Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive2

Let's just be honest
There is no purpose in having any discussion about any possibility of criticizing the SJWs, theist sympathizers, and similar groups, because zealous editors here maintain that these groups are without fault and/or do not exist. Even self-deprecating "criticisms," such as this:

"Social Justice Warrior" (abbreviated "SJW") are people that either take social justice "too far" or merely hide behind the social justice movement for their own agendas. However, like all legitimate criticisms of anything, it has been culturally appropriated and used as a slur—in this case, by reactionaries to dismiss the concerns of liberals, progressives, feminists, and supporters of political correctness.

are attacked. Think about the above sentence. That's barely criticism. It hints that maybe, just maybe, the term SJW may have some validity, but immediately returns to the standard snarl word narrative. And yet, people are fighting over rather to include this utterly limp "criticism" as "discussion." Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me "like all legitimate criticisms" isn't so much hinting as it is bluntly and overtly asserting. Either way, the sentence has bad grammar, doesn't meaningfully introduce content that isn't already in the article, and unnecessarily adds a tonal discontinuity to the article. And contrary to popular(?) belief, starting the article with "X is a snarl word" doesn't mean that phenomena A, B or Ω which various people intend X to refer to automatically don't exist. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:12, 17 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
 * "And contrary to popular(?) belief, starting the article with "X is a snarl word" doesn't mean that phenomena A, B or Ω which various people intend X to refer to automatically don't exist." This argument is logically sound, but meaningless in this context because the article makes no effort to mention the real phenomena, and spends alot of effort into dismissing said phenomena as non-existent. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The version of this article you're trying to put up simply can't keep its story straight. It jumps back & forth inconsistently about which usages of this phrase are "original" or "legitimate" & which are "reclaimed" or "cultural appropriated" (WTF?).  It's also arbitrary & hypocritical: you want an article that says "this is a nasty sneery snarl word when people use it about me & my pals but totally legitimate & correct when I use it about these other guys".  07:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The "Culturally appropriated" is a tongue in cheek thing I added in there to describe, using Social Justice newspeak spastic gay talk terminology that the right wing adopted and diluted what would've otherwise been a legitimate criticism. CorruptUser (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it stinks. 08:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aeonian has brought the "legitimate" nonsense from his Regressive left article. Unsurprising, both SJW and Regressive left are two terms he's been heavily using on reddit against any criticism of him. Of course, these terms are "legitimate" when it's him using them. Typhoon (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I love your fact checking skills Weaseloid and Typhoon, considering the fact that I have added no content whatsoever to this article, and only made one edit, a revert. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

How far is too far? Right, you can't tell me because all that's ever happened is some people being overly critical with their words. Withoutaname (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Useful read
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/blog/115/Alix-Jules-SJWs-and-the-Phenomenon-of-Manufactured-Outrage 00:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you take that from Reddit? 01:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maaaybe ;) 11:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was all "Didn't I just post this?" and so it was. 14:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Quote at the top
What is the Glenn Beck quote about, exactly? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's about the need for floating quotes at the top of every article. Get with the programme.  22:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Stereotype
Include how popular stereotypes of SJW/feminism/tumblrinas are pictures of fat women with hair dye, a mindboggling combination of fatphobia, sexism and transphobia. Withoutaname (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, every SJW I've ever encountered has a been a young, somewhat privileged, conventionally attractive white person. But I mainly deal with theist sympathizers, I suppose other areas could have different demographics but I doubt it. Hair color or body weight has little to do with sanity. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As we all know, 4chan created TrigglyPuff (according to RationalWiki 4chan invented the whole thing and it's all a big hoax made up to paint good liberals in a bad light). TrigglyPuff fits the stereotype all too well. But let's not pretend it's all made up. SJWs really often wear Problem Glasses, they really often have dyed hair, because they belong to a particular secular subculture. The writing of most SJWs is stereotypical, see Laurie Penny's most recent, which is of course all about her, harassment and the weird inversion of "entitlement". As you know, you are not entitled to your own opinion. Chinemassacra is not entitled to not review Ghostbusters. Practically everything with SJWs is a huge stereotype. From common ideas like calling critics "obsessive" to their own jargon and texts teeming with metaconcepts. ~ Aneris 21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The SJWs I have encountered have overwhelmingly not met those particular criteria. And the regressive left, which has significant overlap, is certainly much more inclusive than any youth subculture. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @Withoutaname I posted an imgur link that has a lot of stereotypical "SJWs". It may be short but it is a common stereotype.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Any stereotype looks true when those that meet it are singled out for bullying. If an obese person was caught on camera at the Stonewall riots, that's all anybody would talk about. 'Oi, look at these fags, they even got an angry fat one what's throwing bricks!' It's pathetic. 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris is convinced the SJWs are "postmordenists who control the RationalWiki." Or something like that. Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Aneris is approximately eight years too late to rescue RW from the SocJus menace, but by Thunderf00t he'll keep trying - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your projection, David. You claim to know more about other people, and your opinions somehow outweight what they themselves state (such as myself). I am all for social justice, and like virtually all atheists fully support the aims under the rainbow (such as marriage equality etc). What I am against, and you know this, but laugh it off, is Critical Race Theory and other such pseudoscience, and the consequences of this belief system (specifically "narratives", race theories and the smearing that comes with the territory). But you can deny this influence until your face turns blue. In meantime, American Humanists even publich articles touting Critical Pedagogy (see the first article link "in-depth understanding of the world"; another checkbox in the CRT framework, next to narratives, cultural appropriation, safe spaces, identity politics, intersectionality...) Further your line of defense is exactly the same as it was nearly 20 years ago with Alan Sokal. He made fun of how the sciency side was lumped together with Rush Limbaugh (of all people), and your article here begins with Glenn Beck. I appreciate the humour, but it's working against you. What you will do, eventually, is quietly adjust your articles, when the dissonance to reality becomes unbearable even for you, but of course you'll never admit that you have been wrong all along. ~ Aneris 15:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, it's mr "I have distanced myself from this project"!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get what's so bad about critical theory to being with. Or why reactionaries have to concoct stereotypes of feminists that are no better than the local resident schoolground bully's next victim. Withoutaname (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

On slinging SJW and hypocrisy
http://www.theouthousers.com/index.php/features/135412-ru-s-views-dc-rebirth-and-the-deafening-hypocrisy-of-the-reactionary-fan-base.html 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WIGO:Blogosphere is that way. 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

How is it...
... that we can generally agree that organic food is mostly woo, and a kind of socially obnoxious conspicuous consumption, or that recycling isn't all that it's cracked up to be, and done mostly to be seen doing it...

