Essay:Guide to SJWs: What They Are

“”So some idiot wrote something stupid on DeviantArt. So what? It might well have been written as a joke. But it really doesn't matter if it was or not. The person who wrote it is just some nobody on the internet, not anybody important or influential. Their stupid rant isn't going to get anybody to change their minds about anything. Far too much time and energy was [w]asted on this at the Saloon Bar and it certainly doesn't merit its own article of any kind.

—Spud

"Guide to SJWs: What They Are" is a document by "PokeFan150" that attempts to argue that "SJWs" pose a grave threat to society.

The following is a side-by-side rebuttal.

PokeFan150:

RationalWiki:

What are SJWs?

SJWs are mainly people who think the opposite of what we normal humans think. If the SJW is in fact an American, they are most likely to be Clinton supporters.

PokeFan150 sets up a bogeyman within the first sentence of her essay, which thinks opposite to her views (detailed below), which she mistakes for views representing "normal humans".

Bullet points

Here is a list of what SJWs think are normal or okay (they actually aren't, to be honest with ya. It's weird and wrong). Hating Trump is okay. Abortion is okay. Black Lives Matter is not a racist hate group. Using unappealing art styles that are somehow appealing is okay. Using fake genders to describe themselves is okay. Racism towards everyone is okay. Using fake sexualities is okay. Wanting the death of all policemen and policewomen is okay. Referring to racial minorities as "people of color" is okay. Calling people who don't agree with Islamic religion "Islamophobics" is okay. Using neopronouns such as "xir, xen, xim" instead of he/she are okay (I prefer using she/her in case you haven't read my bio) Hating men is okay. Wanting the death of all men is okay. Having a weird hairstyle that doesn't constitute as "edgy" or "emo" somehow is okay. Having pointy-rimmed glasses is okay. Thinking that "keeping our borders closed is racist" is okay. Thinking that "being obese doesn't have any health complications" is okay. Thinking that "heterosexuals are pure evil" is okay (I'm hetero and am completely nice! Unless someone tries to tick me the fuck off, then I will defend my territory). Needing "safe space" in high school/college is okay. Wanting to "police gender language" is okay.

A large list of straw men are set up, which are promptly attacked in the following paragraphs. Notably, in point #18, PokeFan150 uses anecdotal evidence to try and disprove a claim (a ridiculous one at that), thus failing to beat her own straw man.

So, let's start explaining the reasons on the list above.

So, let's start beating straw men like it's going out of style.

Hating Trump is okay.

Actually, at first I wasn't a Trump supporter. I'm still kinda disappointed that he won the race, but fuck, he's doing the best he can at trying to protect our country from North Korea and shit! But seriously, give the poor guy a break. I know he's 70 or 71, but still. Give Trump a break. I don't think that it's right that these SJWs have the right to love hating on Trump.

What is supposed to be a rebuttal of the claim "Hating Trump is okay" suddenly turns into a personal anecdote about becoming a Trump supporter. PokeFan150 insists that Trump is doing "the best he can" to protect the United States from foreign threats, despite evidence to the contrary. The author asks for readers to "Give Trump a break", despite the fact that he is given "breaks" every single day. The author expresses an authoritarian sentiment that "SJWs" should not have a right to hate Trump.

Abortion is okay.

Okay, now these SJWs are just going too far. I actually know someone on this website who is pregnant (sorry, [spardanger] for dragging you into this mess), but she is a pro-choice person. Mewtwo: "I see now that-" Me: Mewtwo, you're not helping. As I tried saying before, people shouldn't have the right to get an abortion. However, if the parents of the child don't want the baby, then they probably should give it up for adoption instead of just killing it while it's in the mother's womb.

The author begins the second "rebuttal" with an ad hominem attack. Bizarrely, the author summons a fictional character to interject in her essay, whom she promptly ushers away. The author suggests that any pregnant women who do not want children should give their child up for adoption, despite the fact that many of the women who either wish to or get abortions often do so out of necessity (such as medical or personal reasons).

Black Lives Matter is not a racist hate group.

Okay, what the heck is wrong with you Black Lives Matter supporters?! Aren't you guys seeing that this group is completely racist?! Instead of thinking that this group is not racist, why don't you just accept everyone for who they are?! I accept [xxshadowqueensxx] for who she is!

Once again, the author begins one of her "rebuttals" with a personal attack. The author straw mans Black Lives Matter as being a racist hate group, when it is quite the opposite. Lastly, the author makes a false analogy between her friendship with a black person and the state of race relations in the United States.

Using unappealing art styles that are somehow appealing is okay.

