I don’t, I know that people of both political persuasions do it.
Nothing to do with Social Justice. Just your average angry asshole.
Well there you go. He was insisting it was smug** left-wing people**, and that is what I highlighted.
It’s not merely “causes one disagrees with”. It’s seeing everything in terms of black and white, good or evil, with no shades of gray. In the minds of a SJW, white people who wear dread locks are no better than the KKK. Or that fighting for a living wage is equivalent to just as important as fighting to make sure that Barbie isn’t too skinny.
I’m not talking about their causes, per se. (Although many of these kids latch onto things that have no meaning) I’m talking about the way they approach things. Seeing EVERYTHING as bigoted. And claiming that only certain groups of people can be bigoted, because of priveledges, etc.
Remember those college students who freaked the fuck out when their classmates were writing “TRUMP” on the sidewalk with chalk? THOSE are the kinds of people who are usually described as SJWs.
You know that, and I know that. But often these people claim they ARE fighting for social justice, and that is where the term SJW comes in. It’s like calling religious nuts “fundies”.
Name calling, LHoD? Is it really that hard to keep a civil tone to someone who’s extended you the same courtesy?
As to your questions - 1) Because “Fuckwit” or “Dickhead” is far too broad a category, which segues nicely in point number 2) Because I think it excellently describes the sort of people who do the things that would cause me to label them SJWs.
Happy now?
Two questions: question* el firsto*: Aren’t we discussing a personality type rather than an ideological persuasion, or a religious conviction? Uptight, scolding, self-righteous. Assholes. If progressivism were the one persuasion that was free of assholes, it wouldn’t be human, it wouldn’t be comprised of people but temporarily misplaced angels.
And what the heck does hooped earrings have to do with anything? As Eugene V. Debs is my witness, I have no clue. By the way, caves on Mars smell like damp rust.
The problem is that the term SJW is used to describe:
- Powerless racist idiots who say that white people can’t wear hoops
- Peaceful protesters at my daughter’s school where Milo was allowed to speak
- Violent protesters and outsiders at Berkeley where he wasn’t allowed to speak
- Very violent protesters where the Bell Curve guy and his host were assaulted
- People looking for more balanced treatment of women in video games
- People pushing to allow trans-kids to use the bathroom that matches their identity
If it was just used to refer to (1), sure, have at it. But (1) is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally trivial and 3 is used to make 2, 5, and 6 seem equally dangerous. Do you know what I do when some powerless racist idiot says that my kids can’t wear hoops? I ignore her.
What is the name for the kind of term that can be used to put all of those people above into the same bucket? Over-broad? Useless?
Sure, I’m sure when you, and you, and you use it, you only mean (1), but that’s not how it’s generally used.
Anyway, it’s back to work for me, and I’m not supposed to post from there, so I’m out.
:dubious: This whole thread is about namecalling, and your entire participation in the thread is to support and defend a particular name that you like to call others. Pardon me if I deny you the high ground here.
This is an excellent post, and it’s why I’ve been trying–and failing–to get people to give a clear definition. If folks point to leftists causes they disagree with, but don’t trigger them into namecalling, that’d be one thing–but nobody has done that, as far as I’ve seen. Instead, they use the epithet for any leftist cause they disagree with, and then it ties into bullshit like F-P’s thread awhile ago in which he applied his patented psychoanalysis technique to all SJWs, and it ties into all the nonsense in this thread.
Sure. Disagree with folks on leftist causes, that’s cool. Call people out for being assholes when they’re being assholes, that’s ducky. But using a term popularized by misogynists to namecall those who disagree with you politically? THat does more to label you than to label anyone else.
exactly
+1.
This is what I mean when I call it a snarl word. “A word used to induce a negative response or association in the person hearing or reading it. Commonly used to appeal to people’s emotions rather than their reasoning, and thereby get them on your side,” as UrbanDictionary explains it. It’s a term woven intentionally broadly, to tar as many people with the same brush as possible, and pretend they’re all equally bad. It’s quite typically extended far beyond the definition that the OP set out, to include anyone with a feminist, civil rights, or LGBT rights bend. It’s a stupid, useless term.
Leftists insisting on uniformity of thought? It’s always nice when visitors drop in from other timelines. Please sign the guestbook! In this timeline, at no time during the past 50 years have leftists been able to come close to uniformity of thought amongst themselves.
The difference is I haven’t actually identified a single, specific individual and declared them an SJW (or any other unpleasant name). So if it’s all the same you, I believe I’ll retain the high ground on that front.
Sounds like how people tend to be in high school and college, before the real world forces most of us to deal with all the grays.
Since the main examples of SJW behavior seem to have been drawn from college students, and a publication aimed at teens, this still seems to fall under “college students do stupid shit, film at 11.”
Can you provide quotes of alleged SJWs saying these things, or is it just something you’re reading into their behavior? Because you know, we all have a tendency to chase the shiny object of the moment, whether it’s fighting female circumcision or objecting to Barbie dolls with unrealistic bodies, and young people haven’t had a chance to build up their resistance to chasing shiny objects. (And again, who’s to say the latter issue is trivial? First-world problem though it may be, negative body image affects one hell of a lot of American women, and that quite frankly sucks. I’m glad that doesn’t affect you, but why do you get to decide that’s trivial?)
Yep, college students being stupid again.
You know, if some sort of less-than-optimal behavior primarily exists among young people, does it need a special name when it’s just young people doing the same sort of stupid shit that young, inexperienced people of every generation do? Did you have it so much more together when you were in college? Because I sure as hell didn’t.
Perhaps one definition of a SJW would be someone that wishes to wrap their inane, insane and/or idiotic crusade in a mantle of respectability by associating it with truly worthwhile causes.
That’s why Dr. Sakena Yacoobi is not called an SJW, but the morons that blocked the runway at London City airport to fight the racism of Climate Change are.
Once again, nobody apart from you is disputing that the word was originally used positively. Believe what you want, you’re the outlier, here.
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rationalwiki]
“Social Justice Warrior” (abbreviated “SJW”[1]) is a once positive term for “progressive” that turned into a derogatory term circa 2011
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=infogalactic]
Head of U.S. dictionaries for Oxford University Press Katherine Martin said the term was previously used as a compliment.[3] She observed: “All of the examples I’ve seen until quite recently are lionizing the person.”[3] Martin noted the phrase had mostly positive usage in the 1990s through 2000s.[3] The Washington Post gave examples of its earlier positive connotation as well as from pop culture that illustrated the recent debate surrounding its negative connotation.[3]
[/QUOTE]
Wow.
Just so you know, when you link to a story like this in a thread where you defend your utter contempt for “social justice warriors,” it makes me horrified about your argument, not about social justice warriors.
I should have said some leftists seek to impose uniformity on other leftists. Why wasn’t Peterson permitted to speak? Fear that some leftists would be “corrupted”?
Leftists who support gun rights are shunned. Leftists who oppose gay rights are shunned. Had the left been more gracious in embracing diverse opinions the Tragedy of November Eighth might have been averted.
Er, perhaps you should specify exactly what is wrong about the events of the linked story when addressing someone who clearly does not know.