9 ms·

Is everyone who doesn’t agree with “social progressivism” considered far right now? What you’re doing is language policing, which is one of the reasons many fin

by Veen 7y ago

Is everyone who doesn’t agree with “social progressivism” considered far right now? What you’re doing is language policing, which is one of the reasons many find SJWs offensive.

walshemj 7y ago
But actually those that use "SJW" in this way are not in the main stream - so yes they are considered far right.
- Veen 7y ago
  I’ve met plenty of traditional leftists who don’t buy into identity politics and consider SJW an apt description.
  - mrec 7y ago
    And I've encountered some leftists who, while they don't use the term "SJW" amongst themselves, are comfortable describing themselves that way to others since (as far as I could make out) everyone has a pretty good idea what it refers to and they consider that stereotype accurate enough to be useful. Obviously none of that will apply to everyone, but hey. Some people juggle geese.
    - walshemj 7y ago
      Ah you mean "hobbyists"
unimpressive 7y ago
It is generally adversarial to call people labels they wouldn't use themselves. Sometimes that adversarial tone is warranted. On Hacker News, in a top level comment that's starting off the conversation is probably not one of those places.
- josteink 7y ago
  SJW is a well recognised term for a political movement and their principally unsound methods. In this case, the actual story is about SJWs and their actions, and how their unsoundness has caused injustice. YMMV, but personally I couldn’t imagine a better term to use in the top level comment.
- Veen 7y ago
  Adversarial in the same way as referring to anyone who isn’t a progressive as far right?
  - unimpressive 7y ago
    Yes. Exactly like that.
- user982 7y ago
  > It is generally adversarial to call people labels they wouldn't use themselves. SJW originated as a self-appellation.
- PunchTornado 7y ago
  most far righters consider themselves just right wing or centric or 'common sense' as I recently heard. everbody uses labels that others don't like.
debatem1 7y ago
Note the difference between what the first poster said and how the second has taken it. The first poster talked about the origin of the word on the far right. The reply then exaggerated that claim into the strawman that everyone who disagrees is far right. Independent of your political views, you should find this kind of hyperbolic and fallacious argument distasteful in public discourse.
- Veen 7y ago
  Also note that “guilt by association” is a common and distasteful rhetorical tactic, often taking the form of an implication that unwanted speech is tainted because of a spurious association with the far right or far left. Further note that whether the term “SJW” originated with the far right — it didn’t — is irrelevant to its usefulness or accuracy (genetic fallacy). The hyperbolic and fallacious arguments are to be found in the first poster’s comments.
  - debatem1 7y ago
    I can't speak to the origin of the word, because I simply don't know. If you're right about that and the parent was wrong, why not put the facts out there? To put it another way, regardless of whether you agree with their logic, they've provided you with it: 'SJW' came from the right wing and describes progressives, therefore it is derogatory. If they have the facts wrong, demonstrate that and perhaps they will change their point of view.
    - Veen 7y ago
      I’m not sure whether you consider this evidence, but here’s the second paragraph from the Wikipedia article on “SJW”. You can follow the reference links from there. The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one As for your overall point, for an argument to be sound, its propositions have to be true and the logic has to valid. Even if the poster was right about the origin of the term, they failed to support their conclusion; namely that we should stop using the term SJW. Their conclusion wouldn’t follow from their premises even if they were true because the argument is fallacious (genetic fallacy, as I said). As it happens, they were both factually and logically incorrect, and they papered over the flaws in their reasoning with manipulative rhetoric. To my mind, that’s exactly the sort of discourse that should be called out as harmful to reasonable conversation.

by Veen 7y ago

Is everyone who doesn’t agree with “social progressivism” considered far right now? What you’re doing is language policing, which is one of the reasons many find SJWs offensive.

walshemj 7y ago

But actually those that use "SJW" in this way are not in the main stream - so yes they are considered far right.

Veen 7y ago
I’ve met plenty of traditional leftists who don’t buy into identity politics and consider SJW an apt description.
- mrec 7y ago
  And I've encountered some leftists who, while they don't use the term "SJW" amongst themselves, are comfortable describing themselves that way to others since (as far as I could make out) everyone has a pretty good idea what it refers to and they consider that stereotype accurate enough to be useful. Obviously none of that will apply to everyone, but hey. Some people juggle geese.
  - walshemj 7y ago
    Ah you mean "hobbyists"

unimpressive 7y ago

It is generally adversarial to call people labels they wouldn't use themselves. Sometimes that adversarial tone is warranted. On Hacker News, in a top level comment that's starting off the conversation is probably not one of those places.

josteink 7y ago
SJW is a well recognised term for a political movement and their principally unsound methods. In this case, the actual story is about SJWs and their actions, and how their unsoundness has caused injustice. YMMV, but personally I couldn’t imagine a better term to use in the top level comment.
Veen 7y ago
Adversarial in the same way as referring to anyone who isn’t a progressive as far right?
- unimpressive 7y ago
  Yes. Exactly like that.
user982 7y ago
> It is generally adversarial to call people labels they wouldn't use themselves. SJW originated as a self-appellation.
PunchTornado 7y ago
most far righters consider themselves just right wing or centric or 'common sense' as I recently heard. everbody uses labels that others don't like.

debatem1 7y ago

Note the difference between what the first poster said and how the second has taken it. The first poster talked about the origin of the word on the far right. The reply then exaggerated that claim into the strawman that everyone who disagrees is far right. Independent of your political views, you should find this kind of hyperbolic and fallacious argument distasteful in public discourse.

Veen 7y ago
Also note that “guilt by association” is a common and distasteful rhetorical tactic, often taking the form of an implication that unwanted speech is tainted because of a spurious association with the far right or far left. Further note that whether the term “SJW” originated with the far right — it didn’t — is irrelevant to its usefulness or accuracy (genetic fallacy). The hyperbolic and fallacious arguments are to be found in the first poster’s comments.
- debatem1 7y ago
  I can't speak to the origin of the word, because I simply don't know. If you're right about that and the parent was wrong, why not put the facts out there? To put it another way, regardless of whether you agree with their logic, they've provided you with it: 'SJW' came from the right wing and describes progressives, therefore it is derogatory. If they have the facts wrong, demonstrate that and perhaps they will change their point of view.
  - Veen 7y ago
    I’m not sure whether you consider this evidence, but here’s the second paragraph from the Wikipedia article on “SJW”. You can follow the reference links from there. The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one As for your overall point, for an argument to be sound, its propositions have to be true and the logic has to valid. Even if the poster was right about the origin of the term, they failed to support their conclusion; namely that we should stop using the term SJW. Their conclusion wouldn’t follow from their premises even if they were true because the argument is fallacious (genetic fallacy, as I said). As it happens, they were both factually and logically incorrect, and they papered over the flaws in their reasoning with manipulative rhetoric. To my mind, that’s exactly the sort of discourse that should be called out as harmful to reasonable conversation.