Talk:Social justice warrior

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.


Archives for this talk page: , (new)

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. CorruptUser 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)

Not just as a slur[edit]

It´s true that "woke" and SJW are often used as slurs for anyone to the left of Dick Cheyney. However, there is a real movement with some popularity on US campuses that I would describe as a new ideological movement, with its own set of beliefs, often influenced by postmodernism and very popular in subjects like Gender Studies. I think it would be worth describing this in a neutral kind of way and also mentioning criticisms of it by both people on the left and the right. I think there are people like Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker and to some extent Chomsky who have more reasoned and balanced criticisms of the movement. — Unsigned, by: John stetson / talk / contribs

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already.cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
People are trying to reclaim SJW —John Stetson paraphrased
Might be good for a 'reclaiming' section, for whoever reworks the body of this article2600:8806:0:C2:F4BA:8EB9:28DB:D8AF (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
SJW is not just a slur by some lights, in fact it is an opportunity.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
so just a slur and some merch. i prefer 'true believer' myself over sjw. its more versatile AMassiveGay (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
So, MG, a commercial business is, today, spending money to acquire the attention of people whom it believes regard the term in a positive light. The claim that they do not exist is evidently a weak hypothesis.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
not when some badges and tshirts are so clearly using the ter ironically and with a rye knowing smile, and any other use not strictly pejorative would make anyone self describing as a social justice warrior would make them look so filled with a sense of their own importance and so up themselves to be inside out. 'reclaiming' the phrase is also sheer pointless dumbfucker. it was not anyones to have been appropriated from to require reclaiming nor should anyone want something that only feeds a delusion of grandeur and an obvious target for mockery. whats the problem with it remaining as the slur that it is? its not an especially offensive one and its one we can easily dismiss AMassiveGay (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

This phrase has many layers or grift and reappropriation[edit]

it's a nuanced and long history FYI 2600:8806:0:C2:F4BA:8EB9:28DB:D8AF (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The body of this article could use more quality citations and less 'digital journo' 4chan-era stuff, if the position is that 'social justice warrior' means literal 'social justice", which seems to be people's position on RW. Also it might be worth tracking down

  1. any parallells btw 1800s 'social justice' and the pejorative, or contradictions
  2. who else was in Shetterly's blogging network (he cites other writers)
  3. see if anyone was using "SJW" before Shetterly in a consistent manner 2600:8806:0:C2:F4BA:8EB9:28DB:D8AF (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)


Why can't I edit (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

It's because you're resorting to cheap vandalism rather than anything insightful. Patty Pat 21:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Welp, I might be the bad kind of SJW[edit]

Welp, I might be the bad kind of SJW. ASerb (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)