... and yet, conspicuously practising those sorts of things to be seen as a member of an in-group that endorses them isn't silly at best and overbearing at worst? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because a lot of people here are reactionaries in the sense that they oppose or support something because the conservatives oppose or support it? StickySock (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what else is silly at best and overbearing at worst: JAQing about environmental woo on a page about attitudes to social justice issues. 18:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * JAQing off.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC) 19:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another dismissive, thought-terminating cliché. The virtue-signalling business needs to be handled with a bit more nuance.  It's another human universal;  is the same thing, and probably wants an article here as well.  The use of code language and jargon to signify commitment to an in-group is hardly exclusive to 'social justice warriors'.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the statement that (paraphrasing) we all implicitly admit that the social justice movement has plenty of people with their heads up their asses and yet this article refuses to mention that? CorruptUser (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

As CorruptUser pointed out, the problem is certain individuals who like to paint everyone for social justice as SJWs. These people give credit to the SJW opinion that the term is merely a snarl word for everyone vaguely progressive. The same nonsense occurs to regressive left and similar phrases. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One point is that "virtue signalling" is actually a fairly useful concept. It's also hardly exclusive to progressives, though they do it a lot.  Arguably, it's even worse when evangelical Christians or right-wing politicians do it, and they do it a lot.  Social one-upmanship games are not exclusive to any one political persuasion, and like I said, the concept probably ought to be treated in the article with a bit more nuance.  - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not helping it Aeonian, since you obsessively throw around those labels on Reddit, and even on this wiki you were creating separate boxes for "pro-SJW" and "anti-SJW" editors. Typhoon (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another blatant straw man to push a dead agenda. If you doubt that my "boxes" are real, just look at who you edit war with. It's usually the same people. And look at who supports you. Again, usually the same people. That's all I was saying. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The original targets of the term
So, I just read the quote from the author of the "Fuck No Tumblr SJW" blog, and it says:

"Back when I and a few others started this tumblr several years ago, “sjw” seemed, to us, to be more of a criticism on people who used social justice to further their own bigoted ends, push already marginalized people out of their own spaces, and dominate discussions with bigoted rhetoric."

When I think of bigoted toxic elements on the left who might fit this definition, what comes to mind are TERFs (the actual man-hating feminists), tankies, and "White Feminists", none of which the stereotypical SJW belongs to, because the stereotypical SJW is intersectional and tends to strongly criticise these groups. (In fact, at least the TERFs are very much anti-intersectional and more likely to ally with those who oppose intersectional feminists over their common bogey-trans-woman. After all, feminists who hate both men on the one side, and women who are, behave or present too conventionally feminine or attractive on the other, are generally not on the intersectional side. While the author of the blog in question would likely be branded as SJW just for using language such as "bigoted" and "push already marginalized people out of their own spaces".)

