First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
"Social Justice Warrior"
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16
Note how its okay as long as it isn't used on them, or against them or who they consider one of their own, or against "liberals" not cut of the same stuck up cloth in their ivory towers. That will always be the reason more women don't enter the sciences, this hypocritical noxious posturing that's masturbatory and twisted as fuck.

Ive come to the conclusion that really entertaining this thinking is silly; there's really no point in this topic but for op to act as a strawman to stimulate opposition to sjws.
Freddy got it spot on when he said it's another sjw thread by an sjw.
Oh and wb pv..



302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/26/16
"warrior" implies you fight, not whine till you get your way.
29205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16

Yume_Mirai wrote:

Note how its okay as long as it isn't used on them, or against them or who they consider one of their own, or against "liberals" not cut of the same stuck up cloth in their ivory towers. That will always be the reason more women don't enter the sciences, this hypocritical noxious posturing that's masturbatory and twisted as fuck.

Ive come to the conclusion that really entertaining this thinking is silly; there's really no point in this topic but for op to act as a strawman to stimulate opposition to sjws.
Freddy got it spot on when he said it's another sjw thread by an sjw.
Oh and wb pv..





Freddy was kidding.

This is the fourth post you've made now disparaging my character because of your low self esteem. I've ignored your behavior until now. I spend most of my time around both MRA's and MGTOW whom I've also had conversations with regarding this issue--unsurprisingly they're more mature than you.

Take your petty emotional teenage girl drama bullshit somewhere else.

29205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16

Lockgor wrote:

I agree with your logic, and accept your history of the word; but, I disagree with your implied conclusion that SWJ has limited or no value because its often used slanderously, and is inherently pejorative. That a concept is used in a derogatory fashion by others does not necessarily invalidate it, and certainly not its usefulness as a descriptor. As long as I am honest in how I use and understand the concept, then its not an issue in that regard if others are unfair in its use. I will certainly have to use the words more carefully in context if I think its going to have an unintended edge, but that's it. And, sometimes, I do want to let the other person know that they're being intellectually dishonest in a direct way. There are times when putting up the mirror is the only chance a conversation has.

Also, I want to argue that the label does has descriptive merits above and beyond understanding Social Justice. Social Justice is a movement, and a set of principles. It can imply the beliefs of an individual, but nothing else. Social Justice Warrior indicates that the subject believes in Social Justice, but it also implies how they think that it should be put into practice, their perceived group membership, and accepted methods for pushing their agenda. To say it differently, a Social Justice Warrior is someone who believes in Social Justice in a particular context. For example, I believe in Social Justice. In principle, I believe that all people should have equal rights, and economic opportunities. And, I even believe that socially engineering equality can sometimes have merits. But I do not consider myself a Social Justice Warrior, not because I disagree with the core ideas, but I disagree with certain practices. I don't believe in the validity of workplace affirmative action, for example. It violates my concept of Social Justice. I believe in Social Justice, therefore I believe in women's economic and social rights; but, I not a Social Justice Warrior, because I dont believe in anything resembling the idea that "everything is sexist, everything is racist, and that *I* have to point it all out." I actually dont believe that sexism is a problem in western society, because the numbers simply dont show that it is. I believe in Social Justice, so I see the value of a Marxist analysis of culture and social class; but, I am not a SJW, as I dont believe in a hard definition of political correctness. Censorship, even of the most awful ideas, violates my concept of Social Justice. I find directed public shaming inexcusable; not acceptable. In anycase, the point is that there is a world of difference between holding a set of principles, and applying them. I hold that SJW carries descriptive value that Social Justice does not.


I honestly do not think the label would be the least bit persuasive. One can say the other is being intellectually dishonest and provide justification for it without the slapping of the label.

I understand your position as I said I once held it before. I do like your reasoning, but I would advise due caution in using the phrase still. While one can choose to ignore the negative connotation the receiver will likely not. In most cases the label will shut down dialogue more than it opens if you don't remain explicit, although that doesn't seem to be an issue for you. If people used it more sparingly and descriptively rather than inflammatory--maybe it wouldn't be the muddied derogatory insult of a buzzword it is now.



