Social Justice vs Internet Activism

Dimithy · 25-07-2015 04:36PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my view, they're a toxic plague on the 21st century.

Yea, not groups like ISIS, or any other terrorist group. The SJW's are the real evil.

JacquesSon · 25-07-2015 05:08PM

Dimithy wrote: »

Yea, not groups like ISIS, or any other terrorist group. The SJW's are the real evil.

Is there an evil leader board?

the evasion_kid · 25-07-2015 05:18PM

Dimithy wrote: »

This pretty much sums up a large number of the people, that I have seen, who use the term "SJW" online. Make a comment, get challenged, go on the defensive talking about people being offended, and censorship.

The SJW term is used to invalidate someones opinion, and denigrate them, in exactly the same way that some of the "Anti-SJW" side seem to think terms like racist, and sexist are used. It means nothing, and just seems to stand for "someone of a left or liberal leaning, who's opinion I don't like."

Nope I just know there type had many in a run in with them,just sitting there waiting to be offended, id actually consider it some kind of mental disorder.now I'll just wait on the usual crew to turn up and give each other cyber pats on the back....

JacquesSon · 25-07-2015 05:36PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Nope I just know there type had many in a run in with them,just sitting there waiting to be offended, id actually consider it some kind of mental disorder.now I'll just wait on the usual crew to turn up and give each other cyber pats on the back....

I understand where you're coming from but can you not just ignore people who annoy you and just get on with your good work?

Fools will be fools and wot not.

The Gardai don't stop doing their job because a few eijets throw bottles at them. Nurses don't quit because drunks puke on them. Firemen don't refuse call outs because kids take the piss.

If you believe in your cause these things mean nothing.

Dimithy · 25-07-2015 05:45PM

the evasion_kid wrote: »

Nope I just know there type had many in a run in with them,just sitting there waiting to be offended, id actually consider it some kind of mental disorder.now I'll just wait on the usual crew to turn up and give each other cyber pats on the back....

the evasion_kid wrote: »

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.

Are you a parody?

hatrickpatrick · 25-07-2015 07:32PM

Dimithy wrote: »

Yea, not groups like ISIS, or any other terrorist group. The SJW's are the real evil.

I said a toxic plague. One has to have an incredibly ignorant level of optimism to presume that there is only one toxic plague on our society at the moment.

hatrickpatrick · 25-07-2015 07:34PM

Dimithy wrote: »

This pretty much sums up a large number of the people, that I have seen, who use the term "SJW" online. Make a comment, get challenged, go on the defensive talking about people being offended, and censorship.

The SJW term is used to invalidate someones opinion, and denigrate them, in exactly the same way that some of the "Anti-SJW" side seem to think terms like racist, and sexist are used. It means nothing, and just seems to stand for "someone of a left or liberal leaning, who's opinion I don't like."

Actually, SJWs attempt to invalidate others' opinions by playing the privilege card.
Also, SJW is not synonymous with left wing or liberal, and furthermore you can call out racism and sexism without being an SJW.

An SJW is essentially someone who crosses the line from condemning offensive content, to demanding that platform providers don't allow it to be aired at all.

Dimithy · 25-07-2015 08:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually, SJWs attempt to invalidate others' opinions by playing the privilege card.

And Anti-SJW's attempt to invalidate others opinions by playing the SJW card.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Also, SJW is not synonymous with left wing or liberal, and furthermore you can call out racism and sexism without being an SJW.

In my experience the tag is pretty much solely applied to left/liberal leaning people. And nowhere in my post did I say that only "SJW"s called out racism, or sexism.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

An SJW is essentially someone who crosses the line from condemning offensive content, to demanding that platform providers don't allow it to be aired at all.

This is your definition, rather than how the tag is generally used. It has become a meaningless phrase, tossed out to belittle or invalidate someones opinion.
So an SJW would be someone who would ,hypothetically, demand that RTE not broadcast, say, hour long anti muslim propaganda pieces?

QuinDixie · 25-07-2015 08:41PM

I have just read that Social Justice Warriors love the activity called dogpile - this relates to many SJW's ganging up on one person who may have a different view.
Going by that this thread alone has many, many SJW's.

JacquesSon · 25-07-2015 08:42PM

Dimithy wrote: »

And Anti-SJW's attempt to invalidate others opinions by playing the SJW card.

That's possibly the strangest post I've seen on boards.

Please continue this line of analysis because it is unique and it's unlikely I'll see it again.

Dimithy · 25-07-2015 08:51PM

JacquesSon wrote: »

That's possibly the strangest post I've seen on boards.

Please continue this line of analysis because it is unique and it's unlikely I'll see it again.

Its not difficult. Being an SJW is largly seen as a negative thing. Labeling someone an SJW in a discussion is not an attempt to advance the discussion. It is used to invalidate their argument.

