useless
Social Justice Rogue
Well if it helps you deal with what you have suffered from in your past, i will allow you to parrot your hatred of SJW's or anything you consider to be vaguely sjwish.
Is this the end of liberalism?
- Thread starter civman110
- Start date
- Status
Snorrius
Librivorator
Using words like "suffering in the past" -- is a distinct mark of SJW. What is an average SJW? Biologically it is human poorly programmed with Freudo-Marxist nonsense simplified for a primitive mind.
It is no doubt an SJW have no conscience. But it is an interesting question: whether she has consciousness? Does she has "self"? Do her words are bound to her experienced reality or detached from experience and used unconsciously? Does she experience anything at all, or SJW is a philosophical zombie? We need to study this creatures in order to contain their madness effectively.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Social justice rogue here
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Can Social Justice Warriors dual class into Social Justice Warrior/Mages? Or does the selection of the "Social Justice" prestige class preclude dual classing?
Or is it like first edition D&D where "Elf" and "Dwarf" were classes and races?
Or is it like first edition D&D where "Elf" and "Dwarf" were classes and races?
This seems like a good time to jump in with my thoughts on Social Justice Warriors. I use the term, believe it applies to some people, and therefore I should explain how it applies.
I think the key word is Warriors. Not everyone who believes in social justice causes is a SJW, if it were so then I'd have to consider myself one. The Warriors treat social justice as a war, they therefore treat each issue as more polarizing than it needs to be, treat opinions in an all or nothing fashion (you either agree with us on all issues, or none at all), and determine how to treat people based on how they respond to a litmus test on the issues. They also apply theories in a very black-or-white way; therefore an individual is either privileged or not, a person either has power or doesn't, and a person cannot be held accountable for their oppressive actions when that person is a victim.
In addition to all of this there is a moral licensing component. Some SJW are all about signalling their virtues. Sometimes it even seems that signaling the virtue is more important than working towards real change (which requires planning, strategic thinking, consensus building, teaching, persuasion, etc.).
Moral licensing is an observed behavioral phenomenon whereby a person becomes less moral after acting in a moral fashion. Essentially the person performs a moral action (or merely expresses a moral opinion) and afterwards suffers a hit to their willpower to choose against immoral actions. This applies to SJW in several ways. As I stated earlier, for many the expression of social justice opinion is more important than the work towards social justice goals. It may even be that the constant expression of SJ opinions lessons their willpower capacity to make moral changes. Also it applies in that you often see SJW treating their "enemies" in a most immoral fashion.
I think the key word is Warriors. Not everyone who believes in social justice causes is a SJW, if it were so then I'd have to consider myself one. The Warriors treat social justice as a war, they therefore treat each issue as more polarizing than it needs to be, treat opinions in an all or nothing fashion (you either agree with us on all issues, or none at all), and determine how to treat people based on how they respond to a litmus test on the issues. They also apply theories in a very black-or-white way; therefore an individual is either privileged or not, a person either has power or doesn't, and a person cannot be held accountable for their oppressive actions when that person is a victim.
In addition to all of this there is a moral licensing component. Some SJW are all about signalling their virtues. Sometimes it even seems that signaling the virtue is more important than working towards real change (which requires planning, strategic thinking, consensus building, teaching, persuasion, etc.).
Moral licensing is an observed behavioral phenomenon whereby a person becomes less moral after acting in a moral fashion. Essentially the person performs a moral action (or merely expresses a moral opinion) and afterwards suffers a hit to their willpower to choose against immoral actions. This applies to SJW in several ways. As I stated earlier, for many the expression of social justice opinion is more important than the work towards social justice goals. It may even be that the constant expression of SJ opinions lessons their willpower capacity to make moral changes. Also it applies in that you often see SJW treating their "enemies" in a most immoral fashion.
100% rejection of liberal roots is somehow closer?
You don't even want people to take you seriously, do you? This is just a troll account to you?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
People who complain about SJWs are the worst, because they honestly believe they have some sort of actual power
aelf
Ashen One
Is this warring in the Drug War or War on Terror sense?
Akka
Moody old mage.
Pretty good post to which I agree on about every single word
It is a good analysis and spot on on some people, but I still wouldn't use the expression "Social Justice Warrior", since most of those who use it are just social injustice warriors. If you use it that way, you're bound to be misunderstood.
This is CFC, not grindr.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
That would explain why it is popular with certain political persuasions.
Civ II rules.
J
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
How about
Social BS Pushers
Social BS Pushers
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
We call them liberals down here.
[canned laughter]
[canned laughter]
useless
Social Justice Rogue
What do you have against social justice?
I once had a similar view on social justice movements. It is easy to claim the reasonable "moderate" position where you're essentially saying "I am generally in favor of your ideas, if you were a little bit nicer about them".
When I actually started to read what social justice activists were writing - I mean really read it, not just reading quote mines during unrelated discussions or exaggerated representations featuring the popular stereotypes - I found this position indefensible. A lot of what I read made me uncomfortable, so my immediate reaction was to bring out the usual responses for why they must be wrong or unreasonable if what they said made me uncomfortable. Only over time did I realize that I was uncomfortable because I knew they were right.
If some of those people had been "reasonable" and non-confrontational about formulating their beliefs, I probably would have never even challenged what I previously thought. Sometimes you just have to push against well-established ideas in peoples' minds where just a reasoned debate would be easily disregarded and have no effect.
In other words, if a social justice activist "fights", maybe it is because they have to fight to even begin to overcome to status quo they oppose.
By the way, that doesn't mean I disagree with your subsequent observation about some aspects of the culture around the social justice movement. I'm just skeptical why that is at all relevant and has to be constantly brought up and reinforced by using the SJW moniker.
For every political movement you will have the phenomenon that there is a minority of educated activists with the necessary rhetorical skills to communicate their position in a compelling manner. Most people who share their position may follow for good reason, but lack the skill to express it. Or they are just along for the ride because that political movement is their social environment.
This applies in the same way to people from well established political movements: have you ever seen people talk politics on Facebook? Never seen staunch and outspoken Democrats/Republicans who clearly had no clue about their own professed political position? This effect is further amplified for the social justice movement because it basically exists only on the internet, with no buttressing from credible looking politicians and traditional media that would drown out the crazies a bit.
(Not to mention that a disproportionate part of people in the SJ movement are teenagers who I think deserve to be cut some slack.)
This of course doesn't excuse all the problematic stuff going on in the SJ movement, but really is grounds for questioning the whole narrative that it is made up of only crazy people who can be easily dismissed. Because that is arbitrary. Instead, seek out the people who can actually express a reasoned position, and evaluate the movement on those terms. This is general advice for evaluating political positions by the way.
Also, this. You should always be wary of using terms the opposite side has invented for their opponents, because they seek to reframe the debate in a way that paints a biased picture of the situation.
A lot of social justice activists have reclaimed the SJW label as a way to reject that narrative, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a term designed to manipulate people and is not indicative of an honest attempt at open discussion.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Or maybe just to describe a particular kind of persons with a particular kind of discourse, in which case it's just doing its job ?
It might simply be purely descriptive, and have nothing to do with attempt at open discussion.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
To true for humor.
That's not new. Open discussion often not what activists want. They want shamed silence.
J
- Status
Similar threads
