First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply "Social Justice Warrior"
22663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 8/12/16
Editing with the consolidated argument of this thread:

The phrase Social Justice Warrior, to many outside onlookers, is a signal for a place riddled in ‘shit posting’—otherwise described unconstructive, unreasoned and overly offensive posting.

As with many who use insults, speakers that use the term SJW—especially those that rely on the phrase often---are perceived to be providing entertainment for some audience, jesting, displaying emotional disposition, appealing to self-ego, wrapped up in dogmatism, or demonstrating an inability to provide a coherent logical argument. Its popularized connotation sprung up from the Hell Fires of the ‘GamerGate’ controversy--a means of indicating the ‘enemy’ or ‘outgroup’. The phrase Social Justice Warrior is a powerful rhetorical device--it appeals to human desires to champion just causes over the forces of a malevolent evil. The choice on which to prioritize one’s appealing to will depend more on which types one is attempting to persuade.

Definitions for the phrase “SJW” vary even in the core foundations. By all accounts the phrase Social Justice Warrior injects subjectivity. While definitions can be negative, they are neutrally constrained to it. Anything outside of definition is outside of definition and invalid. People can debate whether something fits a definition, but with the phrase SJW you don't have that. You would have to fabricate it and constrain yourself to it for it to be neutral. It inherently lacks objectivity. In an attempted logical argument, introducing passionate thought process is depreciative of impartiality. That is not to say “SJW’s” common inflammatory implication isn’t still a method of expressing or communicating condemnation, disapproval, frustration or other emotional responses though. However, it does depreciate rational appeal to the outside viewer and it also promotes an uncompromised resolution.

I say all this having once considered the term “SJW” a descriptor of a certain type of individuals. My argument against it being an effective descriptive phrase is as follows: SJW does not currently have a working, strict, understood, objective definition and/or criteria. SJW is defined individually. One may say it is how people react a certain way, certain beliefs held, or even a combination of beliefs and action. The term SJW does not only carry a ton of ideological baggage, but it is also unrestrained—an abstract, malleable and diverse definition. It lacks neutrality and often promotes descent of behavior, compromise, and discourse. It is, however, useful in disparaging perceived character types. The phrase "SJW" is an ineffective communication tool for neutrality and impartiality because it assigns a subjectively defined and validated character type. Factoring in its typical negative assignment and human nature, it promotes negative trending conversations and behaviors.

Categorizing is useful to humans though, but not always so when spoken. I don't think it is erroneous to categorize someone in mind to generate probabilistic expectations. That is to say, to identify likely differences in position and best routes of a persuasive argument. It is another, however, to inject derogatory intention in a logical argument. It blatantly introduces an element of mind. I am not arguing against categorization; I'm speaking in terms of linguistics--of expressing those ideas as objective and effectually possible.

Some would still push the fault on the receiver. Humans, however, use contextual clues to communicate. Homographs are a good example of that. When one chooses to use a term to communicate an idea and knows of its probabilistic potential of being a poor means of expressing it--is the speaker not at partial fault? Would it be wise to linguistically ignore the connotation, context and origin of a phrase that holds no stamp of literal defined criteria and definition? I think not. If one chooses to use the phrase SJW to express neutrality and impartiality, I argue it is misplaced to do so.

Keep in mind any insult cannot be objectively true. There is no such thing as an objective insult--regardless of how it is received. The phrase “SJW” is often not implemented dispassionate. Since it lacks definition, it has no place in an argument of reason. It is, however, a valid rhetorical device or expression of emotion, but it is not a method of expressing neutrality. When an argument has a premise or conclusion that is founded on word or phrase with an element of mind--it introduces a subjective component. If the argument has a subjective component, then the argument is no longer objective. It is not rational.

But one could pose, “but what of ignorance? Certainly it can be valid and yet it is often received as an insult.” Yet ignorance can be objectively proven by its strict definition—irrespective of its reception. One would not be objectively proving insult, but instead if ignorance’s description applies. Whether it can be neutrally proposed or not is all-inclusive of whether it is an insult or not. An insult cannot be objectively true.

I am not suggesting dismissal of people who use the phrase. One can still make a valid point, despite partiality or insult thrown. I will throw insults myself, but I don't color them reasonable. It is my choice then, to depreciate the rational appeal of my viewpoint to kick the shin of my opponent because I personally think or feel they deserve it. In some cases, I find it personally worth doing that. I do not, however, delude myself into thinking it a logical practice or promotional of my argument. I am attempting to point out the phrase’s ineffective or illusive use as providing rationality. Do not mistake this as me saying: 'don't be mean'. By all accounts, do be mean if you want, simply do not delude yourself that you’re being objective while doing so. If you want to be objective and rationally appealing-- if you're aiming to persuade using rationality you should not be using the phrase “Social Justice Warrior” or any word or phrase similar. I am not saying that forgoing some appeal to rationality can’t be personally worth it for a well-placed shin kick. I am not saying someone cannot make a valid point despite using insults or cheap hand waving phrases. Some people honestly don't care what they're appealing to, and that's perfectly fine as well.

So then, what is the solution for people striving towards being as objective as possible? You could refer to “people” generally and specify by their ideas and actions. You would then be constraining yourself by your selection. For instance: People that do x, or people that promote y. There would be no judgements cast and no assumptions made. Here are examples: People that advocate for concepts common to Social Justice. People that support the idea of creating safety nets. People that participate in the Social-Justice campus scene to protest perceived discriminatory practices. People that use the Tumblr platform, or simply Tumblr users. People that promote censorship and ‘trigger warnings’ with the expectation of preventing others from being emotionally compromised. Etc. Now, phrasing things in such a way takes effort.

