The problem with this example is that most people that are labeled as SJWs are actually good people, and the people derisively labeling them that are the POSs.
No these other people are not (necessarily) incels. “Involuntarily celibate” is not the same as “incel”. This has of course already been pointed out by others.
On a separate, less important point, some in this thread have referred to involuntarily celibate people as virgins. This is incorrect. Just because one is celibate doesn’t mean they’ve never had sex.
Yeah, I had a girlfriend who I dated because I was desperate for affection. We had nothing in common. After I did the right thing and broke up (she was dating again within a week or so), no sex for most of the next decade. That was certainly involuntary, but I wasn’t a virgin.
I don’t see why it’s a problem for the example. As with virtue signaling, the fact that it’s often used by shits and the the allegation is often unjust does not change the negative meaning of the epithet, any more than QAnon fools calling Democrat leaders pedophile cannibals changes the meaning of the words pedophile or cannibal.
Because “what’s wrong with wanting social justice?” is accurate. However, if you said “what’s wrong with being involuntarily celibate?” there’s true negativity associate with it vs completely made up negativity.
But here you’re making the exact same error that the example was brought up to illustrate. Of course there is nothing wrong with fighting for social justice. But that is not relevant to meaning of the established idiom “social justice warrior”, which does not just mean fighting for social justice. It is pejorative.
Social justice warrior - Wikipedia
Social justice warrior (SJW ) is a pejorative term… The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction…
The fact that we might not like the fact that this word exists with this meaning is not relevant to its objective semantic content, which is established by usage. It is no more relevant to objective meaning than people complaining about the modern evolution of the word “literally”.
Well, that’s not quite true. In the case of SJW there’s a case for an ideologically-driven movement to reclaim the word from the shits. But that has to actually happen and reach a critical mass of usage for any claim that the word has some other meaning to be objectively valid.
No, I’m not making that mistake. One instance of “what is wrong with X” is absolutely correct and one isn’t.
If you don’t understand why your opinion (which I share) about whether fighting for social justice is correct is irrelevant to what this specific expression objectively means then you’re absolutely making that mistake. If you attempt to compliment someone for their efforts to promote social justice by calling them a SJW the result will most likely be confusion, since the term is pejorative.
And if you don’t understand that there’s a difference between a pejorative that is earned and one that is complete bullshit, then I don’t know what to tell you. Lots of people use “feminist” as a pejorative, but that just means they’re an asshole.
There is no parallel here, the word “feminist” is not inherently pejorative.
The issue here is that I’m making a claim the objective reality of what the word means, established by usage, and you keep just saying that you don’t like it. I’m not claiming that the fact the alt-right coopted this expression is a good thing that I like. I’m just not denying the reality of the fact that it happened. Again,
Unless that happens, if you attempt to use SJW in a complimentary manner you will simply be misunderstood.
This is obviously true and also irrelevant to the point I was making.
“Race-mixer” then. It’s inherently pejorative and also objectively nothing wrong with it.
“What’s wrong with being an incel?” - Well, actually a lot
“What’s wrong with being a race-mixer?” - Nothing, but racists will hate you anyway.
"What’s wrong with being an SJW? - Nothing, but incels will hate you anyway.
And neither is “SJW”. My cite is that I describe myself as one.
Feel free to use words as idiosyncratically as you wish. I hope that reclaiming the word without pejorative connotation eventually takes hold.
In the meantime, here are some actual cites:
Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. I was using interesting in place of the F word . Yeah, they probably consider anyone not traditionally hot trash, and I bet they consider men who are with them losers.
To put it another way, the guy who has SAT scores of 500 and only applies to Harvard, Yale and Princeton is probably not going to matriculate. But will probably call those school biased while saying the rest of the schools are trash.
I refuse to allow the worst elements of society to dictate how I can use words. Do we insist that you can’t call a carnival slide a helter-skelter because Charles Manson decided it meant “race war”? Does making a circle with one’s finger and thumb no longer mean “OK” because white supremacists started using it? If the alt-right on 4Chan tomorrow decide that “ACAB” now means “Aryan Chairman of American Brothers”, do those who use it as an anti-police slogan have to stop?
It depends both on how offensive the pejorative connotation is, and how widespread the usage.
So, just Manson using a word weirdly? No broader effect. Use freely.
The OK symbol? I’d be careful when I used it - fine to indicate I’m all good on a scuba dive, not so fine to throw at a protest.
Entire evil regime adopts your sun symbol of luck & prosperity and waves it over their genocide empire? You’re shit out of luck in taking that back in the West, ever.
SJW is somewhere in the middle, but is it even worth using? It wasn’t a term the people who work for social justice started using for themselves first, it was a (neutral) newspaper term.
Personally, it just makes me think of White Knights, and also eco-nuts calling themselves Rainbow Warriors.
But if you’re committed to calling yourself the name, freak freely.
Neither was “deplorable” and they didn’t let that stop them. You wanna call me an SJW like it’s a bad thing? You’re damn right I’m an SJW.
Sure, I can totally see owning the label when it is used against you pejoratively.
I was addressing preemptively using the label for yourself, absent the pejorative context.
I’d prefer Social Justice Bard or Social Justice Warlock, myself…
I think they often do try to get with women they thonk are beneath them, and when they “fail”, it makes the frustration even worse.
Again, lots and lots of comparisons and ranking in that community, lots of self-contempt that translates to regular contempt for anyone they’ve calculated as “beneath” them, and rage when those guys seem to be doing better than them.