to pretend not to be, just as we're expected to pass as neuroptypical, or take the cures that so many seek supposedly on our behalf.

Likewise, I've been trying to get across the issue with seeing a failure of eye contact as a microaggression (this morning). I was as angry about that as the rest of the Aspie community. A lot of this is nuanced, but I think we need to be sitting down together and working out these nuances and going after the hate groups rather than each other.

From my experience, these days both are pejoratives used primarily to offend. I've frequently seen them hurled at well-meaning people promoting inclusiveness. Whatever the historical context, they are frequently used now in a dismissive way in order to shut down discussion.

Basically, no one interested in having a mature debate will use terms like these (and this includes their politically-opposite counterparts).

Respect is a two-way street.

I don't think there's any fair argument against human decency - that it even needs discussion is a pretty sad reflection on our culture.

At the same time it's a mess that conversation on this, at all, seems to get routinely conflated with being about people who are pro-decency vs. anti-decency as if it's the only thing to be discussed or, perhaps cynically, it gets passed off that any objection - regardless of the 'purported' reason - is really anti-decency or blunt racism, sexism, etc. trying to imitate some clout of intellectual acceptability. That line of thinking smacks of religious orthodoxy accruing its power base and codifying its definitions of heresy.

The first time I heard the expression, narrative (aka social justice narrative, victimhood narrative) was from a police science course. It was being called a criminal narrative. Noone in the jail sees themselves as criminals. They are all victims, imprisoned unjustly. (Some are actually bad people.)

One of the things about dialectics, and social justice warfare, in general, is there is no winner, no goal, and no end to it, until you make a conscious effort, not to participate. It possibly takes some kind of security or borderwall, to separate yourself, mentally, from the narratives of others.

Possibly, my boundaries, policies, privacy, stress hygiene, spam blockers, etc, etc, are politically incorrect, so would become the subject of social justice warfare.

Some people consider Lynch's "Making of a Slave" and Pike's "Morals and Dogma" to be of spurious origin.

Both are examples of infighting, in which agitators are a state interest.

These people are not independent -- materially, financially, or mentally -- not tending to primal survival needs, which would be provided for them, by their handlers.

Things like fuel, food, drinking water, and shelter, don't care what is your complexion, gender orientation, or religious faith, secularly speaking. But, you won't be minding those, for yourself, sjw's to either side of the political divide.