Dimithy · 25-07-2015 08:54PM

QuinDixie wrote: »

I have just read that Social Justice Warriors love the activity called dogpile - this relates to many SJW's ganging up on one person who may have a different view.
Going by that this thread alone has many, many SJW's.

Are you sure you read this thread?

JacquesSon · 25-07-2015 08:57PM

Dimithy wrote: »

Its not difficult. Being an SJW is largly seen as a negative thing. Labeling someone an SJW in a discussion is not an attempt to advance the discussion. It is used to invalidate their argument.

If your point is true, why would you care what label some troll puts on it?

A solid argument can easily withstand lazy derogatives.

QuinDixie · 25-07-2015 09:05PM

Dimithy wrote: »

Are you sure you read this thread?

straight from the anti - sjw playbook, time for my riposte, I am beyond your cruelty as this is the internet aka fantasyland.

conorhal · 26-07-2015 12:22PM

Dimithy wrote: »

Its not difficult. Being an SJW is largly seen as a negative thing. Labeling someone an SJW in a discussion is not an attempt to advance the discussion. It is used to invalidate their argument.

But... perhaps their argument is actually invalid? That has to be considered a possibility no?
As does the possibility that they know perfectly well they're on thin ideological ice, which is why they often don't bother to defend their argument but instead attempt to derail a thread completely by spamming it with strawman questions unrelated to the topic, insult posters and attempt to goad them into a ban, throw out sly accusations and engage in a lot of whataboutery. What they won't do is address facts, answer a straight question or concede to even recognise the topic. They just want it to go away and consequently they'll do anything to achieve that end.
To them, truth is the new hate speech. Fact is 'just like, your opinion man' and a straight question is an insult.
What's really annoying however is the latitude they are often given to do so.

Not a NSA agent · 26-07-2015 03:01PM

QuinDixie wrote: »

I have just read that Social Justice Warriors love the activity called dogpile - this relates to many SJW's ganging up on one person who may have a different view.
Going by that this thread alone has many, many SJW's.

And here we have the anti SJW. Of course when they are the minority opinion everyone else is attacking them, seeking to inflate their victim complex. Usually followed by claiming others are just taking part in group think because there is no way they could be wrong.

bnt · 26-07-2015 04:31PM

I was prepared to give some consideration to SJW arguments until I heard about "doxing": the practise of publishing the personal information of those with whom you disagree. It's basically saying "I can't defeat your arguments by reason on the Internet, so I'm going to make your real-world details public". Once a person has been "doxed", they can be subjected to all manner of real-world attacks, from harrassing phone calls to fake police or tax authority reports, or worse.

That was the death of any possible respect I might have for so-called "social justice warriors". :mad:

Earthhorse · 26-07-2015 05:03PM

Doxing was around long before SJWs came on the scene.

bnt · 26-07-2015 05:05PM

Earthhorse wrote: »

Doxing was around long before SJWs came on the scene.

Didn't say it wasn't, doesn't change what I think.

Dimithy · 26-07-2015 05:11PM

conorhal wrote: »

But... perhaps their argument is actually invalid? That has to be considered a possibility no?
As does the possibility that they know perfectly well they're on thin ideological ice, which is why they often don't bother to defend their argument but instead attempt to derail a thread completely by spamming it with strawman questions unrelated to the topic, insult posters and attempt to goad them into a ban, throw out sly accusations and engage in a lot of whataboutery. What they won't do is address facts, answer a straight question or concede to even recognise the topic. They just want it to go away and consequently they'll do anything to achieve that end.
To them, truth is the new hate speech. Fact is 'just like, your opinion man' and a straight question is an insult.
What's really annoying however is the latitude they are often given to do so.

Yea, thats just a rant about SJWs, and has nothing to do with what I said.

26-07-2015 05:29PM

The lazy cynics on here said the support for the same sex marriage was an internet 'thing' and that young people don't vote anyway they were wrong.

Irelandcool · 26-07-2015 05:32PM

I would consider meself to be on the side of gamergate. I don't like SJW's doing what they're trying to do the entertainment industry. If a movie, game, song or something else you think finds offensive for some reason then just don't buy. If it offends you to look at it then don't look at it.
Like that one batman comic they made DC change even though these people don't have a clue about the Joker at all.

The fact that they signed a stupid petition to get that target store in australia to remove GTA 5 because they believe it exploits women even though you can kill anyone in that game.

Also while Totalbiscuit was sitting on his chair receiving his chemotherapy they were people on twitter wishing him that the cancer would kill him. These SJWS are people that never will have my respect.

Earthhorse · 26-07-2015 06:04PM

bnt wrote: »

Didn't say it wasn't, doesn't change what I think.

Not trying to change your mind; just highlighting how arbitrary the thinking is.

