4 ms·

>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 genuin

>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.

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.