Talk:Social justice warrior

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Social Justice Warrior)
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon SJ.svg

This Social justice related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)



Intro is a bloated mess[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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? — Unsigned, by: 76.64.229.101 / talk " — pythoncoder  (talk | 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[edit]

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. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 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. ShabiDOO 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." ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

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)

this is quite a substantial article...[edit]

...for something that is little more than a dismissive slur AMassiveGay (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

and holy shit its all dross. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Any specifics? My first problem would be that it seems to gloss over the matter of what the agenda of 'SJWs' is, and whether that is really social justice. As a slur, it might be appropriate for those who want to insert weird drama into other people's pastimes. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Fix it then, it's one thing to lazily whine about an article's quality, it's another to overhaul it. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I would hesitate to 'fix' a hotly contested article like this one without feeling out consensus first. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 18:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
i struggle to find anything of worth in this article. the glossaries should all go. the websites section should be gone. everything on the phrase itself can be condensed to a short paragraph ample to contain all the salient information required.
SJW is and always will be an insult to throw at and dismiss people who you consider too 'woke' or who stridently over react to something innocuous as if it were the most racist/sexist/homophobic/prejudiced thing ever. the few neutral uses of the term prior to this were simply a turn of phrase employed by the authors of an articles that it appeared. it was never ever a 'thing' before the its negative usage by those on the right of things. its too grandiose a term to be anything else. as a self descriptor it would mark anyone referring to themselves as such to be a self aggrandising twat ripe for mockery.
there is no discussion that we need to have about this term. the history of the term is dull and unilluminating. there is no controversy of the term, nothing problematic in its usage. it can be included in one of the many glossaries we already have here, if it isnt already. we need this article about as much as we need an article on the phrase 'poopy head' AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, your main issue is that the article is too big? Then remove the chunks that don't belong.
Does this article really need a glossary on anti-SJWs? That could be made its own article or merged with the alt-right glossary for all I care.
As for the other complaint, the reactionary turds that also believe what says Alex Jones and Donald Trump chuck this term around in debates, so pointing out how it was appropriated for such purpose is missional, albeit it is underwhelming. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
i think you you should re read what i wrote. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
We do have alt-right glossary, where some of this might be profitably merged without loss of data. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 01:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Dunno how involved you've ever been in grassroots politics / organising, but I'm perfectly happy with "SJW" as a valid pejorative for the kind of dickhead who manages to fuck up solid, carefully negotiated deals by whipping people up with fanciful promises of Fixing the World if they only Fight Hard Enough.

They're a genuine fucking cancer in any serious movement, and not only are they usually completely oblivious to the harm they've done, but they're nearly always rich and / or middle class enough not to have to worry about the consequences of their idiotic zeal.

Fuck 'em and every single horse they ever rode in on. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

So a JSW is someone who contributes little to a debate/forum except creating disruption and discord, saying provocative or unnecessarily inflammatory things all to simply prove their point or get their message across at the cost of other people and other matters? ShabiDOO 12:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
To use the neo-right talking point, it's the difference between building wheelchair access ramps, and berating the able-bodied for not being disabled. Corm (yak) 13:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
this is all besides the point ie. this article is trash AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
You're not wrong. I'm just allergic to the idea of pretending the morons in "our" own ranks don't exist (hi @Shabidoo!), and - if the article is to be overhauled - it strikes me as an excellent opportunity to address that, and perhaps start outlining what effective campaigning and coalition building does and doesn't look like.
Sure, "SJW" is often thrown as a lazy & indiscriminate jab by those on the right, but it also speaks to a very real (and deeply unhelpful) personality type frequently found in left wing movements. There's a legitimate debate to be had re. prevalence and overall influence / impact, but it's nuts to pretend it's Not A Thing At All. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I see this article as a time capsule of when it was written, largely in the Gamergate days, when the Triggered Right in America used this phrase as a snarl world for anything left wing, and used it constantly. About as much as "cuck" (which is in retrospect funny in how the right wing trolls elevated a relatively obscure fetish to the limelight, and of course the trolls chose the one that in America has a nice little race-based subtext. Way to go, alt-right! We'll never look at "BBC" the same way again!) Basically "SJW" replaced the "liberal" snarl world of the 1980s dittohead days. Only now, all of a sudden you had Twitter, where zillions of stupid unproductive mobs on the left and right could form and hurl little globs of digital shit at their "enemies", not accomplishing a thing except perhaps warming the planet a tiny fraction more (via Twitter's servers) for no real reason. We're not out of that phase of tribal tomfoolery by any means, but "SJW" already feels kind of like a quaint phrase of a different era, and the online mobs have moved on to other silly phrases and conspiracies. As far as the diehards go, I personally think terms that haven't been co-opted by right-wing shitheads as snarl words are better for describing left-wing shitheads (regressive left is one such term). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I've always thought that the SJW phenomenon boiled out of the Can You Top This games of social media. Social media dynamics encouraged some people to demonstrate their exquisite sensitivity to newly invented forms of 'oppression', and then to attack, not only anyone who disagreed, but also anyone bold enough to call these problems minor or not what needed to be focused on. It still was a big online King of the Hill game, where you had to pull down anyone higher up the pile than you. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 13:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
we are giving too much weight to a dumb insult AMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)