|
Two approaches to this: 1) There are widespread instances of systemic violence that materially impact large groups of people to their disadvantage. They do not always operate in parallel, but do have in common that as systemic, they are to a certain degree normalized and have become invisible. In order to combat the material consequences of ingrained structures of racism, sexism, etc., it is necessary to call them out into the open as what they are. The acceptability of using racial epithets against whatever group reinforces the idea of their inferiority, which reinforces, even if not in the open, the fact that they face discrimination in employment, unjust treatment by law enforcement, various forms of social exclusion, and all that. One pursues an integrated strategy of combating prejudice, governed by pragmatic concerns. 2) Follow everything that happens in one, but cheaply adopt the statement that "the personal is political" to prop up the idea that anyone who offends you in any way has committed a political injustice. Throw out the idea that democracy is necessarily going to engage with people who don't agree with you, whose views may well offend you, but that you have to figure out ways to live and work with them as well. Forget about the whole material side of things for the most part and pragmatic concerns are complicated. All frustration is the mark of an injustice inflicted, and needs be fixed. Everyone deserves absolute affirmation and comfort, except those who tread on the territory of our comfort, who should be silenced entirely. It's an all or nothing game - don't work on ways to dialogue with prejudice in a way that will allow you to undermine it, or combat it in any practical way, just silence it. Ignore all tactical concerns, get annoyed with a single bad thing in a video game or a movie, instead of worrying about the structures that allow these instances to reproduce themselves. Has the fringe benefit that you get to feel righteous about it. And of course you do, because your ethics are absolute, and they're there to affirm you! The line isn't always clear, but there's enough out there who belong to 2) that the pejorative sense has emerged.
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:SJWs are post-college middle/late twenty-somethings whose lives didn't pan out like they were supposed to... they ended up with a worthless degree, a lot of debt, and a lack of quality jobs. They feel oppressed by this, and then in turn look for oppression in all walks of life, of gays, of blacks, of women, and turn that oppression into their oppression, deriding the system and placing the blame on things like patriarchy and rape culture... they make their failure at life seem more acceptable when they point out that everyone is oppressed because of the system, so they move the blame for their failures from themselves to another entity. They also tend to look like this:  Some of the forums biggest SJW heroes have turned out to be depraved freaks who immediately vanished forever after being discovered. Its why people have a hard time tolerating their bullshit because Tumblr and homegrown examples here have often proven themselves to be gigantic hypocrites who are not actually concerned about issues of import but just narcissistic trolls. Take disgraced former mod/poster Eggplant Wizard. She spent years crusading for SJW causes in a very vocal, public and shrill fashion, then it turns out she was a prolific self-published author of dozens and dozens of hardcore, explicit and disgusting rape, incest and rapecest erotica that directly contradicted that phony public persona she put on. She's far from the only loud and obvious SJW here or on Tumblr who has turned out to be a nutcase in reality. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
say no to bats posted:They also tend to look like this: And the guy in that picture, if he's the one I'm thinking of, spent all his time on SA complaining about the male gaze and objectification of women in media while writing reams of violent rape fantasies about actresses on another site
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Is that like the hardline conservatives who get caught getting handjobs from male hookers? Is there a psychological term for that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
the posted:Is that like the hardline conservatives who get caught getting handjobs from male hookers? Is there a psychological term for that? Cognitive Dissonance(hypocrite)
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
And isn't that Riley person a huge racist? There's a screenshot floating around of an old Livejournal post of theirs, where they complain about black people ruining anime or some silly poo poo. I still think the term "social justice warrior" has been run into the ground, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
There's so much problematic content in your "comic"(nothing comedic about it), just look at it, but I'm not here to educate you bigots, die in a fire and peace out!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
say no to bats posted:They also tend to look like this: Huh, that's weird, because I got probated for retelling what happened when -thing- happened, in a thread about -stuff-. Won't repeat it now but there's always the rap sheet button linking to the post if you want to know why I somehow endorse rape.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Cognitive Dissonance(hypocrite) Also the problem with Tumblr poo poo is that it's pretty much the worst of armchair activism, fresh-convert evangelism, and hashtag bandwagoning at the same time. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
