Talk:Social justice warrior/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Why Not?

Why can't this have a page? This lets us discuss the use of the term as a tool to end discussion. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 23:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No idea. On a related note, whenever someone complains I'm "one of them SJWs", my rebut is typically: "Why yes, I am a proud and valiant advocate and defender of social justice. Aren't you?" 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hence why a page'd work. For the snarky rebuttals! Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 23:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Decent page

Now it needs citations. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. It starts by defining SJW as a snarl word then says they're real thing without explaining the difference or how we're supposed to know when this vague term is being used "accurately". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Bring cites or go home

The "truth" section reads like someone whining the nasty Tumblr kids were mean to him. Prop it up or it will be suited to culling - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And whining the nasty RW kids were mean to you? Fuck off - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oi! This is garbage

I, personally, think this article can be unleashed, however I'm willing to cede ground for this article to be improved. When I first read it, I thought "I must be in Funspace," but I turned out to be wrong. The opening of the article does a terrible job of defining what a "social justice warrior" is or where it comes from. Furthermore, it neglects when/where the term would be encountered. The "types" section doesn't actually list types of SJWs but, instead, lists the types of people who are critical of them. The "Response" and "Websites infested by SJWs" are complete garbage and worthy of the Funspace, certainly not the mainspace. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Um

I think this is dubious. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's more an interesting case of "I think this is a non-issue, so the people pushing for it must be SJWs." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I brought it up because in my highschool a decade or so ago, I saw some of the busybody teachers trying to promote it. CorruptUser (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Anybody know D&D well?

Or any similar game. Because I see a fun page ready to be made here and here. Say hello to the new Social Justice Wizard overlords! FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Antisemitic vegans

Not sure how comparing animal farms to holocaust is neo-nazi rather than Godwinnian. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that because it irrationally pissed me off and because I've seen Stormfront dudes (back when I trolled hate boards) say that. Feel free to remove that. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Antonio stella bottom tile} 18:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So, at the risk of being insensitive about some issues, are those kind of comparisons really that bad? If you might say something like "The Jews were rounded up and slaughtered like cattle" to condemn the Holocaust, can't we also use the reverse comparison to point out how badly we (often) treat cattle? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you think Jews and cattle are on the same level... |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{That's just, like, your opinion, man.} 19:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, you can, but it seems needlessly insensitive (bearing in mind how many people there are still around whose families & communities were directly affected by the holocaust) and also implies a moral equivalence between the two things which nobody other than hardcore animal rights ideologues will find persuasive. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I very much doubt the intent is to put Jews and cattle at the same level. That seems like intentionally pulling up a strawman to beat up. It's just that there are similarities which seem morally relevant—the victims consist of innocents, they have to endure inhumane living conditions and are methodically murdered en masse; and the atrocities were/are tacitly approved by large parts of society—so they cite Case A which is widely condemned and ask whether society's approval of Case B should not be considered dubious. Is that really such an offensive argument to make? Surely the extent of the Holocaust's moral depravity isn't just limited to the fact that the victims it targeted were human beings. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no moral equivalency between the Holocaust and factory farming because the target of the Holocaust were human beings that were targeted for the sole purpose of eliminating an ethnic group. Jesus Christ, 141, what the everloving fuck? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anonymous user, the truth is...} 21:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss how you can get "moral equivalency" out of my post when I specifically stated "I very much doubt the intent is to put Jews and cattle at the same level. That seems like intentionally pulling up a strawman to beat up." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) You can ask whether society's support for Case B should be considered dubious on its own terms, without drawing questionable comparisons with Case A. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Many people feel only human freedom/suffering matters, or that animal freedom/suffering is less important, because only humans have a "soul". Cows, not so much. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) This has nothing to do with the price of fish. The holocaust is a big deal for a hell of a lot of reasons & not that many of them have to do with whether or not the humans have a ^soul^. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is genocide that much worse than consuming their flesh? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Because you touch yourself at night. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

10/10 great answer FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 21:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if serious or joking. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Anyway, how is your sex life?} 22:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer the damn question. To put it in purely human terms: why is killing someone because they're delicious worse than killing someone because they're gay? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the sick fuck killing someone because he's gay is doing it to terrorize an entire sexual orientation, whereas the cannibal is just a sick fuck. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Now I'm not tense anymore, I'm just miserable. Hooray!} 22:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Because genocide entails malicious intent, which killing for sustenance typically doesn't entail. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And how's meat necessary for sustenance? Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Meat specifically isn't absolutely necessary, but it's a socially accepted type of food, and we eat food for sustenance. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"socially accepted" Jew-killing, then? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Socially accepted doesn't mean there can't be ill will involved. What exactly are you trying to argue, Fuzzy? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If humans were farmed for meat, we could talk meaningfully about whether that was better or worse than genocide. As long as we're talking about animals on the one hand & humans on the other, it's not an even dilemma. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A question of Redditry

Quick Question; Would it be okay to link to tumblr-feminist related subreddits like /r/TumblrInaction, /r/StormfrontorSJW and more? I believe Reddit is a major contributor in creating the SJW strawman template from what was arguably a more solidly defined insult/demographic.

Basically, Reddit ruins everything.86.150.153.224 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, if you add some commentary explaining what you just said in-article. :) oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Father Caughlin

The man that more or less popularized the word "Social Justice". Of course, he meant it in the form of "devout Christians should be in control of EVERYTHING rather than most things!" Advocated for the US to enter WWII... on the side of the Nazis. All around piece of shit. Should he be listed here somewhere? CorruptUser (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how he fits this article's definition of a social justice warrior. Maybe you can write something about him at Social justice#Religious and historical ideas. From a quick reading of his Wikipedia article, it seems his use of the term was first in defense of, and later to criticize, the New Deal. Not sure if he used the term to justify his later antisemitic polemics, though maybe his periodical being named Social Justice was meant to imply as much. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

more sourcing!

A pile here [1] - earliest "social justice" 1793, earliest "social justice warrior" 1995 - David Gerard (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ableism

Yeah, I can back the article up on that. Ableism is a legit problem, but in SJW circles the way the issue is brought up is usually in the context of 'ableist language', condemning the use of words like dumb, crazy, idiot etc. A lot of the arguments they make about words are basically arguments by etymology. Here's an example: http://thoughtcatalog.com/parker-marie-molloy/2013/10/15-crazy-examples-of-insanely-ableist-language/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia article about Genie, I've had a few of them show up complaining about use of the word retarded and demanding we rewrite it to use today's linguistic flavor of the moment. Apparently the fact that the case occurred in the 1970s and that the people who studied her without exception used the term seems to make no difference, accuracy be damned. It does get tiring after a while. And since I work at an agency for disabled people they've been attempting to foist person-first language onto us; quite aside from being an autistic who dislikes it in reference to myself, it's also agitating that the lame-brains pushing it don't realize their arguments fail basic linguistics because they rest on a rather strong version of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that's never been borne out in reality (indeed, I doubt they even know what the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by "first-person language" in this context. Give me an example (preferably cringeworthy). :) ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Person-first language. We have an article on it. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Compare "the man with autism" to "the man with whiteness". It has a tendency to both unnecessarily lengthen sentences and to introduce avoidable vagueness, and in turn leads to additional circumlocutions. Every so often I hear someone say "a person who is visually impaired", which is a terrible sentence structure and can mean so many different things that it tells me almost nothing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhh, person-first. Yeah I saw an inforgraphic in my dorm telling me to do that. No thanks. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, actual disabled people and mental illness patients loathe person first language. Reasons vary, but I personally hate it because it sounds horribly patronizing and condescending. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My life I trade in for your pain} 11:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This section has the same problem the rest of the article has, i.e. linking it to anything that is clearly verifiable as a "social justice warrior" rather than more general complaints about "things I don't like". If you want to complain about person-first language in this particular article, you'd need something that clearly links it to "social justice warriors" per se, rather than just rambling about "things I don't like" - the latter would be a candidate for essayspace - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of this article is personal complaints

