Poll: Usage of the term "Social Justice Warrior"

[Ryika]

Yeah, fights are part of human nature and okay, even over ultimately rather meaningless things.

To stick with the example of a forum where people talk about pets... let's say there is a fight about whether giving your dog low-quality, cheap food is okay. Naturally, some people will say it is, I would assume most people in a pet enthusiast community would probably disagree. That's a reasonable discussion to be had of course, and maybe the conclusion is correct. That's how progress is done after all - people realize what we were doing has negative consequences, and want to change their behavior to something that avoids them. In terms of societal change, that's social justice "done right".

But then what would happen in an "SJW pet forum" is that the people who disagree are ostracized, and their opinions are declared to be invalid, and after they're gone, another poster makes the point that there are quality differences between the foods that were declared to be okay before, and that dogs are probably better off by not eating those other things, and some people disagree, and are removed from the community, and then the next guy comes around and declares that in the foods that are left there are still quality differences and that everybody who feeds their dogs other stuff is immoral. And after two months of doing that, people have arrived at a point where 98% of all dog foods are actually "immoral" because there are better options, even though most of the food that has been declared to not be "dog-friendly" in recent days is probably just fine in reality and likely a much better and balanced diet than what animals would get to eat if they were wild animals having to hunt.

But the reason it continued to spiral downwards is that people were not actually interested in the topic, it's that they wanted to be on the side that is uber-progressive, because it made them feel good. The fight is what they're in for. That, and the fact that everybody knew from previous "debates" that the people who disagreed were thrown out of the community on one way or another leads people who disagree with the way things are going to stay silent, as they can't expect to get support if they speak out against something, even if they disagree.

That's what I think usually does not happen in well-balanced communities because discourse keeps things in perspective. It's specific to communities that are dominated by people with the "holier than thou"-mindset, because taking a stance against whatever idea is put onto the table is actively discouraged, and dissenting voices are shut down.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The way I see it a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) is a campaigner for fair treatment for
a disadvantaged and powerless minority, often to the exclusion of other considerations.

There is nothing wrong with this and SJWs have contributed to the advance of society with regards
to people who are perhaps of minority ethnic, religion, disabled or mentally handicapped etc etc.

Where it gets irritating is when they assume that the issue they are concerned about should be prioritised
over everything else and that those who merely have differing views are bigots, homophobic, racist etc.

I do not see the term as derogatory in itself (although many references using it are often derogatory).

 

[Akka]

That's how it became a pejorative for people who claim to fight for social justice but actually are just in it for their own self-aggrandizement, to make themselves look like people who are better than everybody else, people who continued to fight that fight even in a community that was made solely out of people who heavily favored social justice over everything else, and still managed to find ways to constantly get at each other's throat when they created ever-more ridiculous reasons to call each other out.

And that fits pretty well with "virtue signalling", which is another accusation often (and often rightly) thrown at SJW.


In other but related news, the poll seems to confirm that "SJW" is actually used commonly by people who identify as "left-wing". I'm happy to be vindicated, even if I didn't had a lot of doubt.

 

[Cutlass]

The only people who are really using the term are those using it as a dog whistle.

 

[Nobody]

I was at work the other day and some drunk guy was talking to me about how he was at a party and had to leave because all the girls had pink and purple hair. and I asked why do you care what colour hair they have, and he said if you even touch a purple haired girl she's going to accuse you of rape.

I like watching the youtube videos of "SJW" getting made fun of but I'm sure they're not all as crazy as the ones portrayed on youtube. And the guys who make these videos are just as big idiots but for the other side.

Although I can't take people serious who are crazy transformers, or people who say micro aggression.

 

[warpus]

I would say it's a term that means something else depending on who you are.

For the longest time the term to me meant those people who go out of their way to be offended by everything. You know, the people who support all the causes, but in the end end up hurting social justice rather than helping it.

Now that I see that people are using this term unsarcastically to describe themselves, I've had to pause and think a bit, but to me the term has always been a caricature of a person like that and meant as an insult.

 

[Quintillus]

I refuse to vote as I don't use the term, but that's lumped in with using it positively.

It did take awhile for me to realize what the abbreviation meant though. At first I thought SJW was the pseudonym or initials of a prolific online author.

 

[El_Machinae]

I've realized that SJW is too imprecise a term to denigrate or connote positively. I have to judge someone else's usage in context. I use the term 'regressive left' or 'slacktivist' when appropriate, however.

 

[Hehehe]

Is there some kind of accepted definition of "SJW"? Is there an alternative to that word, which isn't a pejorative (if SJW is pejorative?). Presumably SJW isn't synonymous with the political left?

 

[luiz]

Not entirely related, but I will add this to the discussion : I'm always suspicious of people who are obsessed by a cause. No matter how noble the cause is. It can be racial or gender equality, LGBT rights, communism, anti-communism, environmentalism. I think people who obsess about causes lose perspective on our own limited importance in this world, and what's more, when they start framing every issue under the lens of the cause they obsess about, they become a pain in the butt.

As a good Latin raised catholic, I'm always suspicious of the zeal and quest for moral purity that cultural protestants so often exhibit. I take it as a sign of mental issues.

 

[Lexicus]

I'm always suspicious of people who are obsessed by a cause.

Apparently, this meme came to life and started posting on cfc

Spoiled for naughty language:

Spoiler :

As a good Latin raised catholic, I'm always suspicious of the zeal and quest for moral purity that cultural protestants so often exhibit. I take it as a sign of mental issues.

Yes, we all know you prefer order to justice

 

[Akka]

You heard here, folks : not being an extremist means not having convictions.

