Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

19 Dec 2021, 11:36 am

From the logical point of view, everyone, on every side of political spectrum, is thinking they are supporting social justice. They are just defining social justice differently. So if one uses the term SJW to designate just one side of political spectrum (regardless of what that side happens to be) one is making an assumption that that particular side is right while the other side is wrong. But you can't make an assumption when you are introducing a definition. Definition should have no assumptions incorportated into it. Thats why the term SJW shouldn't refer to any political side at all.

If you want to use that term, that term should be applicable to anyone who is very passionate about their political views, regardless of what their political views happen to be. Since any political views are perceived as favoring social justice in the minds of people who hold them. And therefore being passionate about said political views would logically make one into "social justice warrier".



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 16,843
Location: I'm right here

19 Dec 2021, 11:41 am

It's an insult that says a lot more about the people throwing it than the people they're insulting but at least they're admitting they favour social injustice.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

19 Dec 2021, 12:48 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
It's an insult that says a lot more about the people throwing it than the people they're insulting but at least they're admitting they favour social injustice.


Yeah the fact that it is an insult is the other thing that is not logical. It would make a lot more sense if leftists were to use that term as a praise, as opposed to rightist using it as an insult.

I mean all sides agree that social justice is a good thing, they just define it differently. So somebody on the right should be saying that people on the right fight for social justice, and view it as a good thing. Thus, them throwing it at someone on the left makes no sense on two levels:

a) Why would they believe that people on the left are in favor of social justice, unless they are leftists themselves

b) Why would they view favoring social justice a bad thing? However they define social justice to be, it would "by definition" be a good thing.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 16,843
Location: I'm right here

19 Dec 2021, 2:53 pm

QFT wrote:
b) Why would they view favoring social justice a bad thing? However they define social justice to be, it would "by definition" be a good thing.


I think the problem is assuming that they favour social justice. Some people see the cruelty in our system and consider it a feature instead of a bug. Those people aren't in favour of social (or likely any other form) of justice, that's why they rally in support of injustice continuing.


_________________
You can't buy happiness; steal it.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

19 Dec 2021, 3:35 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
QFT wrote:
b) Why would they view favoring social justice a bad thing? However they define social justice to be, it would "by definition" be a good thing.


I think the problem is assuming that they favour social justice. Some people see the cruelty in our system and consider it a feature instead of a bug. Those people aren't in favour of social (or likely any other form) of justice, that's why they rally in support of injustice continuing.


I think they still view it as justice. The issue here is that there is a type of "law of conservation of justice": giving more justice to Group A would take away the justice from Group B. So whoever focuses on Group A more, would think of it as justice. Whoever focuses on Group B more, would think of it as injustice. Both sides are "fighting for justice": thus whoever sees it as justice would be in favor of it, whoever sees it as injustice would be opposed to it.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,849
Location: Long Island, New York

19 Dec 2021, 8:58 pm

The term is kind of dated. It defined a personality type as much as an ideology. The stereotype SJW went into a meltdown at every microaggression.


No matter how many bad things you want to call Antifa or BLM you can't call people who are willing to protest or riot week after week during a pandemic with the ensuing kettling and pepper spray snowflakes. If you agree with the idea that neo-Marxist woke bullies have taken over institutions, that is not something fragile people do.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

19 Dec 2021, 11:50 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
The term is kind of dated. It defined a personality type as much as an ideology. The stereotype SJW went into a meltdown at every microaggression.


No matter how many bad things you want to call Antifa or BLM you can't call people who are willing to protest or riot week after week during a pandemic with the ensuing kettling and pepper spray snowflakes. If you agree with the idea that neo-Marxist woke bullies have taken over institutions, that is not something fragile people do.