Frankly this whole article is in serious need of a cull - it's people complaining about various things they don't like, and little to none of it showing a demonstrated path to a general thing that is actually called a "social justice warrior". Show your bloody points actually belong on this article, you're not doing so even slightly. Most of the paragraphs of complaint (particularly the idiotic one I removed that was literally "someone was mean to me in RW talk space!") would belong in essay space at best - David Gerard (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Give it a week then get the axe out I think. This was a most-requested article, but the present thing there is not good - David Gerard (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I say to BONs: If you wanna question individual sections, please quote the article and say what's wrong, instead of vaguely whining about the whole thing. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 23:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong is that in the middle of the article the words "actual problems with SJWs" appear & the article switches from identifying SJW as a vacuous snarl word to suggesting it's a tangible thing that we should be concerned about. & How do we identify a SJW? Well, however we want. Rapper doesn't like Jewish record label bosses? Must be a SJW. New Agers like alternative medicine? SJWs. Controversy over racial slurs in Huckleberry Finn for the past 130 years? All a bunch of SJWs. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Weaseloid, oh god among mortals, tell us how to identify an SJW. (Because the current usage for that section of "someone fighting for social justice who's also insane" is apparently to vague for you.) The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a bad point. We should probably rephrase that section to "Problems often associated with "SJWs" (to the point of stereotype)" or somesuch. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Way to miss the point Fuzzy. I couldn't tell you how to identify a SJW any more than I could tell you what a libtard or a feminazi is. These are just nebulous othering pejoratives. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The use of a word as an otherizing slur doesn't mean no examples of said otherizing slur exist. E.g., faggot. And the fact remains that some SJ advocates *are* really stupid. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Who are you suggesting we can apply the term "faggot" to as a non-slur? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Overzealously blocking the word has lead to the Scunthorpe problem rearing its ugly head, as happened to one person (it's in the linked article) who was writing about the food of the same name. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Basically that the word faggot can absolutely be something other than a slur and that, no matter how well-intentioned, making up a "list of words you can't say" is going to interfere with completely innocuous discussions. That's why it's a bad idea to mindlessly block something because it can be offensive in some contexts. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

OK but that's not what we're talking about here. Nobody is suggesting we "mindlessly block" the term "social justice warrior", but I am questioning whether it has any intrinsic value. Your comments do nothing to clarify this issue. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the existence of crazy feminists shouldn't mean we should validate the term "feminazi" by applying it to them. We should probably talk less like "The SJWs often do this or that" and more like "Problematic behaviours X, Y and Z, which sometimes pop up among some of the more 'extreme' social-justice advocates, are often associated with the "SJW" label." 142․124․55․236 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong is what I said: huge chunks of this article are bitching about random things the editors in question don't like, rather than being anything that they've shown a link to "social justice warriors", the ostensible topic the article is actually on. They seem to want a space to bitch about stuff, rather than supplying an even slightly useful article. The improvement I suggested is to cut all that shit, and I noted I'll do so in a week if it's still not backed-up and topical.

If you want a place to bitch about overapplication of Sapir-Whorf, there's an essay or a forum or something, I'm sure. Article space isn't the place for it - David Gerard (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How the section fared after a week's work!

Literally zero of the refs are about "social justice warriors" - this entire section is RW editors complaining about stuff they don't like personally, and have failed to actually cite as having anything at all to do with "social justice warriors". Here's the edit. If you love it a whole lot, try essay space which is ideal for this sort of thing - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, David. How are we supposed to identify someone as an SJW or not? Similarly, how do we determine if someone is an MRA or not? Is it, maybe, because they have certain, recognizable behaviors or arguments? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

MRA is a specific movement & identity which people identify with. SJW, not so much. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

SJW has never not been a pejorative. It used to be a pejorative with a different meaning, but it's like "pinko" in that it's only a term applied to those you disagree with, never any kind of meaningful movement. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine. So where should we host the criticism of people who push social justice too far? The main social justice article, or here? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 21:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Essay space has been suggested, repeatedly. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why prefer essayspace? If the content is true, there's no need to hide it. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 22:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

If the content is a bundle of unconnected gripes about political correctness gone mad, essay space is the most apt place for it at RW. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Unconnected? How are people who share the same ideology and often the same internet platform "unrelated"? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) (talk/stalk) 23:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

While I agree and am happy that social justice is an excellent thing for this wiki to get behind, why should that extend to all individuals and behaviours within the social justice movement? I don't think this section was some kind of conservative "political correctness gone mad" bullshit, it was written from a pro-social justice perspective about some of the counterproductive behaviours and attitudes present with some in the movement. "Pro-social justice" doesn't mean you have to get behind every stupid, nonsensical or obnoxious thing anyone does under the banner of social justice. Some of the things listed were actually harmful, obnoxious, harmed the cause of social justice or were out and out pseudoscientific, and there are genuinely good reasons why these should be pointed out - not to criticise social justice as an end in itself, but more of a "hey guys, don't do that". Essay space simply keeps it out of sight and renders the article as an uncritical positive, essentially implying that anyone who might have an issue with being told to go do their own research or whatever is a crybaby. MortgageBalls (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want to claim that there are (a) SJWs that (b) these are problems with, you need to support part (a) and not just part (b). This section only provides part (b), it doesn't support part (a) at all. That's the problem with it.

If you want it in essay space with your name on it, that's fine. Failing that, come up with something for each of these that supports tagging them "social justice warrior" - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would say "actual problems with SJWs" should probably be renamed solely because it legitimises the term, with the content fine as it is. MortgageBalls (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And moved to essay space. - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Now the article basically reads like a long rant about how there's no such thing as a hypersensitive person losing their shit online over absolutely nothing, which is more than a bit disingenuous. If I knew what the solution was I'd handle it myself, but there's something about this that just doesn't sit right. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The article doesn't say anything like that. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it came out and said as much, which is kind of the point; the problem is with what it doesn't say. It barely acknowledges that this term didn't come out of absolutely nothing, and cites no obvious examples of what a vocal social justice fanatic sounds like. Despite all the railing against the term there are plenty of people who manage to support a good cause and sound like a semicoherent fucktard in the process, and pointing out a few of them would help people make the distinction between the actual idiots and the people wrongly tarred with the same brush. The older version of the article had a few howlers that could be useful for that purpose. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I do see your point, but this has to be backed up with something rather than nothing. And annoying and doctrinaire people have been around since progressive politics existed, as far as I can tell.

I was actually surprised when I couldn't find any academic sociological discussion of internet SJWs. There must be something usable that isn't just loathsome people bitching about SJWs ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The term is used in quotation marks quite frequently to describe the beliefs of neo-racist or neo-misgynistic movements. A half dozen papers using the phrase "Social Justice Warrior" and every time in quotes just like it is there. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what's throwing me off; it seems like this is useful somewhere, but because there doesn't seem to be a great way to refer to only the loonies and not tar everyone else I'm not sure if it's here. if I have any great ideas I'll tell you, but don't hold your breath. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That is a symptom of the real problem, which is that the term for people who took social justice to incoherent or irrational extremes, or who did so for their own ego, has been hijacked by people who now use it to refer to anyone with any interest in social justice whatsoever. I just don't think there's any other place to put this section without it being out of place or otherwise rendering this article way, way too biased. MortgageBalls (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Was there a living Poe's Law just a few moments ago editing on this page?

That user with the user name Social Justice Warrior had the marker of being a parody troll or something in those lines, in that the user's tone as examined in the fossil records sounded alarmingly akin to Poe's Law.