I think you've done the best job thus far reasoning it.
15868 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16
The problem is that "Social Justice Warrior" doesn't actually mean anything but "one who fights for social justice". Pretty much all of the weight of the word comes from connotation. For people on one side, it just holds its more literal meaning while for people on the other side, it means something closer to a string of loosely held together insults. Because of that, it doesn't really hold any power as an insult and it doesn't mean much of anything as a descriptor. It is just used to basically say "you are wrong because you are not in the same group I am in".

And using the term dismissively puts you into the same category of the people you act as if you hold some superiority over. Its mindless, ideology driven bullshit which does nothing to contribute to any discussion, but only to march your own elitism and sense of superiority over the people you oppose. If you let the conversation devolve that easily, do you honestly think you are helping, and if not, why are you trying to participate in these discussions anyways? If you honestly think that someone has nothing of value to contribute, solely because of the ideology they believe in, perhaps you have fallen for the same trick you were mocking others for falling for in the first place.
Rohzek 
15076 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

Some people wear it as a badge of honor like any insult. The current connotation--the popular and present usage originated in GamerGate culture to signify the enemy.

My point here is that the insult has no place in a rational argument. An insult can still be valid means of expressing condemnation, disapproval, frustration or other emotional responses...just as any other insult. My point is that in an attempted logical argument, the phrase has nothing to stand on and if anything depreciates the reasoning of the argument by introducing passionate thought processes.





There is nothing inherently wrong with branding someone an enemy in my book. What truly matters is the situation it occurs in and what follows. For example, if the proclaimed or labelled SJW is actually an SJW. And if so, are they open to listening to someone who has maybe not just a different opinion on the issue, but rather an entirely different world view? Note, I'm not asking that someone change their minds by listening, but rather that they be willing to engage in dialogue. If they are not willing, then there really isn't much else to say to them beyond calling a spade a spade or if one wishes to simply remain silent. That choice depends upon the type of person and their mood.

Having debates with SJW's in my experience is a difficult affair if only because most won't do it. And the few who do are entrenched in the philosophical sophistry that is post-modernism, which in its most pure form is a rejection of the philosophical project begun by Descartes and others of the Scientific Revolution.

In the end, I don't agree that dialectic (more on the reason end) and rhetoric (more on the emotion end) are mutually exclusive. It's a matter of balance in my experience and is something of a skill that is honed over time. I don't see mixing the two as something that depreciates the other necessarily. And I'm finding it hard to imagine any given situation where usage of the term "SJW" tips the balance towards an undesirable end. I don't see it as holding the same weight as four letter words, even in its most negative connotations.
29205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16

sundin13 wrote:

The problem is that "Social Justice Warrior" doesn't actually mean anything but "one who fights for social justice". Pretty much all of the weight of the word comes from connotation. For people on one side, it just holds its more literal meaning while for people on the other side, it means something closer to a string of loosely held together insults. Because of that, it doesn't really hold any power as an insult and it doesn't mean much of anything as a descriptor. It is just used to basically say "you are wrong because you are not in the same group I am in".

And using the term dismissively puts you into the same category of the people you act as if you hold some superiority over. Its mindless, ideology driven bullshit which does nothing to contribute to any discussion, but only to march your own elitism and sense of superiority over the people you oppose. If you let the conversation devolve that easily, do you honestly think you are helping, and if not, why are you trying to participate in these discussions anyways? If you honestly think that someone has nothing of value to contribute, solely because of the ideology they believe in, perhaps you have fallen for the same trick you were mocking others for falling for in the first place.


Nice. I wouldn't use it myself for that reason but you put it in words I couldn't find yet.

Someone who advocates for Social Justice probably is the best solution to this--if addressing advocates of the idea itself is for some reason insufficient. I still standby the idea if I'm referring to it generally, I'm probably doing something I shouldn't be.



