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

the evasion_kid

For any somewhat sane rational person looking from the outside in,it actually looks like a mental disorder,or to put it another way if SJW's every formed a political party or got someway into power....I'd be an extremely worried man.

SeanW

At it's most extreme, an SJW is fundamentally anti-democratic. They will use violence or threats of violence (if necessary, though other means are acceptable, e.g. pulling a fire alarm to disrupt a meeting, or attempts at changes to the law) to try to silence people whose views they don't like. Nigel Farage tends to get rough treatment from SJWs and often has to take refuge behind police lines when mobbed by leftist thugs..

The best method of quickly determining if someone is an SJW is to apply two tests:

Are they leftists? Feminists? Extreme multiculturalists? Race baiters? Extreme environmentalists?
AND. Do they reject the Enlightenment/Voltaire principle of

Voltaire wrote:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

If someone passes both tests, they are an SJW.

the evasion_kid

SeanW wrote: »

At it's most extreme, an SJW is fundamentally anti-democratic. They will use violence or threats of violence (if necessary, though other means are acceptable, e.g. pulling a fire alarm to disrupt a meeting, or attempts at changes to the law) to try to silence people whose views they don't like. Nigel Farage tends to get rough treatment from SJWs and often has to take refuge behind police lines when mobbed by leftist thugs..

The best method of quickly determining if someone is an SJW is to apply two tests:
Are they leftists? Feminists? Extreme multiculturalists? Race baiters? Extreme environmentalists?

AND. Do they reject the Enlightenment/Voltaire principle of

If someone passes both tests, they are an SJW.

I only just recently came into their cross hairs, scrolling through Facebook one morning I seen an article that I happen to know quite a lot about,there was a bit of misinformation in the heading of it so I posted a simple one sentence FACT(a simple Google would have shown this) didn't even look at the other comments and went off to work...little did I know of the tidal wave of vitriol that was building from the other side of the atlantic,when I got home I was in shock how deluded this people can get,it was like a big oppression party and I was ruining it with FACTS,I decided to check out the lead sjw's page but I already knew what I was going to find....and there it was looking back at me....."the shirt"

To cut a long story short her last comment was literally if you post again you're getting blocked(what is it with them and censorship?) So I knew my last comment was going to have to be good..."look don't let a few facts get in the way of your faux outrage"

DELETED and BLOCKED :pac:

orubiru

For me, an SJW is someone who creates the impression that they REALLY care about a particular issue in order to get "views", "likes" or "clicks".

Rather than focusing on important issues, they prefer to focus on "fashionable" issues. In order to get views, likes or clicks.

An SJW will normally spend most of their time pointing out how screwed up our society is whilst benefiting greatly from being part of that society. They will not offer solutions. They are offering "entertainment". In exchange for views, likes or clicks.

The SJW will be more than happy to tell you how easy your life actually is and will invite you to "check your damn privilege".

The ultimate goal of the individual SJW is to antagonize a group of people to the point where members of that group will use the anonymity of the internet to throw some abuse back. At this point the SJW can attain "victim" status and now they can turn views, likes or clicks into money, money, money.

These people are really just entertainers. They create content that will get people talking in order to generate revenue. They are not concerned with fixing actual social injustice and they have very little impact on society. They are just people looking for an audience. If they have to cause a bit of controversy to get that audience? No problem. It's the oldest trick in the book.

For example, I love to read the "Everyday Feminism" website to laugh at their utterly delusional nonsense. It's entertainment. If people were talking to you like this in real life you'd just laugh at them.

Of course, this opens a market for "anti-SJW" people to exploit. Making their own content to get views, likes and clicks. They will also try to turn this in to money money money.

Meanwhile, children continue to starve etc. The "starving kids in Africa" etc markets are already saturated with people trying to do actual work using actual skills and wealth that they have acquired.

SJWs are simply operating in areas where they can turn themselves, not the cause, into the center of attention.

[Deleted User]

Does anyone thing there might sometime be some mental health issues involved with those who hold extreme views. I have withdrawn from debate because I have has an hysterical reaction when I asked for proof of what someone was saying.

Eugene Norman

mariaalice wrote: »

A so the real power is always hidden Foucault, Chomsky etc. were right is there not a slight edge of a conspiracy theory in that. What agenda does 'power' have.

