Is this the end of liberalism?

[Sommerswerd]

Except Black Lives Matters protesters are often called SJWs.

Really? Well that blows my theory out of the water. I'm actually new to the term, as in, seeing it used.

So you agree that SJW is just a general way for opponents of the particular cause to sort of nonspecifically demean and belittle the advocates of the particular cause?

 

[sophie]

Really? Well that blows my theory out of the water. I'm actually new to the term, as in, seeing it used.

So you agree that SJW is just a general way for opponents of the particular cause to sort of nonspecifically demean and belittle the advocates of the particular cause?

Yes. That is exactly what it is. And they usually do this by comparing it to some other social justice movement which, due to hindsight and personal bias, they perceive as "more important":

What MLK did was obviously important and relevant; the Black Lives Matters people, by contrast, are just a bunch of whiny SJWs.

Naturally because it's little more than a tool for an individual to belittle a movement or group of people whom they don't like, the denotation of the term varies based on individual and context.

 

[Phrossack]

Really? Well that blows my theory out of the water. I'm actually new to the term, as in, seeing it used.

So you agree that SJW is just a general way for opponents of the particular cause to sort of nonspecifically demean and belittle the advocates of the particular cause?

People who use the term "SJW" are not actually a unified group, and as a result, do not all use the term in the same way. I reserve it mainly for slacktivist keyboard crusaders, not for people who actually go out and protest police violence such as the BLM movement.

And, yes, I believe there are many and highly important distinctions to be made between SJWs on this and other sites and civil rights activists such as King and Parks. Moreover, I think that attempts by SJWs to call those people SJWs are silly attempts to affiliate themselves with them and lay claim to their accomplishments. "See? My constant mocking of people I hate on the internet and my claims that eating Chinese take-out is appropriation make me just like MLK!" When in reality, the activists risked their lives to fight legally-enshrined white supremacy, not the pathetic activities of slacktivists.

 

[jackelgull]

Defining a movement is always a difficult thing, and asking "who are the SJW's?" is like asking "who were the Progressives?"

But if I'm to take my best shot, Social Justice Warrior refers to the tone and mood of liberal discourse on social media, rather to specific individuals. There's a certain hostility to the status quo, an impatience a militancy that characterizes SJW's. This militancy attracts a lot of teenagers who don't have the best understanding of the nature of the problems, which might partially explain why the movement has that stereotype attached to it.

If I am allowed to be poetic, it is liberal anger knocking about the corners of the internet, wondering why New Jerusalem has not yet come. And it is becoming mainstream.

 

[warpus]

Except Black Lives Matters protesters are often called SJWs.

Perhaps there is some overlap.

 

[Akka]

Don't you think it's a little circular when a politically motivated group makes up a term based on a strawman that they then apply to a bunch of folks who are not the strawman but are what made term-creators angry and motivated enough to give them a name, to then turn around say the definition is "reality" when those definitions are provided by the people who made up the term?

SJW is just a derogatory term to describe a certain subset of people who have a specific and annoying behaviour.
It can be used as a strawman, but it can also be used to simply call someone who exhibits this specific and annoying behaviour. Unless you claim that this said behaviour actually doesn't exist and everyone using this term is making a politically motivated strawman - which is a strawman and circular logic in itself, which is kinda like shooting yourself in the foot while making this argument.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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.

This all suggests a very peculiar mindset to me. I can't quite fathom how you could find someone challenging your beliefs in a polite manner to be insufficient to get you to actually think about your position, whereas someone challenging your beliefs in an incredibly rude and aggressive manner would actually succeed. While I don't question that what you're saying is true for you, I really can't see this as being applicable to many people. For myself I would say the complete opposite would be the case. If someone is polite and reasonable with me then it puts me in the mindset to take the time to actually listen to them and be more agreeable to them. The minute they start hurling abuse then I would just shuf off entirely and not give their argument another thought. I find it really odd it works the complete opposite way for you.

I also find the notion of something making you feel uncomfortable, but you being completely unable to idenfify why, as really bizarre as well. It sounds quite reasonable as I read it, but if I try to actually imagine it then it just doesn't make sense to me.