Again, it depends on how you want to be perceived and what you want to appeal to. If you don’t care to strive for objectivity, that’s perfectly fine. Being more objective has its costs as well, it loses emotional appeal and you don’t get to sate your desires for a good shin kicking. Using Pathos to arose emotional feelings and reaction is a very powerful means of persuasion. If your direction is to focus achieving persuasion by reason, then this is for you.

Are you going to try and avoid using the term from now on? Have you noticed mob or reactive behavior behind using it? Do you have a good argument for using the insult? Do you think I'm wrong for thinking this way? Why?

42457 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / F / New Jersey, USA
Online
Posted 4/23/16
I don't know what to think of SJW.
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 5/3/16
I've never really used it, but sometimes I feel it's totally justified. It describes a stereotype/generalization of... one of those people. And no one likes one of those people.
But then again a lot of the time it's just used as an ass-pull handwavey way to end arguments where people refuse to see the other point of view out of stubbornness, or probably whatever that word bigotry is meant to mean.
22663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

Hail_King_Kakao wrote:

I've never really used it, but sometimes I feel it's totally justified. It describes a stereotype/generalization of... one of those people. And no one likes one of those people.
But then again a lot of the time it's just used as an ass-pull handwavey way to end arguments where people refuse to see the other point of view out of stubbornness, or probably whatever that word bigotry is meant to mean.


The only issue I have with it being a generalization is it's not neutral.

I agree that it promotes people to not even consider the opposing argument. It's used to dismiss.

6981 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / The Bottom of the...
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 8/18/16
How many SJW threads do we need especially on a site that is used to watch ANIME?!
22663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

SportingNightRaid wrote:

How many SJW threads do we need especially on a site that is used to watch ANIME?!


I know, it's the other way around this time.

19260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
I've never actually used the term myself, but I wouldn't slam someone for having a different opinion or perspective from me, either. That is what a true SJW is to me - one who slams opposing views simply because others don't agree with that person.

To me, it's wrong to go around and dismiss differing, well-thought out viewpoints as SJWs. I don't debate things myself, but that's how I feel, anyways.
runec 
28306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

SportingNightRaid wrote:

How many SJW threads do we need especially on a site that is used to watch ANIME?!


Thats kind of the point being made.

Its like throwing bacon to starving dogs here.
Posted 4/23/16

Are you going to try and avoid using the term from now on?

I've never really used it.

Have you noticed mob or reactive behavior behind using it?

Yea.

Do you have a good argument for using the insult?

No, I don't think I have any real argument for insulting any one with any term tbh, but I do it anyway cause a part of me likes to make myself feel better through dehumanizing another person, even though I think dehumanizing another person is actually dehumanizing in of itself and actually serves no real purpose to anyone but me.

Posted 4/23/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


SportingNightRaid wrote:

How many SJW threads do we need especially on a site that is used to watch ANIME?!


I know, it's the other way around this time.



Why were you called a Social Justice Warrior, or something? Tbh, you're all over the place ranting about psychosocial and gender controversies, maybe should have seen this coming? :/

To be fair, though, I don't think you are one at all. Promoting your ideas, however edgy, is normal, and it's a good way to learn as you know.

...

As animals, I believe its natural to segregate according to what is and isn't desireable to us, vigorously at times, the consquences are some get caught in the crossfire or it backfires on us.

"Buzzwords" , we become sensitized in pop culture by buzzwords. If I go into a neighborhood of skinheads and shout, "Black lives Matter!" or, conversely, go into into a black neighborhood ridden with ballers and shout "Heil Hitler!", it may not be very good for me. I could get hurt, my car could get trashed, etc. Like the people that call any anime enthusiast a weeaboo, I guess the best way is to not do it and discourage by educating, as I guess you're trying to do. c:







13141 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/23/16
I've never liked using the term, but I feel like sometimes I don't really have much else to refer to that kind of individual by. When I want to describe the group of people who tend to be in that camp I sometimes say "social justice types" or something like that, but its not really ideal. No matter what you think of the term, its effect tends to be watering down the conversation in most scenarios (on both sides).
22663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

sundin13 wrote:

I've never liked using the term, but I feel like sometimes I don't really have much else to refer to that kind of individual by. When I want to describe the group of people who tend to be in that camp I sometimes say "social justice types" or something like that, but its not really ideal. No matter what you think of the term, its effect tends to be watering down the conversation in most scenarios (on both sides).


It feels like dirt in the mouth at this point. I usually find there's always some other phrase I can use better as a descriptor depending on a given scenario. If I'm referring it to it so generally then I figure I'm saying something I shouldn't be.

37158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 8/12/16
It's an overused term. A lazy way to discredit someone.

I find it particularly distasteful because it not only dismisses opinions without consideration; it suggests that it is wrong to have any opinion in the first place. That leaves no room for discussion. It is one of the best examples of a legitimate ad-hominem argument I can think of.

If you think a person is so obviously full of shit, confront their ideas directly and fairly. If you aren't up to that, say nothing at all.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 4/23/16 , edited 5/3/16
It's a useful word that aptly describes a certain group and ideology.


There is no reason to discontinue its use.


You say that is used to dismiss certain people and beliefs as if that is a bad thing, as if their ideology is worth anything more than curt dismissal, as if there is any value to be had with engaging with such absurdity, and as if one would actually persuade the SJW that their position is untenable through logic and dialogue.
37158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/23/16

maxgale wrote:

It's a useful word that aptly describes a certain group and ideology.


There is no reason to discontinue its use.


You say that is used to dismiss certain people and beliefs as if that is a bad thing, as if their ideology is worth anything more than curt dismissal, as if there is any value to be had with engaging with such absurdity, and as if one would actually persuade the SJW that their position is untenable through logic and dialogue.


If someone is so far beneath your consideration, why stoop to insulting them? Wouldn't it be better to just ignore someone like that?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.