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

CaveCanem

Here's a fun exercise: read your typical RadFem, SJW blog and replace in your mind the words 'a sexist' with 'a witch', 'sexism' with 'witchcraft', 'privilege' with 'sin' and 'patriarchy' with 'satan'.

They share a very similar and defining characteristic with religious fundamentalists; they are not happy merely to raise awareness or contribute to a cause, the very fact that people out there hold a different point of view and a different set of values is intolerable to the typical SJW. They therefore have to actively seek out and eliminate anyone who challenges their worldview. That is what makes them different to your typical person with a social conscience.

Diversity of opinion and a pragmatic accommodation of different cultural and social values are an affront to their moral certainty. This is what makes them dangerous and how they hurt the causes they want to promote.
They have selected their perfect victims to defend and therefore irrationality, spitefulness, mendacity, intolerance and persecution are permissible since it's all for 'the cause'.

Samaris

CaveCanem wrote: »

Here's a fun exercise: read your typical RadFem, SJW blog and replace in your mind the words 'a sexist' with 'a witch', 'sexism' with 'witchcraft', 'privilege' with 'sin' and 'patriarchy' with 'satan'.

They share a very similar and defining characteristic with religious fundamentalists; they are not happy merely to raise awareness or contribute to a cause, the very fact that people out there hold a different point of view and a different set of values is intolerable to the typical SJW. They therefore have to actively seek out and eliminate anyone who challenges their worldview. That is what makes them different to your typical person with a social conscience.

Diversity of opinion and a pragmatic accommodation of different cultural and social values are an affront to their moral certainty. This is what makes them dangerous and how they hurt the causes they want to promote.
They have selected their perfect victims to defend and therefore irrationality, spitefulness, mendacity, intolerance and persecution are permissible since it's all for 'the cause'.

Thing is though, that's common to any radical group, whether they are radical feminists, radical Evangelicals, radical pagans, radical MRAs, radical anything. I agree with your application of SJW as you describe it above, but unfortunately, the term is used these days as a catch-all insult, -generally- towards a pro-something "progressive" agenda.

darkpagandeath

porsche959 wrote: »

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.

I'm not Right wing and I use it when needed. Generally in peoples moral outrage in stuff that has no effect on there lives and never ever will. You know the people high giving each other on how more outraged they are.

SEPT 23 1989

Somebody with too much time on their hands

SeanW

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

There's nothing wrong with being against discrimination, indeed, it's admirable.

The problem is that SJWs tend either to be in favour of discrimination, so long as it's the right kind of discrimination, and they also tend to be keen on surpressing views they don't like. I'm not sure why the term "redpill" was used earlier as there as SJWs have a wide variety of interests, like the thugs that do everything possible to disrupt UKIP meetings and Nigel Farage's speeches/conferences. Like these thugs, who succeeded in preventing Nigel Farage from giving a conference in Scotland not long ago, and proceeded to celebrate that they had silenced him and made him flee under police escort.

In a healthy democracy, where people believe in Enlightenment values, this is not something to celebrate. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hans Bricks

Whatever it is, it seems to be sending a few resident sanctimonious whinos and downright bores into a frenzy of they're favorite adjectives and self definitions of just "not being *u***" apparently. It's a fairly casual, catch all term I imagine. You know like "racist, bigot, *u**, fascist, '...phobe' etc. It must be doing something right.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

Poor SJW's, always the victim eh? :pac:

I notice you can't deny what I said. Typically weak argument. And typical of the supporters in these threads. Oh, btw, I've used the term SJW as an insult, so I'm hardly a victim of it.

What I can't wrap my head around are the ones who decry SJWs on the grounds of "labels". The most labeling people in here are the ones against SJWs. The hypocrisy of it is mind blowing.

newport2

SeanW wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with being against discrimination, indeed, it's admirable.

Absolutely. And the point that some people on this thread seem to be missing is that nobody (at least that I've seen) is saying that just because you are anti-discrimination or hold some left-wing views that you should be labelled an SJW. That's a misuse of the term. Just like being opposed to certain left oriented policies does not make automatically make you a ring wing conservative ba$t%rd or suchlike.

I accept that misuse of the term is used to insult people arguing for certain causes, just like misogynist, racist, bigot, etc is used in the other direction where not necessarily merited either.

Maguined

porsche959 wrote: »

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.

