Social Justice Warriors

Great Debates
41

what about when the original injustice gets hijacked by a bigger injustice?

like how the whole gamergate thing started … originally it started by a woman making a game she felt had a message but allegedly had the game reviewed and promoted by sleeping with a couple of reviewers who made it sound like it was a game of the decade effectively buying them off

she also did a couple of other things like allegedly messing up a game convention …

but when a ex partner outed her publicly and s lot of the male gamers expressed their views like the teenagers they are it became “sexist gamers hate women” and went down hill from there… becoming a crusade for fringe womens rights groups saying women cant be criticized …

42

Sure–in the same way that if you said anti-immigrant forces were motivated by repressed homosexuality I’d find the whole question not particularly interesting enough to debate. The question should be about the merits of the arguments.

43

For that comparison to hold, you would have to believe that the phenomenon of anti-immigrant forces being motivated by repressed homosexuality exists, but merely be uninteresting. Is this correct?

44

Maybe its just my probably biased perception from the left, but I couldn’t read the OP without being overcome by extreme irony. The Claim is the SJW are defined by the fact that they feel an intrinsic need to fight against conservatives in what they perceive as the battle between good and evil regardless of whether there is any actual need, because of the psychological kick it gives them to do so. However I find that most people who use the term SJW, feel an intrinsic need to fight against liberals in what they perceive as the battle between good and evil regardless of whether there is any actual need, because of the psychological kick it gives them to do so.

45

No, it’s not correct. “Not interesting enough to debate” means “not interesting enough to debate.” I don’t care, in either case, whether the phenomenon exists. That’s the relevant part of the comparison. The phenomenon is irrelevant for all purposes.

46

I’m not sure I see the distinction between a person who sincerely believes in a cause and a person who thinks he sincerely believes in a cause. What distinguishes the former from the latter?

Or is the distinction you’re making is some causes are worthy of devotion and some causes are not? And it’s the causes they support and not the reasons for supporting them that distinguish Social Justice Warriors from non-SJW’s? If that’s the case, why label the people and not the causes?

47

Well I took from the fact you quoted my words “ISTM that you’re not disagreeing that the phenomenon exists” and responded “*Sure *[…]” that you were in fact not disagreeing that the phenomenon exists. And when you then went on to compare it to the notion that “anti-immigrant forces were motivated by repressed homosexuality”, it would follow that that phenomenon existed too.

At any rate, it would now appear that you are not offering any opinion on the OP but are merely posting here to assert that you find the topic “not interesting enough to debate” and that you don’t care about it either way.

OK.

I suggested some ways in which this difference would manifest itself in the post quoted in the OP. See in particular the fourth and fifth paragraphs.

48

I think that’s pretty accurate. I mean, when I heard that there was a flap about Beyonce not winning a Grammy for racist reasons, I was a little bit gobsmacked. I mean, God forbid that Adele actually win it for what is pretty much accepted to be a stellar album. Of all the silly accusations of racism and bias, this one has to be up toward the top.

I think the OP got it right- the main distinguishing characteristic about SJWs is having a pretty poorly balanced chip on their shoulder about anything and everything relating to sexism, racism, etc… They’re spoiling for fights and ways to show off how much more PC-than-thou they are in my experience.

I’d distinguish this from the conservative equivalents, because the conservative equivalents are much more reactionary; they want the status quo, and get bitchy when the status quo is disturbed, no matter how equitably or reasonably. The SJWs are engaging in “competitive conspicuous piety” and trying to signal to other people of their ilk just how just or activist or whatever they are. It’s not about the fight per-se, it’s about the appearance and perception of being part of the fight. I keep thinking that if they were serious, they’d pick their battles and be more organized, instead of wasting their effort and time on any number of truly inconsequential fights about shirts, off-hand comments, award winners, etc…

49

It was based on the ridiculous thing you said.

Remember two things - the Alamo and my cat’s breath smells like cat food.

Regards,
Shodan

50

It didn’t strike me as ridiculous (i.e. it’s not ridiculous to initially wonder if that’s what you meant, though the idea itself is patently ridiculous). A well-placed comma would have greatly reduced the ambiguity.

I learned about well-placed commas from my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Anyway, regarding the OP, sure there are some people who define their lives by chasing down “mice”, whether or not any mice are actually present. There are always lots of other things to chase, though - rats, spiders, geckos, the dots of laser pointers… so people who like social justice aren’t likely to run out of reasonable complaints anytime soon.

51

WTF does the stuff quoted in the OP have to do with SJWs? The term SJW is a term coined to imply that people who are actually upset about social justice issues are actually doing it for attention, fame, or to fit in. Since then, it has been expanded to just be a pejorative against everyone who ever gets upset about anything vaguely social justice related. It’s like “snowflake,” but less general.

Nothing you quoted from Reason.com is surprising. Yes, the injustices we ourselves are involved in bother us the most. And, yes, in order to deal with our own guilt, we are going to feel more need to do something about it. So we go out and say things, and then feel better about ourselves, because we’re at least speaking up about the problem. Our silence is what makes us culpable.

And yes, when you see one problem that you can’t deal with, focusing on one problem that you can deal with makes you feel better. Yes, you can lash out at others because you feel bad about yourself. So what?

