# Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 17, 2017, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443 "2017-03-17T22:14:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Rick\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rick\_Sanchez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/121 "2017-03-19T18:47:05Z")
> [@Budget Player Cadet](#): > > In order to avoid anything resembling a threadshit, could you explain what “SJW” means? I’m hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like **Rittersport** will take any definition I present, pretend that it’s all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I’ll give it a shot: An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler’s veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it’s perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate. Now, this is very important, _I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition_. It is _not_ comprehensive and it is _not_ meant to be. It’s just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn’t get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like **Rittersport’s**. If you don’t like it, too bad. I don’t care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don’t believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it. As an aside, it’s worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it’s left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down _exactly_ what a conservative is and isn’t. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/122 "2017-03-19T18:48:30Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > What a trivial nitpicker you are. The term SJW, as a pejorative, is now so well established that it has its own [entry](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-justice-warrior?s=t) in the dictionary. And I’m supposed to abandon it because _you_ don’t like the people who popularised that definition? I hope for your sake you never find out who popularised the term Nazi. > > Furthermore, it has been patiently explained to you, over and over again, that SJW is only a pejorative because of the actions of the foot stamping toddlers I linked to in my OP. If college progressives weren’t egregiously authoritarian and self-righteous, how did SJW ever take on negative connotations in the first place? How did “political correctness” become a terrible awful no-good bad thing, despite never being well-defined and inherently describing things which, for the most part, are overwhelmingly positive? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > It seems to me there are two possible answers to that question. The first is that the bored teenagers on 4chan are actually evil geniuses who launched a propagandistic hate campaign against reasonable progressivism that was so successful the dictionary definition of SJW had to be amended to reflect its new status as a pejorative. That’s explanation one. That’s your explanation. To save time, I’ll simply refer to it as “The retarded explanation”, because it’s retarded and so are you. That is retarded. I’m sensing a bit of an excluded middle here. It’s entirely possible for the parlance of 4chan to leak into the larger popular culture, _particularly_ when you have things like, say, [the living embodiment of a chantard posting about it on a disturbingly popular website](http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/12/22/navy-sanity-hasnt-set-sail/). The modern Rush Limbaugh, as it were. People started using the term because it was an easy, brain-dead way to attack someone else for doing something that was seemingly quite positive. Because the term is _still_ not well-defined. It’s still impossibly vague, a perjorative to be thrown at anyone and anything people don’t feel like talking to or about, like a game designer who made a game about depression or a woman who wants to talk about sexism in video games or \. EDIT: this was made before your last post. Lemme go read that. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/123 "2017-03-19T18:57:01Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > I’m hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like **Rittersport** will take any definition I present, pretend that it’s all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I’ll give it a shot: > > An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler’s veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it’s perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate. > > Now, this is very important, _I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition_. It is _not_ comprehensive and it is _not_ meant to be. It’s just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn’t get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like **Rittersport’s**. If you don’t like it, too bad. I don’t care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don’t believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it. > > As an aside, it’s worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it’s left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down _exactly_ what a conservative is and isn’t. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here. To be fair, “modern conservative” is not an [all-purpose partisan snarl word](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior), and you’re considerably less likely to find someone claiming that someone who is absolutely not a conservative is a conservative, the way Jim Sterling gets labeled an SJW. And while the definition is not _clear_, it’s also not stretched in such bizarre ways. I appreciate your definition, but it is very specific and does not have anything to do with the vast, _vast_ majority of cases I have ever seen the term used. I’ll keep that in mind for the rest of the thread, I guess. I wonder - do the ANTIFA folks who broke up Milo’s speech at Berkeley count? I have _no idea_ if those folks endorse intersectional identity politics. For all I know, they don’t, they just really fucking hate nazis, like it says on the tin. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/124 "2017-03-19T19:15:12Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > I’m hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like **Rittersport** will take any definition I present, pretend that it’s all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I’ll give it a shot: > > An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler’s veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it’s perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate. > > Now, this is very important, _I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition_. It is _not_ comprehensive and it is _not_ meant to be. It’s just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn’t get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like **Rittersport’s**. If you don’t like it, too bad. I don’t care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don’t believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it. > > As an aside, it’s worth noting that posters here are generally much more willing to allow threads to get bogged down in nitpickery over definitions when it’s left-wing shibboleths being targeted. I doubt anybody starting a thread about the problems inherent to the worldview of the modern conservative movement had to spend the first three pages trying to nail down _exactly_ what a conservative is and isn’t. Furthermore, I imagine anyone who tried dragging such a thread down such pointless definitional tangents would be accused of threadshitting by more or less everyone. All I ask is that people adopt the same philosophy here. Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I’m sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space. So, tell me – how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there? Also, if you don’t think right wingers don’t resort to nitpickery, I want to introduce you **doorhinge** and, to a **much** lesser extent, **Bricker**. (Sorry, in advance, **Bricker** , I appreciate your contributions to the board, but you do get nitpicky.) ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/125 "2017-03-19T19:17:20Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I’m sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space. > > So, tell me – how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there? They’re not looking for intersectional identity politics. Which seems to me like a silly criterion, personally; after all, the problem here is _not_ that the people in question “aggressively espouse intersectional identity politics”, it’s that they do so in an authoritarian or violent way. …Right? ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/126 "2017-03-19T19:23:19Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Trigger warning: I may ask you to back this up, snowflake. I’m sorry you have to discuss things on a discussion board. Maybe you should find a safe space. > > So, tell me – how did the people who wanted to boycott Starbucks or tear down the Satanist display not meet your definition there? > > Also, if you don’t think right wingers don’t resort to nitpickery, I want to introduce you **doorhinge** and, to a **much** lesser extent, **Bricker**. (Sorry, in advance, **Bricker** , I appreciate your contributions to the board, but you do get nitpicky.) **Bricker** and I have seldom seen eye to eye, but my God, man, he’s never done anything so heinous as to deserve being mentioned in the same breath with **doorhinge** , even conditionally. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/127 "2017-03-19T19:35:56Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > **Bricker** and I have seldom seen eye to eye, but my God, man, he’s never done anything so heinous as to deserve being mentioned in the same breath with **doorhinge** , even conditionally. You are definitely correct. I withdraw that post! Apologies again to **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/128 "2017-03-19T19:38:09Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > They’re not looking for intersectional identity politics. Which seems to me like a silly criterion, personally; after all, the problem here is _not_ that the people in question “aggressively espouse intersectional identity politics”, it’s that they do so in an authoritarian or violent way. > > …Right? I’m not really sure what intersectional identity politics is (neither is Chrome, since it’s underlining intersectional in red). Is it not something that Christians do? If this is all about stupid things that liberals do, then why not just merge it into the SLIOD thread? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/129 "2017-03-19T19:43:36Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Huh. You mean if social justice activists are fighting\* for or against something, it’s not a first-world problem? (Had to look up FWP, btw; I’m not hep to the latest acronyms.) > > Oh good. Then there’s no first-world battle over health insurance or the minimum wage or paid overtime or paid parental leave or lead in the water supply; we’ve won, and I can stop calling my Congresscritters about such things. > \*Doesn’t this make them _warriors_? Oh for fuck’s sake. :smack: Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits? Why do I even bother? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/130 "2017-03-19T20:02:16Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > Surely some of those early SJW’s used the term online. Perhaps we can see a “link”? > > Nope? Nope. I’ve no intent to search for a 5 years old blog or whatever by someone defining himself as a SJW. I wouldn’t even know how to do that. That they existed isn’t controversial, anyway. According to wikipedia, the term even dates back from the late 90s. And yes, of course, it was mentioned online. That’s where I had the pleasure to discover them. In fact, I could narrow down when : between february 2011 at the earliest and november 2013 at the latest. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > So what IS your definition? Again, I wrote a post about this in this thread. Those who think and behave as religious fundamentalists. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/131 "2017-03-19T20:05:44Z")
I really can’t afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I’ll just say “fuck off” to all the people who use SJW as such. It’s only “well established” in its usage by assholes. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/132 "2017-03-19T20:44:10Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I’m not really sure what intersectional identity politics is (neither is Chrome, since it’s underlining intersectional in red). Is it not something that Christians do? > > If this is all about stupid things that liberals do, then why not just merge it into the SLIOD thread? “Intersectionality is a concept often used in critical theories to describe the ways in which oppressive institutions (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, xenophobia, classism, etc.) are interconnected and cannot be examined separately from one another.” - Geek Feminism Wiki Beyond that, it also can be used to describe the ways that privileges are multifaceted and complex, i.e. if you’re a white guy living in a trailer park, you _still_ have white privilege over Oprah (meaning simply that were all other factors equal, you being white would give you privileges that her being black would not), but clearly that privilege does not outweigh the numerous other privileges Oprah has as an incredibly rich celebrity. > [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I really can’t afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I’ll just say “fuck off” to all the people who use SJW as such. It’s only “well established” in its usage by assholes. +1. It’s like “PC” - when used unironically, typically a dead giveaway that you are talking to a douchebag. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/133 "2017-03-19T20:57:00Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > I really can’t afford to have advocating for social justice reduced to a pejorative so I’ll just say “fuck off” to all the people who use SJW as such. It’s only “well established” in its usage by assholes. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > +1. It’s like “PC” - when used unironically, typically a dead giveaway that you are talking to a douchebag. Better a warrior for social justice than a card carrying douchebag belittling those s/he considers beneath him/her. Seriously, if someone gets that tone in their voice and makes derogatory statements about people who are actually fighting to better this world (and not the batshitters), then I have to fall back to my old (new) standard; “Thank you for self-identifying.” Because now I know you’re just a hate filled asshat and I shouldn’t bother with you. And I mean long term, because unfortunately as we all know, the Deplorables never get the clue that certain audiences are not the place for their shit. They’ll spew it out any time, even if you’ve made it abundantly clear you have no time for it. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/134 "2017-03-19T20:57:56Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Can we use this thread for Social Injustice Warriors, too? For example, the North Carolina legislature cutting off its nose to spite its face by overriding local LGBT-friendly bathroom laws, thereby losing the state all kinds of business including hosting some of the NCAA basketball tournament? Another news item along the same lines: [Will Steve King’s immigrant comments keep wary tourists out of Iowa?](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2017/0319/Will-Steve-King-s-immigrant-comments-keep-wary-tourists-out-of-Iowa) ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/135 "2017-03-19T20:59:52Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > I wouldn’t call them SJWs I think those nutjobs were Religious Right. That doesn’t change the fact that their fee-fees tell them that they must get their way as a matter of Social Justice, and they have decided to go on the Warrior path about it. They’re SJWs. QED. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/136 "2017-03-19T21:00:09Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that’s completely irrelevant. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > I’m a white woman. Can I wear blackface? Or war paint and a war bonnet? > > Or hell, let’s go for the obvious one. Can I wear a KKK robe and hood? > > Is it okay to kill endangered species so I can make powders that will enhance virility? How about whales? > > Are these things irrelevant? > > There are people in this thread who would say these things are irrelevant. I’m guessing you wouldn’t be among them. But I honestly think you might run into difficulty saying exactly why they are different. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Yes. Hoop earrings are the equivalent of war bonnets. That’s was my exact point. :rolleyes: What you said was that what people wear is irrelevant. I’ve quoted it for you again. I suggested that you don’t actually believe that, and I suggested you’d find it hard to explain why. So, was I right? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/137 "2017-03-19T21:03:37Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > I worry that dishonest threadshitters like **Rittersport** will take any definition I present, pretend that it’s all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. If you can’t get your ducks in a row and all your sugar-free-porridge rules stated up front, that’s hardly **Rittersport** ’s fault. > [@](#): > > Now, this is very important, _I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition_. It is _not_ comprehensive and it is _not_ meant to be. If you’re stipulating that the definition is non-comprehansive, and that examples that arguably don’t fit it (e.g. several cited on this thread) are therefore not excluded from the SJW umbrella, I’m not sure what your objection is. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/138 "2017-03-19T21:27:18Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Oh for fuck’s sake. :smack: Once again, do you not get the distinction between fighting for minimum wage vs. fighting over shaved armpits? Yes, I do. The people who use the term ‘SJW’ as an insult don’t give a damn about the distinction. They’ll lump them all together, and use the stupid fight to tar the good fight. The only answer is to keep throwing it back in their faces: “College students are stupid, and in other news, dog bites man. If that means you’re OK with seeing 25 million Americans lose their health insurance, well, that’s on you.” > [@](#): > > Why do I even bother? Damned if I know. But you’re arguing with the wrong person. Ask **Rick Sanchez** if he regards the fight to preserve the ACA as being fundamentally different from the college students shouting down speakers, if he’s opposed to what the students are doing, but wants to see us preserve health care. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/139 "2017-03-19T21:41:53Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > I’m hesitant to do this, because I worry that dishonest threadshitters like **Rittersport** will take any definition I present, pretend that it’s all-encompassing, and then pollute the thread with bullshit examples of things which meet the letter but not the spirit of it. But, since that will probably happen anyway, I’ll give it a shot: > > An SJW is someone who aggressively espouses intersectional identity politics and does so in an overtly authoritarian way, silencing opposing views using the heckler’s veto or outright force. Common beliefs among SJWs include, but are not limited to, (i) the belief that only white people can be racist and only men can be sexist, (ii) that the United States is a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, and that questioning this is a form of bigotry at best and violence at worst (iii) that it’s perfectly acceptable to silence those who disagree with you because (as per point 2) disagreement is violence and the proper response to violence is resistance, not debate. > > Now, this is very important, _I am not going to debate a single jot or tittle of that definition_. It is _not_ comprehensive and it is _not_ meant to be. It’s just a working definition we can use so that this thread doesn’t get bogged down in further threadshitting hijacks like **Rittersport’s**. If you don’t like it, too bad. I don’t care. Truth be told, given that the problem of SJW authoritarianism is, and has long been, a hot topic of conversation on American news shows, topical discussion shows, and even on sitcoms like South Park which devoted its entire 19th season to it, I don’t believe for a moment that you don’t know what I mean when I use the term SJW. Since I honestly don’t believe you are making your request in good faith, I am not going to debate my definition with you at all. You can take it or leave it. Shorter **Sanchez** : my words mean something when **I** want them to mean something, but if **you** want them to mean what they say, they don’t, and it’s dirty pool for you to take them at face value. _Pele yells “we’re out of here,” Xena says, “right on.”_ - OMC ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443/140 "2017-03-19T21:45:33Z")
> [@Rick\_Sanchez](#): > > Why are you so hell-bent on hijacking the thread? You don’t see me posting about kids accidentally shooting each other in the ‘Positive gun news of the day’ thread, or about old ladies fending off home invaders in the ‘Stupid gun news of the day’ thread. You don’t see me going into the ‘Controversial encounters with police’ thread, posting entirely uncontroversial encounters with the police and signing off my posts ‘Good job, officers!’ You don’t, in short, see me _threadshitting in other people’s threads._ So why are you so determined to fuck up this thread by shitting all over it? > > If you want to start a thread about Steve King, start one about Steve King, or post in the ‘Stupid Republican idea of the day’ thread where your complaints would constitute a salient contribution instead of a threadshitting hijack. If you want to start a thread about fake war on christmas bullshit, no-one is stopping you. Why do you insist on dumping your irrelevant bullshit here, and what the fuck is your problem? Wait till the cookie trolls arrive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-social-justice-warrior-bullshit-o-the-day/782443.md?page=8)