7 ms·

I don’t know that it’s so much being against the idea of a fair and just society as much as being against SJWism. Where SJWism seems to now be about dividing up

by erentz 8y ago

I don’t know that it’s so much being against the idea of a fair and just society as much as being against SJWism. Where SJWism seems to now be about dividing up people into groups. Refusing to engage honestly. Labeling anyone who disagrees or has different ideas the enemy and forcing them out. Problematizing things that aren’t problems. So on.

0815test 8y ago
We really need a better term than 'SJW' these days for those crypto-Maoists. It's been taken over by the alt-right, who use it for anyone who might object to their "based", "redpilled" (or so they say) toxic crap.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I agree that we need a better term, but I don't perceive it as being co-opted by the alt-right so much as a pejorative that gives the user an air of bad faith. I want a neutral label for people who advocate for race/gender caste systems in the name of "equality" and who override standard terms (like "racism", "equality", "white supremacy", etc) with opposite meanings. It would be really useful for advancing the conversation.
komali2 8y ago
>Where SJWism seems to now be about dividing up people into groups. Refusing to engage honestly. Labeling anyone who disagrees I want to have a spirited genuine conversation about this, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around arguments like this - isn't your comment doing exactly as you have described, dividing and labelling people?
- erentz 8y ago
  No. I believe I’ve described the behaviors that I suspected dawhizkid was referring to when using the SJW label. There are many behaviors that have many labels. If you want to substitute SJWism for something else you may, but it happens to be that people are increasingly associating this collection of behaviors with that term now. I’m not one to battle too hard with the English language when it doesn’t seem necessary (the SJW term has always been pejorative in one way or another so it’s hardly one to protect).
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    But you're still dividing people under the label of being a SJW. You could replace all instances of the acronym 'SJW' with 'Conservative' and your post would still make just as much sense as before. The only difference being that it would likely be instantly flagged and downvoted unlike using the SJW strawman.
    - erentz 8y ago
      > You could replace all instances of the acronym 'SJW' with 'Conservative' and your post would still make just as much sense as before. The only difference being that it would likely be instantly flagged and downvoted unlike using the SJW strawman. It's very ironic you say this when dawhizkid's comment using the term SJW was flagged and it spawned a thread of people taking offense and this whole thread has been removed now. :-)
- weberc2 8y ago
  There is a difference between making observations about different political ideologies (what the parent was doing) and advocating for the establishment of racial, gender, etc hierarchies (what "SJWs"--for lack of a better term--do).
  - Diederich 8y ago
    heirarchy - a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. To be clear: are you saying that you think that "SJWs" advocate for this?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Disclaimer: As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I don't particularly like the term "SJW" for its pejorative connotations, but I'll use it since it's the established term in this thread. It's not an opinion, it's true by definition†. SJWs are characterized by their propensity to group people according to their immutable characteristics (specifically race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc) and their specific†† treatments for each group (what each group is allowed to do, how negatively their group is to be portrayed, whether a group is allowed to be defined by its best members, whether a group is to be defined by its worst members, etc). I suspect SJWs would object to the term "hierarchy"--instead they would say they are fighting white supremacy or other hierarchies; however, when you press them, it becomes clear that they are merely advocating for a different racial hierarchy (e.g., "you can't be racist against $RACE people"). †Obviously there is no formal definition; that doesn't mean that there is no definition †† To be clear, I don't mean to say that SJW-ism is the only identity ideology, but rather it is a particular one which varies from the others by its specific ranking of identities and the affordances it makes for each ranking.