SJWs are like any annoying person on the internet: they're high on their own farts and above all else want to win the argument with star rangers and win internet cred. What makes them so horrible is their methods, which are to forge some identity (real or imagined) and angle the argument that they are both oppresses and correct and their foes are both bigoted and enjoying an unjust power imbalance. The "warrrior" part is because they really just get high off the confrontation. In a world where being transfat or whatever was a recognized thing, they would move on to something else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
say no to bats posted:They also tend to look like this: not sure what the problem is here, he seems to be a god fearing packers fan street samurai? please don't appropriate Japanese culture thanks. several of my anime headmates were severely triggered by this "comic", if you could call such a disgusting display of tastelessness by the same name as the true and noble art from glorious Nippon. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Is "head mates" a thing? Like, do SJW types make up another persona so they can always be on the convenient side of an argument?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Is "head mates" a thing? Like, do SJW types make up another persona so they can always be on the convenient side of an argument? Yes. edit: Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Is "head mates" a thing? Like, do SJW types make up another persona so they can always be on the convenient side of an argument? There's a not-insignificant contingent of them on Tumblr, yes. I don't think they do it to 'win arguments' per se, but rather to attract attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
There's a lot of weird and hosed up people who say things like trigger warning and kyriarchy and jerk off to cartoons OP, which means we don't have to pretend racism is bad anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There's a not-insignificant contingent of them on Tumblr, yes. I don't think they do it to 'win arguments' per se, but rather to attract attention. I can't really find any beyond the few big name ones that quit posting. Do you have any? I don't really Tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Although there are many real "SJW"s it's also a super lucrative way to troll.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
If you try to communicate honestly with an SJW they can't help but be sanctimonious and insulting, and if you try to get them to stop for the sake of a possibly productive conversation they throw some bullshit about "tone arguments" at you. Basically a way of legitimizing "I'm going to be a dick and demand you respect my opinion at the same time".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I still think the term "social justice warrior" has been run into the ground, though. The internet has been progressively getting worse each year with the extreme social justice types so naturally this term will become more popular along with it. For instance in 2006; blogs, forums (including these), and social media in general didn't perpetuate perceived racism, patriarchy, misogyny, or homophobia in video games or cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:The internet has been progressively getting worse each year with the extreme social justice types so naturally this term will become more popular along with it. For instance in 2006; blogs, forums (including these), and social media in general didn't perpetuate perceived racism, patriarchy, misogyny, or homophobia in video games or cartoons. Oh my, you're just really angry about the Anita Sarkeesian videos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Instead of trying to get people to reconsider their opinions, SJWs just want to alienate everyone who's not part of their circlejerk. The validation they crave is negative attention. SJWs will never do any real advocacy or activism, so acting "tough" and being mocked makes them feel like they're fully committed radicals making sacrifices for their cause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Oh my, you're just really angry about the Anita Sarkeesian videos. Never heard of that but okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Ungoal posted:The internet has been progressively getting worse each year with the extreme social justice types so naturally this term will become more popular along with it. For instance in 2006; blogs, forums (including these), and social media in general didn't perpetuate perceived racism, patriarchy, misogyny, or homophobia in video games or cartoons. There's plenty of bullshit from online feminism back in the wordpress and livejournal days, and some of the people now have 100k tweets. Same behavior, new, more public platform.