Social Justice Warrior- the buzzword of the Internet

[Goat-kun 2,530]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Well the way you define it sounds like a fancier way of saying circle jerking, or preaching to the choir. The way I most often hear it used is against people who are really preachy about their virtuousness, and as obnoxious as that sounds, you actually would be wrong in assuming that the average person knows a great deal more about intersectionality or marxism or whatever the hell else it is that that person is "virtue signaling" about. I feel like calling it "virtue signaling" when everyone does it is a little dishonest, because to be honest, you're right that there are "virtue signalers" on the alt right, but there's nothing virtuous about denying the holocaust and wishing it had happened.

It is a lot like it, yes. Different people have different "virtues". It's like social justice that is very unjust.

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Also, humans aren't strictly individualistic, that isn't how we function socially. You can politicize and preach individualism as much as you want but that just isn't how things work. I'm a very individualistic person just because of how I view myself as a character, but I also have a really strong socially collectivist attitude when I feel like something core to what or who I am that I have little to no control over is being threatened, be it my religion, my gender, or whatever have you. Saying collectivism is purely ideological is a really reductionist viewpoint. Saying "there is no trans community, only trans individuals" completely ignores the fact that, first of all, trans CULTURE exists, and wouldn't without a community. Second, the trans community has social power which is too great of an advantage to trans people as individuals for the community to just not exist. Take this as an example, if an individual or a collective of people hold anti-trans sentiments, well first of all that collective isn't going anywhere and those individuals CERTAINLY aren't going anywhere, and second of all, an attitude that targets innocent individuals is inherently morally wrong and you can't really argue to the contrary. This is where a lot of people start to get a sour taste for collectivism. The trans community is a particularly marginalized one, they're more often victims of violent crimes including rape and murder than their cis counterparts, so trans people very often have little patience and little tolerance for anything that can even be remotely perceived as "transphobic". When H3 made that joke a few months ago about cutting his dick off there was outrage, and the reason why I didn't side with him on that whole issue was, I found the joke to be mostly harmless, but in addressing it he totally ignored the entire reason why people found it harmful in the first place. Should he have to apologize for what seemed like a harmless joke? It would've been appreciated but I don't necessarily think so, what he ended up DOING though was going on this tirade about how people are too easily offended. That's the sour side of collectivist attitude that people don't like, because they get targeted for something they perceive as harmless and feel hopeless, like they're constantly being forced to adapt or accommodate for something that they shouldn't. If you get accused of being racist, or sexist, or x-phobic, the worst thing you can do is have a fight-or-flight reaction like that, the best thing you can do is just try to talk it out.

A misunderstanding. It's not how you look upon yourself and you community but how the law and institutions do it. Collectivism that wants to change the law to suit a particular group is political. This fight against it is about the law that makes sense, law that should exist to protect our freedoms, and law that should be applied equally to each and every individual. You can get tribal as much as you want as long as you don't try to harm others due to your beliefs. How you feel is something that you will have to resolve within the boundaries of equality inside your social network. People will like you, people will hate you, you will get offended, that is life and it should not be regulated.

 

Accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or phobic can cost them their job, their friends, and basically everything, and the left is doing nothing but shouting how we should all listen and believe the accusations. The chance to talk it out is only beginning to present itself now that all these accusatory terms have been reduced to silly buzzwords. That it came to this speaks for itself.

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Also, just a quick round to address a few things:

Phobia can be used in a colloquial context instead of a medical one, people most often use phobia in that context because many of the more popular phobias out there aren't officially medically recognized. In a colloquial context it also means aversion. Calling somebody a homophobe isn't a matter of lashing out against somebody who simply disagrees with a common talking point in the gay community or whatever have you, it's a matter of calling somebody out who has a harmful opinion of gay people. (Keep in mind I said harmful, not illegal, don't jump to any conclusions.)

Which makes it a term worth nothing outside of medicine. I will reiterate my claim: people should be free to be "phobic" without legal consequences or prospects of harassment. So we agree about the legality of this situation. That is good to read.

 

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Saying "PTSD sufferers would be more offended by people who self diagnose" is a red herring, you can't speak on behalf of everyone who suffers from a trauma-related disorder. Triggers and safe spaces aren't laughing matters, it's simple enough to just not treat them as such.