      - komali2 8y ago
        I see what you're saying - "you can't be racist against some people." It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? Obviously the answer is that nobody can be racist towards anybody and be pure to a positive read of the sjw cause, but humans gonna human. I will say that from a utile standpoint white vs black racism is far more harmful than black vs white, in the reality of 2019, so outside the rhetorical realm of debate of pure morals. Therefore I'm not sure even the existence of "reverse racism" (terrible term but the most universally understood to describe my meaning) SJWs does not indicate an sjw desire to create hierarchy. The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow. I believe he offers the full text for free on his website.
- SkyBelow 8y ago
  Yes, based on their stances and actions. I find that a far more tolerable way of dividing people up than doing so based on immutable characteristics that they have no control over. Yes, the grand parent didn't mention this distinction, but I think they intended it (and if not, then I am interested in how they justify the difference). As for why I'm okay with the difference, consider putting someone in prison because they broke a law (something they can control) vs. because their parents broke a law (something they couldn't control). The latter is, in my mind, worse in every possible fashion. Even when applied to a law I disagree with, I find the latter option far worse than the former.
asveikau 8y ago
If you have a profound negative reaction to someone purporting to advocate social justice, frankly I think it's very very likely the problem is on your end. It's true that someone can advocate a thing ineffectively, or miss some finer point, or claim to be about justice but advocating something else. But one must consider their intentions. Likely they are good, and your alleged conflict with them is a misunderstanding. So don't take it as a personal attack and you'll likely be fine. If you feel they are excluding you, very likely they are not intending to do so. You can try to ask them politely if you have any doubt. [Full disclosure: I am a left-wing person and likely you would call me an SJW.]
- erentz 8y ago
  You’re accusing me of things that I am not and inferring things that aren’t in anyway implied in my comments. We likely exist in very close proximity on the political spectrum and you’ve maybe made an assumption I am not because in your mind only those on the right can be against the bad behaviors described. A lot of people who engage in SJW behavior are indeed good at heart. A lot I would argue are also being used by bad actors. That doesn’t make the bad behaviors okay or free from criticism. It’s a scary world where that becomes mainstream.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    All I see is you're getting very defensive. Even if you are left or centrist, even as I read your reply, it's probably that you take the behavior personally. My reply was not to assume a right-winger, my reply is more along the lines of "why do you have this negative reaction?" If you object, let it be known, ask for clarification. Perhaps the person you object to will open their mind to your concern too. Assuming "SJW" and ending it there is to keep the misunderstanding going.
- MrScruff 8y ago
  Isn't it part of the problem that left-leaning people consider themselves to have good intentions but consider right-leaning people to have bad intentions? Everyone is the hero of their own narrative. While I would likely be more aligned politically with you than not, I also understand that there are many on the left that bring an aggression and intolerance to the policing of ideas and discussion that seems of little benefit to the world. It seems to me we need more advocacy for self-reflection and less for people's individual belief systems.
Angostura 8y ago
> SJWism seems to now be about dividing up people into groups. Refusing to engage honestly. So do you think this is what Google is doing?