I presume to stay powerful. My point is that the American left is whiny and narcistic, whining about the lack of privilege of certain protected groups, meanwhile ignoring its own hegemony and imperial invasions of the world, a project largely signed off by all members of congress and the executive and supported by the mass of Americans. Including the oppressed American POCs and wimmins.

K4t

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

orubiru

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think it's an internet thing. I spent a lot of time overseas and have a large group of people on Facebook from North America. These are the main ones for posting Social Justice Warrior content.

Probably this kind of thing is also seen more often by university students.

It's quite a big thing on youtube with lots of videos and response videos being made about Social Justice Issues.

newport2

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think plenty of terms already exist for the extreme on the opposite end of things from SJW, eg racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

IMO, all these terms - including SJW - are bandied about far to easily. They all exist, but I think they do not apply to most people - right, centre or left oriented.

People on both sides of any argument who can't make a reasoned point tend to resort to hurling insults - be it it SJW or right wing neo-conservative capitalist etc

Eugene Norman

newport2 wrote: »

I think plenty of terms already exist for the extreme on the opposite end of things from SJW, eg racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

IMO, all these terms - including SJW - are bandied about far to easily. They all exist, but I think they do not apply to most people - right, centre or left oriented.

People on both sides of any argument who can't make a reasoned point tend to resort to hurling insults - be it it SJW or right wing neo-conservative capitalist etc

The latter is a description not necessarily an insult. In general people will accept conservative, capitalist and neo-conservative if that is that they are.

PopePalpatine

K4t wrote: »

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think they call themselves "redpillers".

Oh, and I think there's this bunch of Anders Breivik-idolising basement dwellers called the "dark enlightenment" too.

VinLieger

Theres a great example in AH right now in the Iggy Azalea thread, that's a fantastic example of SJW making a mountain out of a molehill

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057443731

[Deleted User]

jank wrote: »

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

Which reason? Whose logic?

Does reason permit war? Does evidence permit the drowning of migrants in the Andaman and Mediterranean seas? Is gender reassignment justifiable?

To claim that these questions can be answered using rationality alone is a schoolboy's error. Because, before you've even started, you've set-out with a particular understanding of rationality, one which can be and ought to be distinterested. The existence of 'objective rationality' is itself disputed, and its application (if it exists) is partisan: after all, it is completely devoid of context.

This is a fundamental problem in advancing the myth that reason and logic must be advanced at the expense of ideology. Which is why that idea never got off the ground.

After all, homophobic, Presbyterian fideists seem ignorant and irrational to the readership of the Guardian. Meanshile, the former view the Guardian as another pre-rational parish newsletter written for a congregation of idiots.

There are rationalities for every ideology, and even within ideologies. Some of them are absurd. But to claim you can separate the two is also nonsense.

newport2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The latter is a description not necessarily an insult. In general people will accept conservative, capitalist and neo-conservative if that is that they are.

You're right of course, but it's intended as an insult.

Cuban Pete

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

It's a big thing on Reddit, which if past threads are any indication of, an increasing number of people are using.

Funnily enough it's the terminally smug and self-righteous that mostly bandy the term about without the slightest hint of irony (like "PC brigade") as you can see from the names using it on this thread.

topper75

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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

The above makes no sense and I read it four times.

Violence? Incitement? Against unborn babies by 'pro-choice' SJWs?

SJW types get excited about the right to life of some kid rapist on a U.S. death row wing. Something about 'right to life not extinguishable'. LOL. This doesn't apply strangely to the right to bear arms. Or indeed to anything they don't like. The subjective is sold to you as the objective. Then they like to laugh at religious people as 'brainwashed' (they may be, but you know - pot...kettle).
Don't raise these points though because that is just an 'ad hominem attack'. Yeah they like to fix the rules of debate too.

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

So I take it you have no problem with the state dictating every little level of ones life? Great, you would love North Korea then.

You have quite the talent for completely ignoring what people have wrote in favour of mindless waffle. SJW

Superfluous
Jank
Waffle

Junkyard Tom

topper75 wrote: »

The above makes no sense and I read it four times.

Violence? Incitement? Against unborn babies by 'pro-choice' SJWs?

SJW types get excited about the right to life of some kid rapist on a U.S. death row wing. Something about 'right to life not extinguishable'. LOL. This doesn't apply strangely to the right to bear arms. Or indeed to anything they don't like. The subjective is sold to you as the objective. Then they like to laugh at religious people as 'brainwashed' (they may be, but you know - pot...kettle).
Don't raise these points though because that is just an 'ad hominem attack'. Yeah they like to fix the rules of debate too.