 

[luiz]

Apparently, this meme came to life and started posting on cfc

Spoiled for naughty language:

Spoiler :

Yes, we all know you prefer order to justice

It's OK to have convictions, to strive for causes. But when it become an obsession, when it taints your whole worldview, when you lose sight of the relative importance of things... Then it's an issue. Often a mental one.

 

[metalhead]

The concepts of justice and equality are so important that they figure most prominently in our founding documents. Establishing Justice is the second reason listed in our Constitution as to why the damn thing exists, listed ahead of providing both domestic tranquility and common defence. Equality is listed in both the first AND second sentences of the Declaration of Independence as the basis for the declaration. So I don't know what more important things you think people are losing sight of.

 

[Lexicus]

So I don't know what more important things you think people are losing sight of.

I mean...he's not wrong, not in the abstract... I'm acquainted with plenty of people who more or less fit the description (focus on relatively trivial things, blow small stuff out of proportion - obviously this is my view, you ask the people I'm talking about and you'd get different answers), and many of them really are mentally ill (and I have major problems with the implications of how luiz has invoked mental illness in this conversation, for the record, mentally ill people don't need anyone piling on to the stigma they already experience). But I suspect I would draw the line between "strong convictions" and "weird obsession" in a different place than he does, and my view further is that we need some weirdly obsessed, "crazy" people in the world who refuse to compromise with injustice, because that's how progress happens. It's dialectical - we need a thesis or we won't get a synthesis.

 

[luiz]

The concepts of justice and equality are so important that they figure most prominently in our founding documents. Establishing Justice is the second reason listed in our Constitution as to why the damn thing exists, listed ahead of providing both domestic tranquility and common defence. Equality is listed in both the first AND second sentences of the Declaration of Independence as the basis for the declaration. So I don't know what more important things you think people are losing sight of.

More important things? I don't know, remember you only got one life and live it. That you're just one person who will die relatively soon (on the grand scheme of things! I wish you many and many happy years) and your actions don't matter that much.

Sure, be a good person. Sure, try to make the world a better place and stick to your beliefs. But don't lose perspective, the bigger picture, and that you only have a few years on this planet.

And this I mean for the big, worthy causes. But what about people who obsess about tiny, irrelevant "social justice" topics? Like how many non-white characters are there in game of thrones (or any other TV show). You think that's worth obsessing about? It's a good use of our limited time? Many things (not those) might be "unjust", but that doesn't mean they merit we obsessing over them.

 

[metalhead]

And this I mean for the big, worthy causes. But what about people who obsess about tiny, irrelevant "social justice" topics? Like how many non-white characters are there in game of thrones (or any other TV show). You think that's worth obsessing about? It's a good use of our limited time? Many things (not those) might be "unjust", but that doesn't mean they merit we obsessing over them.

I'm generally of the view that people should spend their time however they wish. It's their time after all, it's certainly not up to me to tell them how to spend it. My time isn't all spent constructively, either, so I'll gladly remove the beam from mine own eye before removing the mote from theirs, to paraphrase a lesson in some book.

The part I always find amusing is how people will get all bent out of shape about "SJWs" who obsess about stuff like this. If it's so trivial, why can't you just ignore it? Why does it even merit a response? Who is more egregiously wasting their time - the person who obsesses over minute injustices, or the person who gets indignant and responds with anger or annoyance at the first person?

 

[luiz]

I'm generally of the view that people should spend their time however they wish. It's their time after all, it's certainly not up to me to tell them how to spend it. My time isn't all spent constructively, either, so I'll gladly remove the beam from mine own eye before removing the mote from theirs, to paraphrase a lesson in some book.

The part I always find amusing is how people will get all bent out of shape about "SJWs" who obsess about stuff like this. If it's so trivial, why can't you just ignore it? Why does it even merit a response? Who is more egregiously wasting their time - the person who obsesses over minute injustices, or the person who gets indignant and responds with anger or annoyance at the first person?

It can get annoying if you're on the receiving end of their obsession. I mentioned Steve Martin being bullyied into apologizing for an entirely harmless homage he had made to his recently deceased friend Carrie Fisher.

This sort of bizarre inquisitorial behavior is the result of people obsessed about the tiniest, most irrelevant details of "fighting sexism". A healthy normal human being would never see anything wrong in what Steve Martin said. Deranged sociopaths thought it was a worthy endeavor to "expose and shame" him.

So you can see why obsessive behavior can have bad consequences beyond the sick individuals themselves.

 

[Hehehe]

It can get annoying if you're on the receiving end of their obsession. I mentioned Steve Martin being bullyied into apologizing for an entirely harmless homage he had made to his recently deceased friend Carrie Fisher.

This sort of bizarre inquisitorial behavior is the result of people obsessed about the tiniest, most irrelevant details of "fighting sexism". A healthy normal human being would never see anything wrong in what Steve Martin said. Deranged sociopaths thought it was a worthy endeavor to "expose and shame" him.

So you can see why obsessive behavior can have bad consequences beyond the sick individuals themselves.

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Obviously anything can be bad if taken too far, but in general I think it's great that people care about their society. That is not to say that these kind of impulses can't go too far, they absolutely can, all I'm saying that it's a good thing in general. I've seen societies where no-one gives a hoot about anything, and personally I'll take Protestant zeal over Catholic/Orthodox indifference (to each his own)

 

[Akka]

The part I always find amusing is how people will get all bent out of shape about "SJWs" who obsess about stuff like this. If it's so trivial, why can't you just ignore it? Why does it even merit a response? Who is more egregiously wasting their time - the person who obsesses over minute injustices, or the person who gets indignant and responds with anger or annoyance at the first person?

Because their time and efforts spent stupidly, has an actual influence on society that is detrimental. If someone is being an idiot in his spare time, that's his problem not mine. If someone is idiotically changing my environment, then yeah it's my problem.