In this case, you should call SJW people on either side who are willing to riot. For example, the people who attacked the Capitol Hill should also be called SJW. In both cases, the people involved are thinking they are fighting for social justice, while the people on the opposing side are thinking they are just criminals. Since the definition can't take political sides, both of them are equally deserving the label of SJW.



vividgroovy
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 196
Location: Santa Maria, CA

20 Dec 2021, 4:16 am

I could be wrong, but my reading of the term "Social Justice Warrior" was that it was meant to be sarcastic (particularly the "warrior" part), aimed at people who viewed themselves as heroes on the front lines of fighting injustice, when really, they were just arguing on the internet from the safety of their own home.

My example would be, when a person in an internet discussion gets so furious, they're asked to calm down, and they respond with "I'll calm down when people stop DYING IN THE STREETS!! !! !!" People would literally respond with that. And the topic of discussion was "Tootsie: The Musical" or something equivalent. They believed that "Tootsie: The Musical" was murdering people in the streets.

That said, I don't like terms like "SJW" because they do tend to take on a broader meaning than originally intended. That and, once someone uses a term like that, the whole discussion becomes about the term. Then the people on the other side start using their terms and it's more about signaling which side you're on than having an exchange of ideas.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

20 Dec 2021, 4:38 am

vividgroovy wrote:
I could be wrong, but my reading of the term "Social Justice Warrior" was that it was meant to be sarcastic (particularly the "warrior" part), aimed at people who viewed themselves as heroes on the front lines of fighting injustice, when really, they were just arguing on the internet from the safety of their own home.


Again, wouldn't this be equally applicable to both political sides?



vividgroovy
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 196
Location: Santa Maria, CA

20 Dec 2021, 4:46 am

QFT wrote:
vividgroovy wrote:
I could be wrong, but my reading of the term "Social Justice Warrior" was that it was meant to be sarcastic (particularly the "warrior" part), aimed at people who viewed themselves as heroes on the front lines of fighting injustice, when really, they were just arguing on the internet from the safety of their own home.


Again, wouldn't this be equally applicable to both political sides?


For me, as a politically unaffiliated person, yes, it's equally applicable if someone on either side behaves this way.

Nobody from either side probably wants to be called an SJW though, since it's a bad thing.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,863

20 Dec 2021, 4:59 am

vividgroovy wrote:
For me, as a politically unaffiliated person, yes, it's equally applicable if someone on either side behaves this way.


Exactly. Which leads to the question why only leftists get labeled this way.

If right wants to use this weapon against the left, why doesn't left also use it against the right?



vividgroovy
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 20 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 196
Location: Santa Maria, CA

20 Dec 2021, 6:29 am

QFT wrote:
vividgroovy wrote:
For me, as a politically unaffiliated person, yes, it's equally applicable if someone on either side behaves this way.


Exactly. Which leads to the question why only leftists get labeled this way.

If right wants to use this weapon against the left, why doesn't left also use it against the right?



I would say that the Left seems more likely to say they stand for social justice, while the Right is more likely to say that they stands for rights, freedoms, values, etc. I don't think either side owns these terms, but the Left does seem to talk about "social justice" more in my experience.

Also, while I can't think of a time I've seen people on the Right called "SJWs," I have frequently seen them called "snowflakes" by people on the Left. People will complain about "cancel culture" or "the latest SJW reboot" or whatever, and in response, someone on the Left will say, "Wow, look at all the snowflakes complaining!"

With a Right-leaning term like "cancel culture," the typical Left-leaning response I see is "there's no such thing as cancel culture" rather than "the Right has cancel culture, too." Or with "political correctness," they will say, "There's no such thing as political correctness, only common decency. Why are you against common decency?" or "There's no such thing as political correctness, it was invented by Alt-right Nazis, so if you use the term, that means you're an Alt-Right Nazi." These are stock responses that I've seen over and over.

When it comes to the term "woke," most often I see it used as a negative by those on the Right, while I guess it started as something people on the Left would call themselves?

I tend to see more of this stuff from the Left on social media, possibly because I'm on entertainment groups and they seem to lean Left. Before social media, I never had this impression of the Left. However, I do also see sensationalism and bias in the response to it as well.