by erentz 8y ago

0815test 8y ago

We really need a better term than 'SJW' these days for those crypto-Maoists. It's been taken over by the alt-right, who use it for anyone who might object to their "based", "redpilled" (or so they say) toxic crap.

weberc2 8y ago
I agree that we need a better term, but I don't perceive it as being co-opted by the alt-right so much as a pejorative that gives the user an air of bad faith. I want a neutral label for people who advocate for race/gender caste systems in the name of "equality" and who override standard terms (like "racism", "equality", "white supremacy", etc) with opposite meanings. It would be really useful for advancing the conversation.

komali2 8y ago

>Where SJWism seems to now be about dividing up people into groups. Refusing to engage honestly. Labeling anyone who disagrees I want to have a spirited genuine conversation about this, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around arguments like this - isn't your comment doing exactly as you have described, dividing and labelling people?

erentz 8y ago
No. I believe I’ve described the behaviors that I suspected dawhizkid was referring to when using the SJW label. There are many behaviors that have many labels. If you want to substitute SJWism for something else you may, but it happens to be that people are increasingly associating this collection of behaviors with that term now. I’m not one to battle too hard with the English language when it doesn’t seem necessary (the SJW term has always been pejorative in one way or another so it’s hardly one to protect).
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  But you're still dividing people under the label of being a SJW. You could replace all instances of the acronym 'SJW' with 'Conservative' and your post would still make just as much sense as before. The only difference being that it would likely be instantly flagged and downvoted unlike using the SJW strawman.
  - erentz 8y ago
    > You could replace all instances of the acronym 'SJW' with 'Conservative' and your post would still make just as much sense as before. The only difference being that it would likely be instantly flagged and downvoted unlike using the SJW strawman. It's very ironic you say this when dawhizkid's comment using the term SJW was flagged and it spawned a thread of people taking offense and this whole thread has been removed now. :-)
weberc2 8y ago
There is a difference between making observations about different political ideologies (what the parent was doing) and advocating for the establishment of racial, gender, etc hierarchies (what "SJWs"--for lack of a better term--do).
- Diederich 8y ago
  heirarchy - a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. To be clear: are you saying that you think that "SJWs" advocate for this?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Disclaimer: As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I don't particularly like the term "SJW" for its pejorative connotations, but I'll use it since it's the established term in this thread. It's not an opinion, it's true by definition†. SJWs are characterized by their propensity to group people according to their immutable characteristics (specifically race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc) and their specific†† treatments for each group (what each group is allowed to do, how negatively their group is to be portrayed, whether a group is allowed to be defined by its best members, whether a group is to be defined by its worst members, etc). I suspect SJWs would object to the term "hierarchy"--instead they would say they are fighting white supremacy or other hierarchies; however, when you press them, it becomes clear that they are merely advocating for a different racial hierarchy (e.g., "you can't be racist against $RACE people"). †Obviously there is no formal definition; that doesn't mean that there is no definition †† To be clear, I don't mean to say that SJW-ism is the only identity ideology, but rather it is a particular one which varies from the others by its specific ranking of identities and the affordances it makes for each ranking.
    - komali2 8y ago
      I see what you're saying - "you can't be racist against some people." It seems unfair because I guess you're thinking of situations where then subjugated races can then be racist towards non subjugated ones? Obviously the answer is that nobody can be racist towards anybody and be pure to a positive read of the sjw cause, but humans gonna human. I will say that from a utile standpoint white vs black racism is far more harmful than black vs white, in the reality of 2019, so outside the rhetorical realm of debate of pure morals. Therefore I'm not sure even the existence of "reverse racism" (terrible term but the most universally understood to describe my meaning) SJWs does not indicate an sjw desire to create hierarchy. The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow. I believe he offers the full text for free on his website.
SkyBelow 8y ago
Yes, based on their stances and actions. I find that a far more tolerable way of dividing people up than doing so based on immutable characteristics that they have no control over. Yes, the grand parent didn't mention this distinction, but I think they intended it (and if not, then I am interested in how they justify the difference). As for why I'm okay with the difference, consider putting someone in prison because they broke a law (something they can control) vs. because their parents broke a law (something they couldn't control). The latter is, in my mind, worse in every possible fashion. Even when applied to a law I disagree with, I find the latter option far worse than the former.

asveikau 8y ago

If you have a profound negative reaction to someone purporting to advocate social justice, frankly I think it's very very likely the problem is on your end. It's true that someone can advocate a thing ineffectively, or miss some finer point, or claim to be about justice but advocating something else. But one must consider their intentions. Likely they are good, and your alleged conflict with them is a misunderstanding. So don't take it as a personal attack and you'll likely be fine. If you feel they are excluding you, very likely they are not intending to do so. You can try to ask them politely if you have any doubt. [Full disclosure: I am a left-wing person and likely you would call me an SJW.]

erentz 8y ago
You’re accusing me of things that I am not and inferring things that aren’t in anyway implied in my comments. We likely exist in very close proximity on the political spectrum and you’ve maybe made an assumption I am not because in your mind only those on the right can be against the bad behaviors described. A lot of people who engage in SJW behavior are indeed good at heart. A lot I would argue are also being used by bad actors. That doesn’t make the bad behaviors okay or free from criticism. It’s a scary world where that becomes mainstream.
- asveikau 8y ago
  All I see is you're getting very defensive. Even if you are left or centrist, even as I read your reply, it's probably that you take the behavior personally. My reply was not to assume a right-winger, my reply is more along the lines of "why do you have this negative reaction?" If you object, let it be known, ask for clarification. Perhaps the person you object to will open their mind to your concern too. Assuming "SJW" and ending it there is to keep the misunderstanding going.
MrScruff 8y ago
Isn't it part of the problem that left-leaning people consider themselves to have good intentions but consider right-leaning people to have bad intentions? Everyone is the hero of their own narrative. While I would likely be more aligned politically with you than not, I also understand that there are many on the left that bring an aggression and intolerance to the policing of ideas and discussion that seems of little benefit to the world. It seems to me we need more advocacy for self-reflection and less for people's individual belief systems.

Angostura 8y ago

> SJWism seems to now be about dividing up people into groups. Refusing to engage honestly. So do you think this is what Google is doing?