>There is no such thing as "The SJW position". No one holds this position. As i said, other people claim that "SJW"s are irrational and reject empirical evidenc

>There is no such thing as "The SJW position". No one holds this position. As i said, other people claim that "SJW"s are irrational and reject empirical evidence. It is a word used to smear people by grouping them together in a category of "bad". There is no "SJW" manifesto or association of "SJW"s. A group of people sharing a number of beliefs and behaviors need not be centrally organized or hold all of the same beliefs or all of the same behaviors in order to be correctly reasoned about as a group. Here's an example of such a group: "Anti-vaxxers". People who think, despite all evidence to the contrary, that vaccines are harmful to human life. They parrot misinformation, refuse to engage with good faith criticism, and worse, foster an actual public health crisis because they won't get the shots and won't let their kids. The individual beliefs aren't always identical, or even coherent. Some think the vaccines are a government population control program. Some think that the science isn't in yet. Some think that because their friend's friend's cousin's dad's son had a bad reaction, that they're all harmful. (This addresses the "direct observational evidence" you mentioned, I think.) We still reason about those people as a group based on their actions: Refusing to be vaccinated, refusing to have their kids vaccinated. Should we stop doing so in some attempt to preserve some notion of philosophical/empirical purity, some notion of not offending these people, or should we address the health problem and call the willful ignorance what it is? >What people who use the term "SJW" mean when they use it is that someone evaluated the same indirect data in a different way from them I can only speak for myself here, but when I use that term, I refer to a brand of authoritarian left-leaning political behavior, one that is hostile to any non-agreement (disagree = blocked), one that actively parrots refuted statistics (wage gap), one that is perfectly okay with hateful behavior as long as it's directed at someone "more advantaged" than them. In other words, more actions than thoughts - but every action has a motivating thought.