Stupid Social Justice Warrior Bullshit O' the Day.

The BBQ Pit
41

Hmmm…I read blogs by SJWs from time to time. They don’t only rant about trivialities. They also “fight” over very serious issues. The problems IMO are that :
-They also spend an inordinate amount of energy on those trivialities.

-They aren’t interested in issues that aren’t on their official agendas.

-They’re often 20 yo college students who won’t hesitate to lecture, say, a middle-aged adult, about her own life and choices. And since they’re in fact lacking actual life experience, they’re aren’t above spouting complete nonsense, arguing that things people have actually experienced can’t exist, or giving “advices” that are guaranteed to spectacularly backfire in real life.

-They seem to be motivated for a significant part by self gratification : a feeling of superiority and enlightement, the ability to perceive themselves and describe themselves as oppressed even when they’re obviously amongst the privileged, the ability to couch any of their own issues, regardless how trivial and ordinary (say a bad grade or an argument over food with their partner), in terms of social oppression or suchlike (hence making the opposing party not just wrong, bur bordering evil), not to forget the ability to bully other people while still feeling self-righteous.

-They reason in terms of groups (the famous “white heterosexual man privilege” for instance), and aren’t very interested in individuals, in the struggles of people who don’t belong to their pet groups, in taking into account the specificity of the case when approaching an issue, in recognizing personal agency. And they inject those reasonings and worldviews into any issue, whether or not it’s related, and try to impose them on everybody, “oppressors” and “oppressed” alike, lecturing both equally.

-More importantly, they are “true believers”. Holier than you and self-righteous. Totally convinced that they have a monopoly on truth and that if only everybody was thinking like them and acting the way they tell everybody they should act, the world would become this kind of ideal place they have in mind. Couching all issues in terms consistent with their simplified and manicheist social grid. Following their mantras without reflecting on them or being open to any debate or exchange, and commonly willing to silence a demonized opposition. Not accepting of the slightest ritual impurity…I mean the slightest deviation from their norms of conduct.
Basically, their mindset IMO is very similar to that of religious fundamentalists or political extremists with a theory of the world like former Marxists or Trotskyists.

42

Shut up, BigTrigglypuff

You do, indeed, have the right to be an inconsiderate piece of shit. However, it might be worth considering the possibility that normalising this kind of behaviour will ultimately make it easier for people you don’t like to shout you down when you want to say something.

‘The term “Heckler’s Veto” is often used outside of a strict legal context’.

43

I agree with all of that and a lot of it matches my experiences with SJWs too.

Part of the challenge is that, as far as most people are concerned, the “major” battles have already been fought and won. Social attitudes have adjusted to the point that no sensible person thinks gays are teh evil, people with dark skin are second-class, and women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, drive, or have exactly the same rights as anyone else etc. The stuff a lot of SJWs are agitating for just doesn’t seem to justify the intensity and vitriol they employ in their quest.

44

Democratic People’s Republic…<sarcastic sneer>…

45

So the difference is, activists are the folks who fought for and won issues in the past, where surely you would have been on their side; warriors are the folks who are fighting for issues in the present, and you’re against them.

BY DEFINITION, that’s always been true. Before a battle for changing social mores is won, most people believe it’s not an important battle to win. It’s at the point where most people decide it’s important that you win it.

Your viewpoint conveniently lets you take the side of folks in the past who agitated against folks like you in the past.

46

Indeed. “Who cares what water fountain you have to use?” morphs into “Who cares what bathroom you have to use?”

47

Rick Sanchez you don’t see any irony in telling BigT to “shut up” in a thread you started to complain people are shouting down others?

48

It’s all part and parcel. He labels people SJWs in an attempt to mock and shame them into silence, tells others to shut up, then complains about SJWs trying to use shame and shouting to silence others.

49

And the concern about *that *for some of us is that it sounds too much like “the End of History” – complacency about how the major battle has been fought and won and done with, and what’s important is all settled matter and nobody will dispute it, creates the environment for (a) other ills to fester ignored, (b) the existing progress to be chipped at here and there because “oh, it’s just a small thing, not like we’re going back to what was 50 years ago”. I feel we need there to be societal forces both pushing and pulling in order to maintain a dynamic equilibrium. Social peace through stagnation is not a goal.

Or that kings rule by Divine Right or that property ownership is a requisite of political franchise, or… When *would *it have been OK to say “all right, progress has been achieved, no need to go further”? 1787? 1866? 1920? 1968? 2014? Some of those milestones took decades or centuries longer than the others and were *not *mutually supported at different times.The EndOfHistory position also goes on to imply people should not complain about whatever they feel is still wrong because the important stuff has been resolved.

(plus I see a LOT of people who still seem to hold on to that Gays are teh Evil… or that at the very least it is opression to have to tolerate them publicly)

That said, reasonable people can look at the complaint, weigh pros and cons, harms and benefits, and conclude “good point, I can see how that would hinder your life” or “oh fer chrissakes it’s just hoop earrings!”.

50

Even if SJWs end up being on the good side of history, as you suggest, their success in preventing white girls from wearing loops won’t ever be comparable with former successes in abolishing segregation. Or their successes in preventing micro-agressions on college campuses comparable to previous successes in putting an end to lynching.

And when they’re adressing more general issues, like racial discrimination as opposed to loop wearing, they’re doing so when the position they’re supporting is already popular and quite mainstream. They wish they would be the equals of their predecessors who fought very unpolular and sometimes dangerous uphill battles. But they’ll never be.

