what constitutes a social justice warrior?

Junkyard Tom

orubiru wrote: »

I get that but then why not just reply to them directly?

"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

Alberto Brandolini.

Some posters are not interested in honest discussion. Others have an agenda or hobby horse they concentrate on in favour of discussion. A few actually get off on trying to frustrate people and wind them up. There's one or two particular posters on boards who I've read systematically deconstruct the bullshit of posters such as those described above and it is a real time-consuming and thankless endeavour.

Herb Powell

This thread maked me consider becoming a misanthrope hermit and never using the internet again.

darlenmol

I knew a lad like that and he went fcuking mad. Defending every anti capitalist thing in sight. Poor lad killed himself last year. He was from a well to do family and could have had an easy way through life but he just fcuking kept at it. But he did the terrible to himself anyway.

The Adversary

To me SJW's are the type of people who will hold up a piece of paper with #Bringbackourgirls or #StopKony on twitter to feed their own sense of self importance and to garner likes or retweets, yet have no understanding of the issues they're "promoting". The type of person who would pour ice water over themselves to avoid giving to charity. Or who will claim that X movie or X television show is sexist yet don't give a thought about gang rape in India or how women are enduring real oppression in Saudi Arabia.

This by no means includes an ordinary left wing person who just goes on about their business and has political opinions or is interested in politics and is willing to discuss them when asked. But when you post an article to Facebook and claim you're an activist battling racism, homophobia, sexism etc You're not an activist. You're insufferable.

Deise Vu

There's 5 minutes left in the U-12 match. It has been a fractious game with disputed referee decisions and one red card but the lads have worked their socks off and are all square, on the verge of their first point after a season of humiliating losses. The manager looks desperately at his last remaining sub. He has already taken off three average players and replaced them with three mediocre ones but now he has no option, he has to take off a good player and replace him with Total Liability.

The opposition immediately smell blood. It isn't hard, they are kids and know exactly how this works. In any case Total Liability is easily identified by the roll of fat coming out from under his jersey that was designed for a football playing 12 year old. The opposition's best player immediately targets Total Liability, runs past him like he wasn't there and blasts the winner past the helpless Keeper.

The players trudge off the field, some of them sobbing with frustration. They glare at Total Liability who wishes the ground would open up and swallow him, knowing he will be bullied and laughed at in the playground in school tomorrow. He doesn't even like football but his SJW mother insists that he is as entitled to be on the team as every other child and she lets the coach know it. Some kids don't get a chance to shine she screams at the club's AGM.

On the way home, to stop Total Liability from crying and to encourage him to come back for the next game Mum buys him a can of Coke, a bag of crisps and a Mars Bar.

NI24

orubiru wrote: »

I think you overestimate the presence of "rich white men" on the internet shouting about SJWs.

I'd be pretty confident that the richer someone is the less likely they are to care about, or have time for, nonsense like calling someone a "Social Justice Warrior" online.

When someone complains that 90% of big business CEOs are white men or whatever the people least likely to care about this are big business CEOs. The people calling them SJW are normally just regular folks who will never become CEOs themselves but can see through the shallowness of ranting about "equality" in order to get more "hits".

Or when someone takes to the internet to whine about "sexism" in game of Thrones the people least likely to care are the creators of the show (who are raking in the cash) and the fans of the show (who are being entertained). The people calling them SJW are generally fans of the show who just want to enjoy their entertainment in peace without some click hungry blogger getting in their face and telling them whats OK to like and telling the writers whats OK to write.

The majority of people using the term SJW are people who simply do not agree with the opinions of sensationalist internet bloggers. It's not "rich white men".

Yeah I know CEOs are unlikely to spend their time on the internet in such a way. But whenever people mention SJWs and how they come from ivory towers, I just automatically think "rich people". I guess the more correct term is "upper middle class". But relatively speaking, SJWs and the people who labels SJWs, tend to come from a nice background. I don't literally mean millionaires or something.

And I'm not denying that SJWs exist--in fact, I've had run-ins with some on this site. And come to think of it, in real life. But usually, the term is used by a certain kind of man towards a certain kind of woman, and their race and economic background are usually easy to predict.

Oh and I just want to point something out to you in your post. You used the term "click hungry blogger" and insinuated that people complaining about rich white CEOs are eager for "hits", right? Well, I hate to break it to you, but you could easily say that about a majority of posters in here. Although the more appropriate phrase would be "thanks hungry posters". I've noticed this trend ever since the thanks button was introduced. Whether they complain about feminism, liberalism, conservatism, sexism, whatever it may be, it's usually for the same reasons you just mentioned. So anyone in here complaining about those types of people are sort of the pot calling the kettle black. The ones you talk about in your post just use a different type of platform.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

And I'm not denying that SJWs exist--in fact, I've had run-ins with some on this site. And come to think of it, in real life. But usually, the term is used by a certain kind of man towards a certain kind of woman, and their race and economic background are usually easy to predict.

