Poll: Usage of the term "Social Justice Warrior"

[luiz]

If the concern with people obsessing over a cause is that they see the world and all its problems through a single lens, and so come up with non-mainstream political of philosophical frameworks (e.g. queer theory), then surely to the extent that those theories are not actively dangerous, it's a good thing from a purely Millian/liberal standpoint that they exist, and so a good thing that people are able to come up with that perspective. Okay, you wouldn't want everyone in the world to adopt that perspective and lose sight of other important problems and ways of interpreting the world, but it's always useful to have around an articulation of other perspectives, deriving from the struggles of particular groups. Surely that benefit outweighs the eye-rolling that might momentarily be induced if you opt to engage with someone with whom you disagree.

The sort of ridiculous theories that SJWs spouse (and often misinterpret) have existed in academia for decades, and while they have ways been the laughing stock of more scientifically minded academics, it largely stopped at that. The problem arose with the popularization and bastardization of these unscientific theories, combined with the puritanical zeal of its new adherents and the the advent of social media. Now we see people publicly "exposed and shamed " as racists and sexists for entirely innocent actions such as the table they were sitting during a symposium, or their haircut of choice. Some professions are particularly affected, like college professors, who how have to exert self-censorship to great lengths to avoid causing a commotion (and possibly losing their job)

Again, I'm not saying this is going to bring about the fall of western civilization, but it's a real problem and for some entirely innocent people there have been very real and bad consequences.

 

[Akka]

I'm pretty sure that it's not overly prescriptive to say that as a matter of the English language, 'SJW' is a pejorative, and anyone using it in another way is simply incorrect or unaware of the proper use of the 'word'.

I pointed two things, the first that half the people using the term were left-wingers. Seems it's true (and, for CFC, even quite below the truth).

As for the second thing...

TIL Akka somehow thinks he's left-wing

One of the most pervasive dirty tricks of the SJW is their systemic habit of trying to redefine reality so it fits their opinions, instead of basing their opinions on reality. And this is show in two main ways :
1) Redefining words so they can twist their meaning and use them to manipulate the discourse.
2) Defining that anyone disagreeing with them is a right-winger (and often, a fascist). It's either that they are so full of themselves they think they do define the left, or they are just trying to "otherize" people who don't agree (which is rather funny for people who pride themselves on their inclusion, but then hypocrisy is the single most defining factor of SJWism). The main reason being, of course, that it helps them keep their echo chamber and their delusion that they are the guys in the right and anyone not sharing their obsessive idiocy is "one of these evil fascists".
If that looks a lot like the description that was made previously of groups that just ate themselves by requiring ever-increasing "ideological purity", that's not a coincidence. Kinda reminds me of a cult.

---

My point here is that mainstream Catholics and other Christians for the most part don't do that stuff to the same extent; ie I don't have to live in fear that the pope is going to send inquisition after me because I'm not a Christian or that witch burnings are still common place, at least where I live, in the US, and I assume many modernized countries.

And just because I'm nitpicky : if you weren't Christian, then you weren't subject to the Inquisition. You would probably have been subject to all sort of pressure and witch-hunt and whatever, but the Inquisition was strictly restricted to heresy (and as such only people who were at least nominally Christians).

Yes, that's irrelevant to the point. I just wanted to say it

 

[Lexicus]

Akka didn't move, the left did (and it's no wonder the left is less and less relevant in the world).

It's funny, because it's the exact opposite: "leftists" like Akka are becoming less and less relevant. It's always been the case. You don't move, you get ~left~ behind.

 

[Akka]

It's funny, because it's the exact opposite: "leftists" like Akka are becoming less and less relevant. It's always been the case. You don't move, you get ~left~ behind.

It's funny, the entire thread's point is showing the integrism of a bunch of self-styled "justice warriors" who compete for ideological purity in the most childish way, the most revealing illustration being that they can't even fathom that someone left-wing could disagree with their idiocy.
And (once again) we get the best example of such behaviour by the very persons involved while they try to claim the opposite.
"leftists" with lots of quote to imply "so-called", and open laughs at the idea that someone not being themselves could be actually on the left.