The concept of social heirarchies is nothing new, but humans are a little more socially advanced than other animals. This is really just an appeal to nature.

I did allow myself to assume the emotional response of patients, but faking it is still an awful thing to do and your side if guilty of it. Now, I don't expect you to atone for the sins of your fellows, but I do expect you to call it out and move on. As far as safe spaces and triggers of healthy individuals are concerned, yes, they are a joke and the left made it into one. We can argue for safe space use when it comes to some patients who need peace for the healing process, but that is where I draw the line between relevancy and shitposting invitation.

 

 

 

What does socially advanced mean and how does it counter our behavior that can be observed on a daily basis?

1 hour ago, Annie said:

And I think I've already addressed everything in your question so, I'm done here.

Well, you are free to provide a concise definition of shitty things anytime

[Morning Rose 29]

As a transgender person, it really gets frustrating to be called something like a "social justice warrior" just for wanting to be treated humanely. Wanting to be recognized as who I am feels like asking for the impossible oftentimes on the internet; would it really be that much trouble just to show an ounce of respect? I'm not trying to force anyone to date me or anything like that, but just simply being recognized as a girl really does give a strong sense of relief. It would likely be a problem in real life too, if people knew about it, but I am very fortunate. My transition has gone very well, and i'm never misgendered. They would never find out unless I told them.

There ARE people out there who are extremists, but the general hate has made it harder for the more reasonable people to have their opinion genuinely be heard.

[honk friend 1,978]

4 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

Well, you are free to provide a concise definition of shitty things anytime

I've already addressed that in my post but I'll give you a TL;DR before getting in to this:
If you propagate thoughts or ideas that are harmful to innocent people, you are a shitty person doing shitty things.

5 hours ago, Goat-kun said:

It is a lot like it, yes. Different people have different "virtues". It's like social justice that is very unjust.

A misunderstanding. It's not how you look upon yourself and you community but how the law and institutions do it. Collectivism that wants to change the law to suit a particular group is political. This fight against it is about the law that makes sense, law that should exist to protect our freedoms, and law that should be applied equally to each and every individual. You can get tribal as much as you want as long as you don't try to harm others due to your beliefs. How you feel is something that you will have to resolve within the boundaries of equality inside your social network. People will like you, people will hate you, you will get offended, that is life and it should not be regulated.

Accusing someone of being racist, sexist, or phobic can cost them their job, their friends, and basically everything, and the left is doing nothing but shouting how we should all listen and believe the accusations. The chance to talk it out is only beginning to present itself now that all these accusatory terms have been reduced to silly buzzwords. That it came to this speaks for itself.

Which makes it a term worth nothing outside of medicine. I will reiterate my claim: people should be free to be "phobic" without legal consequences or prospects of harassment. So we agree about the legality of this situation. That is good to read.

I did allow myself to assume the emotional response of patients, but faking it is still an awful thing to do and your side if guilty of it. Now, I don't expect you to atone for the sins of your fellows, but I do expect you to call it out and move on. As far as safe spaces and triggers of healthy individuals are concerned, yes, they are a joke and the left made it into one. We can argue for safe space use when it comes to some patients who need peace for the healing process, but that is where I draw the line between relevancy and shitposting invitation.

What does socially advanced mean and how does it counter our behavior that can be observed on a daily basis?

That's part of the whole "social power" thing I talked about. People have been wanting to change the law to suit their particular group for as long as law and order has existed. I don't see anything inherently wrong with "we, as trans people, demand the right to use whatever bathroom we want" or anything along those lines. I get if you're concerned that a certain group wants negative opinions about them censored, but let just throw all of my cards on the table here:

So somebody says some shitty thing about LGBT people, non-white people, or the opposite gender, and then they lose their job, their friends, and their career. So? Why the fuck should I care? The attitudes that very often cost trans people their lives are pretty much rampant in this country, and being trans myself, I'm sure you can understand why I have no sympathy for somebody who apparently couldn't care less if I end up dead or stripped of my rights or dignity. I think it's fair to say the social situation in the U.S. is getting dire and nothing is really off the table. You can agree or disagree with whatever you want but again, just as much as there are people preaching love and progress, there are people preaching hate for the sake of returning to a state of normalcy that they're used to. Do I disagree with the idea of criminalizing hate speech? No, I don't even totally disagree with outright censorship. I'll say outright, some opinions are evil, even outright worthless, nothing is lost by censoring them, but limiting freedom of speech isn't a popular opinion so I feel it's easier to just say to let the consequences sort themselves out. Social consequences are generally more dire than legal ones, it's a fine in Canada against getting your fucking show canceled in the U.S., but at least one is done at the freedom and discretion of someone who isn't the government, so I guess it's fine.

[Tiny Hoofs 201]

It is an overused buzzword. It's very vague, poorly-defined and often adds very little to a discussion. It might have had a specific meaning once. But at this point in time, "SJW" can be used to refer to anybody left of Mussolini by some people.

Yeah, progressivism isn't perfect and there's a lot of toxic people that latch onto the movement. Just look at TERFs, SWERFs and people that abuse social justice just to spread hatred. But I feel the term is often exploited by reactionaries to silence anybody suggesting that we should make society fairer. Any show, movie or game is now often called out as "SJW propaganda" just for including minority characters and women. Just look at some of the dumb criticisms of Star Wars: The Last Jedi (not that TLJ is perfect and that there aren't legitimate criticisms of it).

Besides, I don't think the "SJWs" are as powerful as people make them out to be. America and most of Europe has shifted further to the right in recent years. I'm honestly much more concerned about the rise of far-right groups and Islamists.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Tiny Hoofs

[King of Canterlot 9,603]

On 6/29/2018 at 2:05 AM, heavens-champion said:

Anyone tired of people on the Internet blaming Social Justice Warriors for everything? Or using the phrase, for that matter?

No, I'm not really tired of it, mostly because Social Justice Worriers start a lot of shit themselves and they kinda deserve all the crap they get thrown at them, so I honestly don't feel too bad about that. If you start whining about something, then you gotta deal with the consequences of it, that's not my fault 

[honk friend 1,978]

26 minutes ago, King of Canterlot said:

No, I'm not really tired of it, mostly because Social Justice Worriers start a lot of shit themselves and they kinda deserve all the crap they get thrown at them, so I honestly don't feel too bad about that. If you start whining about something, then you gotta deal with the consequences of it, that's not my fault 

This post seems a little contradictory to all the socialist imagery going on here

[King of Canterlot 9,603]

Just now, Annie said:

This post seems a little contradictory to all the socialist imagery going on here

How so, if I may ask? 

[honk friend 1,978]

Just now, King of Canterlot said:

How so, if I may ask? 

Mostly just the fact that social justice is generally a pretty big part of socialism

Oh not to pry or anything, sorry if it came off that way

[King of Canterlot 9,603]

1 minute ago, Annie said:

Mostly just the fact that social justice is generally a pretty big part of socialism

Oh not to pry or anything, sorry if it came off that way

I guess I'm just thinking about more modern Social Justice Warriors, like the kind who rage on Tumbler all day over little piddly things, that's the kind I don't like. I don't mind at all the big Historical movements of Social Justice itself, more so just the annoying modern bloggers who think they're morally better than everyone else, ya know? 

[JonasDarkmane 19,789]

Not necessarily tired of the phrase, however, buzzwords are buzzwords whether they are accurately applied or not. The word has mostly fallen out of my vocabulary, but not out of my thought process. 

Reading through this discussion, originally I would say I would be more for the free use of it with little sympathy, but seeing some of the more "temperate" (quotation marks for my own sake since I myself would not strictly classify them as temperate, but to the general eye, they probably would be) replies, I will say that using the term is not viable if you really do wish to engage in meaningful dialogue, especially with someone you might consider a Social Justice Warrior. 

I won't lose any sleep over anyone getting angry or annoyed over said terms though, people are bound to get pissed over anything else someone says or does. 