Would that simply be because the countries where SJW issues are being debated the vast majority of the population are from a certain race and a certain backround? It is first world countries that SJW issues are in social media and these same countries are predominantly white and the majority social class would be middles class would it not?

More importantly what relevance does your gender/race prediction have? Listening to another persons voice you can predict their gender and nationality based on their accent but that is not making a point. If you feel the race and gender of those involved in SJW issues is a relevant point why don't you just come right out and state your point?

PeteFalk78

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't agree with your racist, bigoted, or prejudiced viewpoint.

A SJW is a person who screams (with animated jazz hands) racism, bigotry and prejudice at whoever doesn't hold their lefty, bleeding heart views.

darkpagandeath

I love the old SJW reaction to films and books, When asked have you read x or seen y they say no..... And then regurgitate some nonsense 3rd hand opinion of someone that did see or read it. While the rest of their mates high five each other who have also not seen or read it either.

Junkyard Tom

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I love the old SJW reaction to films and books, When asked have you read x or seen y they say no..... And then regurgitate some nonsense 3rd hand opinion of someone that did see or read it. While the rest of their mates high five each other who have also not seen or read it either.

This didn't happen in real life at all, did it?

Junkyard Tom

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

One love.

One Love.

LadyFenghuang

Robsweezie wrote: »

This term is all over the forums at the moment but I haven't a 100% understanding of what it is to be one. All I know is it comes with negative connotations and seems to be a form of deregotory namecalling. Why is it such a no no to be an avid campaigner for social justice? Is it because they over do it and jump on every bandwagon? What does it mean to you?

It's a pejorative label applied to bloggers or anyone prone to lengthy hostile debates that are often not well thought out or backed up in the real lives for the promotion of their persona.

I have never heard it used positively or in earnest. It's a bit of a joke term. It has been used against me. I take it with good nature as really it doesn't apply to me.

I have been known to go into lengthy debates. Often well thought out and more often than not quite witty too. :-)

The Backwards Man

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

A SJW is a person who screams (with animated jazz hands) racism, bigotry and prejudice at whoever doesn't hold their lefty, bleeding heart views.

If that's supposed to be some sort of dig, you're wasting your time. I call it as I see it, no more, no less.:)

LadyFenghuang

The Backwards Man wrote: »

If that's supposed to be some sort of dig, you're wasting your time. I call it as I see it, no more, no less.:)

I thinks yis is a good un BM! Can we have monday nights on thursday nights??? :-)

tipparetops

social justice warriors are people who have gone beyond trying to convince people of their ideals, and are trying to bend people to their ideals by using brainwashing and social engineering.
To be a MOD on boards it is compulsory to be a SJW.

j80ezgvc3p92xu

I lump all the left wing "freethinkers" into the SJW bag. My brain just switches off when they start spouting their drivel.

LadyFenghuang

Allie Dirty Supervisor wrote: »

I lump all the left wing "freethinkers" into the SJW bag. My brain just switches off when they start spouting their drivel.

Fair play puppy ;-0!

Not a NSA agent

orubiru wrote: »

Hate to say this but what you've done here is what I see as a pretty typical "SJW" tactic.

Its a lot of very vague accusations about "posters on here" instead of specific accusations. Name and shame. Otherwise whats the point?

Its not different to blaming "men" or "gamers" or "privilege" for being responsible for causing problems.

You've said a lot here about "posters". They do nothing but label people. They show no compassion. They can't paticipate in reasoned discussion. They are a pain in the hole. They are irritating. They do nothing but moan. You can't take them seriously.

Thats a lot of negative things to say about "posters". I wonder what the reaction would be if I said those things about a more clearly specified group? Maybe based on race or gender or sexuality, should I expect a positive response? I bet if I just replaced "posters" with "SJW" you'd see my post as proving your point?

Why not just name the specific posters and give specific examples?

Of course, I have done exactly the same in posts where I have vaguely referenced SJWs.

I am being a hypocrite because when I see a blog post about "manspreading" (why not just call it "leg-spreading"?) I think "wow, these SJWs are a bit mental" in exactly the same way they are thinking "men are taking up too much space".

Which is why we need to be honest and just realise that all these blogs etc about "first world problems" have little value outside of just being entertainment for the masses. We are never gonna be on the front lines fighting against oppression. We are never gonna be the oppressors handing out a beat down. So we just pick a side and throw some words at each other online. No harm done.

Maybe I really am just some fat privileged white guy sitting with his pants round his ankles munching on cheetos and guzzling mountain dew. It doesn't matter because you can never know. Its all just a bit of fun. No need to take it seriously.