QuinDixie · 26-07-2015 07:03PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

And here we have the anti SJW. Of course when they are the minority opinion everyone else is attacking them, seeking to inflate their victim complex. Usually followed by claiming others are just taking part in group think because there is no way they could be wrong.

here we go - SJW's assemble. :pac:
SJW's are nothing but people of privilege pretending to care about social issues they know little of. What the poor need from you is not your fake sympathy but your money.

Internet Activism, no matter how many thanks you get for it, does not matter a jot in the real world.

26-07-2015 07:42PM

QuinDixie wrote: »

here we go - SJW's assemble. :pac:
SJW's are nothing but people of privilege pretending to care about social issues they know little of. What the poor need from you is not your fake sympathy but your money.
Internet Activism, no matter how many thanks you get for it, does not matter a jot in the real world.

But it does social media swung the same sex marriage debate, plus poor people cant be SWJ? and advocate for them selves using social media?

darkpagandeath · 26-07-2015 07:44PM

mariaalice wrote: »

But it does social media swung the same sex marriage debate.

The SJW element in that was the aggressive yes side and their screaming down any dissent. It's like a new Religion People get so worked up with being right and looking correct. Everyone has to be on the same page as the group think.

QuinDixie · 26-07-2015 07:46PM

mariaalice wrote: »

But it does social media swung the same sex marriage debate, plus poor people cant be SWJ? and advocate for them selves using social media?

you forgot to add lols or the laughing pacman at the end of your post:pac:

26-07-2015 08:00PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The SJW element in that was the aggressive yes side and their screaming down any dissent. It's like a new Religion People get so worked up with being right and looking correct. Everyone has to be on the same page as the group think.

But the argument seems to be that SJW is a internet issue pushed by some middle class students and does not exist or have influence in real life.

Taco Chips · 26-07-2015 08:54PM

"SJW" is just another empty meme being thrown out by individuals who can't coherently argue when they are called out for making sweeping generalisations about other races/ethnicities/faiths/orientations and what ever else they find different to them. It's an attempt to demean the point being made by conflating it with mob mentality rather than actually having to respond to criticism in a thoughtful manner. It's the FOX news of online commentary these days. The No campaign during the Marriage Equality referendum were especially adept at this.

An example of the MO would be "I'm not a homophobe but gays shouldn't marry because **homophobic reason**" Someone would reply with "Well that argument doesn't really stack up because ____ and the reasoning is homophobic" The so called "victim of SJWs" would then say "Omg you are silencing my free speech and calling me a homophobe, you are anti debate anti freedom big bullies and there is NO WAY I'm voting for gays to marry now". The sheer moronic nature of this exchange that was happening every minute of every hour of every day in the run up to the referendum was so exhausting but it is not unique. We see it in every topic discussing the position of a particular group in society; women, LGBTQ, immigrants, African Americans, Muslims, young people. It was just at it's peak during the referendum.

After Hours in particular is absolutely draining sometimes, having to read the sheer smugness and stupidity of some posters on here who are so content in making disgraceful statements about every range of issue without the slightest iota of understanding from maternity leave to direct provision. The abject lack of reading comprehension and basic manners displayed by a very repetitive, regular cohort of posters on this forum is nothing short of stunning sometimes.

QuinDixie · 26-07-2015 09:15PM

Taco Chips wrote: »

"SJW" is just another empty meme being thrown out by individuals who can't coherently argue when they are called out for making sweeping generalisations about other races/ethnicities/faiths/orientations and what ever else they find different to them. It's an attempt to demean the point being made by conflating it with mob mentality rather than actually having to respond to criticism in a thoughtful manner. It's the FOX news of online commentary these days. The No campaign during the Marriage Equality referendum were especially adept at this.

An example of the MO would be "I'm not a homophobe but gays shouldn't marry because **homophobic reason**" Someone would reply with "Well that argument doesn't really stack up because ____ and the reasoning is homophobic" The so called "victim of SJWs" would then say "Omg you are silencing my free speech and calling me a homophobe, you are anti debate anti freedom big bullies and there is NO WAY I'm voting for gays to marry now". The sheer moronic nature of this exchange that was happening every minute of every hour of every day in the run up to the referendum was so exhausting but it is not unique. We see it in every topic discussing the position of a particular group in society; women, LGBTQ, immigrants, African Americans, Muslims, young people. It was just at it's peak during the referendum.

After Hours in particular is absolutely draining sometimes, having to read the sheer smugness and stupidity of some posters on here who are so content in making disgraceful statements about every range of issue without the slightest iota of understanding from maternity leave to direct provision. The abject lack of reading comprehension and basic manners displayed by a very repetitive, regular cohort of posters on this forum is nothing short of stunning sometimes.

Exhibit A - person on top of extremely high horse.

Social Justice vs Internet Activism

Comments