3 ms·

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

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.
- asveikau 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? Perhaps. But I didn't say that, and I'm not arguing that point. I read your point as a direct consequence of what I've written, actually. But if I may argue that point for a bit, for the sake of argument, a lot of the "SJW" stuff that riles people up is to say that a protected class or minority should be allowed to exist, and people do react to that with what amounts to "your existence is offensive to me". Which is one reason I immediately jump into: why is the SJW offensive to people? Is it that the anti-SJW has some kind of hangup? Often, yes. Just let them be. And they will let you be too. I know this is an unpopular opinion on HN and so I'm losing karma over it. OK.
  - MrScruff 8y ago
    >Just let them be. And they will let you be too. I think this is the point of contention. I don't think the type of person I'm describing will 'let you be' if you make an argument that falls outside their worldview. And the tone of the resulting debate is more often than not fairly toxic. The result is just more division.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      Sounds a lot like paranoia to me. What do you think will happen?
      - MrScruff 8y ago
        I'm speaking from experience. What happens is that strength of feeling is used as a substitute for quality of argument. Those that dissent are accused of insensitivity or worse. Perhaps you've never had this experience but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
        asveikau 8y ago
        Ok. So if I may ask, what happened to you? If you don't want to say, that's fine. I have had many kinds of ludicrous mistreatment or misunderstandings in life, but I try to not extrapolate them to all humanity, or even everyone expressing a political view, or even expect that they recur from the same set of characters.
pacala 8y ago
What do you mean by "social justice"?
- asveikau 8y ago
  Let's keep it simple and take the first definition of each word, per dictionary.com. > the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness > relating to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations Sounds like a good idea to me.
  - pacala 8y ago
    That is the definition of justice [0], and the definition of social [1]. What do you mean by "social justice"? Friendly righteousness? Edit. To further clarify, help distinguish "social justice" from "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." [0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - asveikau 8y ago
      > Friendly righteousness? I'd much prefer the "equitable companionship" interpretation. Kind sir or madam, I and my definition of "social justice" are not your enemy. You are a stranger to me but I trust you are able to interpret the phrase just as well as I, and hope that you can trust me to do the same. So do relax.
      - pacala 8y ago
        How can you make moral judgements about "social justice" and its advocates/opponents, when you can't even define the term in your own words? I appreciate your instinct toward open and polite dialogue, I just don't see how that can work on a topic you can't propose a definition for.

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.

asveikau 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? Perhaps. But I didn't say that, and I'm not arguing that point. I read your point as a direct consequence of what I've written, actually. But if I may argue that point for a bit, for the sake of argument, a lot of the "SJW" stuff that riles people up is to say that a protected class or minority should be allowed to exist, and people do react to that with what amounts to "your existence is offensive to me". Which is one reason I immediately jump into: why is the SJW offensive to people? Is it that the anti-SJW has some kind of hangup? Often, yes. Just let them be. And they will let you be too. I know this is an unpopular opinion on HN and so I'm losing karma over it. OK.
- MrScruff 8y ago
  >Just let them be. And they will let you be too. I think this is the point of contention. I don't think the type of person I'm describing will 'let you be' if you make an argument that falls outside their worldview. And the tone of the resulting debate is more often than not fairly toxic. The result is just more division.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    Sounds a lot like paranoia to me. What do you think will happen?
    - MrScruff 8y ago
      I'm speaking from experience. What happens is that strength of feeling is used as a substitute for quality of argument. Those that dissent are accused of insensitivity or worse. Perhaps you've never had this experience but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
      - asveikau 8y ago
        Ok. So if I may ask, what happened to you? If you don't want to say, that's fine. I have had many kinds of ludicrous mistreatment or misunderstandings in life, but I try to not extrapolate them to all humanity, or even everyone expressing a political view, or even expect that they recur from the same set of characters.

pacala 8y ago

What do you mean by "social justice"?

asveikau 8y ago
Let's keep it simple and take the first definition of each word, per dictionary.com. > the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness > relating to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations Sounds like a good idea to me.
- pacala 8y ago
  That is the definition of justice [0], and the definition of social [1]. What do you mean by "social justice"? Friendly righteousness? Edit. To further clarify, help distinguish "social justice" from "colorless green ideas sleep furiously." [0] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice https://www.dictionary.com/browse/justice [1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - asveikau 8y ago
    > Friendly righteousness? I'd much prefer the "equitable companionship" interpretation. Kind sir or madam, I and my definition of "social justice" are not your enemy. You are a stranger to me but I trust you are able to interpret the phrase just as well as I, and hope that you can trust me to do the same. So do relax.
    - pacala 8y ago
      How can you make moral judgements about "social justice" and its advocates/opponents, when you can't even define the term in your own words? I appreciate your instinct toward open and polite dialogue, I just don't see how that can work on a topic you can't propose a definition for.