Okay, I get that some deviants on here are cartoonists, but come on! Using Picasso-like art styles is very weird and is unappealing to me. As for me, I try my best to stick to the official art style or the official artwork or costumes of characters from movies such as Suicide Squad and from games such as Pokemon. But I find it weird that people who like to draw and are SJWs have a really unappealing art style, and I just find it... weird.

The author takes a break from beating straw men to instead (weakly) criticize what she dislikes about other people's art styles. Like many other things (see bullet points above and below), the author scapegoats this on "SJWs".

Using fake genders to describe themselves is okay.

Growing up in the 2000s, I knew that there were, are, and will ever be only two genders. Now that we are in the late 2010s, people are using fake genders such as "genderfluid", "demigirl", "transboy", "foxkin" to describe themselves. And only when I thought New York City was immune to this shit... Yep. Now there are over 40 different genders and 100 different sexualities to describe a person in New York City and online. I just hope my tiny state is safe...

The author provides no evidence to her claim that there are only two genders. In fact, more recent science disputes the author's claim.

Racism towards everyone is okay.

Look and listen. IT'S NOT. Saying that racism is okay is like saying that people who have peanut allergies should eat peanut products is okay! IT'S NOT!! What if said person dies from eating peanut products (I actually know someone irl who is allergic to peanuts)?! What the fuck is wrong with these SJWs? I just find this to be so wrong. So, SO, SO wrong.

While the author is correct to say that defending racism is bad, she seems to be nutpicking fringe-of-the-fringe groups such as the New Black Panther Party. Besides, nobody on the left actually tries to state that "racism is okay".

Using fake sexualities is okay.

Now I will never understand this concept of having over 100 different sexualities. As a young kid in the 2000s, we only had three sexualities to best fit our lifestyle. We had heterosexual (boy X girl)(which I actually am), homosexual (boy X boy, girl X girl), and bisexual (boy X boy X girl, girl X girl X boy). Now we have terms such as pansexual, asexual, demisexual, and other terms I can't even fathom to name here. It's confusing and I fucking hate these fake sexualities. Can we just go back to the 2000s like this fake sexuality shit never happened.

The author draws a nonsensical line between sexualities she will acknowledge the existence of and sexualities which she will not, seemingly located at the limit of her understanding. The author makes a reactionary call to return to a non-existent time in which there were only three sexualities.

Wanting the death of all policemen and policewomen is okay.

No it is not. Look, guys, we have the police for a very good reason, and it is to help protect the laws of the United States or wherever else you may live (e.g. France). If we didn't have police officers, then terror groups like ISIS would be freely killing innocent people in the US and other parts of the world and simply won't give a million fucks about it!

While the author is correct in that unprovoked violence against law enforcement is bad, the author nutpicks an essentially-powerless minority in the left that calls for violence against law enforcement officers.

Referring to racial minorities as "people of color" is okay.

That would have been okay if you guys were LIVING IN THE 1950s-1960s. But now, as we are creeping towards 2020 ever so slowly, it is no longer okay to use that term as an excuse for "free speech, bitches". I get that there were segregation laws back in the 1950s and 60s, but... now that law is pretty obscure, and for the SJWs to be bringing it back is just... so fucking frustrating.

The author appears to be conflating the non-offensive term "people of color" with the offensive term "colored person".

Calling people who don't agree with Islamic religion "Islamophobics" is okay.

Okay, whoa! You SJWs are going much too far beyond my comprehension for this bullshit! Sure, you may have free speech, but insulting people who don't agree with Islamic practice and calling them "Islamophobics"?! Look, what I'm fighting for is diversity and equality, whereas you guys are just so inconsiderate and fighting for your own rights. Nobody is the same.

For the third time, the author begins a "refutation" with an ad hominem attack. The third sentence is a noticeable non-sequitir, taking into consideration the subject matter of the first and second sentences. Again, the author's writings have an authoritarian streak to them.

Using neopronouns such as "xir, xen, xem" are okay.

Figments of your imagination. FIGMENTS. OF. YOUR OWN. IMAGINATION. Those words aren't real. In fact, they'll never be real. Start using she/her/hers or him/his/he, and then you and I may talk. All I'm asking out of you guys when it comes to this bullshit. I can't even fathom how much you SJW freaks are frustrating me.

The author declares that pronoun neologisms are non-existent, with no evidence to support her claim. The last sentence predictably contains the fourth personal attack within the essay.

Hating men is okay.

No it is not. Look- it's fucking sexist and you know it! I can't even understand how you guys wanna live without men! If we have a planet without men, pretty much all of our species will die off, and we humans as a species won't even exist! Hell, we won't even have anything if it weren't for men!