By this definition, even Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens and their fedora-wearing followers themselves could be branded as SJWs in the original sense, because they think of themselves as vaguely leftist, and use social justice in the form of feminism (especially their own myopic non-intersectional and thus very White Feminist version thereof) and LGBT rights as a cudgel to beat on their favourite targets, religious people – especially, of course, Muslims. (All the while, on the other hand, merely refusing to ridiculise furries and otherkin, let alone fat people, can earn you the moniker, because, you know, accepting other people's experiences, identities and harmless quirks is so oppressive and hateful, especially against cishet manly white dudes who have it so hard in today's overly "pc" society.) Surely there is some delicious irony hidden here: SJW has now come to mean something like "intersectional feminist (activist)", but the author of the (Tumblr!) blog in question is probably one, and it is those who use the term to dismiss intersectional feminism who are closer to the original meaning. --91.7.30.163 (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you were on to something there for a moment, but then out of the blue claiming that Harris, Dawkins - and especially Hitchens, who tirelessly cared for the beaten and oppressed throughout his life - call on the rights for women or LGTB people only to club muslims, is nothing short of ridiculous. I mean they certainly do play the human rights card to people who aren't for human rights, I'll give you that much. And I do consider them social justice warriors, in the good sense of the term. But honestly, that was quite the jump you attempted there. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitchens, who tirelessly cared for the beaten and oppressed throughout his life Typhoon (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * People who "care for the beaten and oppressed" don't advocate for destructive, illegal wars that directly led to ISIS's rise. Anyway, I find BoN's arguments good, though personally I label ironically Dawkins and co. with the "regressive leftists" label. It fits; they claim to be "leftists" or "progressive" and yet they advocate regressive positions on the entire Muslim community or they shit on Feminism in their free time. Typhoon (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't agree that Hitch or Dennet fits in that classification, certainly I'd agree with you that Dawkins and especially Harris could be argued as such. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that "cishetwhitemale" is held out to be the defining standard of "privilege" or whatever the latest cant word is. At work, I have plenty of "cishetwhitemale" clients who will never have a life remotely as fulfilling as yours, on account of the fact that they're mentally retarded to various degrees. And even myself, I fit every quality (and even come from the upper middle class background to boot!) and find my life enormously more complicated than that of many due to the various effects of PDD-NOS. Most of the people I know who won the game of Identity Politics (and lost at the starting point in general society, to be sure) can't wrap their minds around the idea that having a hard time with things they take for granted cuts both ways, even though many of them work in the field as me! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 01:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just about everybody who expresses a political opinion is a 'social justice warrior'. The real problem is that people have different ideas about what constitutes social justice.  They also have differing opinions on the best tactics to achieve it. The real problem with 'social justice warriors' is that the label actually refers to a hard-left group with a highly contestable notion of what constitutes 'social justice'.  The problem is with their authoritarian tendencies.  They equate their opinions with moral virtue, so that any dissent is cast as a moral failing.  And as such, they have no qualms about bullying dissenters. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * “Just about everybody who expresses a political opinion is a 'social justice warrior'.” This is nonsense. A SJW is a proponent of a tumblrized postmodern ideology of critical race theory and intersectional feminism. The ideology is propagated through “narratives” and “lived experience” which is literally printed in its manual. The outward manifestation is a type of hyper-aggressive (“die cis scum!”) form of confrontation and a negation and subversion of discourse, through rhetorics and through the declaration of “safe spaces” where the ideological beliefs are set as unnegotiable. The appearance of legitimacy is created by a motte-and-baily game of conflation and equivocation, which is also the “attractive side” which ties in to progressive values. What people usually see is what has been called “virtue signalling” (an idea that I find lacking). What is meant is that the classic SJW cares more about their tribe and belonging to the “correct” side than anything else which drives these individuals into conflict with people who are conspiciously close in views (e.g. the intense warring of Clinton SJWs with “BernieBros”). In other words, SJWs are like warrior ants who defend aggressively their safe space, but this is itself located in the progressive corner, so that their opponents are typically progressives themselves, just not the “correct” CRT identity politics tribe. The warrior ants establish their convictions that way and earn social currency and status in their safe space in return. ~ Aneris 13:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Everybody who expresses a political opinion is a social justice warrior, because nobody imagines that their own opinions or ideologies are anti-social or unjust. Everyone is working towards a better world as they see it. The problem is that there are multiple and legitimate conceptions of what makes a better world.  What we need is a better label for the "tumblrized postmodern ideology of critical race theory and intersectional feminism"  that does not fall into the silly tautology of the SJW label. That entire belief system can be legitimately criticized, but the current SJW label isn't helping. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I also don't like the term. I also don't like "Regressive Left" which has some overlap, but is not the same. I'd prefer it if these people would just name themselves. But it is a well-known strategy of postmodernist to simply assert their views as true and universal (despite obvious problems with their own ideology, cf. relativism). But it is simply not true that everyone is a social justice warrior who expresses opinions on social justice. The term is applied to, originally, to exactly that segment I described above, and which was associated with social justice blogging and from where it evolved. The term itself was popularized in context of Racefail09, and when you look into that one, you find the same ideology in there, not a general care for any social justice. The claim is false that "everybody is a social justice warrior" like the cousin, "everyone who is left must subscribe to this brand of identity politics". This was already attempted in Alan Sokal's days with postmodernism, with the same cocksureness (i.e. if you are left, you must be a postmodernist, if you are critical of postmodernism, you must be right wing). See, e.g. Chomsky here and his reference to "so-called 'Left criticism'" ~ Aneris 16:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Blade, now imagine if you had your problems PLUS being the wrong skin color. This is what is meant by "privilege". Not being "cishetwhitemale" means that you start in everything with more difficulties than "cishetwhitemale" do. Including problems that can affect everyone, like effects of PDD-NOS. Typhoon (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, what Typhoon said. Check out Intersectionality. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying and I do try. I admit to being a bit jaded from some IRL experiences in which there's not even an attempt at reciprocity from whoever it is I'm talking to because "white male" (someone actually said just those two words once when I was attempting to explain why I found interactions a lot harder than they would be for her, quite how those attributes have any impact on the neuroscience behind my conversational competence I haven't yet discerned), but that certainly doesn't invalidate the concept and it's something I attempt to remind myself of in a variety of ways. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 03:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You realise that disability, mental health issues, and economic disadvantages are included in the "axes of oppression"? In the framework of intersectional feminism, a white, heterosexual cis dude who is disabled is obviously disadvantaged and lacks privilege compared to one who is able-bodied, all other things being equal. Same with rich vs. poor, obviously. You need to be careful which situations you compare and who you inherently have relative power over, and whose problems you have trouble empathising with (and vice versa). Yes, a white, heterosexual cis dude is not really the epitome of privilege because he could be totally crapped on on every other imaginable dimension. "White cishet dude" is a shorthand for that (possibly only theoretical) top dog of (especially American) society (Trump is rather fat, for example, but it seems his privilege on just about every other axis protects him from being the butt of fat hate largely, or at least from feeling a serious sting from it, so he can dish out fat hate on others himself instead; "boomerang bigotry", as also in the case of Ann Coulter, is a quite remarkable phenomenon that seems to rely on cognitive dissonance, but also on the privilege of not having to feel embarrassed or shamed for being called out on it, Emperor's-New-Clothes-style). But really, in that theory, rather than chasing that elusive top dog, it's more useful to compare regular people who aren't advantaged or disadvantaged on every possible axis, but instead focusing on specific axes of interest in context. I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding the point of privilege. It's not rocket surgery.
 * And yeah, it's shitty when feminists perceive you as male and take you inherently less seriously for it, also because you might not even be male at all. Although it's understandable to be negatively biased against people you perceive as male as a consequence of your life experience, that doesn't excuse bigotedness. These man-hating feminists are arguably exactly that original kind of SJW who is self-centred and lacks any self-critical tendencies, because the whole point of intersectional feminism is that there are no strictly separated groups of "oppressors" and "oppressed" in an absolute sense, but everyone sometimes takes the role of the oppressor and sometimes the role of the oppressed, depending on the situation. --91.7.10.25 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Conservative and right-libertarian pundits have started to identify Trump and his supporters as "social justice warriors" and his actions and policies as "social justice of the right" (compare Wikipedia). I rest my case that the definition of SJW is so flexible that it is basically a meaningless pejorative that can mean anything and anybody you want it to mean, as long as you don't like them, and there is no necessary connection with intersectional feminism at all. --91.7.7.226 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And you can call anyone you don't agree with a "fascist". I rest my case that the term "fascist" is so flexible that it is basically a meaningless pejorative that can mean anything and anybody you want it to mean, as long as you don't like them. CorruptUser (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that "fascism" also has an academically sanctioned definition. "Social justice warrior" hasn't. It rests on an entirely subjective basis. Everybody thinks of their ideological opponents as "unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing". See also here. --91.7.7.226 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that the term fascism has been allowed to broaden to that point doesn't exactly make it less likely that the term SJW could also have broadened in a similarly absurd sense (like the BoN suggests); if anything, it provides an example of this exact snarl word process already having taken place in the past. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Face of Feminism?
Is it safe to say that the SJWs represent feminism as a whole or are they just a vocal minority. Not only have they strengthened racial and gender stereotypes and increased their hatred of men and racial majorities but they have also coddled collage students, which has weakened a already crippled economy and have also turned a blind eye to hate groups, just of different races. They have made the Ivy Leagues for everyone into the polor opposite of what they should be and instead have become Nazis by another name, as they believe their opinions are all that matter and anyone who even remotely disagrees, even women of collar is considered the enemy. When I said that feminist are about man hating, I now fell I'm 100% correct, unless if there are diverse feminist who want to take them down.--101.179.151.222 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If feminism consisted of a hive mind or an exclusive club you only get access to by following specific tenets or standards, like an approved MD, you might have a point. But in point of fact, everyone can call themselves a feminist; it's not a protected identity. So you don't. You're portraying a classic straw man by simply combining everything disagreeable you've ever heard from or about a feminist. And yes, some feminists are shitty "White Feminists" or respectively TERFs who don't give a rat's ass for, or might even actively despise, women of colour, trans women (many of whom are of colour as well) etc., and these are arguably an original target for the moniker "SJW", but they are not representative of feminism as a whole and are vigorously criticised by other feminists. --91.7.10.25 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I usually just have fun with the following question: Name a prominent mainstream feminist that isn't known for something on the internet. Anybody who rails against feminism can't do it. 20:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel like your most common response is going to be "that just proves feminism never did anything important!" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