Seeing as the user in question had only made a account moments before and focused primevally on this page it is likely we can confirm that, indeed, the figure may have simply been a possible 'parodist' though the nature of Poe's Law does account the haziness of such conclusions. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am here to smash the fascists who oppose ALL forms of social justice and support killing innocent children for no reason. Whose side are you on, mine or the racist bigot Nazis? Social Justice Warrior (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Your fuckwittery is fooling no-one. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup Poe's Law --Aile Dhoo (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope, fooling no-one. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Social Justice Warrior is Mikemikev, its his latest troll theme. Concrete (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

How much of a loser must one be to keep trolling RW constantly for...what is it, the last couple years? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

A gigantic one. Literally no life. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The perfect example of a "Social Justice Warrior" movement

"Social Justice Warrior" tends to mean "someone who cares about social justice for their reputation only." So, the perfect example of a SJW movement would be people donating money to charities for their reputation. Of course, it's hard to tell motive, so we'd need a case where they admit that's what they're doing. Maybe throw in a few minorities as shields. Possibly, they'd be so open to new members that they'd have a lot of diversity in the whacko department. Do we have anything like that? Could such blatant stupidity possibly exist? I'm just asking questions, here. Narky Sawtooth (BoN is paranoid!) 01:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Any references, or examples? I know how to get down, I know how to fight! I bark very little but I know how to fight! I know how to chase a cat up in a tree: man people were FINISHED for messing with me! (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There's one that comes to mind... And now I've ruined the joke by explaining it. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Eh, you just stated the punch line outrightly. If that's all the "explaining" amounts to, you haven't ruined anything IMHO. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Antonyms II

Okay, I misworded the last question here, so here it goes again...

What would be the opposite of the snarl phrase SJW? Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for tangible groups & ideologies, I guess the neoreactionary movement would be the closest thing overall. If you're looking for a catch-all snarl word that's about as well defined as SJW, try "shitlord". Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol, alright. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There honestly isn't one, because 'SJW' essentially means "Someone who is too left wing for society (My my terms)". It includes a lot of different types of quackery, from Historical Revisionism to Lesbian Feminism to Militant Veganism. There isn't a word to group together all the crazies that is encountered on the right, other than "Right-wing loons" and "Repuliturds" or whatever. The issue is also tainted because you can't really be critical of left wing loons without sounding like some Glenn Beck parody because far right idiots have been using those sorts of insults so long that "libtards" basically screams "I'm a racist Neo-Nazi"109.146.60.112 (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed people who need a single catch-all word to label people they disagree with tend not to be the brightest, ESPECIALLY if they subscribe to a belief that those they label with the word are part of some vast conspiracy. Blitz (Complaints Box) 15:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Or it's much easier to have a single label than a list.109.146.60.112 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

Isn't that KYM's responsibility? Withoutaname (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"People, not boogymen"

I think most decent people can agree with "people, not boogymen" in general. "Othering" perceived adversaries is a technique going back to the stone age, in all likelihood. Here is a section to discuss BoN 174.50's recent changes. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel so "honored" you went out of your way to push me to the back of this "bus" of people already complaining about the uncritical tone of the article being completely ignored. The only tone shift I can perceive, and indeed the only one in there, is a contemptuous aggression to anyone that criticizes "SJW"s and a complete glorification of people who have been rightfully criticized for censuring, false flagging, and misandry, and mine to being unwilling to fondle and worship at that alter and its quest to polarize the whole subject. Probably the most infuriating thing about the article is its unapologetic lambasting of people who shout conspiracy but then continues on to assert conspiracies driven by the opposing forces of the "innocent" feminists, and paints them as all antifeminist conservatives to boot, as though opposing key figures for their rampant misconduct is the same as thinking women need to stay in the kitchen. All social activist groups have and continue to be filled with radicals or people who have motivations that are against the grain of what history and the community agrees is the overall point. feminism has been known for this with it's proponents sometimes going so far as to assert female sex with men at all is always rape (of the woman). Some idiots who hate feminism think this is recent, because history has a way of making clandestine what has succeeded. Tumbler is only a vehicle for these opinions to feel more common and recent than they really are. and a the head of them are social justice warriors, a petty and disparage group so named because they treat social justice like a war, and use their influence to tear people away from friends for any perceived nonconformity, and some even hold that standard above them for their own support and affection, becoming their only source; a cult if anyone ever saw one. using censuring, doxxing, and other underhanded tactics, these groups MADE the term what it was until the angry public saw the enemy everywhere and turned the word into a generic snarl, spreading to the people who don't like social change at all, instead of just people concerned about radicals infiltrating places like TV tropes and deleting pages they don't like or changing the content because an accurate portrayal of a media and storytelling set piece is offensive.

furthemore, the fact that despite that truth your action was to immediately revert to your irrational SJW circlejerk of an article instead of improve what you saw wrong with it in the first place demonstrates fully your commitment to keeping things the way they are while saving face instead of using the information I provided to make an accurate portrayal of the facts. ^{— Unsigned, by: 174.50.37.223 / talk / contribs}

New comments go under old ones. It's just a common convenience, nothing to get bent out of shape about. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us exactly what we think and how society works, instead of justifying your edit. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with the "all PIV is rape" type of feminism, but at least I try to understand their viewpoint before jumping to any rash conclusions and condemning them all as "SJW"s, "extremist feminist"s or the like. After all, it's some obscure feminist theory that will likely never reach mainstream feminism and it has zero possible impact on anyone's life, yet I see people lambasting them constantly for being "misandrist" or for expressing an opinion at all, however wrong it might be. The only type of feminism that has actually managed to negatively impact society through legislation has been the trans-exclusionary radical feminists, which arguably contributed to a more reactionary stance against transwomen then any type of discrimination against men. I don't visit Tumblr but the impression I got from others is pretty much the same; people harmlessly playing around with some gender theories, who are criticized by outsiders as being "loony" for said theories, and who then lash out at said outsiders, which led to them being labeled as "SJW"s. Withoutaname (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Shetterly uses

I'm finding a few non-pejorative uses prior to Shetterly, e.g. 30 July 2007, 1 Feb 2008, 3 Nov 2008, Summer 2009 A quick search on the net doesn't find anything earlier than these.

oxforddictionaries.com (which is in fact from the makers of the OED) simply says: " A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views" with the example sentences "these social justice warriors want to apply their politically correct standards and rules to others' speech", "Some of them admit they're afraid that social justice warriors will ruin video games." "Many of the site's users have blamed a conspiracy of social justice warriors: PC campaigners who, they claim, are too easily offended." "We get it, you hate social justice warriors, whatever you perceive those to be." So, fame for Gamergate!

Haven't found a pejorative use prior to Shetterly - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Real phenomenon, needs description

There are really people who fit the description of SJW, but this article does not describe them. I would start by incorporating content from here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/ They are people who find targets and relentlessly attack them until that person either concedes that they are a sinful person, or until they find another target. 05:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That Atlantic piece has some good information and I agree with about 75%. But where it is bad, it really is. To ask whether it is healthy to disinvite commencement speakers merely because of a "part" of their CV is meant to elicit a "No!" This begs the questions of what that "part" is. Condoleezza Rice ought not be giving commencement speeches; she should be in the Hague. That sort of thing aside, I do think there should be a section in the article about the extent to which some of what is going on on campus is just absurd. It's true that much of the "trigger warning" and other stuff is infantilizing bullshit. Reasonable people are opposed to much of this and that should be reflected in the SJW article, as well as distinguished from how the term is used primarily as a snarl term online.---Mona- (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/how-to-write-a-political-correctness-run-amok-article-9b828d443018 —Ryulong (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Any attempt to identify "social justice warriors" as a real thing rather than a snarl word is going to look bad, because you'll just be appealing to your own definition of the concept - just like everybody else who uses the phrase. It doesn't stop being a snarl word unless there are people who sincerely self-apply it. We've already been over this a few months ago when the the article was full of this kind of anecdotal crap. See previous discussions on this page, especially #Most of this article is personal complaints. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I see similarly to what has happened with the label "politically correct." At one time, I was very much on board with railing against that phenomenon on campus -- this was the later 80s. In my view, any comprehensive discussion of the PC topic has to note the reality that not-insane people, in the beginning, had actual and substantive criticisms. The term has now evolved to mean "any progressive political position I don't like." That is, it's a snarl term. Similarly with SJW, in the absence of the Gamergate bullshit, there are sectors of the Internet and the campus I might myself derisively refer to as "SJWs." I don't, however, because the gators have made it an epithet that applies to anyone taking progressive positions. (Indeed, a few gators have hilariously accused me of being an SJW.) Anyway, I think if our article is to be comprehensive we should gave it a RW, measured treatment of the extent to which there does exist a sub-set of people who are pretty nutty and prissy in their notions of proper political etiquette.---Mona- (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope Weaseloid, Ryulong, Typhoon, etc who are defacto SJWs can step up and describe their movement as they see it (I'm serious). I have a list of materials from across the spectrum from the more traditional press here. A couple of things that could be considered:

• Identity politics view on humans as belonging to distinct categories, paired with the belief that these categories are most important descriptors who someone is (identity) -- instead of an individualist view.
• Plug in critical race theory. This conventionally racist system is however not racist for adherents, since they redefine racism as prejudice plus power. You can see their fingerprint also over the racist article, which claims that there was total disagreement about the concept of racism (which is simply false). These human categories such constructed are next placed on ...
• several "axes of oppression" in a system called Intersectionality, which is a core tenet of social justice warrior beliefs. Some inherent features make some individuals privileged, which is actually not an "unfair advantage" as the name would suggest, but things like not-being-harassed, which perplexingly, SJWs still want removed or "checked". This is their version of praying that there is meal on the dinner table and you should be happy about it (or feel guilty that others don't have it).
• The privileges and oppression that come from simply being member of the categories (e.g. white, female, able-bodied etc) are then counted together and some people come out as more "oppressed" than others, while other people have too much privileges. SJWs will therefore improve their score by citing in which categories they feel oppressed by e.g. bringing up mental conditions, often self-diagnosed. Detractors mock this feature as "oppression olympics".
• This creates a kind of hierarchy, but which is nearly inverted. The most oppressed person is "on top" (in theory), and the most privileged person is regarded at the bottom. Standpoint theory and "lived experience" make people "on top" categorically more knowledgeable than those below them.
• You can move a bit in social rank in the hierarchy by "fighting the good fight", like here on the RW, or on social media which comes to the heart what makes someone a "warrior" instead of just another postmodernist or activist.
• People on top can be abusive to whoever is deemed below them, which inevitably are other people who aren't SJWs, but who are picked from the neighbourhood because the SJW wants to be seen fighting, otherwise the "good fight" would go unnoticed and they wouldn't improve their SJ score, and rank.
• The communities are structured as safe spaces, where their beliefs are set as default and which can neither be discussed nor criticized (similar to a Church). Instead, like in a Church, the ideological tenets are repeated in slogans and confirmed, for which SJWs have special jargon that looks academical, but is as idiosyncratic as their eccentric racism definition. You'll often find that concepts have a true core, but are expanded at will, in particular specialized terms like "microaggression" most people aren't familiar with (they are a real thing, but not how SJWs use it).
• The "ignorance" of other people of such highly special jargon and their questioning is itself taken as an aggression (another expanded concept, this time Just asking questions) which the SJW uses to vent their anger (= fighting the good fight, score SJ points), usually as histrionic as possible to make a big scene (as they want to be seen, and want dogpile support). Notable, people don't really "JAQ-off", they ask genuine questions about ideology that are notoriously obscure and elastic.
• The safe spaces are a polar opposite to e.g. discussion boards (and culture), for members within these communities expect strict solidarity. The effect is that ordinary methods of truth-finding (wrongs die off over time) are suspended. Community systems, like the "monitorial citizen" are subverted, and you get telephone games and near "alternate histories" of events.
• Since ordinary methods of truth finding are suspended or subverted, SJW clusters stick together in solidarity and rather overlook ideological or personal differences. When tensions grow too strong, however, they typically explode in a flame war. Usually only one side remains an even more radical SJW camp, (see the work of Leon Festinger), while the other sees this as a wake-up call.
• In more extreme cases, SJW communities have cult-like traits, where the outside world is seen as "unsafe" and downright evil and morally corrupt, which gives a hint that the core tenets have drifted far away from the political left to core far-right concerns -- which is of course rejected by SJWs themselves, who are concerned with labels anyway and not with substance (harks back to the identity politics/postmodernism). The theory that accounts for this drift is called Horseshoe theory.
• Their deeply reactionary and neo-conservative core, dressed up in leftist veneer makes them common bedfellows with Islam extremism, in a variety of Islam-Accommodationalism. It's typical for SJWs to downplay terroristic attacks, aka "nobody should be killed, but... (they've brought it upon themselves)" rhetoric, which they see as a form of "counter-Islamophobia". Ex-Muslims like Sarah Haider describe these people as almost as scary as the extremists themselves.

This is an imcomplete, somewhat rough rundown how the ideology looks like from the outside. I'm genuinely enthusiastic about seeing an article written by someone who is a proponent, like Weaseloid, Ryulong, Typhoon etc. who probably disagree with my take -- but that's fine. Creationists also would describe their beliefs in much rosier terms than critics do. I'm here to learn how they'll see it themselves. Everyone else just needs to pay attention that they don't use this to describe other yet again, which they love doing. Their own article should be about their own convictions. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

How does a Gish Gallop of bad articles from generally good sources and bad articles from known-crank sources help prove your conspiracy theory of there being an SJW ideology, rather than it just being ordinary, non-arsehole people responding to the world's problems with a modicum of compassion and intelligence? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Saying you're "here to learn" and want to see how those you perceive as "Social Justice Warriors" see their "ideology", while at the same time going to great pains to add insults here and there in your list... (like comparing it to creationism, for starters, stating that "SJW"s are "concerned with labels anyway and not with substance" as an objective fact etc etc). Yeah, no. You seem more like a run-of-the mill troll. Dendlai (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I write down what I think it is (on a talk page, no less) and can later compare how it turns to be what it is. And even later compare to how it "really is", when the dust settled and scholary work was created. A few people are at it already. It's pretty unremarkable at the end of the day and only hyped up. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I do think some people labeled as "SJWs" fit the profile of much that is cited in the Atlantic article linked in the seminal comment of this section. They are quite extreme and very purge-hungry, quick to jump on anyone who violates their speech rules. And yeah, this whole "safe space" and "trigger warring" set of enthusiasm pretty much grosses me out. But that all said, any distinction made about this subset of social justice people who actually are insufferable, ideally should not involve a crank like Aneris. Without such a section making that distinction even existing yet, and with his/her edits being entirely hypothetical, I hypothetically revert them all.---Mona- (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey mona, so you went within days from total denial to that there might be something to it. That's great to hear! Of course you must keep your convictions otherwise intact, which is what Leon Festinger et al would predict would happen. That's pretty unsurprising. I wrote already that I don't plan to interfere with the article and hope you produce more documentation. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Also keep in mind, someone vandalized your main page and placed this there /wasntme. With annotations.

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, "Postmodernism Plus"✓
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas, "lived experience"...✓
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism, safe spaces, trigger warnings...✓
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media ✓ so far: collection

But I'm the "crank" (mona) for pointing things out that hit nearly every single checkbox. I'll only watch and laugh from now on, and will see where I can contribute in other places without touching this minefield. I've got my main documentation together anyway. Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You're a crank because you're fighting straw men. Like the MRAs and GamerGaters, you've built up this idea in your head of what "SJW"s are, an idea that doesn't have much to do with reality. It's telling that MRAs and Gators label pretty much everybody who disagrees with them as "feminist SJWs!". And your "main documentation" is... a rather sad, and obsessive, collection of opinion pieces. Dendlai (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"so you went within days from total denial to that there might be something to it" Nope. I've stayed right where I've always been here. But I certainly don't think you should be involved with your crank missionary bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

/°\ @Dendlai, uh oh. I'm unmasked! I guess it's known on this debunking site that We™ They™ pull the strings and control the media mind-control students from the The Pyramid /°\. Your worst fears are true, too. Barack Obama, Anti-Christ, is is one of Us™ Them™ too! Arrrggh! /twilightzone —Aneris ✻ (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Aneris has finally lost his mind. Typhoon (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

"In more extreme cases, SJW communities have cult-like traits, where the outside world is seen as "unsafe" and downright evil and morally corrupt, which gives a hint that the core tenets have drifted far away from the political left to core far-right concerns..." lolwut, that makes very little sense. It reads like something you've pulled directly out of your ass. I really don't think you've got much here man, just give it a break. Pascal yuiop (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Aneris is a Slymepitter here to save rationality from the evil influence of social justice - David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to adore how consistently Aneris rants about the evil SJW practice of Othering while simultaneously engaging in it. Sometimes in the same sentence!KrytenKoro (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"And yeah, this whole "safe space" and "trigger warring" set of enthusiasm pretty much grosses me out."