If people wanted to demonise the left they would attribute any SJW stupidity they see to "the liberal left", by using a specific term to differentiate between the average left and the extremism of SJW left politics they are doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. They are removing any blame from the overal liberal left and attributing it to the specific SJW extremists.

NI24 wrote: »

I notice you can't deny what I said. Typically weak argument. And typical of the supporters in these threads. Oh, btw, I've used the term SJW as an insult, so I'm hardly a victim of it.

What I can't wrap my head around are the ones who decry SJWs on the grounds of "labels". The most labeling people in here are the ones against SJWs. The hypocrisy of it is mind blowing.

I did not make an argument I made a joke in the form of a rhetorical question. Your argument is to look at the gender and race of those involved rather than the merits of the points that are being debated which makes your "argument" completely without merit in my opinion.

It would not matter if it was a black woman calling a white male an SJW as an insult. The only thing that matters is the merit of whatever it is that they are debating/arguing.

Who is decrying SJW's on the grounds of labels? Most people decrying them are doing so because their arugments are stupid and without merit and focus on things like gender and race rather than the actual issues of "social justice".

There is a great example of the stupidity of a SJW's social justice in the below article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11658757/Children-arent-reading-enough-books-and-dads-are-to-blame.html

The article is complaining the Dads are not reading to their children enough because they prefer to play with electronic gadgets instead. Ignoring the actual article itself it is the sheer stupidity of the below comment that is highlighting the difference between a rational liberal left and an extremist SJW.

This actually seems a fairly good thing. There's many parents that are don't or unable to read to their kids, and those parents that do inadvertently give an unfair advantage to their kids that lead them to be more privileged. If we want to promote social justice, then equality in education would be a first step even when it comes to reading to our children. It can help a bit with promoting familiar bonds, but these unfair advantages may be just a bit too unreasonable for when we're sending off our children into the world.

But then I suppose a much worse option is when parents think sending their children off to some elite private school is the best option, given that there is no excuse of "familial bonding" in that case and that it purely is a case of people seeking some unfair advantage against other youth.

The vast majority of liberal left would consider reading to your children a good thing. I do not want to label the entire left as stupid so I find it helpful to differentiate between morons like this commentator suggesting it promotes an unfair advantage to read to your kids because other families might not. The best way to differentiate is to use a different label hence this commentator is a SJW moron while most liberals are rational people who would not agree with this commentators drivel. Most liberals I find are intelligent and would want to raise the standard of education of the lowest up, SJW's like this person is an idiot who would rather reduce the standards of childrens education down to the lowest levels so everyone is equally stupid, thats "social justice" by their definition.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

I did not make an argument I made a joke in the form of a rhetorical question. Your argument is to look at the gender and race of those involved rather than the merits of the points that are being debated which makes your "argument" completely without merit in my opinion.

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization. Usually when a person (in this case being me) refers to a group of people (in this case SJWs) as being spoiled, it doesn't really imply victimization. But you have to be pretty stupid to suggest that it is not an internet term used against mostly middle class and rich white women by an identical group of men.

Maguined wrote: »

Who is decrying SJW's on the grounds of labels? Most people decrying them are doing so because their arugments are stupid and without merit and focus on things like gender and race rather than the actual issues of "social justice".

Pretty much everyone in here talking about being called a racist, bigot, etc. The "don't label me" types, while labeling people SJWs. (And now I never want type the word label again)

RDM_83 again

SJW are actually the enemy of the (economic) left, for example a SJW might consider that legislating for gay marriage a hot button popular issue would take precedent in which party they vote for overriding any other broader social concerns and how X party actions equality.

Thats not argument against gay marriage but I've seen a poster say that this would be the main concern when chosing a political party disregarding any effect said parties policies might have in terms of the average worker.

The Corinthian

NI24 wrote: »

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization.

:rolleyes:

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization.

Do you have no self awareness at all? Think about what you've just posted.

joollyparo

The Backwards Man wrote: »

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

Don't go to far, the boards moderators are close and direct examples.

orubiru

NI24 wrote: »

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization. Usually when a person (in this case being me) refers to a group of people (in this case SJWs) as being spoiled, it doesn't really imply victimization. But you have to be pretty stupid to suggest that it is not an internet term used against mostly middle class and rich white women by an identical group of men.