You need them and they need you. Otherwise Boards would be a pretty boring place.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear.

Allie Dirty Supervisor wrote: »

I lump all the left wing "freethinkers" into the SJW bag. My brain just switches off when they start spouting their drivel.

PopePalpatine

Allie Dirty Supervisor wrote: »

I lump all the left wing "freethinkers" into the SJW bag. My brain just switches off when they start spouting their drivel.

Likewise when totalitarian religious fundamentalists start spouting their own drivel.

bnt

I've missed most of the SJW lash and backlash, thank goodness, though I did get some on me during the Atheism+ thing a few years ago. Suddenly it wasn't enough to be "just an atheist", you were expected to sign on an additional social justice agenda. There were some good intentions behind it, but a major problem (in my opinion) was that it was prescriptive, telling people what to do rather than leaving them alone to decide what is best.

A bit too much like certain religions, in other words. Instead of "do unto others", I prefer the older "do not do, unto others, that which you do not wish done to you". My mental picture of a SJW is of someone who feels s/he has to "fix" society to make it "just" and doesn't trust others to sort things out for themselves.

I say "first do no harm", which is easy because pretty much everyone agrees on what constitutes "harm". The SJW "you must do good things" ethos is tougher, because not everyone will agree on what is "good"!

Links234

http://explosm.net/comics/3954/

Maguined

Links234 wrote: »

http://explosm.net/comics/3954/

That gave me a proper good chuckle.

tipparetops

last_one_left wrote: »

we see evidence of this in the fact that every single traveller thread is closed on this site

travellers are a major cause for SJW,s

the gay marriage debate on boards was nothing short of a disgrace. Read any thread about Abortion and witness the influence of MODS over the debate.
Witness any thread about immigration, travellers, global warming, abortion, gay marriage etc., MODs will only allow free debate on these subjects as long as the lefties are winning.

PopePalpatine

tipparetops wrote: »

the gay marriage debate on boards was nothing short of a disgrace. Read any thread about Abortion and witness the influence of MODS over the debate.
Witness any thread about immigration, travellers, global warming, abortion, gay marriage etc., MODs will only allow free debate on these subjects as long as the lefties are winning.

It doesn't help when the right are foaming at the mouth with all sorts of racist/homophobic/sexist/sectarian slurs.

tipparetops

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It doesn't help when the right are foaming at the mouth with all sorts of racist/homophobic/sexist/sectarian slurs.

And here we go , this is the start of how a thread closes.
A leftist poster makes a post to encourage uncivil behaviour. more leftist posters join in. No mod hands out sanctions.
eventually the thread is closed by the mods, reasons being the thread is not achieving anything.


SJW's assemble.

osarusan

Such new posters, yet, such knowledge of Boards history:pac:

Wibbs

tipparetops wrote: »

To be a MOD on boards it is compulsory to be a SJW.

Ehhh… I'm not. Can't be around them or listen to the type for very long at all. I wouldn't be alone in that either.

Much of the time I find them to be drama llamas living very sheltered western lives where little of true drama actually happens, so they're busy making up their drama fix by inventing some. Your standard drama llama does this internally with their own lives, ever shifting between and hyping up one non event after another. Your standard SJW just externalises that, looking for outside things that cause them deep pain and "offence". Because feelz basically. There is usually a kernel of truth and a need for focus on the subjects they get revved up about, but again usually they have people ignoring those points and them because of the nonsense they pile on top.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

last_one_left wrote: »

so you admit that the left are the arbiters of " acceptable " opinion on this site

You don't have to be left wing to manage not to come out with racist, homophobic, sexist and sectarian slurs, nor does being on the left preclude the possibility of that behaviour necessarily.

The vast majority of people manage not to do that. A small and vocal minority blame it on left-wing conspiracy and censorship, though, and by and large they would be pretty far right posters.

tipparetops

Louise Stale Volley wrote: »

You don't have to be left wing to manage not to come out with racist, homophobic, sexist and sectarian slurs, nor does being on the left preclude the possibility of that behaviour necessarily.

The vast majority of people manage not to do that. A small and vocal minority blame it on left-wing conspiracy and censorship, though, and by and large they would be pretty far right posters.

The small and vocal minority, is that on boards or are you saying in real life.

The vast majority of people in the real world are racist, homophobic, sexist and sectarian.
Everybody has a weak spot - for many its gypsies.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tipparetops wrote: »

The small and vocal minority, is that on boards or are you saying in real life.

The vast majority of people in the real world are racist, homophobic, sexist and sectarian.
Everybody has a weak spot - for many its gypsies.

Boards, generally. Everybody has prejudices, but some people have a heck of lot more than others, and people vent them more freely here where it's anonymous and nobody's going to punch you