# Social Justice Warriors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 2, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207 "2017-03-02T15:59:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/21 "2017-03-02T17:00:24Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The baker is happy the mouse is gone. The cat is hoping there will be more mice. > > This fable is almost certainly from pre-industrial times. Know what that means? THE CAT IS RIGHT. > > In a society where there are a shit-ton of mice, I’m not sure it matters whether the cat is happy or sad, as long as the cat keeps killing those mice. > > Bringing it home, this whole thing seems like a way to smear and dismiss folks who are working against social injustice: “But they LIKE their work!” you complain. “HOw can we take them seriously?” > > Whether they like or dislike their work is immaterial. All that matters is whether the injustices they see are real or imagined. Efforts to determine that are impaired, not facilitated, by trying to dig into their motives. ISTM that you’re not disagreeing that the phenomenon exists and could be at work (or at least you’re not addressing that aspect) but just think it’s not useful to actually call it out. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/22 "2017-03-02T17:00:54Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > I sadi nothing about a Christian Constitution. > It was to remind you that some Christians want things that have been declared unconstitutional. > So what are these affronts you claimed? Sorry I misread. I read your “The Constitution and the country is 85% Christian” to mean, “The Constitution is 85% Christian, and the country is 85% Christian too.” Which would be an interesting Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/23 "2017-03-02T17:01:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But the point is that while it may sometimes be difficult to apply it to any specific person, the notion that it exists as a societal phenomenon is reasonable. I don’t think any reasonable person is going to dispute that this type of person exists. Some people just want to fight for a cause and if a worthy cause isn’t available, they’ll settle for an unworthy cause. But not everyone who’s fighting for a cause is like this. Many people sincerely believe in the cause they are fighting and many causes are worth that belief. Some people claim everyone who opposes them are just Social Justice Warriors and therefore all opposition can be dismissed. I would even speculate that it’s impossible for a cause to be entirely made up of Social Justice Warriors. Because people like that want to join a popular cause not create one. So the cause had to exist and have been created by real believers before the SJW’s saw it and joined it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/24 "2017-03-02T17:04:41Z")
Could you explain how the Constitution is 85% Christian? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/25 "2017-03-02T17:06:09Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you explain how the Constitution is 85% Christian? > > Regards, > Shodan This mistaken assumption on what was said has already been covered. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/26 "2017-03-02T17:19:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you explain how the Constitution is 85% Christian? > > Regards, > Shodan Can you explain how you came up with such a ridiculous interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/27 "2017-03-02T17:25:41Z")
So the whole point here is that it is notable and worthy of attention that some people get carried away? For liberals I guess the question is how much injustice they are seeing, and is it reasonable to get carried away in pursuit of a worthy goal. What is the opposite of a SJW, “Anti-social injustice dainty fingered clean handed backroom manipulator”? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/28 "2017-03-02T17:27:06Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Can you explain how you came up with such a ridiculous interpretation? > [@running\_coach](#): > > The Constitution and the country is roughly 85% Christian. Suppose someone said, “Barack Obama and Chicago is 85% liberal.” It could be easy to take it to mean that both things are 85% liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/29 "2017-03-02T17:30:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t think any reasonable person is going to dispute that this type of person exists. Some people just want to fight for a cause and if a worthy cause isn’t available, they’ll settle for an unworthy cause. > > But not everyone who’s fighting for a cause is like this. Many people sincerely believe in the cause they are fighting and many causes are worth that belief. I don’t think that’s a valid dichotomy. No one consciously thinks they’re doing this, and anyone who fits that category won’t think of themselves that way. IOW, the fact that someone sincerely believes in the cause that they’re fighting doesn’t imply that this belief does not have emotional/psychological origins of this sort. > [@](#): > > I would even speculate that it’s impossible for a cause to be entirely made up of Social Justice Warriors. Because people like that want to join a popular cause not create one. So the cause had to exist and have been created by real believers before the SJW’s saw it and joined it. That might be true of completely new causes. But it wouldn’t be true of older causes which have evolved. IOW, suppose there’s a situation where there is genuine injustice occurring. As such, fighting that injustice becomes a big part of public consciousness and takes on the status of a Great Cause. Now society has moved on, and - quite likely spurred by the efforts of those who fought that injustice - the injustice is no longer there or at least to nearly the same extent (very few injustices are entirely vanquished). At this point, it would be increasingly dominated by SJWs looking for cheap grace by association with what’s been societally accepted as a Great Cause. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/30 "2017-03-02T17:31:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > And this has practical relevance in assessing the issues and public policy. As noted earlier in this thread, many times there are \*\*competing interests \*\*at stake. Moving too much in one direction risks harm in the other. **Protecting the interests of one class of people risks harming the interests of another.** Something has to give. And here is where you need a rational and unbiased assessment of the benefits and harm to the various interested parties. And if you have a situation where SJWs have seized on one issue as the primary area of their focus, with the attendant need to exaggerate the scope and scale of **this particular injustice,** then the scale gets improperly tilted in the direction of preventing that injustice, at the expense of other competing interests whose needs are not the focus of a social justice campaign. Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but it strikes me that you are potentially downplaying actual injustices by setting them as equal with all competing interests, claiming that any harm to any party’s interests is an injustice, and that SJWs are those who “exaggerate the scope and scale” of their chosen injustice. Is this an accurate retelling of your point here? If so, I very much disagree with it. There are legitimate injustices that are more than just another competing interest to be weighed in a rational cost-benefit analysis. To use an extreme example for rhetorical purposes, it doesn’t matter how much slave owners’ interests are harmed by outlawing slavery; the injustice of slavery matters infinitely more. So as I believe another poster brought up. the only real important point as it relates to so-called social justice warriors is whether the thing they are calling an injustice is actually an injustice or just another competing interest among many relatively equal competing interests. Truthfulness is ultimately what determines whether their behaviors in this context are correct or not. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/31 "2017-03-02T17:32:51Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Suppose someone said, “Barack Obama and Chicago is 85% liberal.” It could be easy to take it to mean that both things are 85% liberal. I actually said “ **Remember two things.** The Constitution and the country is roughly 85% Christian.” I then mentioned **two** things. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/32 "2017-03-02T17:37:36Z")
> [@HumbleThinker](#): > > Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but it strikes me that you are potentially downplaying actual injustices by setting them as equal with all competing interests, claiming that any harm to any party’s interests is an injustice, and that SJWs are those who “exaggerate the scope and scale” of their chosen injustice. Is this an accurate retelling of your point here? No, it’s not. I said “_ **many times** there are competing interests …_”. You’ve recast that as “_… any harm to any party’s interests is an injustice …_”, and then purported to contradict that with an example of where (you assert) it’s not true. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/33 "2017-03-02T17:39:43Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Can you explain how you came up with such a ridiculous interpretation? Your admonishment to **Velocity** to “remember two things” was poorly structured, allowing that poster and **Shodan** to interpret your unenumerated and underpunctuated listing of the “two things”(“the Constitution and the country is roughly 85% Christian”) as a singular assertion. Punctuation, syntax and grammar are your friends. In the future, remember two things before you post: what you intend to convey, and that roughly 85% of written English communication relies on proper sentence structure. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/34 "2017-03-02T18:38:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > No, it’s not. > > I said “_ **many times** there are competing interests …_”. You’ve recast that as “_… any harm to any party’s interests is an injustice …_”, and then purported to contradict that with an example of where (you assert) it’s not true. I see. Thanks for clarifying. Do you accept that there are levels of competing interests where violating some are inconvenient and violating others are legitimate injustices? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/35 "2017-03-02T18:42:00Z")
Yes. “Competing interests” doesn’t necessarily mean “relatively equal competing interests”. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/36 "2017-03-02T18:45:17Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Does that same term apply for people who look for “War on Christmas” battles to fight? Those who look for things to falsely label as Sharia Law Coming to the US? Those that look for other supposed affronts to Christianity in the US? Does it apply to those who attempt to dismiss others’ concerns by labeling them as SJWs? Is Reason just looking for a battle to fight and so they published an article about this study? If some people take up causes to feel better about themselves, has the OP taken up the cause of fighting against SJWs to feel better about himself? I don’t mean to hide behind the whole “Just Asking Questions” thing. My point is just that, if the theory holds, no one knows when we’re doing this, including ourselves. And opposing social causes is also a social cause. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/37 "2017-03-02T18:51:53Z")
How is that different than any other motivation? There are many reasons for people to maintain various positions that they have other than pure logic and reason. It’s often difficult for a person to know about themselves (or any other individual) whether or to what extent they might be influenced by these emotional/psychological biases. But that doesn’t imply that it’s completely futile to discuss them, and it’s pretty routinely done without anyone raising your objection. ---
**Author:** ![HumbleThinker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@HumbleThinker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HumbleThinker)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/38 "2017-03-02T18:55:16Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Yes. > > “Competing interests” doesn’t necessarily mean “relatively equal competing interests”. Ok, I understand what you’re saying now. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/39 "2017-03-02T18:58:27Z")
SJWism is a phenomenon of competitive conspicuous piety. For example there are different levels of kosher. In the bible it is forbidden to the Jewish people to boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Presumably some pious person decided that they would not boil a kid in any kind of milk, then someone else did not even eat kid and milk together, then someone stopped eating all goat with milk, then repeat until you have the current rule where people have to totally separate flatware and dishes for eating dairy and meat just in case some residue of an old meal mix with the new. (That is not a claim that is how kosher actually came to be, just a hypothetical illustration). It becomes like the story the princess and the pea. People are trying to show how sensitive they are to injustice by getting more and more upset over less and less until you have people upset about how Beyonce not winning a Grammy for her horrible album is emblematic of how racist society is. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2017, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207/40 "2017-03-02T19:21:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How is that different than any other motivation? > > There are many reasons for people to maintain various positions that they have other than pure logic and reason. It’s often difficult for a person to know about themselves (or any other individual) whether or to what extent they might be influenced by these emotional/psychological biases. But that doesn’t imply that it’s completely futile to discuss them, and it’s pretty routinely done without anyone raising your objection. Sure. But if this is such a widespread motivation for people’s behavior, why did you only bring it up in the context of Social Justice Warriors? If you want to talk about this as a generalized phenomenon, fine. But raising it as you did looks like you’re trying to discredit SJWs in particular, and to distance yourself from the very same motivation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-justice-warriors/781207.md?page=3)