SJWs are basically Panther women vs Klan's women and why aren't the moderate feminist speaking out on promoting censorship and hatred, why haven't I heard any feminist acknowledge that not only do these type of feminist exist but are also mainstream.--101.179.151.222 (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're like every other person who's used this argument in the past I don't think you have any idea at all what censorship means. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Social Justice Warriors are part of the contemporary "social justice" movement of intersectionality believers, which is a subset of the ideology. It's composed of intersectional LGTB proponents, intersectional anti-racists, intersectional feminists, and potentially some more. The SJW intersectional feminists broadly belong into the 3rd wave of feminism, but arguably intersectionality feminism is perhaps big enough to be considered it's own "wave". Overall, they are a subset of feminists, but which at the moment dominate the public discourse (especially online), see .e.g. everydayfeminism. To many people they are the "face of feminism", because they're vocal and also supported by corporate media (buzzfeed, Gawker, Salon, upworthy), good for native advertising, and have their origins and support in the blogging culture (e.g. tumblr, FTB, SkepChicks), which make them more visible than obscurer or older other versions of feminism. To my knowledge, nobody knows in numbers how representative or numerous they are. ~ Aneris 18:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Then can we agree that the hateful feminist are the only ones of the movement who are making a difference, which is to be less politically correct then what they criticise?--101.179.151.222 (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I had this bookmarked
becuase I thought it was a civil discussion of whether "SJWs" are stereotypes, cherry-picked, etc. 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, this article.
Whenever someone complains that you're "one of them SJWs", the correct rebuttal is: "Why yes, I am a proud defender of social justice. Aren't you?"


 * ಠ_ಠ


 * This is like being called a Nazi and saying "Why yes, I am a proud supporter of socialism on a national level, aren't you?"

it is used to discredit/smear ANYONE who dares to criticize the social status quo in terms of gender and race relations.


 * No, it's used to criticize people who have overshot justice/equality and become bigots in the opposite direction.


 * SJWs are the left-wing equivalent of Stormfront, and RW should be skewering them just as mercilessly. Hmmph (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But we mention as the 2nd definition of the word that SJW can actually likewise refer to:

A more nebulous term referring to loonier members of the Social Justice camp that are either misguided, only in the movement because it's currently "hip", advocate extremist actions (such as verbal, emotional, and/or physical  violence[5]), or use Social Justice to mask ulterior motives that have existed in just about every movement since the dawn of time.[6]
 * These are the droids you're looking for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What would you think of an individual page that listed outright or potentially problematic concepts within a chunk of the online social justice community (such as promoting pseudo-science in the form of health at every size, the crazies who suicide goad, saying you can't be racist towards white people, etc.). Separating sane criticisms from crazy ones could be worthwhile. ClothCoat (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Individual page or no (this is not a comment on editorial design); as a supporter of Hugh Mungous, I certainly think we could call out the battier instances — though it's important that we don't confuse ourselves into thinking that overt nutpicking (as worthwhile as that is) isn't precisely that. We already call out people like Sam Harris for having severely cranky patches in his work. I don't see why we couldn't do the same in regards to what you cite. The problem, however, quickly becomes that people like Typhoon and Aneris quickly descend on such topics and turn them into tedious shitstorms. Never mind the crazy BoN's from all sides which tend to get canvassed off-site for such topics. For now, working on existing articles might be better. But I dunno. Again, I don't know exactly what you would write, so I can't tell you now what I'd think of it, but I agree generally that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to the crazies in gender politics, as we certainly don't turn a blind eye to the crazies who criticize gender politics, and for very good reasons at that. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I believe a lot in atleast trying to combat the tendency to present in myself and all others. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose individuals like Scott Alexander have saner criticisms as opposed to the "SJW's under the bed" conspiracy theorists crowd (or, worse, the white supremacists and misogynists). Focusing on people who are just extremely obscure specific individuals who hold crazy views almost no one else in online social justice circles holds (i.e. yelling at Hugh Mungus) might be fun but I'm not sure how much good it would do as opposed to focusing on questionable concepts that are actually at least somewhat common in some social justice circles (shaky relationship with science and support for concepts such as Health at every size which I see advocated for by relatively prominent online social justice spheres such as Shit Reddit Says, Geek Feminism Wiki, etc.). My main concern are the nuttier BoNs just deleting virtually any criticism. ClothCoat (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once you acknowledge, however, that HAES isn't as obviously nuts as it may look like if you haven't dug deeply into the subject (see Talk:Health at every size with lots of level-headed criticism), and that according to the academic definition of racism, which focuses on systemic oppression, "racism against white people" (which only exists on an individual basis) isn't really a thing (at least in the US and other white-dominated countries; Mugabe discriminating against white Zimbabweans, while obviously bad, isn't exactly an issue of global importance), and that your own use of the term "crazies" in regard to those who suicide-bait (which is generally a way to get yourself into trouble, stat, in leftist circles) is an admission that this is a serious case of nutpicking, virtually nothing is left of the criticism against "SJWs". The cliché is just a way to evade actually engaging in serious debate with leftists. --91.7.12.147 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a pop at this and simply posit the following. Bare with me here, but basically:


 * The reason why we shouldn't take the term "SJW" as signifying any worthwhile criticisms of the left is practically the same reason why we should take the term "regressive left" as signifying worthwhile criticisms of the left.


 * Now, it could work just as well with some other exact term than "regressive left" (per se), but the point is still the same. Without making a (pointless) "comparison" between left and right, which I'm not doing, I can say — as a leftist and feminist myself — that there's certainly no shortage of missional bullshit on the left.


 * Indeed, when it comes to the far left — just as with the far right — the further out the radical branch you go, the crankier and more fringe it gets. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Though, let me just state for the record that seeing people like this use the word "regressive" the way he does, I'm thinking that the exact term "regressive" might be just as debased and useless as "SJW" is at this point — considering that my above posited term-other-than-SJW was to be able to convey worthwhile and internal criticisms of the left. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The SJWs have long been working to use Cultural Marxism to defeat Western civilization and replace it with moral relativist Islamic atheism. RW must indeed rise to the challenge and fight this - oh wait, RW itself is composed of moral relativists, Hindu-Muslim anti-Christians, Soviet anti-theists, and the Putin administration! No wonder they're traitors! Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAOZEDONG--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 03:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 03:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the conspiracy headquarters? I want to talk some finer points of the Cultural Marxist conspiracy with management. I am not the Ombud's man 16:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, duh, they're with the Kremlin where Putin locks up and/or allows the murder of gay people, as part of the social justice warrior agenda of undermining western values like social justice. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy headquarters? Inquiries here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well there you have it, +++Nordics+++ running the show, I'm tellin' ya. I am not the Ombud's man 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is if there's (((somebody))) pulling their strings, in turn... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably me. I am not the Ombud's man 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your handlers trained you well. (Also, notice the goat!) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's up with them? And why do we report people to them? And what happens with the reportees? I am not the Ombud's man 19:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's just say that "blood orange" isn't just a genetic variety. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no you didn't (sazzy snaz--face) I am not the Ombud's man 20:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Manthony Rightstano
I noticed this interesting edit; it's been up for a month and no one seems to have noticed it. You fellas do know Anthony Fantano is in league with such sterling gentlemen as The Amazing Atheist and Sargon of Akkad and was likely being sarcastic, right? Don't take it from me, just check the controversial posts for the subreddit dedicated to his YouTube show, plenty of evidence. He doesn't hide it on his vblog, either. --46.120.236.109 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes fun of people who seriously whine about "SJW"s, regardless if that was his intent. 10/10, would quote again 00:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate Usage?
I feel really stupid asking this, but is there a legitimate, matter-of-fact usage for the term "Social justice warrior"? Unfortunately, the term is a favorite among the Alt-Right (and, to a lesser extent, online conservatives in general) to describe anybody left on the spectrum from /r/The_Donald (or God forbid, /pol/). What I'm wondering is:

Is it okay to use the term to describe genuine left-wing extremists (as described in the second definition on the main page)?

Sincerely, CJ-Moki (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer moonbat. The term hasn't been corrupted. 04:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Someone who picks a fight where none exists". Otherwise, there just doesn't seem to be a good way to use term unironically, not when there are better words out there. 04:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Once you realize that Social Justice is a good thing, there is no pejorative usage for the term anymore. The term is used so broadly that it's become synonymous with Human Rights Activist (at least in my perception). It's getting out of fashion for right wingers as well. Some youtubers who are called SJW have reclaimed the word while right-wingers are catching up to the fact that they're insulting people for wanting justice. It just doesn't work that way.62.159.14.9 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the term is used ironically, for example trannies in girls bathrooms, infinite free everything for the third world, and maximum blacks is not considered "social justice" or a "good thing" by some people. It's kind of a play on how these people think they're saving the world, and their pretentious self-appointed characterisations of themselves, while what they actually are is, in some people's opinion, a bunch of utter fools being used by forces outside their understanding to ruin Western civilisation. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I recall, before its current popularity, seeing it used in some left-wing circles as a sort of variant of "white knight" for social justice issues, to refer to people who care more about showing they're one of the good ones than actually helping. Since alt-right believes that's true of, well, everyone who isn't them, I wouldn't be too surprised if they just stole a term that was already being used the same way by their opponents. Nog Bogmire (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

