Social Justice vs Internet Activism

Samaris · 24-07-2015 02:30PM #1

Alright, so we all hear the term "SJW"/"social justice warrior". It's a negative thing, implying a useless bit of debate from someone that loves getting offended on behalf of other people and making it all about them.

However, there's a very real social movement that many of us are part of in one way or another, whether we feel strongly about gay marriage, or interracial marriage or mental illness or rape. How is it that it's so easy to divert the message away to accusations of SJWism (is that a word?) of the person giving it?

I think it is muchly down to Internet Activism. Where there are no physical gestures and no real work involved, just clicking and commenting and then wandering off back into the real world and our own lives.

Personally, I don't think that the ideals of Social Justice should be condemned in the way that they often are, although I do have a problem with internet activism (yet I do comment in arguments, go figure).

My thoughts and arguments aren't very clear at the moment, so I'd be interested to hear peoples' thoughts. Might help me clarify my own position!

Fr_Dougal · 24-07-2015 02:37PM

I'll sign your petition.

Akrasia · 24-07-2015 02:40PM

Social justice is good.

Morons who don't understand the complex nature of human society trying to shut down free speech are bad

SJWs on the internet have combined with the woolly liberals of dinner party lore to aggravate the 'It's political correctness gone mad' brigade.

Links234 · 24-07-2015 02:41PM

When I first started hearing the term "social justice warrior" it was kinda in reference to the type of facebook, twitter or tumblr clicktivism, the folks who'd retweet the Kony 2012 kind of stuff and never actually do anything. But whatever 'SJW' used to refer to, it's pretty much lost any meaning and is used as a catch-all term for anyone who's politics lean to the left or are liberal, etc. It's as useless as hipster has become.

MadsL · 24-07-2015 02:42PM

Having been involved in environmental and historical preservation activism and in particular the planning process, it is really noticible how difficult it is to translate sentiment into concrete action. In an age where most interactions are simple clicks online, trying to help people to translate their concerns and opinions into the language that needs to be used when speaking to local government can be a real challenge.

Conversely, local government needs to respond to the changing way citizens communicate their social concerns.

One eyed Jack · 24-07-2015 02:43PM

Social justice is one thing.

Social justice warriors are an entirely different breed of the most useless narcissist with a persecution complex.

the evasion_kid · 24-07-2015 02:46PM

Whatever about their causes, I absolutely detest there penchant for censorship.the whole your entitled to your opinion as long as its the same as mine. the political correctness that is marring the Western world has brain-washed people into the misguided belief that all people and all cultures are the same. They’re not and while there should be no shame in stating the obvious, those bold enough to speak out will be branded with all sorts of ridiculous names designed to control their thought process and if they don't confirm, ostracise them. It is ridiculous that it is considered seriously bad form to make negative comments about another group of people or culture when in fact the comments being made are factually correct and as such entirely valid!

MadsL · 24-07-2015 02:50PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Whatever about their causes, I absolutely detest there penchant for censorship.the whole your entitled to your opinion as long as its the same as mine. the political correctness that is marring the Western world has brain-washed people into the misguided belief that all people and all cultures are the same. They’re not and while there should be no shame in stating the obvious, those bold enough to speak out will be branded with all sorts of ridiculous names designed to control their thought process and if they don't confirm, ostracise them. It is ridiculous that it is considered seriously bad form to make negative comments about another group of people or culture when in fact the comments being made are factually correct and as such entirely valid!

Someone call you out for stereotyping did they?

What type of comments are "factually" correct when applied to an entire group/culture? Care to give an example?

the evasion_kid · 24-07-2015 02:51PM

MadsL wrote: »

Someone call you out for stereotyping did they?

What type of comments are "factually" correct when applied to an entire group/culture? Care to give an example?

Oops did i offend you..And here we go.....

Samaris · 24-07-2015 02:54PM

I suspect the main issues with such comments, the_evasion_kid is that they are often phrased in a way that condemns an entire group just because of where they were born, their parents culture or their skin colour.

If I'm black, I don't want to hear that all blacks are criminals, when I've never gotten so much as a speeding ticket.
If I'm gay, I don't want to hear homosexuality equated to paedophilia when I have not the remotest sexual interest in children.
If I'm a woman, I don't want to hear that certain jobs or colours or hobbies are "for me" or "not for me" because I have ovaries.

See what I mean there? X are Y is just rarely to ever a true or helpful comment on a situation, I reckon. And yeah, I've seen all those sweeping comments multiple times, although I'll make it clear that I'm not accusing you of having said any of them!

That one can swing both ways. I don't agree with excessive censorship, but I do try to self-censor my own comments for the internet, which is totally without context of me as a person and without any tone to help get across what I'm trying to say.

conorhal · 24-07-2015 02:56PM

It's like they have some kind of superpower, as if their SJW senses collectively tingle whenever sombody somewhere on the internet is offended by something completely effin' trivial, then they all put down their copies of the Irish Times and lumber to their keyboards to right the wrongs of the world by furiously down voting them.

pmasterson95 · 24-07-2015 02:56PM

Its just eejits jumping a bandwagon. Search a few links on google to be an expert and then away you go.