Pretty much everyone in here talking about being called a racist, bigot, etc. The "don't label me" types, while labeling people SJWs. (And now I never want type the word label again)

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".

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization. Usually when a person (in this case being me) refers to a group of people (in this case SJWs) as being spoiled, it doesn't really imply victimization. But you have to be pretty stupid to suggest that it is not an internet term used against mostly middle class and rich white women by an identical group of men.

I think you completely misunderstood my joke.

NI24 wrote: »

SJW is an internet term invented by mostly middle class and rich white men to hurl at mostly middle class and rich white women in order to further polarize two of the most spoiled groups of people on Earth.

I was not claiming poor men were victimised by you calling them spoiled, I was laughing at you painting middle class women as the victims of abuse from the hands of men for simply being called an SJW.

NI24 wrote: »

Pretty much everyone in here talking about being called a racist, bigot, etc. The "don't label me" types, while labeling people SJWs. (And now I never want type the word label again)

I think the majority of people here lambasting SJW's are describing it as an ideology yet you are the one bringing gender and race into the equation when it is really not relevant. Anyone can be an SJW and no one has claimed otherwise apart from you. Why bring race and gender into the debate when it has nothing to do with an ideology? I think you are the one doing the majority of the labelling to be honest.

Also when you say pretty much everyone in here talking about being called a racist? Really? To me that seem to be an absolute minority with the majority simpling lambasting SJW's for their beliefs rather then for how they might be labelled.

I think you are projecting all over this thread.

The Diabolical Monocle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGk6kULEJtU

if this video offends you you may be a social justice warrior.

warning: no-one should watch this video.

probably nsfw too.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

It's certainly a type of person who exists (seriously, browse everyday feminism for a while, search #privilege or #triggered on tumblr, tell me that this is not a coherent and definable ideology), but it's a term that gets used about ten times as much as is reasonably justifiable.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the vast majority of social justice warrioring is restricted to posting on social media, it's only a massive problem if you spend massive amounts of time on social media.

The whole thing is frustrating. Both that SJWs exist and have made words like privilege and patriarchy meaningless and impossible to use without qualification (the word 'offended' becomes a bit bleh when there doesn't seem to be any difference in people's offense at someone having a moustache and someone punching you in the face and calling you a ******), and that the term is used to pre-emptively scupper any meaningful and reasoned discussion between left and right wing. People poison the well and leapstraight to writing off people's opinions because they happen to be on roughly the same side of the political spectrum as SJWs on a specific issue.

Both SJWs and the people who use it to shut down debate are crap, they're more interested in identity politics and having a vicious argument than actually discussing anything.

Hans Bricks

I kind of expected those who would vehemently dismiss SJW as a term used by those who would fall under a negative adjective ending in 'ist', to be severely lacking in sense of humor alright.

TheBeardedLady

Louise Stale Volley wrote: »

It's certainly a type of person who exists (seriously, browse everyday feminism for a while, search #privilege or #triggered on tumblr, tell me that this is not a coherent and definable ideology), but it's a term that gets used about ten times as much as is reasonably justifiable.

As has been pointed out in this thread, the vast majority of social justice warrioring is restricted to posting on social media, it's only a massive problem if you spend massive amounts of time on social media.

The whole thing is frustrating. Both that SJWs exist and have made words like privilege and patriarchy meaningless and impossible to use without qualification (the word 'offended' becomes a bit bleh when there doesn't seem to be any difference in people's offense at someone having a moustache and someone punching you in the face and calling you a ******), and that the term is used to pre-emptively scupper any meaningful and reasoned discussion between left and right wing. People poison the well and leapstraight to writing off people's opinions because they happen to be on roughly the same side of the political spectrum as SJWs on a specific issue.

Both SJWs and the people who use it to shut down debate are crap, they're more interested in identity politics and having a vicious argument than actually discussing anything.

Nail so much on the head with this post. There's posters on here who, as far as I can see, do nothing BUT label posters SJWs and PC Brigaders for being even slightly left-of-centre or show the slightest hint of compassion to others less fortunate. They literally do nothing else as far as I can see and are unable to partake in normal, reasoned discussion or simply have a laugh and get the sillies going. They're a pain in the hole - like mosquitoes buzzing over your head that you do your best to ignore but irritate nonetheless. As far as I can tell, they do nothing bar moan on the internet. Impossible to take any of them seriously but AH would be a lesser place without them, tbf.