S-jew prononciation reference
The youtuber "Garrett" pronounces it as s-jew because those who use it as a pejorative are fairly often also antisemitic: https://www.youtube.com/user/bloodsoupnz The youtuber Hbomberguy also pronounces it as sjew: https://www.youtube.com/user/hbomberguy On youtube, those are two of the more famous SJWs. 62.159.14.9 (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I pronounce it letter by letter. I think it's important not to risk confusing criticism of Jews with criticism of SJWs, even though of course individuals may be both, and Jews are significantly involved with and perhaps largely responsible for SJWs. Dave MacIntosh (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The defense/citation for divergent definition is bullshit
The intro splits the potential definition between an insult and a group that would, at least how the current page implies (but may be speaking in more than implication?), appear to fit Horseshoe Theory in comparison to the Alt-Right. I read the citation and it is a thinkpiece, which is updated to recommend reading another thinkpiece instead because the first was bad, which the second is worse. It's milquetoast intellectualism that the writer never expected to be taken seriously outside of his circle of complicit ideologues. It would seem more rational to take a historiographic look at the etymology and use of what the term relates to over time from actual writers and theorists, not this joe-blow reactionary rough draft on a floundering site like Medium. Defending such a position in the definitional split would require robust argumentation. Real criticisms of liberal politics from writers like Chomsky, Derrida, etc., with, to say the least, an acrobatic logic to explain how real writers relate to "SJW" as a statistically relevant demographic or cultural phenomenon. I would have made this a reply to some of the other sections added in Talk, but this new section is a response to all of them. The citation is like an Eng or Phil 101 student assuming the professor is too busy to check sources of contentious "arguments" disguising emotional opinions, no offence to the person who cited it -- it's just not a good article and would not fly in any reasonably reputable college classroom, yet is ironically written by a thoughtless professor.

Sorry to be rude. I ain't mad, bro. But I don't have a ton of time for Twitter- and Reddit-basher sympathy, which the page is dangerously close to. You don't have to bash those who only use it for insult, but the current tone falls much closer to sympathy. Short answer would be, no, there is no "legitimate usage" of the term as a significant demographic or ideology of liberals or anyone else. It's like feminazi, but may have irrelevantly started as a positive -- its serious use cannot seriously be defended outside Fox News. Unless someone else has a rebuttal, I'll gather some sources about how the concept of 'Social Justice' activism too often problematically appeals to authority and fragmentization of "others" inherently opposed to norms, but often enough retains a deconstructive purpose that makes it equally self-critical (neither of which are damning or justifying, but descriptive).SocraticrystalMethod (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2017 (AKT)
 * For future reference, you should generally add new sections to the bottom of a talk page.
 * The fact that the author included a disclaimer and felt the need to write a response to better explain his position does suggest the original is not a good article. Anyone can be a writer on Medium (as far as I'm aware), and based on a quick Google search the writer does not appear to be particularly noteworthy. "It would seem more rational to take a historiographic look at the etymology and use of what the term relates to over time from actual writers and theorists, not this joe-blow reactionary rough draft on a floundering site like Medium." I agree.
 * The user who added the Medium article,, may have a rebuttal. CowHouse (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * – And my rebuttal is, “I have no recollection of why I chose that piece.” That edit was more than a year ago on a page I haven’t really touched. If you’d like to improve it, go ahead. If you have a better source or a more detailed write-up – and it sounds like you do – then more power to you (Although major changes should be drafted in the Talk). It’s a collaborative wiki, after all; you don’t need the blessing of every previous editor to make an improvement. As such, I’m not sure why I’m being pinged on this. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So.....
What will Social Justice Valhalla be like? Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably much more powerful than a Status Quo Warrior. 03:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Not painting a community with broad strokes
"Of course, as with any ideology — humans being humans and therefore not angels — people do exist who take the language and ideas of social justice advocacy and weaponise them into tools to serve power and dominance (in ordinary language, these people are called bullies). And again, as with any ideology, there are people who ride the social-justice train of thought too far, into a bitter version of Cloud Cuckoo-land that interfaces poorly with the reality-based community. This cannot be helped. Every identifiable group of people has its share of assholes, and whatever has power for good can be subverted. The error of the thinking behind the phrase "social justice warrior" is to claim that all advocates of social justice are equivalent to their cause's worst representatives."

I gotta be curious though - why is nobody that eager to extend the same courtesy to Trump supporters? Generalizing them all as racists, misogynists or all other kinds of bigots seems to be the in thing right now. In reality it's of course just like Jonathan Pie said. "Some of them are, most aren't."5.174.74.221 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference is that while some social-justice types can go too far through using certain tactics Trump made his positions on women and minorities very clear and people still accepted him showing that everyone who voted for him didn't care that much about his claim that Mexico is sending criminals over or him bragging about how easy it is for him to get away with sexual assault. This means that at the very least they don't care about how stunningly horrible he is and thought it didn't matter that so many people are going to suffer under him. Vorarchivist (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (Though Jonathan Pie is rarely dead wrong). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, but you have to take into account that cold dismissal, indifference and overlooking stuff is a very human trait. While a huge flaw, it doesn't mean the people in question are evil. Sure, Trump did say unacceptable things abour grabbing women by the pussy. But lots of his supporters, while not directly condoning these things, overlook them for their perceived lack of severity. I know self-professed liberals, who are pro-choice, don't mind homosexuals in the slightest and can't be called racist by any definition, who voted for Trump. And yet, based on their emotional overzealousness and misplaced righteous anger, many opponents of Trump will label and compartmentalize these people. These days ever higher moral standards are required of people, you have to keep doing more and more just so people accept that you're not racist. You can imagine people's frustration, since this doesn't touch only the actual bigots, but also a good portion of moderates and even liberals. Today's left can be just as puritanical as the right used to be.
 * Well, that just brings up the question of WHY such staunch liberals would vote for a right-wing demagogue like Trump in the first place. While they may not be "evil" per se, they should still be called out for their "cold dismissal, indifference and overlooking stuff" that you seem to think excuses their decision. It doesn’t. As the Daily Show's Hasan Minaj (himself a Muslim with an immigrant family) put it:


 * The problem isn’t that our standards are too high, but that Trump’s supporters’ standards are too low. Those who are not explicitly racist/sexist/what have you are not absolved of blame; they are the “moderates” that MLK said were more of an obstacle to civil rights than those who are explicitly racist, as those moderates are more inclined to defend and justify the racists in the name of maintaining order. Finally, to quote someone much wiser than myself, the opposite of love is not hatred, but apathy. NotYourAverageBoN (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought it meant...
The way I use the term "social justice warrior" is to pejoratively describe left-wing activists who exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

1. Substituting ideological slogans, jargon, insults like "racist" and "bigot" (used in exactly the same way Christian fundamentalists use "heathen" or "heritic", i.e. to refer to any opinion they disagree with) and personal whinging for rational argument.