Of course, as with all the other cases where these exact same people were proving by their actions what they claimed to disprove by their argument, it's pretty pointless to except them to realize it. Because, as usual, if they WERE able of critical thinking, they would not be their own caricature and would NOT be "SJW" (which, as the very thread show, is precisely about it being a pejorative).
The meta is just dizzying.

 

[Ajidica]

Though there are certainly many places in the world, as suggestsed previously, that haven't moved on as much since the 15th century, and the results are horrific as to be expected, which means that I definitely don't take that kind of thing for granted.

The thing is, I'm trying to think of a place that socially, culturally, and materially hasn't changed much since the 15th century and all I'm getting are some Berber nomads and some pseudo-uncontacted peoples.

 

[inthesomeday]

What I know of Akka is that he consistently defends capitalism, the right of Nazis to freeze peach, the heteropatriarchal status quo, colorblind policy, and, once again, and most importantly, capitalism. These are all opinions thoroughly right of center. Leftism is by and by opposed to capitalism. The real redefinition of leftism is the one that occurs when liberalism is considered a leftist ideology, when all of history outside of the US would place it on the center-right.

In fact, that Akka continuously condemns "SJWs" for redefining terms or causes is extremely odd, because the "redefinition" that Akka so vigorously opposes is one away from his pretty narrow historical point of view. If we want to get real, and use an example, when the term racism first entered popular vernacular, it would NEVER have been applied to attitudes against white people, because it was used almost always to describe the type of racism that POC experienced. It would only be applied to white people once folks started thinking critically about its meaning-- which is a good thing-- and trying to universalize its usage a bit. But then folks started thinking critically about its meaning again, and the meaning changed in its popular usage again. Akka, however, represents one of the generation who became comfortable with is usage in one context. The thing about the meaning of words is that it changes with the context in which the word is useful. When once, people would've used the word racism to describe POC oppression and never to describe bullying white people, after the Civil Rights era and gradual integration of black people into white communities and vice versa, the meaning adapted as bullying white people entered public consciousness as something that even happened. Considering that, before the Civil Rights era (and even for a fair amount afterwards) bullying white people probably could've gotten POC killed, this makes sense; the word racism didn't need to be applied to this situation. Today, people are once again critically analyzing the usage of the word, not just in academic vernacular but also in popular vernacular. And its meaning has shifted with its most useful application. Just because it's shifted away from the comfortable usage for you doesn't mean that it's some sort of sinister international conspiracy, it just means that, once again, the concepts it needs to describe have changed.

Leftism may have changed as well, and honestly to cling to the old definition is silly and historically ignorant. In 1500, somebody who supported secular government in any capacity would've widely been considered a leftist-- of course that term probably wasn't used yet, but you get what I mean. In 1850, Abolitionists were thought of as actual dangerous radicals in America, because Abolitionism was one of the defining features of leftist ideology at this time. Similarly, in 1980, or whenever you're basing your terminology on, somebody who supported women's rights and so on might have been thought of as center left. However, we are in a period of great political change, and have been for a little while. A new generation are coming up with new ideas, and new critical analyses of the systems around them, yielding new practical uses for ideology, including the destruction of systems you must have never even conceived of before. Rather than violently and dismissively rejecting these new viewpoints, you must at least recognize that they are the direction leftism is moving in, and change either your views or your self-definition accordingly.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The thing is, I'm trying to think of a place that socially, culturally, and materially hasn't changed much since the 15th century and all I'm getting are some Berber nomads and some pseudo-uncontacted peoples.

Better watch out for the nomads.

Well, perhaps that's a bit literal. But I do recall of places that still stone people to death for adultery or put people to death for homosexuality. Perhaps that's beyond the 15th century by a bit, but....

 

[Ajidica]

Better watch out for the nomads.

Well, perhaps that's a bit literal. But I do recall of places that still stone people to death for adultery or put people to death for homosexuality. Perhaps that's beyond the 15th century by a bit, but....

