5 ms·

It's not the name but how that group of people acts that gives the bad connotation. Even "Fascism" as a etimological concept has not a bad connotation ("suggest

by yulaow 6y ago

It's not the name but how that group of people acts that gives the bad connotation. Even "Fascism" as a etimological concept has not a bad connotation ("suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break"), but as a political group which uses it to identify themselves, it really is extremly bad. Long story short: we cannot just look at the etimology of a word, we need the associated context.

tsimionescu 6y ago
Sure, but what are "social justice warriors" doing that is so horrific that it has become an accusation rather than a political label? That is what I am getting at - the way I see it, social justice continues to mean the same thing as it always did: respect for the rights of all minorities, and a genuine desire to see an end to oppression and of the long-standing effects of oppression for all.
- naasking 6y ago
  > the way I see it, social justice continues to mean the same thing as it always did: respect for the rights of all minorities, and a genuine desire to see an end to oppression and of the long-standing effects of oppression for all. I'm sure that's the way they see their own actions, but not everyone agrees with that framing. I'm guessing the pejorative sense comes from the tactics sometimes employed, and the way social justice goals are sometimes twisted: 1. Destroying individual lives via doxxing and twitter harassment (twitter mobs), rather than tackling powerful people or systems who benefit from or perpetuate systemic bias. 2. A hyper-focus on token gestures with no real effect, like changing technical jargon. 3. Moving the goalposts by redefining basic social justice terms in order to manufacture consent. For instance, sexism and racism. 4. The sometimes violent suppression of speech, and even basic scientific facts, with which they disagree. And more, some of which very much has the flavour of "the ends justify the means", where the ends are a moving target. For a contemporary analogy, the pejorative view might be that SJWs are to real fighters for social justice as rioters and looters are to protestors. Maybe some of the rioters and looters are just so angry at the systemic injustice that they believe that violence is their last resort, but plenty of them are just opportunists.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    I agree with your assessment of what is causing some people to dislike those they label SJWs, but I am still deeply bothered by the term used (though I haven't really seen a legitimate example of item 4). We don't call rioters and looters 'BLM warriors' or 'freedom fighters', we call them by the negative characteristics that set them apart. By extension, the term SJW and its association with those who exaggerate and cause harm from the social justice scene seems designed to make social justice seen like a negative, instead of explicitly pointing a finger at doxxers and mobs.
    - naasking 6y ago
      > though I haven't really seen a legitimate example of item 4 A lot of the campus protests had a violent component that wasn't really reported in most media. > We don't call rioters and looters 'BLM warriors' or 'freedom fighters', we call them by the negative characteristics that set them apart. If the rioters called themselves "BLM warriors", people might start using that term pejoratively too.

by yulaow 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

Sure, but what are "social justice warriors" doing that is so horrific that it has become an accusation rather than a political label? That is what I am getting at - the way I see it, social justice continues to mean the same thing as it always did: respect for the rights of all minorities, and a genuine desire to see an end to oppression and of the long-standing effects of oppression for all.

naasking 6y ago
> the way I see it, social justice continues to mean the same thing as it always did: respect for the rights of all minorities, and a genuine desire to see an end to oppression and of the long-standing effects of oppression for all. I'm sure that's the way they see their own actions, but not everyone agrees with that framing. I'm guessing the pejorative sense comes from the tactics sometimes employed, and the way social justice goals are sometimes twisted: 1. Destroying individual lives via doxxing and twitter harassment (twitter mobs), rather than tackling powerful people or systems who benefit from or perpetuate systemic bias. 2. A hyper-focus on token gestures with no real effect, like changing technical jargon. 3. Moving the goalposts by redefining basic social justice terms in order to manufacture consent. For instance, sexism and racism. 4. The sometimes violent suppression of speech, and even basic scientific facts, with which they disagree. And more, some of which very much has the flavour of "the ends justify the means", where the ends are a moving target. For a contemporary analogy, the pejorative view might be that SJWs are to real fighters for social justice as rioters and looters are to protestors. Maybe some of the rioters and looters are just so angry at the systemic injustice that they believe that violence is their last resort, but plenty of them are just opportunists.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I agree with your assessment of what is causing some people to dislike those they label SJWs, but I am still deeply bothered by the term used (though I haven't really seen a legitimate example of item 4). We don't call rioters and looters 'BLM warriors' or 'freedom fighters', we call them by the negative characteristics that set them apart. By extension, the term SJW and its association with those who exaggerate and cause harm from the social justice scene seems designed to make social justice seen like a negative, instead of explicitly pointing a finger at doxxers and mobs.
  - naasking 6y ago
    > though I haven't really seen a legitimate example of item 4 A lot of the campus protests had a violent component that wasn't really reported in most media. > We don't call rioters and looters 'BLM warriors' or 'freedom fighters', we call them by the negative characteristics that set them apart. If the rioters called themselves "BLM warriors", people might start using that term pejoratively too.