Its normally always the same people offended that you see complaining. Then they forget their last crusade when a newer shinier one comes along.

MadsL · 24-07-2015 02:58PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Oops did i offend you..And here we go.....

Your post seems like a defence of tarbrushing/stereotyping a particular group of people. I'm just wondering what facts you are "bold" enough to speak as you haven't been "brain-washed"? Do you have an example?

eviltwin · 24-07-2015 02:58PM

Links234 wrote: »

When I first started hearing the term "social justice warrior" it was kinda in reference to the type of facebook, twitter or tumblr clicktivism, the folks who'd retweet the Kony 2012 kind of stuff and never actually do anything. But whatever 'SJW' used to refer to, it's pretty much lost any meaning and is used as a catch-all term for anyone who's politics lean to the left or are liberal, etc. It's as useless as hipster has become.

This.

Its easy for people to assume that those sharing things on social media are just doing it to look good or because its something all their mates are doing and they don't want to be left out. Like it or not social media is a huge platform to raise awareness and get support quickly and easily, its a handy tool to share information and recruit people to a cause. I've met so many people in activism who says they are only at a meeting, protest, whatever because of something they saw on FB or Twitter. You'll find a huge proportion of people don't take it beyond the one post or whatever it is but if it gets even a handful of people involved in helping out a cause then its a good thing.

RayM · 24-07-2015 02:59PM

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

MadsL · 24-07-2015 03:03PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its just eejits jumping a bandwagon.

Do you mean bandwagons like posting memes in response to seriously discussed topics?

DeadHand · 24-07-2015 03:07PM

RayM wrote: »

The term 'SJW' has been devalued to the point where it now just means 'anyone who isn't a cunt'.

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

conorhal · 24-07-2015 03:07PM

eviltwin wrote: »

This.

Its easy for people to assume that those sharing things on social media are just doing it to look good or because its something all their mates are doing and they don't want to be left out. Like it or not social media is a huge platform to raise awareness and get support quickly and easily, its a handy tool to share information and recruit people to a cause. I've met so many people in activism who says they are only at a meeting, protest, whatever because of something they saw on FB or Twitter. You'll find a huge proportion of people don't take it beyond the one post or whatever it is but if it gets even a handful of people involved in helping out a cause then its a good thing.

That entirely depends on the cause it's getting them involved in.
Not SJW's I know, but look at the anti-vac crowd. They are a prime example of how the internet and social media has facilitated nutty, conspiracy laden groupthink that has penetrated the mainstream. These are people that would previously have been confined to some tin foil hat nuttery in their mother’s basement, but now thanks to the internet all those basements have been connected to each other, creating a silo of self-reinforcing groupthink that tolerates no dissent or common sense. This they have in common with the SJW's.

pmasterson95 · 24-07-2015 03:09PM

MadsL wrote: »

Do you mean bandwagons like posting memes in response to seriously discussed topics?

Yawn

jimgoose · 24-07-2015 03:13PM

I couldn't agree more. As ever, Mr. Godfrey Elfwick has the right of it:

White people don’t decide what’s racist
Straight people don’t decide what’s homophobic
Law-abiding people don't decide what's a crime

Say it, brother. Mind you he also says:

I can't fully support the #KillAllMen tag until my Dad finishes paying off my credit card bill.

MadsL · 24-07-2015 03:18PM

DeadHand wrote: »

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

I guess if your position is challenged by
a) Some facts on the economic benefits of immigration and population growth
b) Evidence of the chicken and egg position some travellers find themselves in through no fault of their own (defacto discrimination)

then you have the comfort of dismissing those who demonstrate the flaws with your position as SJWs "weeping tears of blood". In fact, you could simply be wrong.

24-07-2015 03:22PM

Social Justice and Internet Activism amounts to nothing and shouldn't amount to anything. But, for some reason, it does and can destroy people's lives, because, 9 out of 10 times, it's absolutely unnecessary and a case of people jumping the gun/having trigger responses.

Off the top of my head -

Tim Hunt - a guy who made an offhand remark that had no bearing and yet his career was destroyed by these SJW
The scientist that was behind the Rosetta mission, wore a shirt featuring semi-naked women which was made by a female friend of his was forced to come back, in tears, and apologise, without doing anything wrong.
After the Boston Marathon Bombing, when the SJW and amateur detectives of Reddit destroyed the reputation of a guy that had been dead when it happened and destroyed his family's life. His sister received death and rape threats.

To me, and I have said this before, the only Internet Activism that matters a damn is the Hacktivists - Anonymous, LulzSec, and, most recently, The Impact Team, who all actually do something towards what they believe in and tackle things that deserve it.

