You think BigTard is “part and parcel” with this?
Okay, nutcase. Whatever you say :rolleyes:
Then, they are the ones following me. Because I had an issue with SJWs (more specifically originally due to the problem they have with D/s relationships, and their attempts at shaming practicioners and trying to shut down their internet pages) before I ever heard of the Gamergate.
Awwww… lookit the little GamerGate Bro trying to look all intimidating!
In a more amusing example of stupid SJW bullshit, it turns out that, if you’re a white politician, quoting Beyonce is “cultural appropriation”.
Well, no it isn’t, really. I went to an ACLU talk a week ago, where one of the attorneys defined ‘freedom of speech’ as being dependent on where you’re standing when you exercise it. For instance, if you don’t have a permit to demonstrate, you may not block traffic or impede pedestrian flow on public property for the sake of getting your point across, and can be arrested for doing so. In a public park, you can, for the most part, yammer on at will without fear of prosecution.
QFT
I don’t care, Rick Sanchez “everyone is doing it” is a cowardly excuse.
Agreed. In the 70s we protested against U.S. support for apartheid and debated whether selling Playboy in the college bookstore objectified women. You know what? I learned a lot about both issues, despite the latter being similar to what people today might calll a SJW issue. Although I came down on the side of freedom of choice, I also came to understand the contrary arguments and I believe a lot of good came out of the debate. Like today’s’ young people, the debate often had its share of excesses and violations of people’s’ rights. Lessons were learned. Civilization survived.
So, yes, we should call these people out when they pull stupid shit, but we should also try to understand the injustices they are motivated by.
Um no, that’s totally not it at all. :rolleyes:
Warriors are people who fight over trivial issues – how DARE you wear that style of jewelry, eat that kind of food, how DARE you have a Trump bumpersticker (remember students freaking out over "TRUMP written in chalk?) how DARE you not be like MEEEEE!!! Or if someone asks a question, genuinely wanting to learn, they’ll be told, “It’s not my job to educate you.”
If you don’t understand the difference in fighting for the right to use the preferred bathroom and freaking out because a white girl has dread locks, I can’t help you.
THAT is a great example.
So… it’s not your job to educate him, huh?
How about you spend a little less time coming up with lame snark and a little more time learning the difference between “can’t” and “won’t”?
That snark was pretty on point, actually.
I already said at least a couple times that I didn’t hear (read, in fact) the name first from people opposing SJWs, but from self-defined SJWs themselves. On top of which I never followed the Gamergate controversy that seemed very confusing. You might have heard of it first when it became derogatory, I heard of it first when it was worn as a badge of pride (and a free license to bash and silence others).
No it wasn’t, actually. Guinastasia, actually, was saying that if Left Hand of Dorkness couldn’t grasp the distinction she was trying to make then actually, she couldn’t actually help him, actually.
When an SJW says “It’s not my job to educate you” they are actually saying that actually, they won’t help. They are refusing, point blank, to engage. That, actually, is a salient difference which, actually, jsgoddess’s lame snark actually missed.
Actually.
u mad bro?
That’s a meme of African-American origin. I’d thank you to stop culturally appropriating it.
Coming back to this question.
Yes, in fact, I assumed that, essentially.
Having (once again) come into contact with the name from people who labeled themselves that way, my assumption had always been that people talking about SJWs were talking about people who would consider themselves SJWs. I didn’t find the fact that those comments were overwhelmingly negative notable, since my own impression of SJWs had been extremely negative too from the get go.
I noticed recently on the SDMB, indeed, that some posters considered using this label as a way of insulting people, but : 1) being accustomed to view SJW as a self-designation, I assumed these people were wrong (*), or were talking in bad faith, or wanted to distance themselves from SJWs and 2) Given my opinion of SJWs, I found perfectly normal that this designation had taken a negative conotation, richly deserved IMO, and found "shadenfreude"and irony in thinking that those proud SJWs were now feeling insulted when their name was used.
I realize only today, after participating in this thread and reading various entries about SJWs, that it’s now indeed overwhelmingly considered a slur used to designate people who wouldn’t call themselves this way. And that many people probably never heard of SJWs before it became a pejorative meme.
(*) That said, they still are quite wrong in the sense that SJW as a name predates its pejorative use, and the pejorative use is actually born from the very real attitude people calling themselves that way had. It might now be extended to many others sharing the same attitude but rejecting the name, but I still say that it’s the actual SJWs who brought it upon themselves (and I realize now on others), by being absolute jerks.
Are you assuming the attitude when you hear the name?
One of the recurring themes I notice in discussions I get involved in is the idea that if I have a problem with trivial bullshit like “trigger warnings” or made-up and unintentional “microaggressions” that I’m also against change for more serious issues.
This is not correct.
For the record:
-
I completely support the right of consenting adults regardless of gender/sexuality, to engage in whatever sexual activities they like - and to get married to another consenting adult of any gender.
-
I completely support the right of transgendered people to use whichever restroom facilities matches their gender identity.
-
Everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc deserves a fair go.
History is written by the winners (notable exception: The Spanish Civil War) so while we remember the suffragettes, the civil rights movement, the abolitionists and Gandhi, they were also fighting for things that (for the most part), we tend to forget those folks were striving for things lots and lots and lots of people agreed they should have anyway (the vote, no slavery, not being treated like shit for having the “wrong” skin colour).
As clairobscur notes, today’s social justice folks generally aren’t fighting for things on the same scale as the suffragettes or MLK. When we get around to having the “Are robots legally people?” or thing then yeah, you’ll have another “worthy” social matter to fight over with very real consequences and an outcome that matters.
But ranting about “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” is not nearly in the same league as saying “Hey, literally owning people like property and forcing them to work on our cotton plantations isn’t cool and that shit needs to stop”, IMHO - hence the disdain for the Offenderati/Perpetually Outraged/Social Justice Warrior League of Calamitous Intent.
No, I found it to be a pretty good zinger – I’ll give her points for that. 
I think MY point still stands, though. I think there’s a huge difference between asking for equal rights to be able to use the same bathroom as everyone else instead of “separate but equal”, not to be discriminated for being transgender, and the whole “White Girls, Take Out Your Hoops”. Or the kids at Oberlin College that claimed it was racist when the cafeteria served sushi made with crappy rice and frozen fish rather than fresh.
There are people out there freaking out over Wonder Woman’s ARMPITS, for fuck’s sake.
What people wear, what they eat, armpit hair hair, that’s completely irrelevant. Those are basically luxuries. Whereas trying to create another “separate but equal” catagory is an entirely different ball game.