Mona, I've seen people go into depth about how they have medically diagnosed panic disorders so severe that, without the understanding provided by trigger warnings, prevent them from participating in normal life or college. I've seen them say that they agree that trigger warnings shouldn't be mandated, just that they are grateful for those who choose to use them at their college courses.

I then I see the usual crowd, to this person's face, call them babies and claim that the species would be better off without such "cripples" dragging them back.

When I actually see documentation of trigger warnings causing something, rather than the same hyperventilation we've gotten from reactionaries since people first started suggesting abolition, I'll consider heeding some of this claptrap, but right now it's all vague guesses and handwaving on both sides. Trigger warnings are More Speech, that same sacred cow everyone says you're supposed to apply to deal with problem ideas, until it's their own ideas that are considered unpopular.KrytenKoro (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As one who's suffered deep trauma I deeply oppose trigger warnings. They treat people -- usually women -- like infants. It is not possible to avoid references to child-abuse, rape, violent death etc. in literature and film because they are part of the human drama. ---Mona- (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So for clarification, would you deeply oppose allowing them for the person I mentioned? Granted it's anecdotal, but I can try and find you a link to their post if it would help.KrytenKoro (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Social justice warriors and social conservatives

I make no bones about having serious misgivings about social justice as she is spoke currently. As noted, just about everybody will be in favor of "social justice"; there are going to be disagreements about what it is and how to bring it about.

Now, here in the USA, it's been pretty much orthodoxy among Democrat opinion leaders that the Republican machine uses "social issues" to persuade the downtrodden to vote against their own interests. I can see that. Various elites stir up stinks about abortion, gay rights, and Confederate flags to rile the underclasses and divert their attention away from the legal and political systems that shrink their paychecks and hopes. It's probably conspiracy thinking, but I can totally see that.

And as you may have figured out, I'd categorize myself as an Old Right conservative with fairly strong small-l libertarian tendencies. And as a reactionary, I see at least a temporary need for an alliance with a politically effective Left in this country to mobilize and attempt to preserve what's left of our customary institutions and way of life. Unrestrained oligopoly capitalism, technological disruption, the declining prospects of finding a nest safe enough to raise a family in, and ecological destruction are our gravest problems.

And I think that the academic and online Left has been manipulated by the powers that be to keep them perennially chasing fancies the same way that the guns and Jesus crowd has been manipulated. The common theme has been to divert attention and energy to quarrels about cultural power to keep them distracted from issues about economic power. Since the cultural issues can often be seen as existential threats to your self-conception, while the economic issues do not engage gut feelings that easily, it's too easy to misdirect weak-minded apes this way.

All of the academic and online mummery about cultural "marginalization" and all the issues that flow therefrom is as much a distraction as the War on Christmas. Academic institutions with wealthy benefactors bristle with hundreds of Professors of Critical Theory and Departments of Granfalloon Studies, all devoted to keeping a chosen version of identity politics on the front burner. Somebody finds that sort of thing valuable to keep around. It disappoints but doesn't surprise me that the promising Black Lives Matter movement, which started out with concrete political targets, is in the process of being diverted into issues about campus symbolism. Getting college administrators fired will not reform those police departments.

So there is something to the concept of the divisive "social justice warrior" that merits taking a bit seriously, for the same reason that we despise the right-wing social issue warrior. Despite the different demographics, the two seem mirror images of each other. And I beseech you in the bowels of Christ to consider that you may have been misled. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that, as you said yourself, "the Republican machine uses 'social issues' to persuade the downtrodden to vote against their own interests". I don't see anything equivalent on the left. People who care about marginalisation & privilege aren't being told not to also care about economic & ecological issues, nor to vote for parties against their interests. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It probably does take less to keep this demographic politically contained. Still, this brand of "social justice" works out to be divisive and annoying. It diverts time and energy towards soft targets and merely symbolic crusades. Its chief achievements are etiquette and tokenism, neither of which threaten the seats of real power, and which in fact can be adopted by economic elites without having to change business as usual. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Spot on, Smerdis of Tlön. Your critique is essentially Chomskyan, which is also my position. There is ample evidence for that. Not only has postmodernism (which is the intellectual tradition of the SJWs) ruined large parts of the humanities, and they still haven't recovered from it, it has also wreaked havoc in activism. For example, the Occupy Movement was doing great until the SJW hopped on board and killed it. There are numerous examples of their co-opting which then turns whatever they touch into a blight. In other words, it's an eccentric distraction at first and then only leaves ruins behind. People are in it to gain "SJ points" as even the original formulation on Urban Dictionary noted. It's generation Selfie and Facebook that wants to overcome cheap signalling and present themselves as social-justier-than-thou and then often times turn out to be narcissists with more issues than in the Batman collection since its inception.

Consider for example how SJW are outraged at campus about completely banal things like potential Halloweeen costumes. Not real costumes, potential costumes someone might wear. Students cried over this and had a complete mental breakdown when the administration told them to fuck off with authoritarian demands. On the other end you find the same bizarre notions in Atheism Plus who were concerned over what kind of pranks are okay on April Fools day (I'm not kidding). You know, some people might be "triggered" in some ways. Real concerns fall by the wayside. What's more, SJWs destroy first their targets with smearing and other tactics, then they wither away and produce nothing of merit themselves. Look at the case of Dawkins' "dear muslima" and what outrage that provoked. Years later, the loudmouth SJW faction hasn't produced anything and thanks to shouts of "Islamophobia" we've moved backwards in progress for women under Islam. Same with Atheism PLus: loudmouth proclamations, tearing other people down and when everything was going their way and they had the centre stage: crickets. That project went through the usual hazing and purity phase, became increasingly sectarian, and then went nowhere. The label is now practically dead, but the SJWs are still freely roaming about, even when their sites and movement, too, go downhill at present. You can't run on outrage and doing nothing productive forever. So, there's ample evidence. But you are mistaken that you'll see adequate critique of the situation here, since major editors and their friends run the wiki who are affiliated with the SJW faction in the secular movement. They seem determined to have the wiki follow the path of Atheism Plus and their SJW heroes and heroines: into oblivion. — Aneris ✻ {talk/ideas} 12:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

calling it now: Aneris is a markov chain bot - David Gerard (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh noes we've had sentences highlighted

http://www.cringechannel.com/2015/12/30/picture-some-rational-wiki-articles/ FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

RationalWiki has obviously been taken over by SJWs

But seriously, it has. How do we fix this? This article should be critical, not supportive. Hmmph (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It is critical of the persons who use the term as a snarl word. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, I mean that it should be critical of social justice warriors. This is RationalWiki, if you've forgotten. We are here to fight against irrationality, not to defend it. Hmmph (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Add some of User:Raysenn/SJW to the "part truth" section, it's decent criticism. The problem is that more irrationality flows from people who sincerely use "SJW" than SJWs themselves. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 13:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's everybody who uses the term at all. Claiming SJW is a real distinct movement, as the article currently does, rather than a vague idle pejorative is horsecrap. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

