This sounds awfully like you distinguish between people who fit all your criteria, but you agree with them; and people who fit all the criteria, and you disagree with them. Is that a fair assessment of the distinction you’re drawing?
Post snipped.
The point of the study is that for *some *of the people going doing the whole SJW thing, the injustice itself doesn’t matter and can be imaginary. What matters is that the injustice offsets their guilt. I’ll take it one step further. Some SJWs, not wanting to feel guilty, invent or inflate injustices and get angry about it to feel better about themselves. This leads to seeking out more and more things to be offended over.
For example, a museum wanted to ‘channel your inner Camille Monet’ by wearing a kimono and taking pictures with Monets La Japonaise. This, of course, is pure racism, even though the museum did the same thing when the painting went on display in Japan.
Yes, people on the right do this as well, as do people in the center. The whole ‘Famous Christian Preacher who gets all het up about sin and infidelity while banging hookers on the side’ thing that seemed to be happening quite a bit back in the 80s and 90s is the same sort of thing.
Slee
So what, though? If an injustice is not really an injustice, but the people who believe it is are motivated by a sincere but misguided analysis of the facts, that doesn’t suddenly make the injustice real. If an injustice really is an injustice, but the people who believe it is are motivated by some weird neurosis, that doesn’t make the injustice any less real.
On broader terms, my observation is that they belong to the subset of people that derive their moral identity from their beliefs, as long as you believe in X you are a good person, therefore anything you do with X as a premise is good. This type of mentality is very easy to see in religious people.
Paraphrasing Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his moral identity depends on his not understanding it.”
An extreme example would be the Antifa thugs, they are good because they believe they are opposing fascism, and that makes violence and destruction morally justified, but if you don’t believe what they are doing is fighting fascism then you are a bad person (and probably a fascist because why would you oppose fighting against fascism?)
The big problem with all of this is that it’s very difficult to get people out of that state of mind, eventually they’d feel besieged by a world that challenges their beliefs and seek to diminish the anxiety that produces by surrounding themselves only with like minded people that validate their beliefs. This last step has been put on overdrive with the rise of the Internet and Social Media.
I wouldn’t say that, no. It’s possible for me to completely agree with someone and still think they’re an SJW.
A good example would be hetero people getting married who go out of their way to go on about how terrible it is their gay friends can’t get married.
You know what? I agree. Gay marriage should be legal. Get it done so we can move on with our collective lives. But using your own wedding to politicise that fact still makes one an SJW in my opinion. There’s a time and a place etc.
In short: It’s possible to be right and still be an SJW too.
I’m still not taking the difference here. Is the difference that a SJW disagrees with you about when it’s appropriate to discuss political opinions?
Your examples are not leading to clarity, unless the definition is that social justice warriors are either people who hold political positions from your own (they believe it’s inappropriate to ask a nonwhite person where they’re from when you wouldn’t ask the same of a white person) or they discuss politics at a time different from when you’d discuss it (during a wedding).
Perhaps the key to being an SJW is that your views make other people uncomfortable. Whether that’s your fault or theirs is unclear but without discomfort, we’d have no progress.
I think I’ve explained my stance on the matter fairly clearly - in a nutshell it could be boiled down to “Lefties who care too much about things that don’t affect them that much and annoy, inconvenience or harm other people by at best harping on about them, while at worst bullying, silencing or causing harm to those with opinions they don’t like”.
I can agree completely with an SJW’s main point (gay marriage should be legal, transgender folks should use whichever toilet matches their new gender, etc) but still think someone is being an SJW because of their conduct.
In other words: It’s not just a blanket term for “People with political opinions I don’t like”.
I see the term “discomfort” come up a bit in social justice discussions, and I think it misses a fundamental point: People work very hard to be comfortable and need a really fucking good reason to do or support things that will make them less comfortable, especially if it’s benefitting an “other” they rarely/never interact with.