In fact the whole thing sounds rather like how I would imagine being brainwashed by a cult might feel like. Almost like you've had your spirit broken down by being bombarded with hostility until the point where you achieve some kind of peace through conformity. It doesn't actually sound like a rational thought process to find a hostile attitude more persuasive, or to find that continued hostility leads to you gradually realising "truth" over time.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I also find the notion of something making you feel uncomfortable, but you being completely unable to idenfify why, as really bizarre as well. It sounds quite reasonable as I read it, but if I try to actually imagine it then it just doesn't make sense to me.

I remember in 2008, when Prez Obama was running for the first time, there were many people who were lifelong Democrats who were refusing to vote for him. For some it was the first time in many elections where they had not voted for the Democrat. When some of these folks were interviewed on why as Democrats they would suddenly refuse to support the Democratic candidate for President, they would say things like, "I don't know, I just don't trust him, but I can't put my finger on why" or "I don't know he just rubs me the wrong way for some reason" or "I don't know, there's just something about him that I don't like, I can't really say what" or "I don't know, he just seems a little too arrogant and elitist to me I guess" etc...

 

[warpus]

"Oh yeah wait a second, isn't he black? There we go, glad we figured that one out, I thought this was going to be one of those annoying things you can't remember and it drives you nuts for the rest of the day"

 

[aelf]

I'll take a strawman SJW anytime over Randroids, which is the other side of the Internet.

This all suggests a very peculiar mindset to me. I can't quite fathom how you could find someone challenging your beliefs in a polite manner to be insufficient to get you to actually think about your position, whereas someone challenging your beliefs in an incredibly rude and aggressive manner would actually succeed. While I don't question that what you're saying is true for you, I really can't see this as being applicable to many people. For myself I would say the complete opposite would be the case. If someone is polite and reasonable with me then it puts me in the mindset to take the time to actually listen to them and be more agreeable to them.

Regardless of whether what you're saying here is actually true, how many people are like that? Are most people actually reasonable, or do they simply fancy themselves reasonable?

Even in this forum, I have often seen discussion with 'reasonable' people go nowhere until it finally devolves into name-calling because the 'reasonable' people simply refuse to consider the other side seriously and keep repeating the same 'reasonable' arguments over and over in various guises. And this also happens in situations where the 'reasonable' people are not in a good position to actually fully understand the issue being discussed - they're just being stubborn like any unreasonable people. Maybe they're just more articulate and polite about it compared to the average YouTube debater.

Of course, there's the time and space for 'civil discourse', but expecting the Internet to be sterilised to become such a space is pointless and counter-productive. Civil discourse can become stagnant or even exclusive. The average person is often completely locked out of meaningful civil discourse that is happening on a national level, for example. Even if you consider peaceful protest to be part of civil discourse (some societies don't - it's still considered disorderly behaviour for the inconvenience that it can cause), it can be and has been completely ignored. While explosive incidents can ultimately be counterproductive, they are also good at forcing people to pay attention, which is basically the first step in creating any change.

And if we're talking about the Internet, what space can possibly be safer for explosive interaction? There's little chance for violence or destruction to happen as a result. Moreover, even if such interaction does not win anyone who is involved over, it becomes part of a larger political struggle between one side and another, and whichever side struggles most vigorously in the end has a better chance of succeeding.

SJWs get attention. Some people obviously react badly, but time will tell whether they will actually succeed in setting the agenda for discourse for the coming generation. They may well succeed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

A woman who challenged the status quo? Absolutely, she'd probably been labelled many (unrepeatable) things both by the manosphere and the racists (if the latter existed at that time).

Maybe I'm missing some subtle sarcasm, but.... if racists existed in the 50s?

 

[sophie]

SJW is just a derogatory term to describe a certain subset of people who have a specific and annoying behaviour.
It can be used as a strawman, but it can also be used to simply call someone who exhibits this specific and annoying behaviour. Unless you claim that this said behaviour actually doesn't exist and everyone using this term is making a politically motivated strawman - which is a strawman and circular logic in itself, which is kinda like shooting yourself in the foot while making this argument.

