RationalWiki talk:Project Social Justice

Fat acceptance

Ive never heard the term "body acceptance" as the name of the fat acceptance movement. Can someone clue me in?--Dgener8 (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer we can use fat acceptance movement. I was under the impression they are intechangeable. We can have all sorts of redirects. ·Femilisk³ 08:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly clueless about the fat acceptance movement I was just wondering if Body acceptance is the preferred terminology.---Dgener8 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen both used. I'm going to say we can use both but I'd like to wait for Laurelai and Knight to weigh in too. ·Femilisk³ 08:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Body acceptance seems like a more universally applicable term. Individuals can be shamed for physical features other than obesity. Lager (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the question. The question was what term the fat acceptance movement goes by. ----Dgener8 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Body acceptance is an even wider movement that encompasses even broader "ugliness"/beauty standards set by society. But I do not have enough research on it, so for now I think we should stick with working on the Fat acceptance movement article. ·Femilisk³ 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor FYI

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's inconsistent, the way this project is capitalized. You've essentially made it a proper noun by putting "Project" in front of it, so it should be "Project Social Justice", not "Project Social justice". Agree? Nullahnung (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea, capitalise as you wish! This is the least of my worries, change at will! ·Femilisk³ 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the least of your worries, as it should be, it is a minor thing after all. I shall capitalise as I wish. Nullahnung (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ALL CAPS NOW ·Femilisk³ 12:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Portal icon

I took a bash at this. Anyone that wants to improve it please do so. File:Icon social justice.svg^{— Unsigned, by: Π / talk / contribs} 13:50, 19 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Did you delete it? ·Femilisk³ 14:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Template's up, using a feminist icon as a placeholder, someone more creative than I pick colors. Ty^JFBAA 09:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There's something strange going on - a bug in MW or the file itself (invalid SVG?). There is a File:Icon social justice.svg page, and it shows up in the Upload log, but no thumbnail is produced. Clicking on the "file" link in the Upload log allows you to download it directly - http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/5/5e/Icon_social_justice.svg I'll bug the techs about it.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that this bug is only specific to certain users. I was and am able to see the picture just fine. Nullahnung (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I made one with the standard SJ icon. ·Femilisk³ 10:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual_talk:Image_administration#Error_creating_thumbnail --Laurelai (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

TERFs

Shouldn't they have their own page instead of a subsection in the Radical feminism page? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this, most modern radical feminists are not TERFs --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree also. ·Femilisk³ 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Added it to the to-do list. Feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Bokura nazeka tashikameau / Sekai ja sore wo ai to yobun da ze} 16:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Created it. It's extremely barebones, given how much is a copypasta of the TERF subsection in the RF article, but something worthwhile can come out of it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin', I'm gonna survive this, I'm gonna make it} 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, not only are they a minority of Radical feminists, but also a group that contrasts with the majority in a significant amount of ways. It also means that we'll have an entirely separate article covering TERFs, something that is hard to find online --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

A separate article on TERFS is warranted. I was unaware that sad group of individuals existed prior to reading about them on RW. Lager (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I know many radical feminists who are transpositive. It's not really helpful to conflate the two and reinforces outdated feminist stereotypes. I'm glad that we have a separate article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

TERFs stay off my turf! ·Femilisk³ 12:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Social justice article

I'm copying this over from Talk:Social justice#Major rewrite/Start over:

On a slightly more serious note, the article is still very problematic IMHO. Taking the contents as a guide, I'll explain what I mean:

1 Basic concepts

Explains some basic-level 101 SJ stuff taught on the academic courses on SJ (linked to in main article). A good section.

2 History

2.1 Religious and historical ideas

Explains the basic historical points. A good section.

2.2 Contemporary social justice movements

Explains practically nothing about modern SJ, no reference to the work by the UN, for example. Also the length is about half that of the historical subsection above it. Misleading in contents and in size.

3 Criticism

3.1 Religious social justice movements

Explains the problems and criticisms with the religious-flavoured SJ. A good section.

3.2 The online social justice community

Explains nothing about online SJ, basically just talks about Tumblr. Not entirely sure what Tumblr has to do with representing all of SJ online when online SJ activism is a very wide-ranging thing, from online charities, to the Occupy movement, to clicktivism, to academic courses, etc. In addition, the section is disproportionately long and seems to thus imply that modern SJ is synonymous with Tumblr. That really is not so. A bad section.

So... anybody want to have more of a go on the problematic sections? ·Femilisk³ 12:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because I think it's an important point and that that talk page is massively cluttered with things that have largely been resolved. ·Femilisk³ 10:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the online SJ section is a disjointed mess caused by different people trying to say different things at different times, even in different places! Tumblr still probably deserves mention in the article. If a disproportionately vocal subset of a specific online community or set of online communities has been able to create this much baggage around the term "social justice," we can't ignore its existence. The One They Call Mars (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Transphobia expansion: Needs more debunking

I added a section to Talk:Transphobia about expanding that article and related articles to include more refutation of transphobic woo and pseudoscience. Aside from the section on autogynephilia, there is very little in the way of myth-debunking. There is a veritable mountain of bullshit out there regarding transgenderism and the like (such as claiming that transgender folk are "going against biology" or "denying sexual dimorphism"), and considering how poorly informed the public is about this topic to begin with, we need a solid resource to refute this argument cluster. The existing FAQs on topics such as GMOs and nuclear power could possibly serve as a model for this, though it doesn't necessarily need to take that form. The One They Call Mars (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I propose a related wikiproject

Hey, gang! I've just released- let's call it a working paper- that argues for creating a wikiproject about police and vigilantes. Please read it and share your opinions on the essay's talk page. Solidarity! Rand0 (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)