You know I've read what you've wrote there a few times and here's how it looks. Imagine if you had three flat-pack pieces of furniture in their respective boxes. Now picture opening all three boxes and putting the contents in a pile in the middle of a room. Then you proceed to burn the instructions. Well your post is like that pile of flat pack furniture and I'll be damned if I'm going to try to piece it together.

end of the road

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 nothing. its just a term to try silence those who stand up against genuine issues such as discrimination and racism. just like pc brigade and other such nonsense

The Corinthian

end of the road wrote: »

it means nothing. its just a term to try silence those who stand up against genuine issues such as discrimination and racism. just like pc brigade and other such nonsense

So there's nothing behind it? Just a random insult meant to demean the reasonable and blameless victim it's targeted against?

I don't want to point out the obvious, but such terms rarely catch on if they're based on nothing. Sure, they can then be abused and misused to tar and silence others, but their power generally comes from the fact that they do describe something.

Unless things are black and white as you suggest, of course.

blatantrereg

Hysterical types who have no insight into the causes they think they champion and actually undermine them by distracting from rational arguments in their favour. They're usually more about their own image than anything else

VinLieger

The Corinthian wrote: »

So there's nothing behind it? Just a random insult meant to demean the reasonable and blameless victim it's targeted against?

I don't want to point out the obvious, but such terms rarely catch on if they're based on nothing. Sure, they can then be abused and misused to tar and silence others, but their power generally comes from the fact that they do describe something.

Unless things are black and white as you suggest, of course.

I'm pretty sure EOR is actually colourblind, there aren't even shades of grey in his world

Samaris

At base - a Social Justice Warrior is someone who argues (generally on the internet) for a particular ideology.

It was always a rather sarcastic accolade, but it generally nowadays is used as an insult for anyone that the name-caller believes is rather full of hot air and is more inclined to talk a lot on the internet rather than go out and do something about whatever it is they are declaring themselves to be strongly pro. It is almost always used against people who are pro-something, rather than anti-something.

Generally it is applied to those with a more left-wing ideology, and is particularly prevalent as an insult in conversations about (X group's) rights, hence "social justice". It generally implies that the person doing the arguing isn't part of whatever group they are talking about, but is rather white-knighting or taking up a sword to defend people that they may not even particularly understand or identify with.

snotboogie

It's a pejorative label to describe people who value identity over content.
For example, a mainstream journalist covering a corporate launch would grade it based on the products being released, the upgrades to services, maybe the quality of presentation from the speakers. A SJW blogger would be focused on the gender, race and sexuality of the people presenting. They would grade based on how many women, POC and LGBT were presenting and hence in positions of power in the corporation.

Clandestine

Being a complete loser

I've never known an SJW who wasn't one in real life.

tritium

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

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't.

Who would have thought - its the right wing version of left wing putdowns like misogynist and racist....:)

I'm being a little facetious of course. All three terms have a valid meaning, however all are more commonly used to stifle debate than to correctly identify someone

Interesting how each side has learned from the others tactics over the years though....

kowloon

I've seen it used as a term for people whose campaigning is limited to their blog and/or facebook and involves little to no actual effort, much like a specialised version of the lesser spotted keyboard warrior. The kind of people who piggyback on a cause to feed their own self-importance. They were out in force for the Kony thing a couple of years ago. But now I've seen it used to describe almost anyone to the point of being meaningless. It got thrown about quite a bit during the referendum. I doubt this thread will clear anything up for the OP.

K4t

kowloon wrote: »

But now I've seen it used to describe almost anyone to the point of being meaningless. It got thrown about quite a bit during the referendum. I doubt this thread will clear anything up for the OP.

As did I, only on boards of course - which leads me to believe that whatever meaning it did once hold, has been butchered and bandied about so much that it has made the term redundant on boards.

Samaris

K4t wrote: »

As did I, only on boards of course - which leads me to believe that whatever meaning it did once hold, has been butchered and bandied about so much that it has made the term redundant on boards.

Really, it's a fairly redundant term on the internet. It's a cheap shot to win "points" in an argument, nothing more.

porsche959

Samaris wrote: »

Really, it's a fairly redundant term on the internet. It's a cheap shot to win "points" in an argument, nothing more.

To be fair, they definitely exist:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-she-is-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10244520.html

Not to dispute right wingers exaggerate the phenomenon as a means to demonise the entire left.