SJW is a snarl word for a reason. I have no problems with people involved with social justice, and to me the term Social Justice Warrior is not to be applied indiscriminately. A social justice warrior is at least to me is a shrieking, disruptive whinger that has no capacity to meet their opponent halfway. Just like I don't use feminist to mean purple-haired man-hater, or MRA to mean hipster misogynist sadsack. If you are passionate about social justice, but is able to be civil and respectful to your opponent, then you are not an SJW EuroBurro (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"...that has no capacity to meet their opponent halfway..." Why does that sound familiar? Oh, that's why. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nailed it. I'm so glad I meet the first person here who seems to understand the situation. Aneris ✻ (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"and to me the term Social Justice Warrior is not to be applied indiscriminately." And if wishes were ponies all little girls would have ponies. The fact is that since the advent of Gamergate, SJW is a snarl term -- regardless of your personal useage or metrics for application. ---Mona- (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately a distraction, and a word game. You can independently describe the snarl word, and still describe the "thing" however you want to name it. But the fact that we are having these discussions is itself typical of the whole conflict. You call me crazy, but I don't think its by sheer coincidence that they are a modern offshots of the postmodernist movement, which was famous for having merged the qualities of eels with weasels. Now the eel-part is from an electric eel. It's fantastic how many tonnage of dust are kicked up just to obscure and make impossible even trying to "grasp" this nutter movement (which is of course a figment of everyone's imagination). With every edit of even standard-fare SJW beliefs, just describing them as they are (like without mocking it, as it would be rational), you get so much flak, smears and undo/revert wars that you could counter global warming with the chilling effect alone. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear you're here on a mission to fight the evils of postmodernism as purportedly manifested in "SJWs," whom you are certain run this wiki. The problem you are going to have, as you should have seen by now, is that the strong majority here do not accept your chimerical vision and are not receptive to your mission. That you will conclude that this is because we are all in the fevered and deluded throes of po-mo, authoritarian something, something, something is, well, unlikely to bother many. But how you manifest this conviction could annoy a good number of reasonable and respected users. On the off chance that you care, I suggest you reconsider your MO. But if you don't care that people are going to completely tune you out, keep going on as you have.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Next example. This time same stalker destroyed the hollow man fallacy, didn't like the example, again flimsy bullshit reason. I restored this, next user, destroys again. I'll finish my documentation, write up my report and basically have all I needed. Aneris ✻ (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your naked, entirely brazen reason for one edit after another, is to perform your missionary work. It is highly doubtful that many here wish to see anyone use this wiki for evangelizing a POV few take seriously at myriad articles that have nothing to do with "SJWs" per se. I suggest you stop it. If you don't, you will eventually, almost certainly, be made to stop.---Mona- (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly has the hollow man fallacy to do with SJWs? (one of the few fallacies that actually are described in a academical paper). My example was debunking the freeze peach concept, which ought quite important to liberals. You can of course declare (and destroy) everything I am ever going to write about anything as about SJWs (unless it's about goats perhaps). I can probably not write Chomsky on propaganda, which I started, as it has tangentially to do with ideologues (like freeze peach). Same goes for whole palette of stuff. Should I even touch Model Dependent Realism (where you necessariy will need delineations to postmodernist nonsense). This will all turn out to be a slaughterfest like no platforming. "No platforming" is even named like that in numerous respected news outlets and even that was a major big time hassle (and I was rewarded for writing it with revoking rights). And why is that: because the headline above is obviously true, and more, this here has a strong anti-liberal bent, too. Evidence, all over the place. I am just miffed that no Freeze Peach article exist where you simply spill it out, so that everyone can see it in plain view. You even have people who can't see the difference between Theory of Evolution and some contested humanities framework, and THOSE people follow me around and undo my work (same guy who killed off the hollow man). So, you can always play your trump card, which is really only what I wanted to hear. Hence, I tested the waters with a few things and didn't accept David Gerards offer (down below) to write on anything here. Aneris ✻ (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You can do Social Justice the right way or the wrong way. Fighting for social justice the right way means you bring out the facts, base your beliefs on logic that cannot be reasonably disputed and being respectful about it. The wrong way of fighting for social injustice includes arguments from emotions, the disregard or dismissal of facts due to your ideological bias and display a strong lack of respect for the other side. It is okay to disagree with ideologies and structures, you can even learn from it, but dismissing the other side as idiots is something that many social justice warriors, not 'advocates' like to do. I'd consider the civil rights movement as well as early feminism as great examples done right, and there are still to this day both feminists and civil rights activists that fight the good fight and have good points. What I don't like is the aggressive, obnoxious radicals that pollute the mission and the message of groups such as feminism. EuroBurro (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe that feminism today is necessary and worth having. The United States have a racism problem. That doesn't make Kimberle Crenshaw and bell hooks et al correct. But Mona's criticism is just another variety of ad hominem rheotric that are a complete cliché in the SJW context. It's exactly like it is with standard creationists. You know in advance what they will bring up. The whole substance of the argument so far has been twofold: (1) anti-SJW rhetoric was right wing, therefore it's false, and you're a right winger. Which is why this article is written that way. This is of course not supported by any evidence and probably false. SJWs always emerged in left-liberal communities and reactions to them formed in these communities, not across the politcal spectrum. Now, years later, some right wing rags have discovered that they can use the conflicts on the left for their own gains. The Rationalwiki goes about this by claiming it was right wing outright, which is tactically useful and hence it's there: you can smear critics easily to dismiss them.

The political compass has been used to show that the conflicts lie elsewhere. The RationalWiki thus goes about this by claiming that the Politcal Compass is essentially useless, and hence it doesn't count that most opponents of SJWs are on the left-lower corner. This is of course inane reasoning, because even if the Political Compass doesn't align exactly with the RationalWiki's private idea about what ought to be left or right, you cannot stretch it that far that people who come out as left (and apparently agree to wear that label) are somehow, by pure magic, right wingers. You can find evidence for this kind of othering everywhere on SJW related articles. Look up known opponents how they magically become right wingers, for example. That's just the tip of the iceberg. We are thus led to believe that rich, spoiled kids from the Ivy League are "the left", for example. Consistently, class matters usually don't matter much to SJWs, but race and gender are most important. That's how this SJW rot destroyed the Occupy Movement, as well.

Mona et al claim further that (2) editing view points that don't fully toe the SJW partyline was like "being on a mission". Mona is only a moderate believer of this religion, and doesn't know the correct jargon, which is "being obsessive". This ad hominem is another standard SJW 101 tought terminating cliché since it doesn't say anything. It aims to bring across that a person is not "right in the head", and thus whatever they do can be dismissed. Meanwhile the SJW articles proliferate. There's even a Timeline of GamerGate that lists in minute detail what someone tweeted when, but of course we learn little about SJWs themselves. What's the "RW mission" for this? Unclear. But the SJW rule number one is always: focus on The Demonic Other. That's why this is documented in every detail, and by exploiting every fallacy under the sun. The SJW ideology itself is barely worth a mentioning -- it's all just a snarl word after all (now even admitted into the oxford dictionaries). But there you could actually point to scholars and books, as opposed to selection and confirmation biases. Critical Race Theory, lived experience etc and the works that underpin this movement. Interesting isn't it? Mona and others, who think themselves as smart have no clue just how worn out these tactics really are. But if you have a gang of goons, as it is with SJW, it's good enough. A congreation of believers buys into this without thinking much about it. If ad hominem like these work, they do because people agree that they work. So they compartementalize: grow numerous SJW articles with every tiniest detail, lopsided of course, while simultaneously discouraging even articles on fallacies when they suspect someone disagrees with their religion. That this happens is of course also quasi-denied. The defense against this is simply more of the same, which underscores the point: it works for believers, hence you can simply do the same over and over again and SJW bots like Mona will believe it every time. Mona specifically admits on her talk page that she has a mission herself, and exposes a religious mindset which is also typical in many ways. For one, it's the psychology of projection, and for another it's typical for "SJW types" that they hopped from one religious mindset to another. They're the ex-evangelical who becomes a firebrand anti-theist first and when they find that atheism doesn't fill the religious urge switches to social justice, their current religion until they may move on to the next one. For mona it's something with zionism that does this for her. — Aneris ✻ (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"As a result, use of the term "SJW" as a pejorative is now a handy shibboleth of the aforementioned groups and a good indicator that this person will not at any point henceforth say anything worth hearing." This is pretty bad. I have heard those use this who were not worth listening to and those who were worth listening to. -- Probably best off deleting this statement and correcting "left of /pol/" to something a little more sane. Sure, /pol/ links to reddit defining the term well enough but I'm not about to read a lot of reddit to get a sense of what "left of /pol/" might mean.