They aren’t the vanguard of progress, they’re the rear guard that comes to the battlefield once the opposing army is already fleeing and search for a wounded ennemy lying somewhere so that they can slice his throat for bragging rights.

Once they’ll embark on some seriously difficult and unpopular cause that might make a really significant difference in the world, send me a notice. Until then, I will consider that members of PETA are much more likely than them to be a force that will shape the future and be remembered with reverence (and it’s not like I’m an ardent supporter of animal rights).

Those people could do a lot of things that I would find praiseworthy despite not having a big battle to fight, but insisting on trigger warnings, telling other people what’s wrong with their sex life and shouting down speakers they disagree with aren’t on the list.

51

Compare like to like: do you think that in the sixties, there weren’t college students making dumb arguments, even while others engaged in excellent activism? Do you think that wasn’t the case in the thirties? The 1860s? Or is it Kids These Days who have invented the idea of, during their adolescence, engaging in unsubtle and self-absorbed political causes?

Martini isn’t comparing like to like: he’s comparing the best and most important activism from history to the shit that World Net Daily publicizes today.

52

Once again, they labeled themselves Social Justice Warriors. And many keep doing so, despite others shying away from this name because it took a negative connotation.

I first discovered the term SJWs from people describing themselves proudly as such. I had never heard it before, and had to search for it on the urban dictionary. And I made my (negative) mind about what it entailed not from people denigrating or mocking them, but from their own words, statements, and actions.

53

You think every person the OP calls a social justice warrior labels themselves that way? You think it took on a “negative connotation” apart from its use to mock and shame?

And even if so, do you think he means the same thing by it? He’s clearly using it as a term of mockery and attack. It’s okay if he focuses on trivialities to attack others for focusing on trivialities to attack others? It’s okay for him to hate people for their behavior of hating people for their behavior? It’s okay for him to attempt to mock, shame, and shout down others for their attempts to mock, shame, and shout down others?

54

I you want me to say that SJWs are idiots, I obviously won’t disagree. And yes, I’ve seen my share of kids who had a monopoly on truth in my younger years.

Which leads me to mention another prejudice I have against SJWs : I don’t trust them the slighest bit. You’d think that with time they would evolve towards a more reasonable form of progressism. But my past experiences with people with this kind of mindset is that with time, they’ll see the errors in their ways, have a new revelation, and will suscribe to some other all-encompassing view of the world, preferably one that very conveniently will still let them with the good role. Which can perfectly be something like unrestrained capitalism (say, after they created their own business), religious conversion, far right, etc…

I believe (of course, this is very disputable) that the important thing for this type of people isn’t the specific cause they espouse, but to have this certainty that they own the truth that allows them to feel good about themselves, justify everything they do, and justify also their desire to shut up dissenters. That they’re, at the core, bullies with a mission, not progressists.

There are fortunately plenty of young people engaged in worthy activism and respectful of the freedom of opinion. But they don’t call themselves SJWs, and aren’t called that way either.

55

Chances are very small that you encountered the term prior to Gamergate. While there are a very few, isolated instances of its use dating back to the mid-nineties, it was the people who doxxed Zoe Quinn and others who started using the term widely and got it placed into public conversation.

Which is a great example of why Martini is wrong to suggest that the current social activism fights are trivial. In our current era, women who speak out in traditionally male fields are finding themselves the subject of rape threats, death threats, and the like. It ain’t all about hoop earrings.

56

Complaining about “SJWS” is not really any different than Republican complaints about “treehuggers” and “libs”. They’re trying to discredit the anti-discrimination movement by focusing on the silliest edge cases. It also lets them handwave any suggestion that racism or sexism are still ongoing problems. They can say things like, "Hey - everyone agrees that women should be allowed to vote so there can’t be any major problems any more (oh, and pretend you didn’t see all the white men on tv saying that women voters are bad for America).

57

It took a negative connotation because they brought it unto themselves. As a result of their discourses and their actions. It’s certainly my experience. “Social Justice Warrior” sounds rather nice until you see them lecturing, harassing and bullying people.

Absolutely yes, for the most part (mostly excepting shouting them down). What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Self-important bullies don’t deserve respect. They deserve to be mocked and shamed in return.
Would you have showed up to defend Trump afficionados, for instance, against people trying to mock and shame them?

58

No. It took a negative connotation because the Gamergate people liked having gaming be a mostly-male pursuit with games made for teenaged dudes by older dudes, with women involved mostly as eye candy; and when gaming started being the subject of critical feminist attention and when women started becoming major players in gaming press, the Gamergate douches COMPLETELY FLIPPED THEIR SHIT. They’re the ones who turned SJW into an insult; they’re the ones you’re following.

59

Nope:

  1. It’s BigTard and ‘Shut up, BigTard’ is a thing, here. I didn’t make it a thing. I was just riffing on it.
  2. BigT clearly has no problem with the “wrong” people being silenced and what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
  3. I’m not actually shutting him up because this is a fucking internet message board and it’s impossible to “type someone down”. Jesus Christ…

Look, if I’d banned BigT, and threatened people who objected with the same treatment, then, maybe, we’d be kinda sorta comparing apples to apples. Such as it is, there’s no sane basis for comparison with what those SJWs did to Peterson. Ergo, no irony. Your post is just a poorly thought through attempt at a “gotcha”.

60

In fact, after checking wikipedia, it appears that the term SJW only began to take a negative connotation around 2011. And that this negative connotation became mainstream only after the rather recent “Gamergate”.

I only heard about it being applied in a negative way to people who don’t qualify themselves as such on this board, and I think during the last year or couple of years.