One eyed Jack · 24-07-2015 03:23PM

DeadHand wrote: »

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

I think Ray means it's just become as meaningless an identity as any other social movement. The reason I leave out the word justice there is because now the language has changed and it's all about "equality" and "privilege". Utterly nonsensical.

I don't think either of the above would have SJW types weeping at all really. There's a hierarchy of "issues" as opposed to viewing people as people. Tighter immigration for example if you're talking about Muslims would split SJW's because they don't particularly care for religion, but they support multiculturalism as long as they integrate into the lowest eochelons of society and out of the way.

Travellers, well, equally will split SJW's - some would wholeheartedly agree with you, some would trip over themselves to take you to task for such blasphemy! :pac:

anncoates · 24-07-2015 03:24PM

I'm as guilty as anybody for laughing at people whose sole contribution to issues is from the keyboard.

Like people critiquing international charity when the fact remains that if even one person survives as a result, it's one more person than your gaseous pub-snug rhetoric ever saved.

That said, maybe it's harsh to hold people to account simply for having an opinion, as that's all it really is.

tiro · 24-07-2015 03:28PM

jimgoose wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. As ever, Mr. Godfrey Elfwick has the right of it:

White people don’t decide what’s racist
Straight people don’t decide what’s homophobic
Law-abiding people don't decide what's a crime

That last one is really excellent for being so fantastically dumb. We totally should let convicted murderers decide on the elements of murder. They clearly have more experience of it and a better understanding than anyone else.

We really do have to worry about suffocating another culture's way of life with our own oppressive social norms, sometimes. Some settle disputes in courthouses, others with machetes. But who are we to say any method is preferable?

conorhal · 24-07-2015 03:34PM

tiro wrote: »

That last one is really excellent for being so fantastically dumb. We totally should let convicted murderers decide on the elements of murder. They clearly have more experience of it and a better understanding than anyone else.

We really do have to worry about suffocating another culture's way of life with our own oppressive social norms, sometimes. Some settle disputes in courthouses, others with machetes. But who are we to say any method is preferable?

It's actually all completely dumb. But that's one of the key ways to identify SJWs, their unswerving attachment to identity politics.

RayM · 24-07-2015 03:58PM

DeadHand wrote: »

What's a ****?

I, for instance, believe in tighter immigration control and that Travellers are the sole authors of their own abysmal reputation: two positions that would have the average SJW weeping tears of blood.

Am I a ****?

If a person disagrees with your assertion that all Travellers are responsible for the sheer hatred that some people feel towards them, does that make them a 'Social Justice Warrior'?

Earthhorse · 24-07-2015 03:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

After the Boston Marathon Bombing, when the SJW and amateur detectives of Reddit destroyed the reputation of a guy that had been dead when it happened and destroyed his family's life. His sister received death and rape threats.

Bwuh? I think this is great example of why the term has become meaningless. SJW have nothing got to do with the small crew of people on Reddit who attempted to identify the Bost bomber in the wake of the attack.

It is now merely a pejorative term, no longer descriptive in any meaningful way, like Feminazi, hipster, fascist, "nice guy"; overused and blunted to the point of uselessness.

RWCNT · 24-07-2015 03:59PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Social justice is one thing.

Social justice warriors are an entirely different breed of the most useless narcissist with a persecution complex.

Yet any thread about a typically SJWish subject is always full of people with a persecution complex arguing against the "SJWs". Any thread about sexism against women will be full of men having a cry at how hard life is for them and that nobody cares, for example.

DeadHand · 24-07-2015 04:13PM

MadsL wrote: »

I guess if your position is challenged by
a) Some facts on the economic benefits of immigration and population growth
b) Evidence of the chicken and egg position some travellers find themselves in through no fault of their own (defacto discrimination)

then you have the comfort of dismissing those who demonstrate the flaws with your position as SJWs "weeping tears of blood". In fact, you could simply be wrong.

My position is not one totally opposed to any immigration but on tighter controls of immigration, most especially immigration of a parasitic and potentially dangerous nature (uneducated, of cultural/religious belief incompatible with a modern democracy).

Any discrimination an honest traveller (I've known a few) would sadly experience is more due to the consistent, apalling behaviour of large swathes of their own community than any unthinking bigotry on the part of the majority.

Anyway, that's a derailment.

Now, many would disagree with those sample positions and they wouldn't all be SJWs. The disagreement wouldn't make them so, I never said it would. They are examples of arguments that would likely excite SJWs and have them shouting racist at me.

Unlike RayM, who felt able to state anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt, I wasn't generalising.

DeadHand · 24-07-2015 04:14PM

RayM wrote: »

If a person disagrees with your assertion that all Travellers are responsible for the sheer hatred that some people feel towards them, does that make them a 'Social Justice Warrior'?

I never made that assertion.

Do you stand by your assertion that anyone who isn't an SJW is a c unt?

Social Justice vs Internet Activism

Comments