There is value in debating armpit shaving.
The social justice warrior crowd really don’t. I had pretty much exactly this conversation in another thread on the subject and it turned into people saying “You only use the term against people with opinions you don’t like!” despite me clearly saying “No, it applies to people with views I also agree with too, although that rarely happens.”
I maintain that SJWs are not fighting for worthwhile stuff. Raging because white people have dreadlocks or society says women should shave their armpits or whatever is in no way nearly in the same league as saying “Every adult citizen should be able to vote” or “We shouldn’t discriminate against people for being gay” or “Slavery is appalling and should be stamped out”.
Looks at Rick Sanchez’s join date,
Remembers own join date,
Dood, you are such a n00b, nitpickery is this place’s life blood!
CMC fnord!
I would maintain that the first group are not Social Justice Warriors, they’re just mouthy idiots who have learned that being outraged is the way to claim power.
Pobrecito. I have told you repeatedly that your definition comes across as people who fight for causes you don’t think are worth fighting for. You seem to hate that, but then you come back and say essentially the same thing.
And there you just contradicted yourself. The people who fight for things you don’t support are the SJWs. It is just a label for things you don’t think people should be fighting for.
OP, this isn’t turning into the mocking of SJWs like you wanted, is it?
For one thing, Dopers don’t condense their thoughts to 140 characters or less, hashtags notwithstanding. For another, there’s very few millennials here, and SJWs are mostly a millennial concept. Dopers have experienced a longer multilayered history, and the novelty of SJWs is just another compact turd nugget that will come and go like pet rocks and polish jokes. Mocking SJWs is just a momentary amusement in the stream of life that becomes stale and boring after 5 minutes.
Suppose that whenever Donald Trump lays a stinking turd right in the middle of the Oval Office, he sends a Tweet “Never mind me; Billy the Toddler in Oshkosh isn’t toilet trained either!”
We’d all agree that Donny the Toddler is the bigger offender. But Billy’s parent should toilet train Billy anyway. Don’t let Donny be a model for what is acceptable.
I take sides with OP in this “debate.” It was asinine to boo down Prof. Jordan Peter, a renowned intellectual and himself a progressive activist. It is disheartening and maddening the way that the “left-wing” increasingly tries to imposes uniform thought on all people who would oppose the forces of evil — forces whose powers are growing throughout much of the world. To list the tragedies which Trump may inflict on us would hijack the thread, but all sane people in the center or left must lament the votes cast for him. Many of these votes were a backlash to the extreme “political correctness” which has taken over the left.
And now Dopers applaud, in the name of “free speech,” the ignorant booing of an esteemed intellectual. With dire crises threatening America and the world, we revert to a discussion of what earring types are politically correct.
I hope I don’t need to buttress my credentials as a militant centrist. I endorsed Yvette Felarca’s assault on a neo-Nazi for heaven’s sake! And now I say … Enough is enough. Let’s fight for some important things … and hope our grandchildren have the leisure to argue about earrings, or to boo down their intellectual superiors.
I don’t know what OP’s politics are. The fuck the problem is you oh-so-smug leftists insisting on uniformity of thought, and sacrificing mountains to save a molehill.
HTH.
Pretty much. But hey, forget it Jake, it’s Dopertown. 
And that would be a lie.
That’s exactly what’s happening here–except that this entire pit thread is dedicated to pitting Billy the Toddler.
Nobody here is insisting on uniformity of thought, ferchrissakes. What a stupid fuckin objection.
So, you have no proof that anyone called themselves a SJW. I’ve just got to have faith. Sorry, the Roman Catholic Church couldn’t persuade me to have faith–and they’ve been in the business lots longer than you.
Yes, some very young folks (usually in an academic setting) get a bit too picky about certain issuess They’ll learn proportion. At least they aren’t Fascists.
Do you know how to tell if someone is a retard? Statements like the bit highlighted above.
Hold on a second, I’ll head down to the barn and pick up some more hay. You’ve used a lot of it, but I think there are a few more bales in there.
There are, as near as I can tell, two groups that call themselves “Social Justice Warriors.”
The first is folks who VERY RARELY used the term dating back to the nineties. It doesn’t appear to have been much of an idiom, just some words that people stuck together. “Social Justice” was a common term, and putting “warrior” as a complimentary label on folks who are fighting for a cause is not uncommon (Google your favorite terms–I’m finding hits for “ecowarrior,” “pro-life warrior,” and “animal rights warrior,” and I guarantee you can findmore). These folks used the two terms together in a sincere fashion. The WaPo article I linked to a couple pages back had details.
The second is folks who adopt it ironically, as a badge of pride, in the same way that Dan Savage used to ask readers to call him “faggot,” or that a lot of Trumpheads call themselves “deplorables.” They figure if you use the insulting term in a positive way, it loses its power as an insult. I’ve definitely seen this use, but some folks here seem unaware of the ironic intent behind the usage.
I’ve noticed. I mean, BigT and LHoD are literally doing it a few posts upthread.
Let’s pretend, purely for argument’s sake, that “SJW” means “any lefty agitating for change I don’t like and/or regard as trivial”. So what? How does that invalidate any point I’ve made? And why are some of the SJW Defence League so completely unable to differentiate between Significant Things like slavery/civil rights/gay marriage and Trivial Bullshit like “white people with dreadlocks”?
The term “Social Justice Warrior” was floating around when I was first at uni (early-mid 2000s), usually applied to greenies with dreadlocks who’d go around insisting “women” be spelt with a “y” instead of an “e” becase of men or something, and related stuff that was considered almost laughably silly if it wasn’t being done so humourlessly and with an edge of nastiness to anyone who didn’t agree with them.
Listen, you git, we can distinguish between them. That’s not the fucking question at hand. The question is twofold:
- Why do you need a special term to describe liberals who advocate for causes you disagree with; and
- Why do you, discovering you need that term, choose the one popularized by the misogynistic tweakers behind Gamergate?
I ignored Guin when she brought up this idiotic straw man multiple times above because, well, I’ve been ignoring Guin’s stupid points for nearly two decades now, and I saw no reason to change course in this thread. It beggars belief that you’re taking this stupid point seriously.
So, you’re saying anyone who believes there are smug people in this country who try to force group-think on people who might disagree with them is automatically a retard?
Okay, now this definitely takes the cake for stupid SJW bullshit of the day.
If you think this is a left wing thing, you would be a retard, yes.