nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

what constitutes a social justice warrior?

Robsweezie

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sheep Lover

The right PR campaign.

The Backwards Man

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

endacl

I think it's a term applied subjectively. As in, "that injustice you're campaigning against is not important to me. Ergo, you are an SJW". Applied by the lazy of thought. An ad hominem.

Un Croissant

A person with a tumblr account.

Cold War Kid

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 means people who get easily offended and deem everyone who isn't white/male to be a victim... but it's also a term that gets incorrectly applied to people who simply hold left-of-centre views. One of numerous such terms.

RayM

It's one of those terms that right-wing idiots throw at anyone who isn't a cunt.

jank

People who essentially believe in the right to legislate for all ills of society where upon with the right type of social engineering can create their own version of utopia. Usually rejects reason, logic and evidence to pursue their idealogical driven view of the world.

Manach

It is the US version for the term PC Brigade.

endacl

Manach wrote: »

It is the US version for the term PC Brigade.

Their warriors don't organise into brigades?

[Deleted User]

Also a way of shutting up people and preventing challenge by pre-emptively calling anyone with a different point of view an SJW in a way that makes it code for 'rapist-loving, pedophile-excusing, criminal-hugging, junkie-apologising gay-celebrating limp wristed bleeding heart feminist sympathising liberal'.

[Deleted User]

RayM wrote: »

It's one of those terms that right-wing idiots throw at anyone who isn't a cunt.

By far the most accurate and succinct definition.

/tips hat

Arsemageddon

jank wrote: »

People who essentially believe in the right to legislate for all ills of society where upon with the right type of social engineering can create their own version of utopia. Usually rejects reason, logic and evidence to pursue their idealogical driven view of the world.

Something those of a more right wing persuasion would never ever do!

endacl

jank wrote: »

People who essentially believe in the right to legislate for all ills of society where upon with the right type of social engineering can create their own version of utopia. Usually rejects reason, logic and evidence to pursue their idealogical driven view of the world.

I really hate to Godwin this thread so early on, but...

hatrickpatrick

One who believes that their perceived right never to be offended trumps everyone else's right to freedom of speech.
Also, a privilege absolutist. If you fall into a "privileged" demographic, any grievances you have or discrimination you experience is not only invalid, but actually a good thing.

hatrickpatrick

Sums it up nicely:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BC0WFw6CEAEkSA1.jpg

NachoBusiness

Owning a Levellers CD.

hatrickpatrick

Manach wrote: »

It is the US version for the term PC Brigade.

It's a lot worse, to be fair. The PC brigade merely object to things they find offensive. SJWs actually try to enact laws and regulations to ban the airing of anything they find offensive.

In the Western world, they're the primary drivers of censorship attempts, which is why they're so despised. They're the ones who are driving boycotts of large social media platforms for having the tenacity to not censor their users, to have ISP-level internet filters enabled by default, to have people prosecuted for airing what they deem as offensive views on Twitter or other social media, to petition radios not to play songs they find offensive, etc.

Ergo, they have always been on a collision course with the generation Y who have largely grown up in a world in which if you find something offensive on the internet, you close the window and move on.

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

People who essentially believe in the right to legislate for all ills of society where upon with the right type of social engineering can create their own version of utopia.

What a load of utter shite. PR is social engineering. Advertising is social engineering. Every law and regulation that influences behaviour is social engineering. Making people put children in car safety seats is social engineering. Making motorcyclists wear helmets is social engineering.

Usually rejects reason, logic and evidence to pursue their idealogical driven view of the world.

Your epitaph.

Links234

Well, it's usage is usually a good indicator of the person you're talking to being a gibbering idiot.

The Diabolical Monocle

just those who are ever ready to take offence and eager to take up a cause.

they want to improve the system because they're different and more enlightened than all those ignorant normal people who dont know better.

normally someone who is ignorant of physical and/or economic reality.

someone who doesn't understand that life comes with a giant mountain of sht to be distributed, dropped from gods anus, and that this sht mountain will never be distributed without someone getting covered, and that while it would be nice to have an umbrella that could cover everyone we don't actually have one, our sht umbrella is a limited resource, so by pulling the sht umbrella to one side you merely allow the sht to fall on someone else.

its late.

but the important thing is that sjw's just work for their own good. the only reason they're in a drum circle is to get close to the hot bi-curious hippy chick who's only there because her dad is rich, and her dad is only rich cause of the oil industry.

night.

hatrickpatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What a load of utter shite. PR is social engineering. Advertising is social engineering. Every law and regulation that influences behaviour is social engineering. Making people put children in car safety seats is social engineering. Making motorcyclists wear helmets is social engineering.

