5 ms·

> It says a lot about a chunk of the population that being a small, fairly obscure subreddit will generally result in Good Things, but becoming a default will q

by anjc 11y ago

> It says a lot about a chunk of the population that being a small, fairly obscure subreddit will generally result in Good Things, but becoming a default will quickly result in being overrun by racists, gay-haters, mysoginists, and suchlike. The dynamic on Reddit has been the exact opposite, whereby subreddits that become popular are taken over by "SJWs", for want of a better description. Can you name a single popular subreddit that's been overrun by gay-hate and misogyny through becoming a default?

vessenes 11y ago
Well, TwoXChromosomes did not enjoy being put on the default subreddit list. A quick perusal of some top posts there right now looks like mods do a good job. But, my vibe was that they needed to significantly step up the amount of work they did when they hit the front page.
- anjc 11y ago
  That's not really a great example, because a default sub is going to attract men on a site dominated by men, and the ethos of that sub is to, basically, not have men's views represented. This would naturally lead to friction and so it'd make sense that more moderation would be needed. I don't think it should've been made a default, anymore than /r/mensrights should be made default.
JulianMorrison 11y ago
To sane people, "social justice warrior" translates as "not awful, has respect, a humane human being".
- reitanqild 11y ago
  Thanks for the definition. I'm definitely sane and what goes for SJW today is something I do not want to be.
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  I agree with you. However some people use social justice as an excuse to be awful to others. Combine that with the fact(?) that loud minorities are often generalized to be representative of the whole (especially when that minority confirms prejudices about the whole), and "social justice warrior" takes on a negative meaning.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > However some people use social justice as an excuse to be awful to others. And to the degree they do that, they're not fighting for social justice. > loud minorities are often generalized to be representative of the whole Though often obsessedly so by people who don't seem to give much of a crap either way, anyway, and gloss over their own mute accompliceship in rather serious evils by pointing out things that are kind of peanuts in comparison. You know, when instead of criticizing people for hurting their own cause, or merely paying lip service to a cause that is actually worthy, unlike the petty games they use it for, they just go "Hah! See? that's what those SJW types are like". I don't see any serious people of high caliber using that abbreviation, that's for sure. And it's not like people criticize "tumblr-SJW" generally have their own serious websites or at least posts screaming bloody murder: for me someone without a solution getting mad and overshooting the goal is still preferable to someone completely numb, motionless, and maybe even gloating and proud of that. I know it's not a dichotomy, that there are many alternatives preferable to both, but in the given situation of that one group criticizing that other group, I know where my sympathies lie. > There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! -- Mario Savo ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0 ) ^ To me that's not pathos, that's the baseline, and we all fall short of it, which doesn't move it one inch. If some kiddos on the interwebs discover a slice of that and do their own stuff, good for them. Godspeed to them. And in so far they make asses of themselves, I hope they learn to pick themselves up and fail better in the future, but I can't say they are doing anything so horribly wrong their parents did or their peers are doing so much better. As Assata Shakur said, only the strong go crazy, the weak just go along; and that's why they build bubbles and communities in which they can have the appearance of being strong, and hide behind each other and their memes. That there is a grain of truth to some of them, that people indeed do use serious issues to get attention or money, doesn't really change that, it just means even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- anjc 11y ago
  No it doesn't.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    How can someone see the injustice in the world and not be grieved, if not angered by it, and be considered a decent person? If indifference to avoidable suffering and disgusting exploitation and mutilation of living beings is not awful, what is? As Einstein said -- and I quote him not because Einstein is correct by default, but because I think he is in this case, and put it very elegantly and succinctly: > A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. How can someone not have compassion, yet not be awful? How can someone have compassion, yet not care about justice? How about a compromise, how about we define SJW as "stereotype about people of value with values, serving as relief for those that can't hang with them"?
    - thescribe 11y ago
      In my (limited) experience social justice runs counter to true justice with such frequency that to claim it represents compassion is to throw out the concept of fairness altogether.

by anjc 11y ago

vessenes 11y ago

Well, TwoXChromosomes did not enjoy being put on the default subreddit list. A quick perusal of some top posts there right now looks like mods do a good job. But, my vibe was that they needed to significantly step up the amount of work they did when they hit the front page.

anjc 11y ago
That's not really a great example, because a default sub is going to attract men on a site dominated by men, and the ethos of that sub is to, basically, not have men's views represented. This would naturally lead to friction and so it'd make sense that more moderation would be needed. I don't think it should've been made a default, anymore than /r/mensrights should be made default.

JulianMorrison 11y ago

To sane people, "social justice warrior" translates as "not awful, has respect, a humane human being".

reitanqild 11y ago
Thanks for the definition. I'm definitely sane and what goes for SJW today is something I do not want to be.
Kristine1975 11y ago
I agree with you. However some people use social justice as an excuse to be awful to others. Combine that with the fact(?) that loud minorities are often generalized to be representative of the whole (especially when that minority confirms prejudices about the whole), and "social justice warrior" takes on a negative meaning.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > However some people use social justice as an excuse to be awful to others. And to the degree they do that, they're not fighting for social justice. > loud minorities are often generalized to be representative of the whole Though often obsessedly so by people who don't seem to give much of a crap either way, anyway, and gloss over their own mute accompliceship in rather serious evils by pointing out things that are kind of peanuts in comparison. You know, when instead of criticizing people for hurting their own cause, or merely paying lip service to a cause that is actually worthy, unlike the petty games they use it for, they just go "Hah! See? that's what those SJW types are like". I don't see any serious people of high caliber using that abbreviation, that's for sure. And it's not like people criticize "tumblr-SJW" generally have their own serious websites or at least posts screaming bloody murder: for me someone without a solution getting mad and overshooting the goal is still preferable to someone completely numb, motionless, and maybe even gloating and proud of that. I know it's not a dichotomy, that there are many alternatives preferable to both, but in the given situation of that one group criticizing that other group, I know where my sympathies lie. > There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels…upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! -- Mario Savo ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0 ) ^ To me that's not pathos, that's the baseline, and we all fall short of it, which doesn't move it one inch. If some kiddos on the interwebs discover a slice of that and do their own stuff, good for them. Godspeed to them. And in so far they make asses of themselves, I hope they learn to pick themselves up and fail better in the future, but I can't say they are doing anything so horribly wrong their parents did or their peers are doing so much better. As Assata Shakur said, only the strong go crazy, the weak just go along; and that's why they build bubbles and communities in which they can have the appearance of being strong, and hide behind each other and their memes. That there is a grain of truth to some of them, that people indeed do use serious issues to get attention or money, doesn't really change that, it just means even a broken clock is right twice a day.
anjc 11y ago
No it doesn't.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  How can someone see the injustice in the world and not be grieved, if not angered by it, and be considered a decent person? If indifference to avoidable suffering and disgusting exploitation and mutilation of living beings is not awful, what is? As Einstein said -- and I quote him not because Einstein is correct by default, but because I think he is in this case, and put it very elegantly and succinctly: > A human being is a part of a whole, called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. How can someone not have compassion, yet not be awful? How can someone have compassion, yet not care about justice? How about a compromise, how about we define SJW as "stereotype about people of value with values, serving as relief for those that can't hang with them"?
  - thescribe 11y ago
    In my (limited) experience social justice runs counter to true justice with such frequency that to claim it represents compassion is to throw out the concept of fairness altogether.