Behavior which you personally deem annoying*

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I remember in 2008, when Prez Obama was running for the first time, there were many people who were lifelong Democrats who were refusing to vote for him. For some it was the first time in many elections where they had not voted for the Democrat. When some of these folks were interviewed on why as Democrats they would suddenly refuse to support the Democratic candidate for President, they would say things like, "I don't know, I just don't trust him, but I can't put my finger on why" or "I don't know he just rubs me the wrong way for some reason" or "I don't know, there's just something about him that I don't like, I can't really say what" or "I don't know, he just seems a little too arrogant and elitist to me I guess" etc...

Well I don't mean that everyone should be expected to have a concrete an easily articulable explanation for every opinion they hold or feeling they have in general. Especially about something as complicated and somewhat unknowable as another human being. But if someone gives you a clear description of how they thing the world works, or society works, and it makes you feel "uncomfortable" but you have no idea why... that's a bit weird. Especially if the only reason you would have to find it uncomfortable was if you knew it was true, but somehow only your unconscious mind has worked out that it's true and your higher cognitive functions are entirely unaware of this. Somehow.

Also, in your particular example I can't help but think that there will have been a lot of people who knew exactly why they weren't voting for him but just didn't want to voice that reason on national TV, so it's not really the same thing.

But either way, I still can't see how some angry ranting person could ever be more convincing than a calm, reasonable person*. Other than if they are able to completely break your spirit and reshape you.


*for clarification - if the person is saying something that you actually want to hear, then yes I can see why an angry zealot is likely to attract more followers than the quiet man. I'm talking about in cases where the person is proselytising something you completely disagree with (at the time).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Regardless of whether what you're saying here is actually true

Seriously, what is with this continual doubting of sincerity...

how many people are like that? Are most people actually reasonable, or do they simply fancy themselves reasonable?

I'm sure most people fail at being reasonable 100% of the time, but I think if the person at least demonstrates they are attempting to be so, or is able to back down and apologise when they've stepped over some line, then that's actually 90% of the way there. It would be unreasonable to expect everyone to be some sort of saint. My point was that people who are entirely and continually UNreasonable are not at all persuasive.

Even in this forum, I have often seen discussion with 'reasonable' people go nowhere until it finally devolves into name-calling because the 'reasonable' people simply refuse to consider the other side seriously and keep repeating the same 'reasonable' arguments over and over in various guises.

I never claimed being reasonable was some magic wand that's always going to convince people of your point of view. Just that IF it's even possible to convince them then that seems the most persuasive tactic. I find it strange that you say these discussion go nowhere UNTIL the name calling starts though. Are you honestly saying that you think something productive then actually happens at that stage?

 

[madviking]

who use terms like "manosphere" and "mansplaining" unironically.

wait, "mansplaining" is meant to be used ironically?

it's totally a thing.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Except there's no equivalent term for when a woman explains something. Oddly enough.

 

[warpus]

Yeah it's a sexist thing some people say. Or womansplaining or blacksplaining or Muslimsplaining or whatever.

 

[aelf]

I never claimed being reasonable was some magic wand that's always going to convince people of your point of view. Just that IF it's even possible to convince them then that seems the most persuasive tactic. I find it strange that you say these discussion go nowhere UNTIL the name calling starts though. Are you honestly saying that you think something productive then actually happens at that stage?

Nope, but I don't expect 'reasonable' discussion to be productive either. The chance of that as I see it is extremely slim.

Hence, I'm not obsessed about the productivity of individual discussions. It doesn't mean that either reasonable and unreasonable discourse can't have an effect in totality.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh, well apparently there is then.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope, but I don't expect 'reasonable' discussion to be productive either. The chance of that as I see it is extremely slim.

Hence, I'm not obsessed about the productivity of individual discussions. It doesn't mean that either reasonable and unreasonable discourse can't have an effect in totality.

Well... not sure why you equate "recognising the value of" with "being obsessed with". But given that Leoreth was talking specifically about how he was convinced in individual discussion by a particular method and you then said this was a really good post, you'll have to forgive me for not really understanding what point you're currently trying to make, or why you're even engaging with the topic at all, now that you've said you don't care either way.