Do you have any evidence that this is what so-called “SJWs” are doing? You seem to be using the fact that they are upset at moral issues as somehow proof that they must be doing something wrong and trying to hide it. That’s affirming the consequent.

I know why I get upset about moral issues–it’s because I literally think that morality is the on thing in this world with the most value. The only remotely competing issue is love, but, even then, an immoral love–one that harms the lover or the beloved–is bad. I genuinely believe that every problem in the world today can be tracked back to some immorality that was just accepted as being “okay.”

I assuage my own guilt simply by trying to not do those immoral things I did before, and apologizing when I think it is necessary and will not make things worse. I learn about these biases and counter them when doing my own internal review.

That’s what the study means to me–confirmation of something I already knew, but still, I am reminded to check myself.

What it doesn’t do is make me think SJWs are really a thing. What the study described isn’t even what the pejorative is supposed to mean.

52

…no: that wasn’t how gamergate started. You’ve recited gamergate propaganda.

This is what started gamergate.

This “woman” did nothing wrong at all. Two people were in a relationship that went bad. (As millions of relationships do.) And the guy posted a “tell all” tale that painted his ex-partner as “evil”: and thousands of people took that as gospel and ran with it.

The person she later entered into a relationship wrote no review. It didn’t happen. She didn’t mess with a convention. Gamergate wasn’t her fault. Gamergate happened because Eron Gjoni couldn’t get over a break up: so he decided to punish his ex. And it worked so spectacularly well that here we are, three years later, and Quinn is still being painted as the guilty party.

53

…I’m a social justice warrior. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a social justice warrior is. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me.

54

To actually talk of the concept of SJWs, I would simply point out that the term is a pejorative, not a real concept. Just like “political correctness.” The whole point is that you see something that looks like people being good, but you don’t like it, so you come up with reasons why they must be bad people. They’re “yelling” or saying things you don’t like, and that bothers you, so they must be the bad guys.

That’s not to say there aren’t problematic people on the left. There are people who do actually cry racism and such to attack people, rather than because they honestly believe that racism was involved. But it’s not as often as conservatives make it out to be. Most often, the conservative merely doesn’t understand or just doesn’t agree with the argument.

The rare times I’ve seen it, the person either offers no explanation at all, or posits some sort of secret racism that provides no evidence. Like, when someone likes a character on a webcomic, and someone else doesn’t, so they say they must secretly be racist against them, despite providing no evidence that their dislike was due to racism.

Or when someone misunderstands copyright, and someone else shows up to tell them they are wrong, and they cry out “alt-right!”

Generally speaking, if they offer a reason, they probably aren’t just using the term as a thought-terminating cliche. Sure, in theory, they could just say a bunch of gobbledygook for their reasons, but then you’d need to be actually well versed on racist and anti-racist thought to notice. Just not understanding is not enough.

Point is, the people who actually use the “SJW” pejorative are just looking for any reason to say these people are actually bad, as that allows them to dismiss everything they say. The people who use the term then use projection to claim that’s what the “SJWs” are doing, despite every one I know always actually giving reasons.

55

Right–I’m neither disagreeing or agreeing. I think the whole thing is a deliberate distraction, an attempt to ad hominem away the concerns of folks on the left. Rather than dignifying the ad hominem with the examination of it you want, I think it’s better to examine the tactic itself.

56

Some SJWs hold a George W. Bush after 9/11 attitude, with regards to their social causes - “You are either with us or against us.”

In fact, some seem to despise people who hold neutral views, even more than they despise people who outright oppose their cause.

57

…which SJW’s are these? Can you point them out to us please? Names and cites would be good.

58

Who has time for names when you’re seeking civil fairness? Maybe Velocity is a Civil Fairness Combatant, and CFCs mean business!

59

Yeah, I don’t ever seem to find these SJWs that conservative talk about in real life. I’m a pretty liberal East Coaster and I have two kids in college, one on the West Coast, SJW central, right? And we never talk about trigger warnings, safe spaces, and any of that.

I think this is just nutpicking on the conservatives’ part – there are thousands of colleges in the US, but when some hateful bigot it shouted down at one of them, it’s a huge deal.

Is Bill O’Reilly an SJW for his war on Christmas pieces? When a conservative state puts in a useless no-Sharia-law bill, are they SJWs? Or, are they social injustice warriors?

60

To apply this psychological logic to myself:

I consider myself a “free speech warrior,” in that I decry any attempt - right or left - to stifle individual expression.

I’m equally outraged at conservatives who publicly smeared so-called “Communists” in the 50s and at liberals of today who refuse to allow speakers with disagreeable viewpoints to give talks on college campuses.

What, then is my complicit guilt in such free-speech advocacy? Is it that I sometimes express contrarian - offensive, even - viewpoints on the internet? Viewpoints I sometimes don’t even agree with in their extremity?

Do I get a sense of moral righteousness in defending the rights of Holocaust deniers, misogynists, homophobes, Islamophobes, or pedophiles to freely express their ideas?

Not sure. Moral conviction is a tricky bird. It is simplistic to suggest that to a crusade for a cause requires a moral failing. To actively seek injustice where none exists is a legitimate failing of character and integrity among the SJW class. But I find this study may paint with too broad a brush, and am outraged at its conclusions.