 

On 6/29/2018 at 8:01 PM, CloudMistDragon said:

Is the term overused? Yes. But who cares? Is the term always deserved for the target of criticism? No. But who cares? This is a perfect example of a non-issue, let the cesspool of the internet wear out whatever buzzwords they want. If you care that much, vote by not using those words anymore. Otherwise, find actual problems to worry about

Otherwise, I will say that this quote here pretty much sums up my thoughts for this entire thread. The amount of caring I am able to do is very minimal. 

I just merely added my own opinion on the matter for the sake of it. 

[Goat-kun 2,530]

10 hours ago, Annie said:

I've already addressed that in my post but I'll give you a TL;DR before getting in to this:
If you propagate thoughts or ideas that are harmful to innocent people, you are a shitty person doing shitty things.

That's part of the whole "social power" thing I talked about. People have been wanting to change the law to suit their particular group for as long as law and order has existed. I don't see anything inherently wrong with "we, as trans people, demand the right to use whatever bathroom we want" or anything along those lines. I get if you're concerned that a certain group wants negative opinions about them censored, but let just throw all of my cards on the table here:

So somebody says some shitty thing about LGBT people, non-white people, or the opposite gender, and then they lose their job, their friends, and their career. So? Why the fuck should I care? The attitudes that very often cost trans people their lives are pretty much rampant in this country, and being trans myself, I'm sure you can understand why I have no sympathy for somebody who apparently couldn't care less if I end up dead or stripped of my rights or dignity. I think it's fair to say the social situation in the U.S. is getting dire and nothing is really off the table. You can agree or disagree with whatever you want but again, just as much as there are people preaching love and progress, there are people preaching hate for the sake of returning to a state of normalcy that they're used to. Do I disagree with the idea of criminalizing hate speech? No, I don't even totally disagree with outright censorship. I'll say outright, some opinions are evil, even outright worthless, nothing is lost by censoring them, but limiting freedom of speech isn't a popular opinion so I feel it's easier to just say to let the consequences sort themselves out. Social consequences are generally more dire than legal ones, it's a fine in Canada against getting your fucking show canceled in the U.S., but at least one is done at the freedom and discretion of someone who isn't the government, so I guess it's fine.

Ah, the famous humanitarian nature of the left finally in full bloom.

 

The bathrooms: if you look like a female, use the female bathroom. If you look like a male, use the male bathroom. You need no laws for that cause nobody will care. The bathroom law is easily exploited. How are you gonna prevent perverts form casually strolling through the other door? Are you gonna erect bathroom checkpoints?  

 

I don't care what you think about people. However, you should care how institutions and employers react because that can easily happen to you under the rule of different identity politics. Yes, private companies are free to do what they want. That also goes for companies that don't want to accommodate trans people. All hail the free market. Its whims are a double-edged sword we all should cherish.

 

Next time you want free speech or any such right criminalized, ask yourself: would I want alt-right to have these laws at their disposal? And that is why I equate your ideology with theirs. You are fighting for the same laws to be implemented. Your only difference is the target. For you to tolerate the freedom of speech only because you think it's popular is sad and shortsighted. Do you think activists are able to protest so freely in oppressive regimes? I'm gonna quote Garbage Human here: sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let them speak.

 

P.S: everything can be hate speech. Food for thought.

[TBD 17,262]

Social justice these days  to me is nothing but  like a "trendy fashion", people go crazy over in a last minutes.  I don't mind social justice but only when it's not giving as "charity" rather then doing it so because "it  was the right thing to do" concepts. So yes I do sometime use the term "swj" depending on the topic.

[Libra 11,691]

since after reading some comments on youtube. I can feel like the "SJW" has lost its meaning, similar to how hard hitting left wing uses terms like "nazi" and "racist."

while these words do have meaning with them, theyre usually no more than a "Everything i dislike is a..." argument then anything. 

[Here No Longer 5,281]

"SJW" lost it's meaning a really long time ago. This thread could have been posted 3 years ago, and the statement made would be correct.

I'm tired of BS arguments saying anybody should be more equal than anyone else, but I'm also tired of people relentlessly trying to get offended by people while contradicting themselves in saying that they're tired of people getting offended so easily. Maybe you should practice what you preach, Social Injustice Warriors (what I call the latter crowd).

[Jeric 46,869]

Direct insults will not be tolerated on MLPF