Much of the foundation of British property law and the function of government (Royal Prerogative) is based in 15th century concepts of ownership and monarchial power, yet I think it would be unfair to say the UK hasn't changed much in the intervening six centuries.
I mean, the Saudi's may have kept some punishments and social mores from the Middle Ages, but they changed far more than they kept. Look at their destruction of tombs dating from Muhammad's time that the Saudi's bulldozed because it was 'idolatrous'.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Moving on doesn't imply that you ditch everything, and that everything old was bad. But there are some things that you'd have to ditch to be considered civilized in modern times.

A KKK member using a smartphone certainly doesn't mean they aren't at least partially trapped in the past with their archaic ideas of race. And ISIS might be using social media, but it doesn't mean they are trapped in the past in their views towards women and other religions.

And just because I'm nitpicky : if you weren't Christian, then you weren't subject to the Inquisition. You would probably have been subject to all sort of pressure and witch-hunt and whatever, but the Inquisition was strictly restricted to heresy (and as such only people who were at least nominally Christians).

Yes, that's irrelevant to the point. I just wanted to say it

True, but I think in that context I would have probably been pressured/coerced to pretend to be a Christian; and even that exists to a lesser degree today as people treat atheists (I'm not one either) as worse than murderers Though I suppose it is a different way of dying, yes.

 

[Lexicus]

The real redefinition of leftism is the one that occurs when liberalism is considered a leftist ideology, when all of history outside of the US would place it on the center-right.

There is such a thing as a left-liberal though.

 

[Akka]

What I know of Akka is that he consistently defends capitalism

Hello, Jon Snow.

This would tell me everything relevant about what you "know", if I hadn't already noticed in other thread your ability to ignore whatever is said and just mindlessly repeat the same party line.

On this renewed spectacular display of :

And (once again) we get the best example of such behaviour by the very persons involved while they try to claim the opposite.

I'm going to let it go, because it's really a pure waste of time to try to communicate with blind and deaf fanatics.

 

[Ajidica]

Moving on doesn't imply that you ditch everything, and that everything old was bad. But there are some things that you'd have to ditch to be considered civilized in modern times.

A KKK member using a smartphone certainly doesn't mean they aren't at least partially trapped in the past with their archaic ideas of race. And ISIS might be using social media, but it doesn't mean they are trapped in the past in their views towards women and other religions.

The thing is, the values of ISIS can pretty much only exist because of relatively recent ideas in Islamic ideology. An example I like is their active persecution of everyone who isn't a Sunni Muslim. I don't want to accidentally create a "Medieval Muslims were perfectly tolerant" myth, but one of the reasons we have such a profusion of unique religious/cultural/ethnic groups in the Middle East is in large part because the local authorities tended no to see "persecute the infidel" as high up on their list of things to do. We don't really see groups analogous to the Alawites, Yazidis, or Druze -to name a few- in European history.

 

[Archon_Wing]

The thing is, the values of ISIS can pretty much only exist because of relatively recent ideas in Islamic ideology. An example I like is their active persecution of everyone who isn't a Sunni Muslim. I don't want to accidentally create a "Medieval Muslims were perfectly tolerant" myth, but one of the reasons we have such a profusion of unique religious/cultural/ethnic groups in the Middle East is in large part because the local authorities tended no to see "persecute the infidel" as high up on their list of things to do. We don't really see groups analogous to the Alawites, Yazidis, or Druze -to name a few- in European history.

Things can and will "advance" backwards, which is why it is quite dangerous to think newer is better. I have to admit ISIS is a really weird combination of things.

And certainly the Muslims were much more tolerant and civilized than their Christian counterparts for the longest time. I don't hope anyone gets offended for me making that generalization. I mean, if we were to talk about petty squabbles between sects, Christians fare no better. Incidentally, after the Reformation to which I credit them to moving past previous forms of barbarism. But killing other people for a different God isn't good enough so they moved to killing people who read the Bible somewhat diffrently.

inb4 Muslim Slave Trade

 

[Ryika]

Leftism may have changed as well, and honestly to cling to the old definition is silly and historically ignorant.

I would agree that Akka is not a "leftists", but from what I know about him, he certainly is a person who's views fall squarely on the left side of the scale.

