9 ms·
It confuses, sickens, and amuses me that people could get the world so twisted in their heads that "social justice" could become a phrase applied negatively to
by tomlock 10y ago
It confuses, sickens, and amuses me that people could get the world so twisted in their heads that "social justice" could become a phrase applied negatively to people, movements and feelings.
- btym 10y agoYou see, anyone who wants people to treat each other with respect and kindness is an "SJW" who shouldn't be taken seriously.
- FeepingCreature 10y agoIf SJW made their points with kindness and respect, the term would not exist.
- Mz 10y agoI envy your succinctness.
- genericpseudo 10y agohttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument
- FeepingCreature 10y agoIt's not unreasonable to expect that people who ask for respect and kindness behave respectfully and kindly. Like, "if you're not even gonna bother, why should I?"
- genericpseudo 10y agoIt's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect emotional compliance from people who are being wronged.
- Mz 10y agoThe problem is that an awful lot of people who claim they want people to treat each other with respect and kindness are on the rampage about it and ready to behead anyone being inadequately (whatever their criteria). They frequently are not at all kind, respectful individuals themselves. They are frequently just assholes who like having justification for riding around on their high horse. Real justice involves justice for both sides. SJWs tend to not have that in mind at all.
- kgu 10y agoI probably shouldn't have posted that, but "social justice warrior" is a pejorative for actual good reason. It refers specifically to people who don't genuinely care about justice, and are rather interested in shoving everyone in society into categories at the expense of individuality, policing language with offense and outrage, and creating a culture where name-calling with labels like bigot, racist, etc. are treated as compelling arguments by appealing to a sense of tribal identity—all in the name of justice.
- tomlock 10y ago>and creating a culture where name-calling with labels Interesting.
- kgu 10y agoI don't mean to be sensitive; is the suggestion that I did this somewhere, and am thus missing the irony?
- dpark 10y agoDo you really not think that "sjw" is a pejorative label?
- kgu 10y agoI think it's needlessly mocking, but it is not a label: it has an actual definition, and I'd consider anyone who used the word outside that definition to be using it incorrectly. It refers to a specific set of behaviors. Bigot and racist used to not be labels, until people started applying the terms to everything.
- tomlock 10y agoYou're arguing that "sjw" isn't a label???? Things with definitions aren't labels???
- 10y ago
- white-flame 10y ago"Patriot", "Feminist", "Fundamentalist", and many other terms speak for positive things, but because of people acting under that label, the label becomes tainted and turns into a pejorative depending on the perspective. Heck, even "Liberal" and "Conservative" barely mean anything anymore than name-calling at Those Others with an insinuation of the worst caricatures possible. It's just the way language and societal labeling works, combined with the hyper-reactionary tribalism of the last decade or so.
- tomlock 10y agoI think blanket labelling negative feeling towards uber as reactionary social justice is a pretty good example of hyper-reactionary tribalism.
- white-flame 10y agoIt does go in all directions, as I've hopefully made apparent in my above post. But, just because that blanket label is overapplied doesn't mean that there isn't a ton of ill-informed bandwagon outrage against Uber, nor that the opposing pejorative SJW labeling of said outrage against Uber is ill-informed bandwagon outrage either, ad infinitum. (assuming all those stacked negatives parse correctly) There's tons of terrible reacting to both real and contrived issues, recursive through reacting to those reactions. At some point, the reactions cause more issues than the initial issues.
- tomlock 10y agoYeah, I mean, saying its ill-informed (removing bandwagon) outrage is slightly better. Then we get at the real core of the argument - like, what do people feel others are ill-informed about?
- white-flame 10y agoI feel we're speaking different languages here. It doesn't matter what others are ill-informed about, what matters is how informed we are before hopping on the OutrageMobile. People hear mention of some trigger phrase, like "There's sexism there!" or "They're shoving Islam down our children's throat!" or "Against|For [gay marriage|abortion|etc]!" or "Racist!", and grab the pitchfork and torches to go wreck a company, a person's employment, a conference, an open source project, or whatever, using the power of the mob. How different is this from witch hunts or whatever hundreds of years old nutty rumors people mobbed & destroyed over? How much do you think such rumors are inflated by somebody who was slighted and has a bone to pick, or is otherwise interested in conjuring vengeance? People are replacing rule of law with rule by mob & rumor, and that's simply not a civil or free society. Even if someone's thrust is "People need to be as informed as I believe I am", civility requires that be addressed ... civilly, not lashing out destructively. Plus, "informed" in that sense is often just a cover for "carries my preferential social/political/economic beliefs", which people in a free society are absolute free to differ at the belief level (the action level is where the law resides).
- dropit_sphere 10y agoLike, for instance, "Public Safety"?
- milcron 10y agoIn the hippie era, the same transformation happened to "bleeding hearts"
- xor1 10y agoI've come to associate the term with individuals who have undiagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder. It's the only good explanation I've seen for why they're so easily offended, and also why they have practically no bounds when it comes to punishing people they've determined to be on the "wrong" side.