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I can't really find any beyond the few big name ones that quit posting. Do you have any? I don't really Tumblr. I don't. I didn't know the big ones had stopped posting, I haven't been following it lately. Absolute Lithops posted:Instead of trying to get people to reconsider their opinions, SJWs just want to alienate everyone who's not part of their circlejerk. The validation they crave is negative attention. SJWs will never do any real advocacy or activism, so acting "tough" and being mocked makes them feel like they're fully committed radicals making sacrifices for their cause. In my experience it's less this and more about attracting attention from other SJWs. The whole social justice philosophy is basically that people's subjective experiences are valid and can't be 'wrong' ever, so people take it to mean that if I feel oppressed, I must be oppressed, and there is nothing you can say to disprove that. This leads to people coming up with ever more ridiculous ways to claim oppression in order to draw attention to themselves from people who believe in the social justice philosophy. This is also the origin of social justice newspeak like ally, intersectionality, kyriarchy, etc, etc. It's a sort of shibboleth to indicate to others of the faith that you are one of them. They don't actually care what non-SJWs think, the whole song and dance is to appeal to other SJWs. They're claiming oppression in order to make themselves feel better. Criticizing people outside the movement is used sometimes as a means to that end but it's not the end in and of itself. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
They're also quite hated by actual minorities (those who are internet enough to have actually heard of them, anyway) because they co opt language from actual important issues and make a nonsense of them. Like I have close friends who are actually trans and have lived a years-long struggle against bullshit placed in their way by people who wish they'd just not exist so gender roles would be easier to understand. Seeing people pretend to be trans because they think it makes them interesting and tortured makes me rage. One actually showed up in the queer room in real life and they basically made it their mission in life to engineer a situation where you'd get their gender or orientation or never-previously-mentioned triggers wrong so they could screech at you about what a bigot you were. Basically talking to them was one continuous punishment for trying to be their friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Instead of trying to get people to reconsider their opinions, SJWs just want to alienate everyone who's not part of their circlejerk. "Circlejerk" would describe SJW's well if the people in the circle were simultaneously jerking each other off and punching each other in the faces for not being obsequious enough to the person whose chicken they're choking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:08
|
|
|
The insult is in "warrior" rather than "social justice". A social justice campaigner, or a social justice activist or even a social justice blogger cares about changing hearts and minds, about creating a better world with more peace, love and understanding and helping improve the lives of the persecuted and dispossessed. A social justice warrior just wants a fight. A social justice campaigner will watch a video of a woman criticising the treatment of women in Islam, consider it, look at the issues and come up with a measured response. A social justice warrior will see the title of the video, watch 30 seconds of it, and launch a hate blog about how the woman in the video is racist and should kill herself. They will do this without reading the background and finding out that her father is a Muslim, she grew up in a household with strict Islamic rules and is relating her own experiences and those of many of her female relatives on her fathers side and explaining how these real people have found some of the rules they had to live by oppressive and restricting A social justice campaigner will see a young woman who is herself highly engaged with social issues use the word "tranny" in an old video, not as a hateful pejorative but in ignorance, let her know it's a bad word and graciously accept her sincere apology and her promise not to use it again. A social justice warrior will see this apology, denounce it as false and unacceptable, and launch a hate blog about how the woman in the video is transphobic and should kill herself. A social justice campaigner will wait until a film is actually released before calling it out for being racist or unrepresentative, and if they do so will approach it with knowledge and appreciation of history. They may well be angry, and express this anger, but their arguments will be based on the actual film and the film industry in general. A social justice warrior is happy to do that purely on the basis of the trailers, and also to simultaneously criticise the company for not representing non-white cultures AND for cultural appropriation if they do attempt to represent non-white cultures. In this case the cultures the company is not allowed to attempt to represent includes medieval Scottish, and if you watch their film about magic bears in medieval Scotland you are being SUPER racist. Once the film is actually released and turns out to have some nice songs, most of the social justice warriors will forget their initial objections and devote themselves to drawing incestuous lesbian fanart of said movie. In the world of social justice campaigning, a tone argument is where you refuse to accept a wronged parties legitimate points because they are upset about being horribly mistreated for decades and are expressing their unhappiness and anger in their words. In the world of social justice warriors, a tone argument is refusing to accept being told you are a literal Hitler and should kill yourself, multiple times by hundreds of people the vast majority of whom are completely unconnected to any of the actual issues being discussed, which are often the most innocuous poo poo imaginable. Some of the time, the person they are shouting over and silencing is the one with the ACTUAL issue. Annoyingly, the actual targets of the social justice campaigner or activist and the social justice warrior can often overlap significantly, and the existence of the latter has given a lot of really lovely people a great excuse to dismiss the many legitimate grievances the former have with their terrible behaviour. Fatkraken fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