The author once again engages in nutpicking, focusing this section of the rant on attacking another powerless, irrational minority. By saying "[W]e won't even have anything if it weren't for men!", the author inanely attributes everything in existence to men.

Wanting the death of all men is okay.

As I explained before, this is completely sexist. I mean, about half of my watchers (slightly less) are boys/men, and if men didn't exist, I wouldn't even be around! [Eve-Jennifer] won't have [TheArtFrog] to support her, and humans, like I said before, won't exist altogether!

After stating the obvious, the author uses two different pieces of anecdotal evidence to try and refute an (easy-to-counter) claim. The author has somehow managed to fail to win against a straw man.

Having a weird hairstyle that doesn't constitute as "edgy" or "emo" somehow is okay.

Uh... okay. Although I sorta don't get it, but hairstyles is one of the things that makes us free to express ourselves. But the weird hairstyles...? That I don't get. I'd rather have side bangs that go over my right eye instead of ACTUAL BANGS. ACTUAL BANGS EVERYWHERE.

For the second time, the author takes a break from straw manning to pointlessly criticize different people's hair style preferences. By doing this, PokeFan150 has weakened the (already weak enough) integrity of her essay.

Having pointy-rimmed glasses is okay.

You SJWs are complete idiots. It's one thing to have glasses due to a genetic eye problem or whatever, but having them just to look "cool"? Uh-uh. No way, Jose. Ain't happening for shit, mate. Don't you need a prescription if you're gonna get glasses? Especially if they are for reading.

For the fifth (and thankfully final) time in her rant, the author uses a personal attack instead of an actual argument. The writing in the paragraph is only tangentially related to the headline above it (pointy-rimmed glasses vs. wearing glasses to look cool).

Thinking that "keeping our borders closed is racist" is okay.

... Just stop. The reason why Trump wants our borders to be closed is that illegal immigrants from Mexico and Syria don't get in. I had a couple of friends from India once, but they were legal immigrants because guess what? They and their parents had fucking green cards (or visas, whatever you wanna call them). Sadly, they moved back to India, and I never heard from them again.

The author seems to ignore the fact that Donald Trump's obsession with undocumented immigrants has racist overtones.

Thinking that "being obese doesn't have any health complications" is okay.

Well, SJWs, did you know that being fat can cause you to die at a younger age, due to health problems like type 2 diabetes, heart attacks, and strokes? It's health problems like these you can't get rid of. Once you're diagnosed, it stays with you and haunts you forever.

The author yet again nutpicks from a small minority. By claiming that "Once you're diagnosed, it stays with you and haunts you forever" about heart attacks and strokes, the author displays a fundamental lack of understanding of those topics.

Thinking that "heterosexuals are pure evil" is okay.

Uh, no. Listen. Heterosexuals aren't evil. They are meant to be God's gift to the world, and He wants nothing to do with you SJW freaks! I know I'm not religious, but I have to use a Christian take on this reasoning. In fact... I have no idea anymore. I just don't. Especially with you guys.

Instead of successfully performing the very simple task of discrediting an absurd statement using logic and reason, the author cites a book of fairy tales as her source.

Needing "safe space" in high school/college is okay.

Not really. Especially since the point of being in high school/college is to get you prepared for the real world. As an art student, I want to have a career in doing what I love most, but as an autistic, I would have to be held back from graduating until I'm 22 years old, and I don't want to be retaught shit that I already know. It's not really fair to us. I don't want to be held back. I want to be free at 18. Like a normal being.

The author straw mans safe spaces as solely being places where students go to avoid getting their ideas challenged. The "safe" in safe space doesn't mean safe from opposing views but instead means safe from violence and harassment.

Wanting to "police gender language" is okay.

Okay, now what the fuck is this bullshit? Police gender language? That shit I don't get. I'd rather have people say him/his/he or she/her/hers than bullshit fake words like "xir", "xen", or "xem". It's just not happening folks. Just isn't. I just don't get that bullshit. So, there you have it. Just don't be around American SJWs, as they are the WORST subspecies of SJWs around. Avoid becoming one yourself, and you'll be fine.

The author determines that because "I just don't get that bullshit", everybody else should conform to her idea of the "right" pronouns to use. Alarmingly, by referring to "American SJWs" as a "subspecies" of "SJWs", the author seems to be dehumanizing people she disagrees with.

Final observations

In conclusion, PokeFan150 seems to perceive a "SJW" bogeyman as the culprit of all social change she doesn't like. The authoritarian sentiments expressed in "Guide to SJWS: What They Are" gives the impression that the author believes she has moral authority over other people, a very worrying trait.