It's a different kind of social engineering. SJWs fundamentally do not believe in freedom of opinion. They believe that anyone who holds certain opinions should be "persuaded" to change them, or put in a censorship box where they cannot air their opinions at all.

They want to achieve "equality" in society by completely obliterating individual freedom. That's probably the best summary of their activities. In doing so, they hurt the "oppressed" as much as they hurt the "oppressors".

the evasion_kid

Usually found around Facebook click bait posts,spewing and frothing over something,while it all sounds great and idealistic....the world doesn't work that way a lot of the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yak25CfQjAQ

Junkyard Tom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's a different kind of social engineering. SJWs fundamentally do not believe in freedom of opinion.

First you'd have to establish that there is such as thing an identifiable SJW and then you'd need to prove that they do not believe in freedom of opinion, then you'd have to show how freedom of opinion is assumed to be a thing of virtue.

Do that, and we'll take it from there.

They believe that anyone who holds certain opinions should be "persuaded" to change them or put in a censorship box where they cannot air their opinions at all.

Who is they and what are these opinions and how is this persuasion and censorship carried out by the indefinable term SWJ?

They want to achieve "equality" in society by completely obliterating individual freedom. That's probably the best summary of their activities. In doing so, they hurt the "oppressed" as much as they hurt the "oppressors".

Is this some sort of conspiracy you're conjuring?

hatrickpatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

First you'd have to establish that there is such as thing an identifiable SJW and then you'd need to prove that they do not believe in freedom of opinion, then you'd have to show how freedom of opinion is assumed to be a thing of virtue.

Do that, and we'll take it from there.

Who is they and what are these opinions and how is this persuasion and censorship carried out by the indefinable term SWJ?

Is this some sort of conspiracy you're conjuring?

Not honestly sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for evidence that such campaigns exist, evidence that they have been successful, or simply evidence that the term SJW applies to them...?

MathDebater

An SJW is someone with left wing views who is incapable of tolerating dissenting opinions and attempts to police the thoughts and speech of others.

They are usually white, middle to upper class and have little interaction with the actual groups they perceive themselves to be fighting for.

the evasion_kid

MathDebater wrote: »

An SJW is someone with left wing views who is incapable of tolerating dissenting opinions and attempts to police the thoughts and speech of others.

They are usually white, middle to upper class and have little interaction with the actual groups they perceive themselves to be fighting for.

Funny the way you can always tell there class

Junkyard Tom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not honestly sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for evidence that such campaigns exist, evidence that they have been successful, or simply evidence that the term SJW applies to them...?

1. Can you provide a definition for SJW?

2. Can you provide proof that SJW's do not believe in freedom of opinion?

Before you answer the above consider the below.

People are free to hold opinions - thoughts cannot be policed. People are not free to express every opinion they wish to (incitement to violence).

Let's take it from there.

scruff monkey

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Owning a Levellers CD.

No, that would have defined some one as being a crusty.

Should be noted that you never actually own a levellers cd, it's more a traditional anarchic communal sharing experience which just happens to be located on their shelves man..... Because only the government owns things man.....

Junkyard Tom

Just did a bit of googling and there is no reputable definition for SJW. 'SJW' is a catch-all pejorative that attempts to 'poison the well' when it comes to discussions of certain issues. 'If you disagree with me you're one of those horrible SJW's who want to kill freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom'

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Edit: 'The Urban Dictionary' and other flaky internet sources such as 'Encyclopaedia Dramatica' do not constitute reputable sources.

Thank you and goodnight.

The Diabolical Monocle

Re; above.

Encyclopedia Dramatica, (concise 2015 cis edition), defines it thus:

Social Justice'ing began as a relatively benign game of hipsters and art students attempting to one up one another over how much more politically active they liked to pretend to be. By posting and re-blogging photos of themselves at Occupy Wall Street protests surrounded by PoliSci nerds they could achieve highly sought-after pseudo intellectual cred. This allowed them to brag and boast to their peers about how counterculture they were totes being. Despite living off their parents' money and having no real clue what working class people actually go through they felt this was enough to TRULY understand the disenfranchised.

Edit: ED is a highly reputed, balanced, and academically respected source.