It's a D&D 3.5 thing. Basically, warrior is a really lovely class. They're like the already crappy Fighter, but without any of the stuff it gets. So when people use "Social Justice Warrior" as an insult, they're saying the person is really, really bad at social justice. Should've played a spellcaster. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:Annoyingly, the actual targets of the social justice campaigner or activist and the social justice warrior can often overlap significantly, and the existence of the latter has given a lot of really lovely people a great excuse to dismiss the many legitimate grievances the former have with their terrible behaviour. I don't like the term "social justice warrior" because this is honestly the first thread where I've seen people generally stick to ripping on the obnoxious morons with tumblrs; when I hear the term in real life, it's usually coming from someone who is getting all pissy after being called out for having a lovely MRA or racist opinion. I've managed to ignore the radical tumblr crap, so my perception of "SJW" has been more like a sort of insult that people fling around when they don't want to acknowledge an argument about "why sexual assault is a problem".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I don't like the term "social justice warrior" because this is honestly the first thread where I've seen people generally stick to ripping on the obnoxious morons with tumblrs; when I hear the term in real life, it's usually coming from someone who is getting all pissy after being called out for having a lovely MRA or racist opinion. I've managed to ignore the radical tumblr crap, so my perception of "SJW" has been more like a sort of insult that people fling around when they don't want to acknowledge an argument about "why sexual assault is a problem". That's not really the SJW people are trying to strawman, but the strawman is more of someone who's personal crusade is "why sexual assault is a pokemon."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I don't like the term "social justice warrior" because this is honestly the first thread where I've seen people generally stick to ripping on the obnoxious morons with tumblrs; when I hear the term in real life, it's usually coming from someone who is getting all pissy after being called out for having a lovely MRA or racist opinion. I've managed to ignore the radical tumblr crap, so my perception of "SJW" has been more like a sort of insult that people fling around when they don't want to acknowledge an argument about "why sexual assault is a problem". I can't say I've ever heard the phrase "social justice warrior" anywhere except the internet!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
Ugh. disheveled, ignorance is not an excuse. Jesus Christ. Can you not. Can you please just not? TAGS: ignorance discrimination privilege submission
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
 (sorry about jpeg artifacts, they all seem to have it)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
The recent "effort" to cancel the Colbert Report is a good example of this. The girl who started the whole thing basically ignored everyone who pointed out that what Colbert was doing was blatant satire and was using it as a platform to brag about how long her tag was trending. Essentially, these kinds of people take offense at everything they possibly can. They have no sense of humor and therefore believe that making jokes about simple social issues means that the joke-teller hates everyone in that group and wants to put progress back a hundred years. They have to take everything seriously and will pounce on anyone not using their vast library of made-up social terms in an effort to appear like they care about minorities when all they want is attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
A another reason why SJW are hated is due to the rather insane attitude that White people have no culture and not a single white person was ever oppressed. They also believe that using something that belongs to another culture is bad therefore Multiculturalism is bad. They like to pretend that they are trans-abled which is loving offensive to me as it seems that they are crying how the Disabled are better treated than Able people,so they wish to become Disabled yet Able.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:In my experience it's less this and more about attracting attention from other SJWs. The whole social justice philosophy is basically that people's subjective experiences are valid and can't be 'wrong' ever, so people take it to mean that if I feel oppressed, I must be oppressed, and there is nothing you can say to disprove that. This leads to people coming up with ever more ridiculous ways to claim oppression in order to draw attention to themselves from people who believe in the social justice philosophy. This is also the origin of social justice newspeak like ally, intersectionality, kyriarchy, etc, etc. It's a sort of shibboleth to indicate to others of the faith that you are one of them.