I guess that's that the fun thing about definitions, they do indeed change. "Leftists" are the loons of the left, the extremists who look at everything through a particular lens without being able to judge things from any other perspective, one does not have to be a loon to have views that are left wing, and outside your circle of extremists, everybody acknowledges that there is more to the left than your group of extremists. If that were all that there is, I would not consider myself to be "left wing", because there would be nothing of value to be had there.

 

[inthesomeday]

Okay, tell me, what do you think of capitalism?

 

[Ajidica]

Incidentally, after the Reformation to which I credit them to moving past previous forms of barbarism.

Europeans continued to butcher each others with the same methods after the Reformation, they just had to find new reasons to do it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Europeans continued to butcher each others with the same methods after the Reformation, they just had to find new reasons to do it.

Every controlling power needs an enemy.

And now we have SJWs....

 

[luiz]

What I know of Akka is that he consistently defends capitalism, the right of Nazis to freeze peach, the heteropatriarchal status quo, colorblind policy, and, once again, and most importantly, capitalism. These are all opinions thoroughly right of center. Leftism is by and by opposed to capitalism. The real redefinition of leftism is the one that occurs when liberalism is considered a leftist ideology, when all of history outside of the US would place it on the center-right.

In fact, that Akka continuously condemns "SJWs" for redefining terms or causes is extremely odd, because the "redefinition" that Akka so vigorously opposes is one away from his pretty narrow historical point of view. If we want to get real, and use an example, when the term racism first entered popular vernacular, it would NEVER have been applied to attitudes against white people, because it was used almost always to describe the type of racism that POC experienced. It would only be applied to white people once folks started thinking critically about its meaning-- which is a good thing-- and trying to universalize its usage a bit. But then folks started thinking critically about its meaning again, and the meaning changed in its popular usage again. Akka, however, represents one of the generation who became comfortable with is usage in one context. The thing about the meaning of words is that it changes with the context in which the word is useful. When once, people would've used the word racism to describe POC oppression and never to describe bullying white people, after the Civil Rights era and gradual integration of black people into white communities and vice versa, the meaning adapted as bullying white people entered public consciousness as something that even happened. Considering that, before the Civil Rights era (and even for a fair amount afterwards) bullying white people probably could've gotten POC killed, this makes sense; the word racism didn't need to be applied to this situation. Today, people are once again critically analyzing the usage of the word, not just in academic vernacular but also in popular vernacular. And its meaning has shifted with its most useful application. Just because it's shifted away from the comfortable usage for you doesn't mean that it's some sort of sinister international conspiracy, it just means that, once again, the concepts it needs to describe have changed.

Leftism may have changed as well, and honestly to cling to the old definition is silly and historically ignorant. In 1500, somebody who supported secular government in any capacity would've widely been considered a leftist-- of course that term probably wasn't used yet, but you get what I mean. In 1850, Abolitionists were thought of as actual dangerous radicals in America, because Abolitionism was one of the defining features of leftist ideology at this time. Similarly, in 1980, or whenever you're basing your terminology on, somebody who supported women's rights and so on might have been thought of as center left. However, we are in a period of great political change, and have been for a little while. A new generation are coming up with new ideas, and new critical analyses of the systems around them, yielding new practical uses for ideology, including the destruction of systems you must have never even conceived of before. Rather than violently and dismissively rejecting these new viewpoints, you must at least recognize that they are the direction leftism is moving in, and change either your views or your self-definition accordingly.

Well, some leftists obviously still like Castro-esque long nonsense rants... Yawn.

Lota of noise about new ideas, the left evolving, blah blah blah... This new idea of yours is Marxism? It stinks like a rotting corpse. Tried and failed.

You don't represent anything new.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Okay, tell me, what do you think of capitalism?

It's the God of one religion, and the Devil in another.

 

[Ryika]

Okay, tell me, what do you think of capitalism?

Capitalism is a great system to boost industrial and technological progress, but tends to be weak when it comes to social equality, which is why it should be infused with policies that aim to help those in need and allow for social progress.