744 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16
I'm guilty of using the term SJW. Maybe it's because it's easy/quick to type? To be honest I used to consider myself an SJW (because I believe in social justice and changing the world/society for the better). However, then I saw how flawed Anita Sarkessian and other SJWs were, and realized that they weren't much different from the bigots I'm fighting against. Still, you do make some valid points on how the term SJW can be misused. Heck, I've seen reasonable people with progressive/liberal ideals dismissed as "SJWs" just because their ideals were liberal/progressive (as in they were pro gay marriage and stuff like that).

So, I've decided that instead of using the term SJW, I'm going to switch to the term "progressive bigot". As for regular bigots, I shall use the term "traditionalist bigot". What's the difference between "progressive bigot" and "traditionalist bigot", you ask? Progressive Bigots (aka SJWs) strive to change the world (or at least the USA) to what they envision the ideal future should be, but they do so using bigoted and/or hypocritical means. Traditionalist Bigots strive to regress the world/USA back to the way it was in the 1950s or even before then (in the name of traditional values/religion) and will do so using bigoted and/or hypocritical means (I should add that in my opinion most traditional values are inherently bigoted anyways). I hate both types of bigots and think that both groups are ruining the USA (and maybe the world in general).
runec 
39982 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/26/16

LadyPsychic wrote:
So, I've decided that instead of using the term SJW, I'm going to switch to the term "progressive bigot"..


No need to invent new terms. "Self righteous asshole" has always worked. For both extremes. -.-
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16
Bunch of SJWs.
Posted 4/24/16 , edited 4/25/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


Yume_Mirai wrote:

Note how its okay as long as it isn't used on them, or against them or who they consider one of their own, or against "liberals" not cut of the same stuck up cloth in their ivory towers. That will always be the reason more women don't enter the sciences, this hypocritical noxious posturing that's masturbatory and twisted as fuck.

Ive come to the conclusion that really entertaining this thinking is silly; there's really no point in this topic but for op to act as a strawman to stimulate opposition to sjws.
Freddy got it spot on when he said it's another sjw thread by an sjw.
Oh and wb pv..





Freddy was kidding.

This is the fourth post you've made now disparaging my character because of your low self esteem. I've ignored your behavior until now. I spend most of my time around both MRA's and MGTOW whom I've also had conversations with regarding this issue--unsurprisingly they're more mature than you.

Take your petty emotional teenage girl drama bullshit somewhere else.



>Then I wonder.. certainly he would say so now to your face. I believe he's tired of hearing shit about sjws. We have Dnc3Style to fan the flames, why do we need yet another homophobic regressive pro-life sexist. And female to boot, which leads me to question your sincerity on your position as a whole. Why? It flat-out fucking stinks to high heavens.

>I'l tell you why con types like you irk me although I'm sure in your arrogance you will dismiss without reading in its entirety. Because you take a regressive position in order to appeal to guys. You are what I would like to coin the phrase, "retrofeminist". You are a broken feminist AND a bigoted sjw To be clear, this kind of thread is the kind that people do while they are wishing for a reclaimation of a term, under the banner of social justice. "Awareness""Challenging". Tch, let me ask you something since you're the one with all the bright ideas. what exactly is original coming from you but reinforcing others' positions? Your appeal towards kuudere types and fucking frat boys? What, pray tell, is the speciality of a software engineer? Do you have another degree in the social sciences or liberal arts, because I'm sure you do not. No, you would have told us all about it if you did. Narcissist. :C You can study all you want, but you haven't created anything, just replicated it, plagiarized it. Creativity is original, and those that claim it must first demonstrate it.

>You had to go there, didn't you? Bet you think I'm a feminist. Nope. But I call them like I see them, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, yadayadayada. That's ad hominem what you did, so its all fair play to call a spade a spade. Now I'm through talking with you, there are obviously better things to do than to waste my time with your pretentious drivel. If you ever want to talk to me again, learn some humility.:C

11582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/16 , edited 4/25/16
sup, guise.
44146 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/25/16 , edited 4/25/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

I honestly do not think the label would be the least bit persuasive. One can say the other is being intellectually dishonest and provide justification for it without the slapping of the label.

