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.
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:
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. 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 <insert literally any number of a thousand other people here>.
EDIT: this was made before your last post. Lemme go read that.
To be fair, “modern conservative” is not an all-purpose partisan snarl word, 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Again, I wrote a post about this in this thread. Those who think and behave as religious fundamentalists.
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.
“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.
+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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”