2. Attempting to shut down disagreement instead of engaging with it rationally, attempting to ruin the life of anyone who dared say something they consider politically incorrect, and generally having nothing but contempt for freedom of speech and for any kind of dissent or disagreement.

3. Obsessivley dividing everyone into "privileged" and "oppresed" catergories instead of focusing on them as individuals, and even when these categories defy logic (like calling Muslims, gays and women all oppressed groups, even though Muslims oppress gays and women far more than anyone else does).

These traits seem to be the important ones, and the ones that are antithetical to rationalism and humanism. If you engage in consistent rational argument, completely support the right of people to disagree with you, and focus on people primarily as individuals rather than members of groups, I wouldn't call you a social justice warrior no matter how radical your beliefs or how zealous your activism.

On the other hand, if you think that your membership in some "oppressed group" releases you from the obligation to use your brain, and to ground your demands and claims in reason and evidence, or you think that the proper response to "bigoted speech" is attempting to silence it, instead of attempting to rationally refute it, then I have no respect for you whatsoever, no matter how admirable your goals are, and you are an enemy of the most fundamental values of a civilised society.

It seems to me that these are the negative connotations of the term that RW should be mercilessly condemning. Cornucopia (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I hate to be "that guy", but I must point outa bit of a nitpick with your argument, specifically the third characteristic you listed:
 * See, here's the thing: in the USA at the very least, those groups you just mentioned are very much on the outside looking in as far as our society goes, and are still not exactly what one would call "equal" to the majority - and that includes Muslims, who are very disadvantaged in my country as this page demonstrates. Also, by implying that Muslims are inherently misogynistic and homophobic is just as blatant stereotyping as you accuse radical leftists of doing, and the specific wording just smacks of not as bad as with just a hint of Fatwa envy.
 * See, here's the thing: in the USA at the very least, those groups you just mentioned are very much on the outside looking in as far as our society goes, and are still not exactly what one would call "equal" to the majority - and that includes Muslims, who are very disadvantaged in my country as this page demonstrates. Also, by implying that Muslims are inherently misogynistic and homophobic is just as blatant stereotyping as you accuse radical leftists of doing, and the specific wording just smacks of not as bad as with just a hint of Fatwa envy.


 * As for #1, it's mostly a consequence of the fact that arguments and debates keep playing out with the same repetitive patterns and talking points, so activists tend to acquire a certain jargon and shorthand terms and phrases like those found in Logical fallacy. This is also the reason why activists may come across as curt, dismissive and unwilling to argue – they may not have the time and inclination to explain Social Justice 101 for the umpteenth time to some rando who might well be Just Asking Questions. People only have finite patience. Also, "racist" and "bigot" are hardly insults. Racists and bigots exist, and when you get called one, it's usually because you talk or act like one. You might wish to look at I'm not prejudiced, but....
 * As for #2, it's a strawman and projection, as far as I can tell (except for the part where you imply that you're entitled to the time of activists to "engage rationally" with you, adress your doubtlessly "highly original" – yeah, right – objections and explain basics to you, see #1). Alt-righters and Gamergaters are well-known for harrassment campaigns and the whole ruining lives things. Random leftist activists on the web are not organised enough to accomplish such campaigns. Complaining about political correctness is another red flag: "not politically correct" ideas are generally just tedious, odious crankery that's everything but original. When the "defense of free speech" is used almost exclusively for Neo-Nazi apologia, or defending bigoted propaganda based on "alternative facts", it's understandable that social justice activists and leftists in general are becoming jaded and cynical about "free speech", too.
 * "You should completely support the right of people to disagree with you" is not only problematic considering that it can't be applied recursively without creating a contradiction, but is also dangerously close to "All opinions are created equal", which reminds me of Respectful Hitler. Some of what passes as an "opinion" is either factually wrong (or based on factually wrong beliefs) or unacceptable.
 * I've seen a lot of talk about "dogmatic, authoritarian SJWs" on the web, but never met someone who actually fit the definition. There can't be that many around. In my experience, "Anti-SJWs" project really hard. --91.7.15.144 (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I get this in tattoo form Cat A. Lonia (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

"You should completely support the right of people to disagree with you", you mean, something like the "right to be offended" that I've seen? Isn't that what "SJWs" are doing? Look, I think that person said it much better than me, but the reality is -- and this confusingly exampled Wiki page attests -- everyone is an SJW once they start arguing hard enough. Don't use labels. Just try to understand (and overcome).

Made me snort
Heh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The best part is left out.
 * 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 16:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"S-Jew"
I believe this part is incorrect: The description of the cited video suggests that it's social justice advocates who say "S-Jew" (Keep hearing those who would typically be associated with social justice warriorism using the term (and pronounciation) Sjew (ess jew), as opposed to the original SJW (ess jay double eww) in phrases like "you hate sjews".).
 *  pronounced by some as "S-Jew" 

In my experience, "S-Jew" is not a term used by the alt-right, but by people who want to mock those who use "SJW" as an insult (usually people who either self-identify as social justice warriors or think it's a stupid term). For example, Hbomberguy, who is essentially the opposite of an alt-righter, uses the term "S-Jew" "[t]o remind people that this isn't the first time a bunch of weirdos have invented a vague group of bad people they then have to 'stop'." Even our very own has said "SJeW". CowHouse (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The "militant leftist" connotation of SJW as a dog whistle for the connotation of "anyone with any progressive opinions at all"
I submit that the "militant leftist" connotation of SJW is a dog whistle for the "anyone with progressive opinions" connotation, and that the two definitions are fluently switched between by reactionaries, who are often able to get liberals to go along with them because liberals don't understand the latter connotation.