I understand your position as I said I once held it before. I do like your reasoning, but I would advise due caution in using the phrase still. While one can choose to ignore the negative connotation the receiver will likely not. In most cases the label will shut down dialogue more than it opens if you don't remain explicit, although that doesn't seem to be an issue for you. If people used it more sparingly and descriptively rather than inflammatory--maybe it wouldn't be the muddied derogatory insult of a buzzword it is now.


I would never apply the label as an argument against someone without being very clear as to why I was using it, and why I think it was relevant. That being said, if I am being honest now that I've thought some more about this, I probably would never actually use the term in an argument except as a rhetorical device. I think my disagreement is not so much its lack of appropriateness as an argument. As a rule, I dont at all disagree with your prescription here. Where I still see the hard line is at its value as a descriptor. You mentioned in the first post that you came to not like the word even when you used it for a 3rd party. It could be my argumentative style, but I like using heuristics. If I can guess the broad strokes of what person believes, even if I'm wrong, it helps me ask questions. And, I become very sensitive to when the person is in some way not who I think they are; which prompts more questions. I think the strong form of what I believe is that the SJW is a valuable construct to have in ones head if one is prone to arguing on social issues; not to put the other person down, or to put yourself up, but to make the conversation more efficient. I think I am seeing this topic more from the position of using SJW as a model in ones head to apply, while you're cautioning against using it to convey information to others in context; because of the baggage the term carries.
14725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 4/25/16 , edited 4/27/16
I'm all for protecting ideals but as soon as it degrades into personal attacks by a faceless mob... that's the point where they become SJWs (after all what warrior doesn't attack or counterattack?). The term is thrown around too lightly, but I do think it has it's place to describe such attacks. I've seen some not so unreasonable and civil people be attacked by the mob mentality going so far as to receive death threats. I've also seen people who were acting an ass that deserved to be called out on it.

I don't yet know of any individual that deserves the label. I have noticed that individuals who have been branded by it also receive attacks from the faceless mobs. I find this extremely counterproductive as such attacks would only justify their ideal even further.

Individuals are smart (mostly).... people... people are dumb.
29205 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/25/16 , edited 4/25/16

Yume_Mirai wrote:
>Then I wonder.. certainly he would say so now to your face. I believe he's tired of hearing shit about sjws. We have Dnc3Style to fan the flames, why do we need yet another homophobic regressive pro-life sexist. And female to boot, which leads me to question your sincerity on your position as a whole. Why? It flat-out fucking stinks to high heavens.

>I'l tell you why con types like you irk me although I'm sure in your arrogance you will dismiss without reading in its entirety. Because you take a regressive position in order to appeal to guys. You are what I would like to coin the phrase, "retrofeminist". You are a broken feminist AND a bigoted sjw To be clear, this kind of thread is the kind that people do while they are wishing for a reclaimation of a term, under the banner of social justice. "Awareness""Challenging". Tch, let me ask you something since you're the one with all the bright ideas. what exactly is original coming from you but reinforcing others' positions? Your appeal towards kuudere types and fucking frat boys? What, pray tell, is the speciality of a software engineer? Do you have another degree in the social sciences or liberal arts, because I'm sure you do not. No, you would have told us all about it if you did. Narcissist. :C You can study all you want, but you haven't created anything, just replicated it, plagiarized it. Creativity is original, and those that claim it must first demonstrate it.

>You had to go there, didn't you? Bet you think I'm a feminist. Nope. But I call them like I see them, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, yadayadayada. That's ad hominem what you did, so its all fair play to call a spade a spade. Now I'm through talking with you, there are obviously better things to do than to waste my time with your pretentious drivel. If you ever want to talk to me again, learn some humility.:C



Fanning the flames? Everyone has been handling the topic maturely and respectably outside of you.

In total: "Homophobic regressive pro-life retrofeminist bigoted sjw narcissist pretentious plagiarizing spade without a social science degree"

You're a funny girl. I suggest you stop now before you embarrass yourself any further.




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.