3 ms·

There may be some truth to this, but it also panders to the reactionary HN userbase perfectly with its promotion of the stereotype of the inauthentic social jus

There may be some truth to this, but it also panders to the reactionary HN userbase perfectly with its promotion of the stereotype of the inauthentic social justice warrior. I'd say that the most popularly held belief around these parts is a Panglossian "this is the best of all possible worlds" mindset, in which promoters of self-contentedness like Steven Pinker are hailed as clear-sighted heroes. Anyone complaining about basically anything then becomes a maladapted pest- we are all self-interested, the HNer believes, so those who openly claim to be outraged on behalf of what is happening to others are just looking for something to get upset about. It goes hand in with this romanticized view of what a "real" activist does: >> Ultimately, Internet outrage is the milquetoast cousin to direct action, a way to protest by tapping and clicking rather than boycotting and marching. It is a noble endeavor to become incensed about a cause and risk arrest or toil without acclamation for one’s deeply held beliefs. Less honorable is joining a digital pile-on as a means of propping up one’s ego, even if it comes in the form of entertaining zings. Although social justice is always an uphill struggle against the entrenched power, apathetic bystanders request again and again that its advocates handicap themselves- no social media, no having fun, no heroes, toil in silence else you're doing it for ego. It's a very religious attitude in many ways- if you're doing something that is righteous, you need to suffer for it, for reaching the objective is its own reward.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
There may be some truth to this, but it also panders to the reactionary HN userbase perfectly with its promotion of the stereotype of the inauthentic social justice warrior. Social justice warriors are inauthentic by their very definition, as opposed to social justice activists. That and no one needs to promote the stereotype, they do a fine job of it themselves. no social media, no having fun, no heroes, toil in silence else you're doing it for ego The difference is that social justice warriors most of the time are predominant or exclusive in those dominions. They're unproductive and sometimes even actively harmful to their own respective moments, as they are essentially all living and breathing straw men. It's a very religious attitude in many ways- if you're doing something that is righteous, you need to suffer for it, for reaching the objective is its own reward. There's nothing righteous about what they do. It's narcissistic and self-indulgent.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

There may be some truth to this, but it also panders to the reactionary HN userbase perfectly with its promotion of the stereotype of the inauthentic social justice warrior. Social justice warriors are inauthentic by their very definition, as opposed to social justice activists. That and no one needs to promote the stereotype, they do a fine job of it themselves. no social media, no having fun, no heroes, toil in silence else you're doing it for ego The difference is that social justice warriors most of the time are predominant or exclusive in those dominions. They're unproductive and sometimes even actively harmful to their own respective moments, as they are essentially all living and breathing straw men. It's a very religious attitude in many ways- if you're doing something that is righteous, you need to suffer for it, for reaching the objective is its own reward. There's nothing righteous about what they do. It's narcissistic and self-indulgent.