Huckleberry Finn

Huck Finn is a common target for censorshop because of the use of the n-word, even though the entire point of the novel is that Jim was more human than half the people living in the south. Is there a good reason to remove the section on Huck Finn from the page? CorruptUser (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the term "social justice warrior", which is the subject of this article. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But people banning important stuff because it might offend people does have to do with social justice warriors. CorruptUser (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not when it dates from decades before the term was first used. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC)That's a stretch. A real stretch. I mean, I'd be lying if I said I didn't see the pretty sane logic behind what you're saying, but "social justice" isn't broadly behind every "I'm offended by X" type claim. It's just not true. I don't really have a standard of evidence to demand to connect the two things, but I'd like to see more than "it seems like it", you know? ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The people that support banning it are just idiots. If he were alive today, Reddit and the chans would HATE Mark Twain and call him a social justice warrior too. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Antonym

What's the opposite of the snarl words Social Justice Warrior? Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Antisocial ... injustice ... coward - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I misphrased the question, but thank you. Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Unsociable Injustice Lily-livered Peacenik. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

To be a bit less literal, Godwin's Law pretty much covers it I think. Calling someone a SJW is the new "Feminazi" after all. SJW as an insult is pretty popular with literal, not-Godwinning, Nazis, probably because "feminazi" doesn't work as an insult when you're a Nazi.--PosthumanHeresy (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Content?

I take the article to mean that “social justice warrior” is merely a snarl word (unlike the mentioned "MRA") to describe a collective hallucination, and what follows is then a satirical take on the situation: it recreates common assumptions about “SJWs” in itself, by diverting the attention from its own subject, to smear the evil opponents. As such the article says nothing at all about SJWs – as fictional they may be. Such satirical articles are fun to read and the Bronze status is well deserved, but perhaps not what an audience expects in an encyclopedia.

My objection is that for some people, social justice warriors are a real thing. We might laugh at it that they (say) believe “trigger warnings” are a real – it's of course one of the 4chan's false flag operations mentioned in the article. However, when you don't know that 4chan and 8chan and gamergaters have hacked the media and comment sections, you could believe that all the intersectionality, white-race, mansplaining, manspreading, patriarchy talk was real. People still underestimate these trolls that make the good people look bad and all their hacking.

I think the article should also mention “cultural appropriation”, another idea cooked up by 4chan. They have clearly modelled it after racial purity ideas to make SJWs look like racists. The result around Halloween were quite comical, but alas at the expense of good people. More sinister is that right wingers try their hand in this game as well. There is the no-platforming and polcing of sexuality for example, including their attempt to make sexual preferences a choice. They have paid a couple of actors to pretend they were social justice warriors, like Laci Green, Rebecca Watson, Suey Park, Arthur Chu, Sarah “Butts” Nyberg, Emma Sulcowicz and many more. Many others are well-known satirists, like PZ Myers, Jason Thibeault, Stephanie Zvan, Richard Carrier or Greta Christina who all post on the satire network “Freethought Blogs” to mock this SJW conspiracy theory mentioned in the article, but perhaps unwittingly help it promote. The postmodernist gender and sex disputes for example, re-enacted by Ophelia Benson and other bloggers and community at Freethought Blogs were often taken as seriously, not as satire.

I think that the article about “social justice warriors” should describe foremost what the content of that conspiracy theory is, like you would describe what UFO conspiracist or religious people believe, even when we know that this is all an collective hallucination. The claim that “RationalWiki has obviously been taken over by SJWs” made me laugh! Who could ever get this impression! This is just another of this pernicious lies like the one that Rebecca Watson's CFI-sponsored severe rape culture accusation started Elevatorgate, or that she called for a boycott of Richard Dawkins.

Since my take would be reverted anyway (not because of the Social Justice Warrior bias of the RW, of course not!), I'm more than happy to see how other people describe this fascinating, misogyny-driven, collective illusion. But let's face it: for some people “SJWs” are real, and as such the article should describe the content of that curious conspiracy theory. Since SJWs are somewhat related to the 1990s postmodernist movement, the article could also reference related older conspiracy theories and hoaxes, like the alleged existence of Jacque Derrida, or Alan Sokal (he obviously didn't exist, hence “Sokal Hoax”). Finally, the article should also mention people of repute, who seem to believe in the SJW conspiracy, like Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins. by Aneris (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Uhh, we're not saying that individuals who fit the "SJW" stereotype don't exist; we're saying that the term itself has been reduced to dismissing the idea that there are still problems with gender and race relations. In other words, it's used for nutpicking. Blitz (Complaints Box) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't buy that. Long before the term SJW arose, every critic of postmodernist intersectionality standpoint rape culture theory has been smeared and othered (which the article shows perfectly) and that virtually everywhere. It is also a rather mild term to describe a yet unnamed Tumblr-style culture that emerged in other communities. The typical "SJW views" are also not solely based on nutcases, but also on opinion leaders who assign themselves to the SJ movement, however you want to name it. The problem with postmodernist games is that reality will eventually win. For example, what happened there with Ophelia Benson? This cannot be understood without some conception of the movement and its common views. Postmodernist can obscure matters, but the thing is still in the room, no matter whether you like the label or not. Aneris (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You've read this talk page. Bring cites for application of the label, this is not a place for you to whine about the last person you argued with on the internet - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a distinct “SJ movement” on one side, and the pejorative term applied by critics on the other. When this article is about the “snarl term”, then the article explaining the movement is missing. Both things can be individually cited, but citing both at once would not be possible, since the “SJ movement” has not agreed on a common name for themselves. A similar situation exists in the A/S movement around Atheism Plus. The mindset or ideology exists clearly and is distinct from other forms of atheism (e.g. “Dictionary Atheism”) yet, the term is not universally accepted and fell out of favour. Greta Christina is looking or a new term to describe this SJ type of atheism. It thus depends on how you want to play that postmodernist game. I could easily write an article about the SJW mindset, which tends to embrace: postmodernism, social constructivism, intersectionality feminism, standpoint theory, right wing authoritarianism (the technical term), Islamo-accommodationism, critical race theory, no-platforming, anti-EvoPsych, Safe Space, trigger warning culture, and how these items hang together. But I'd rather not, when there are people here who could themselves jot down their ideology. Aneris (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

You could do, and it'd end up in essay space - David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck did I just read? --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

KotakuInAction demonstrates superior intellectual prowess

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/42imfj/humor_rationalwikis_entry_on_sjw_is_pure_comedy/ Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 03:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Something I think is important

Sometimes one side is complete garbage. Assuming that the truth is always in the middle already has a page. This is one of those cases. The people who use the term SJW as an attack are from a side that's complete garbage. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Problematic

I've got a question about SJW, and this seems as good a place as any to ask. SJW often describe stuff as problematic. What do they mean by that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 93.41.37.133 / talk / contribs}

Means they don't like it & think it hurts the cause of some social justice goal. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 02:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, they're in dire need of a thesaurus. Same as the Manospheroids. Or in their case, be struck in the head by one! (And yes, I came up with the term "Manospheroids"! Hope you like it!) Chair tater (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Uses of the construction earlier than 2009

The article states that The term "social justice warrior" was first used as a pejorative ... on 6 November 2009, but it's not clear how this was determined. A time-constrained Google search found, for example, a 2007 thread on the Something Awful forums that suggests that it had been in use for some time already.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that was the earliest I could find in a search and it was cited as earliest by others (e.g. KnowYourMeme). That's pretty solid for earlier, though. (GBS is the idiots' board on SA and is arguably where 4chan /b/ got its ideas from.) Feel free to write it up in some form - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy

I replaced the category "conspiracy theories" with the category "bullshit", which I thought was more suiting to this. But my edit was reverted, and I'm curious as to how this is a conspiracy theory. Don't get me wrong, I'm on RW's side with this subject, but I think calling it a conspiracy may be overly extreme. Kvltcat (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate treats SJWs as a conspiracy, for example. And look at almost anything User:Aneris writes on RW. (Also I think Bullshit is a terrible category that should go in a bin, but that's a separate matter.) - David Gerard (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This conspiracy in the media: User:Aneris/SJWMedia ;) ~ Aneris ✻ 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That said, this could do with a section. e.g. Matt Kern and other gamergaters provide citable examples - David Gerard (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I am confident that sjwar.blogspot.com did not exist until 2012, nor did Shetterly use the phrase until that time.

Well, for one thing I was around and arguing with Shetterly ~2009-11 and I don't remember it, but a more supported argument follows.