Here is a good example of it being used as a snarl word and having absolutely nothing to do with "militant" leftism. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're complaining about LGBT while using an image from an anime with a cast that consists solely of lesbians? --216.152.182.169 (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's reactionaries in a nutshell: against LGBT rights, pro-fapping to lesbians and traps. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what they call Tongue-in-cheek? Purposely making it seem like they hate something but are using an image of the thing they supposedly hate in a twist of humorous irony (seen it a lot)? Unless I've seen the whole discussion I wont jump to conclusions though. 01:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's 4chan, you have a 50-50 chance of it being either genuine or troll...more like maybe 10-90 favoring the troll side. 03:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much more common, especially nowadays, for them to be genuine and hiding behind a troll persona. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A simpler explanation is the one I offered. It's not unusual for reactionaries to get off on lesbians while opposing lesbian rights. The two are not contradictory, any more than it's contradictory for reactionaries to get off on women in general while opposing women's rights. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * or even simpler they liked the picture and where it came from is irrelevant AMassiveGay (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Cat A. Lonia (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SJT
Hey, where is the Social Justice Tank? The Warrior is more offensive than a Tank, which is more focused on being defensive. 01:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm more of a Social Justice Fighter Jet myself. 03:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm a Social Justice Anti-paladin. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 17:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I`m more of a Juggernaut myself. — Oxyaena   Harass  02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SQW
Shouldn't there be an entry for status-quo warriors? which are essentially the anti-SJW mentioned here.
 * Not really, because plenty of the "other side" are articulately regressive in their ideologies. The pages of internet posts produced making the case that women should lose the right to vote alone would fill a library.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So should they be Social Injustice Warriors, or Conservative Correctness Warriors?
 * Besides, we already have a name for people who are obsessed with preserving the status quo. NotYourAverageBoN (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Intro is a bloated mess
Is there a simple, clear intro section that can be hacked out of that ramble? - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Our article on social justice has a similar issue. Few people would claim to oppose 'social justice', but what 'social justice is makes for rather a trickier question.  Perhaps we ought to lead with what it is that stereotypical social justice warriors believe, and work from there. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 18:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

whiteness redefinition
It should be noted that SJdubyas are far from the first to redefine 'white', especially in former colonies. Italians weren't white, Irish weren't white, Finnish people of all people have been classified as mongoloid in the US in the past apparently. I can't find it but Richard Spencer once when pressed on 'what was white' responded Anglo Saxon I believe. So from an American perspective (and other countries I'm sure) SJWs haven't redefined this term at all, they're just acknowledging it. Féinléiriú (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My question has always been: are Catholics white? Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 20:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The KKK would say no. Féinléiriú (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

From User talk:Pythoncoder
Copypasting comment from my talk page: "The current intro associating the word only with the right-wing and far-right reactionaries is not accurate, the article itself describes that liberals, progressives, feminists, and moderate conservatives have used the term. So since you removed my edit to make that clear then what should be done with the intro? " —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 18:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Intro - only says the term is used by right-wing and reactionary groups, main body of article - says that the term is used by multiple groups

 * So as mentioned in the post that has been copypasted here, the description in the intro that only mentions right-wing and reactionary usage does not match what is said in the text that describes more groups than just these that use the term. I think the usages by these other groups should be mentioned in the intro.--76.64.229.101 (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. In addition we have had someone on this wiki pointing out correctly that someone else was trolling and pretending to be an SJW, which implicitly acknowledges that the term SJW does refer to something real and is not merely a content-free snarl word, otherwise no-one would have known what that meant when they said it.--Greenrd (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is possible to pretend to be a strawman, y'know. 21:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We've just cut down the intro from a verbose rant into a reasonable size overview. No the intro doesn't need such a disclaimer. SJW is overwhelmingly used as a pejorative and thats the focus of the article. If you want to include other examples, find somewhere in the main article to expand on it, using good sources and provide those sources. Shabi  DOO  00:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can it not simply be said with a statement in the intro like this: "the term is used as a snarl word especially by right-wingers as well as by others". That would match what the main body of the article says and would not be wordy.--76.64.229.101 (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replacing a few words in "It is commonly used by far right reactionaries as a toxic ad hominem which almost certainly raises a red flag that a pointless nonconstructive discussion will follow would suffice? Such as replacing "commonly" with "primarily" and "almost certainly" with "generally". We can then add a note at the end to the effect of "though the term can have legitimate usage, such as described in this article." 01:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds better than the current wording of the article, though I would use the word "often" rather than "primarily" or "commonly".--76.64.229.101 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Rating
I think this article is sorta substandard.--HedvigsenSkreonk here 11:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Roll up your sleeves?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that was intentional understatement, but I'm going to go ahead and state this plainly: This article is not neutral. It uses extremely loaded language and has many uncited claims. Why in the hell does it have a bronze rating? 98.161.154.165 (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An example from the intro: "It is commonly used by far right reactionaries as a toxic ad hominem which almost certainly raises a red flag that a pointless nonconstructive discussion will follow." 98.161.154.165 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We’re not Wikipedia, we don’t aim to be neutral, I agree the article isn’t good enough for its bronze rating though. If you have specific problems with the article, you’re free to edit it and address them; I’d be careful about just removing all the stuff you think is bad and not replacing it with anything, it’s easily interpreted as vandalism and you’ll probably be reverted. Christopher (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, I actually came to delete my comment, but as you've already replied... I actually hadn't realized I'd ended up here. I thought I was on Wikipedia. 98.161.154.165 (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)