[/b] The cool thing about criticising 'social justice warriors' is that criticisms don't need an awful lot of basis in reality. Intersectionality is a term coined (though it's not a new idea) in 1993, by Elizabeth Crenshaw, a UCLA academic, as part of an analysis of obstacles facing immigrant women of colour. It has real policy, activism, and anti-racist implications (really recommend the article, especially the first section). Kyriarchy is a term coined in 1992 by the feminist theologian Elisabeth Fiorenza to talk about the ways that other systems of power overlap with and can be distinct from simple patriarchy (no good link for this, but you can find a decent summary of her thinking here). The idea of 'allies' being important in LGBT activism comes pretty directly from PFLAG, which was founded in 1973 after a straight woman (and her friends) organised to support her son after he got beaten up in homophobic brawl. The growing unease surrounding the growing importance of 'allies' and 'respectability' in 1970s and 1980s debates over the 'whitewashing' of LGBT history in the USA, and how a movement (Stonewall) that started off dealing largely with the concerns of working class trans women of colour quickly turned a movement dominated by white gay men and its straight allies. I've talked about LGBT issues because that's what I'm more familiar with, but you can see similar concerns and support for allies on racism issues being expressed by that arch-SJW and tumblr blogger Martin Luther King, in his discussions of the 'white moderate' in his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail. This isn't a new debate. Now maybe there's an issue with how these terms are used today on tumblr or wherever (and I'm sure that the PYF thread will be eager to provide you with a handful of examples of these, after scouring a site with 174 million blogs), and it's obvious that people can start using 'cargo-cult' terminology, which doesn't have a basis in materiality. Nonetheless, a) these are real discussions with long antecedents, that continue to go on today - all that's changed is that young people and teenagers are increasingly having them too (with all that that entails), and b) perhaps the speed with which people are willing to assume the worst about people talking about issues of social justice, because they use (some) unfamiliar words means that they may have a point about there being some level of ingrained, reflexive prejudice in society? makes u think about what the deal with people using the phrase sjw really is ...
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:
Literally no one here is saying that the actual issues and vocabulary used to talk about them don't have merit. You're being obtuse, either deliberately or unintentionally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Literally no one here is saying that the actual issues and vocabulary used to talk about them don't have merit. dude, the person they quoted in that very post cited Tumblr as the *origin* of terms like kyriarchy, ally and intersectionality. And while people here are reasonably well informed and able to differentiate between proper social justice and people just looking for a fight, you'd be shocked at the frequency that well argued legitimate points are brushed aside to the cry of "lol SJW gently caress you!". It's very similar to people who dismiss feminism as a movement because of a miniscule but vocal minority who genuinely want a female dominated society where men are subjugated second class citizens That's the real problem with people like this. The points they bring up are often legitimate, or at least closely related to legitimate points. But they are subtly (or unsubtly) twisted and presented in such obnoxious ways, and the people we're talking about are so closed minded and unable to appreciate any point of view but the one of their little echo chamber, that they tarnish the real movements and hinder real change. So you have to be careful throwing the term SJW around as a perjorative in mixed company, because a lot of the time there will be at least a few people who take away the message that social justice as a whole is bad, rather than that fairly tiny subset of trolls/aggressive arseholes/idiots who care more about winning arguments and feeling smug than actually making things better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
But the SJWs said something mean about video games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Literally no one here is saying that the actual issues and vocabulary used to talk about them don't have merit. Yeah, pretty much what FatKraken said. What I was trying to say is that even if 'SJW' do have their own particular argot (I'm talking about the stuff that icantfindaname was talking about, since that's what tends to try to enter into mainsteam debate in a way that otherkin/'factives'/w/e don't, since they're more subcultural), this isn't the hideous new Orwellian creation that people portray it as, but is actually stuff that's been being discussed in anti-racist, feminist, and other communities for twenty years at the very least. Additionally, I'd also suggest that the knee-jerk reaction that a lot of people seem to have to this particular lingo (that they don't have when it comes to other fields), and the lack of willingness to at least try to get what someone's talking about when they complain about intersectional oppressions, may be an indication that those people do think they don't have merit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:27
|
|