• You can backdate posts on blogger;
• You can import posts and comments from blogger with the original dates intact.
• The first three years of posts are selected highlights from his original blog, ofttimes with identical comments -- compare http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2011/11/scifi-antiracist-silliness-nalo.html and http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2011/11/scifi-antiracist-silliness-nalo.html -- the post and comments are identical, clearly showing that one has been imported from the other.

The point at which his two blogs begin to diverge is Jul 16 2012. http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2012/07/real-indians-and-wannabes.html is a small post that just links to http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2012/07/real-indians-and-wannabes.html The comments are still imported, so chronology is a bit tricky, but I think it is reasonable to assume that somewhere around now is the point that sjwar.blogspot.com is created.

Also, if you search shetterly.blogspot.com for the phrases SJW, Social Justice Warrior, Social Justice Warriors: this is the first dated post that he ever uses any of those phrases. Which is I think reasonably damning for a supposed 2009 derivation.

Archive.org does not mirror sjwar.blogspot.com until 2013, which is not great evidence but is at least a bit suggestive.

---

Oh, I think I may have found a smoking gun.

 http://shetterly.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-social-justice-warriors-defending.html

is a stub post linking to sjwar.blogspot.com:

 http://sjwar.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-social-justice-warriors-defending.html

The comments are the same, suggesting an import...

 https://web.archive.org/web/20120807101129/http://www.shetterly.blogspot.com/

but this is one of the very few posts that we can see on archive.org, showing that the shetterly.blogspot.com post was edited to change it to a link, and originally was just the whole article, strongly suggesting that at this point he had not yet created sjwar.blogspot.com. (But demonstrating that by this point he had definitely started using the phrase Social Justice Warrior.)

101.98.195.152 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That's really useful, thank you! Though even if it's an imported post, he likely did say it then ... mind, you, we have the SA link above as evidence it was already a tired term by 2007 ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

NB

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice_warrior&curid=172325&diff=1642374&oldid=1642365

I say add it. One of the two major problems with this article, for a long time, have been that it fails to properly acknowledge that really shitty SJ-advocates exist. This is a step in the right direction. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely isn't. The fragment is passive-aggressive snarl. The history section does a good enough job of conveying how it could, technically, be used with merit once upon a time. Having the deleted section would flatly contradict the article later where it points out that whatever utility the term might have once had, it's now the province of the GIGO part of the web and those deliberately mocking it. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Over here in reality, there's even a SJ generator quite accurately mocking the SJW stereotype, maybe you can access it in your universe as well. How come that everyone seems to know well what SJWs are, even know various bizarre flavours, but the RW has such agony with this? Maybe you need to get out more. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's terrible writing, terrible placing and adds nothing. I realise you really want to whine about the evil SJWs, but this article is about the term, per bloody endless past discussion right here on this talk page - David Gerard (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I vote add. Sorry, there are indeed stuck up twats that only join these movements in order to lord their moral superiority over everyone else. If you disagree, you should first check your privilege.StickySock (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposed addition is little more than name-calling. But there are far better grounds to criticize the brand of "social justice" associated with the stereotype. They tend to seek out soft targets, and trivial and symbolic issues; their immediate targets may be cishet white males, but they seldom strike me as masters of the universe. Politicizing and moralizing about other people's entertainments seldom ends well, and makes enemies. Their invented jargon invites mockery. The focus on immaterial goals and issues involving only media representation and social capital is a distraction from more pressing issues. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"The focus on immaterial goals and issues involving only media representation and social capital is a distraction from more pressing issues." <-This might come as a shock to you but people are capable of doing more than one thing at a time. So if someone complains about stuff you find "less pressing" for arbitrary reasons, chances are they already care about the supposedly "more pressing" stuff too. Typhoon (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the underlying doctrine, by focusing on media representation and social capital, with its typical grievances focusing on "?visibility" or whose "voices are heard", has a built in bias towards trivial and symbolic causes. The focus on soft targets in popular culture is divisive; it makes enemies. If you wanted to divert leftist zeal into fruitless and counterproductive channels, you couldn't do better than this. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't made a falsifiable claim here. At some point you need to go down from meta-level to naming the particular thing you're actually pissed off at - David Gerard (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

David is right, that fragment sucks to be anything but whining noises.Typhoon (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Good intentions, needs help

BoN's edit. I get what he's trying to say, but I don't know how to have it make more sense as the number of hyphens is excessive. Anybody want to clean this up? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't seem much better than the edit discussed in the section above. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

lol

http://www.cringechannel.com/2015/12/30/picture-some-rational-wiki-articles/

Gonna leave this here for you guys, you guys are a goldmine for cringe.

http://www.cringechannel.com/2016/02/08/picture-just-go-ahead-and-give-me-your-number/

also...

Look in the comments of especially the first for the nail int he coffin

the link claims ratwiki doesn't realize socjus is a reference to 1984, alongside a screenshot of the article stating that socjus is a reference to 1984.

the rest of the commentary is less adept at keeping its arguments straight.KrytenKoro (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warriors are simultaneously pathetic feminist slacktivists without any power and authoritarian dictators capable of controlling speech thought. Withoutaname (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This page should take a different tack

The post "THE ETHICS OF… SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIORS" broadly outlines my views. Real SJWs exist. Probably equal or greater that number of "SJW" trolls exist. Both the reals and the trolls serve to give fire to reactionaries and antifeminists. As such, this page shouldn't just deny that SJWs exist -- which it largely does -- but should criticize the underlying mentalities of what people perceive to be "SJW" (ie, ignoring evidence in favor of ideology/emotion, etc.) while also criticizing use of the term as a smear. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you and I think this article needs a rewrite. I actually agreed with Aneris, insofar, that there is an echo chamber of people who use "social justice" to harm pluralistic society by casting out ideas they disagree with. I think that there are "regressive leftist" who handwave racism, sexism, homophobia, and other atrocities. Where I disagreed with him, and what made him a conspiracy theorist, was that he claimed this was a widespread movement. I can break down his article on the "SJW Media" in three parts: a vocal minority who is largely uneducated (read young) has equipped itself with a dictionary full of sociological terms and wish to change society, a faction of attention seekers and those who wish to build a personal army, and those who wish to ostracize those they disagree with by delegitimizing their opinions and pushing them to the edge of society.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 02:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The real problem with Aneris, Sargon, and rightwingers is that all think the problems are far larger than fact -- possibly due to a persecution complex or media echo chamber effect. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is "SJW media" but that is more because opinions, even the outlandish kind, raise revenue and not because they seek to end pluralistic democracy. This is a good example of how right-wingers gain fuel for their dogma from such "SJWs".--Owlman (talk)(mail) 02:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 02:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

...People saying "Being larger doesn't mean being a garbage person" is not "insincere slacktivists insincerely exploiting the vernacular of social justice for attention." What in the actual fuck, why would you post that as an "example"?204.11.142.106 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with those individuals but that rightwingers use them to create a stereotype. These people are using non-related individuals who aren't really doing anything besides trying to be confident with their body weight as something to make fun of and when you confront them they will attack you as a SJW.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to rewrite some stuff. CorruptUser (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Dude, this is the same thing you've been trying to do with this page for a year. Give it a rest. & BTW it's "tack" not "tact". Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nah. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, as a Tumblr user, I can personally attest to seeing "SJW" in a lot of blogs' About sections, as well as considering it a largely positive term. I don't have it there, but it wouldn't be considered self-deprecating to use it to refer to myself, as many people use it to refer to themselves positively, as would I in such a scenario. -86.30.10.44 / talk / contribs on 13 May 2016 12:44 AM GMT

Recent edit war

Should the intro go 1: "SJWs exist but are mostly right wing bogeymen" or 2: "SJWs are mostly right wing bogeymen but also exist"? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 00:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Neither. It should be purged as off-mission cruft. --MarkGall (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has become a thought-terminating cliche -- and therefore missional in a broad sense. :/ Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 00:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Only if one takes a unproductively broad view. Why not a vote: a), b), or c) nuke. --MarkGall (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Social justice warriors are simultaneously pathetic feminist slacktivists and authoritarian dictators capable of controlling speech thought. Withoutaname (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)