One love.

orubiru

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Nail so much on the head with this post. There's posters on here who, as far as I can see, do nothing BUT label posters SJWs and PC Brigaders for being even slightly left-of-centre or show the slightest hint of compassion to others less fortunate. They literally do nothing else as far as I can see and are unable to partake in normal, reasoned discussion or simply have a laugh and get the sillies going. They're a pain in the hole - like mosquitoes buzzing over your head that you do your best to ignore but irritate nonetheless. As far as I can tell, they do nothing bar moan on the internet. Impossible to take any of them seriously but AH would be a lesser place without them, tbf.

One love.

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.

TheBeardedLady

orubiru wrote: »

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

I'm adding you to the list.

Cold War Kid

orubiru, it's against the charter to "name and shame".

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Nail so much on the head with this post. There's posters on here who, as far as I can see, do nothing BUT label posters SJWs and PC Brigaders for being even slightly left-of-centre or show the slightest hint of compassion to others less fortunate. They literally do nothing else as far as I can see and are unable to partake in normal, reasoned discussion or simply have a laugh and get the sillies going. They're a pain in the hole - like mosquitoes buzzing over your head that you do your best to ignore but irritate nonetheless. As far as I can tell, they do nothing bar moan on the internet. Impossible to take any of them seriously but AH would be a lesser place without them, tbf.

One love.

Spot-on. I see far more people giving out about the SJW and its predecessor the PC brigade, than actual concrete examples of same.

Junkyard Tom

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I'm adding you to the list.

Hmm...

TheBeardedLady

Cold War Kid wrote: »

orubiru, it's against the charter to "name and shame"..

Exactly. I'll happily give out those names if you'd like to PM though.

Edit: Not you, CWK, de udder fella.

orubiru

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Exactly. I'll happily give out those names if you'd like to PM though.

Edit: Not you, CWK, de udder fella.

Nope, I don't want their names.

Why not just reply to them directly in favour of making broad and sweeping statements about "posters"?

metaoblivia

To me, SJWs are leftist ideologues who are usually young and/or socially immature. They care about social issues, but lack the ability to appreciate the complexities of said issues. Instead, they focus on language, thought and tone policing, shaming those who fall out of order. They often do not research anything that appears to fall in line with their beliefs and take such things at face value. An SJW's expectation is that other people should change their behaviors, but beyond that the SJW offers very little in the way of solutions. They insist that people be "shamed" and apologize for transgressions, but their standard for an acceptable apology is extraordinarily high and often not met. However, even if it is met, the offender will always be "problematic" and the transgression never fully forgiven, much less forgotten. SJWs are full of righteous indignation - much like religious fanatics - which blinds them to their own hypocrisy. In one breath, an SJW will hurl abuse at someone (usually a white cis male, but white cis females aren't favorites either), while using the other breath to admonish someone for hurling abuse at another person (usually a POC or other minority).

All of that said, I do think the term SJW is thrown around as a pejorative far too often. It's one thing to hold liberal views; it's another to be combative to the point of being impossible to debate with. And you can't debate with a true SJW. They've seen the light, the truth and the way, and they're not here to listen to you. They're here to enlighten you, so stfu and listen, you ignorant racist transphobic fatphobic misogynist, ableist PoS.

orubiru

Cold War Kid wrote: »

orubiru, it's against the charter to "name and shame".

Spot-on. I see far more people giving out about the SJW and its predecessor the PC brigade, than actual concrete examples of same.

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

See, when someone makes a broad and sweeping post about "people" giving out or "posters" behaving in a certain way then they deny the accused party an opportunity to mount a defence or make a counter point. That seems terribly convenient, dont you think?

So you are free to make your points unchallenged because your point is against "people" or "posters" and is not specific at all. This is a pretty good tactic for someone who wants to say "people are always doing X" but doesnt want to get in to it with a specific member of that group. You can see it in typical "cyclists vs motorists" threads.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing but it is what it is and you've done it yourself here when you say its "people" giving out.

Cold War Kid

orubiru wrote: »

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

I do/she does?

You're overthinking things IMO.

orubiru

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I do/she does?

You're overthinking things IMO.

I am definitely overthinking things. I think its harmless enough though.