I don’t see how “discomfort” is significantly different from “annoy, inconvenience”, and I’m not clear on how “harm” is happening. If people are actually being assaulted, say, we don’t need to use the label “social justice warrior.” We could just say “assailant.”
A good example would be a woman takes exception to a man making a sexist (but non-threatening) joke and complains to his employer, while also making a big song and dance about it on social media. Man gets fired; he (and his family) have suffered actual and serious harm while the original victim has suffered hurt feelings but then gets to go around metaphorically high-fiving all her friends because she’s struck a blow against an “Oppressor” or whatever. The destruction of the man’s livelihood far, far outweighs any actual harm the woman might have suffered from hearing a sexist joke, IMHO.
Yeah, you’ve given that definition, but when I pointed out that your definition applies to a lot of abolitionists and marchers for civil rights, you changed it up. There’s some inconsistency here, which is why it’s coming across as talking about people who agitate for causes you don’t think are important.
You saw the bit where I drew a distinction between opposing actual human slavery (something that pretty much the entire civilised world considered a bad idea even in those days) and people getting butthurt over no-offence-intended questions about national origin or “Cultural Appropriation” or whatever, right?
Is any answer I provide going to be acceptable, or are you determined to effectively say “AHA! I knew it! You think everyone with an opinion you don’t like is an SJW, therefore all your opinions are invalid! I win the Internet now!”?
Because if so, I can see this is not going to be a productive use of our respective time.
Looks like a great example, but people don’t get fired for making a sexist joke. Can you cite an example of this? It’s like a cartoon version of a feminist, with her high-fiving people for getting someone fired, while celebrating a blow against an oppressor. This doesn’t happen in real life.
Also, I thought your definition was for people fighting for causes that don’t affect them. Actual sexual harassment (not a single joke), the kind that gets people fired, does actually affect women.
So, I remain confused.
This statement makes it pretty clear to me now, that as much as I find gratuitous displays of empathy a bit annoying, I think I would prefer these people you label as SJWs keep doing what they are doing. We need people to sufficiently empathize with those considered "other"s in order for the civil liberties of minority populations to be recognized. Without them, there would be no chance of change. For example, if everyone followed your approach to recognizing gay marriage, there might never be gay marriage.
Here’s one. I’m sure others will supply more.
In your example; for sure. However, just how often does what you state happen?
Interesting example. The woman who complained then apologized and said she didn’t want to get anyone fired. Then, she herself was fired for how she handled the situation.
I’m not sure what lesson to take from this, but, yes, that guy got fired for making one joke. She didn’t high-five anyone, though, but instead apologized and then got fired.
Thanks, I hadn’t heard about that case. It certainly is an extreme outlier. Agreed?
Not even that. She never asked for them to get fired, she never asked for them to face reprimand, she simply asked that the managers of the conference she was at address the issue of the jokes that were making her uncomfortable.
And it wasn’t just that she got fired, either. A group of anonymous hackers threatened her place of business, saying that if she was not fired, they would be DDOS’d:
And then they DDOS’d them. And doxxed her. Do I even have to say that death and rape threats ensued?
And then she was fired.
I see one party meeting Martini’s criteria here, and it isn’t Adria Richards. All she did was ask that a conference enforce their code of conduct; the idea that she is somehow “responsible” for getting those men fired is ludicrous, she didn’t want that either. Rather, it was the mean-spirited trolls who thought they found an Ess Jay Dubya and decided the best way to proceed was by threatening her workplace with illegal and damaging actions if they didn’t fire her.
Might want to try again, Darren.
Uh, yes–that’s exactly the bit that diverged from your previous definition, and the bit that made me try to clarify it by saying the difference is you agree with the protests in one case but not the other. Can we try to move forward instead of just repeating teh conversation?
The criterion was someone getting fired for one sexist joke. My example fits that absolutely, positively 100%. The other circumstances surrounding it are absolutely irrelevant.