Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2021 board of trustees election is underway!

Talk:Social justice warrior

From RationalWiki
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.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


Hey, where is the Social Justice Tank? The Warrior is more offensive than a Tank, which is more focused on being defensive.King TempestRimuru Slime.png 01:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm more of a Social Justice Fighter Jet myself. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 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)


Shouldn't there be an entry for status-quo warriors? which are essentially the anti-SJW mentioned here. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

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? — Unsigned, by: / talk
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[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: / 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.-- (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.-- (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".-- (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


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? (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." (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. (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)