From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Some dare call it
Icon conspiracy.svg
What THEY don't want
you to know!
Sheeple wakers

Below you find articles and some cobbled together describption about the phenomenon called "social justice warriors" (SJW) or Regressive Left. They themselves like to pose as perfectly normal liberals, progressives and feminists[1] and deem everyone critical as something else, as is tradition for their movement:

the Science War [are] a second front opened up by conservatives cheered by their successes o their legions in the holy Culture Wars. Seeking explanations for their loss of standing in the public eye and the decline in funding from the public purse, conservatives in science have joined the backlash against the (new) usual suspects — pinkos, feminists, multiculturalists — Andrew Ross, Social Text (the magazine pranked by the Sokal Hoax[2])

In Ross' tradition, the RationalWiki is adamant that "social justice warrior" was merely a "snarl word" used by Maoist and Right Wingers alike. People are just imaginging things. There are no such things as Social Justice Warriors[3]. Those who claim otherwise are part of a grand conspiracy theory of the patriarchy. Naturally, Barack Obama is in it, too, as revealed when he spoke out against the typical tenets of social justice warriors. Unbeknownst to the RationalWiki, the thing really exists and could be seen as an update of the 1990s postmodernist movement. It is its own distinct faction or movement, different from other liberals, progressives and feministst, and no longer confined to Tumblr. We know this because this movement brings their own worldviews, concepts and jargon that are not universally left, progressive or feminist — which doesn't exist anyway[4].

Remember, not a thing ...

Awful lots of people notice the same things and draw the same conclusions over "nothing".

On RationalWiki[edit]

Users invested in the SJW ideology (who dilligently note down every tiny detail on articles like Timeline of Gamergate) quickly reacted quite strongly when my rather critical attitude transpired on talk pages. The reaction was a modern-day adaption of flak, othering, namecalling, playing petty games, random reverts, or accusing me of "having a mission". Talk page arguments, especially of the constructive kind, are normally no reason for anything. But four (or five) sock puppet accounts were made just for harassment purposes, a deletion attempt was made, too, and I was stripped of ordinary rights other users (apparently) have without accountability and on a whim, though I don't really care. It's unusual under normal circumstances, or so I heard. Later, a mysterious "shadowban glitch" hit a few selective users critical of SJWs, me too (hence I post this with an allowed alt account), yet another unusual odd thing. But of course, there is really nothing and we all imagine things. You read this, because along with the denial that SJW exist comes a denial of what SJWs typcially do (which is anything except argueing). Oddly enough, the RationalWiki states on its frontpage what it wants. Social justice warriors would be highly missional under normal circumstances. To wit:

  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 (see below)

Wiki In Action[edit]

I'm not a reddit user, but learned from here that the RationalWiki is sometimes featured in a reddit board. To my surprise I found that reddit people have documented “my case” too. I originally joined the Slymepit because users there noted “my case”, too. However, I maintain that I'm a friendly trickster-traveller Discordianist bridge-builder. People who have the facts on their side don't need to worry.


I do not endorse everything said in every article or indeed anywhere. This is an attempt to show that the SJW phenomenon exist and that it is foolish to pretend it didn't. I also believe that the journalists are slow to see the larger trend, but you can see some progress. Several authors have hinted that they might pen books on the subject matter, and it seems scholary work is conducted as well.

February 2015[edit]

March 2015[edit]

April 2015[edit]

June 2015[edit]


September 2015[edit]

October 2015[edit]

November 2015[edit]

December 2015[edit]

January 2016[edit]

General Essays / Other[edit]


Noam Chomsky[edit]

Gary Edwards[edit]


Ideology, key concepts, and buzzwords[edit]


Their general mode of interaction is identical to what is known from so-called “right wing authoritarians”. In that framework, right originally meant rightous (which is what drives SJWs, "fighting the good fight" etc).

The inventories focus on what he terms “Right Wing Authoritarianism” and “Social Dominance”. He uses “right” initially as “correct”, rather than “politically right wing”, but it becomes obvious during his studies that the politically right-wing subjects see themselves, to a highly dogmatic level, as correct in their beliefs, even when evidence stands in contradiction.

Altemeyer describes the personality traits of high RWAs as submissiveness, fear, self-righteousness, hostility, lack of critical thinking, compartmentalized thinking, double standards, and feeling most empowered when in groups. He describes the lack of logic in their thinking; when they like the conclusion, how that conclusion was arrived at is irrelevant. When they like the behaver, the behavior is acceptable; when they dislike the behaver, the behavior is not.

He then goes on to describe high Social Dominators. These people want power, and they don’t much care how they get it. “The end justifies the means” is their guiding principle.

Critical Race Theory[edit]

You should maybe also consider critical race theoryWikipedia, where one co-founder was Kimberle CrenshawWikipedia who also came up with the complementary intersectionality idea. CRT has these tenets (taken from the Wikipedia article):

  • Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality" (<- here's one cliché postmodernist influence)
  • Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progres.
  • Essentialism philosophy —reducing the experience of a category (gender or race) to the experience of one sub-group (white women or African-Americans).
  • Non-white cultural nationalism/separatism, Black nationalism

The second source listed on the Wikipedia article provides further insights:

Critical Race Theory is strongly associated with Critical Legal Studies—an approach to American jurisprudence advanced by a group of progressive, often liberal and sometimes Marxist jurists in the 1980s and the present decade. The Critical Legal Studies group, of whom the most prominent associates are Patricia Williams, Richard Delgado, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Derrick Bell, are most peculiarly marked by their utilization of developments in postmodern poststructural scholarship, especially the focus on "subaltern" or "marginalized" communities and the use of alternative methodology in the expression of theoretical work, most notably their use of "narratives" and other literary techniques.
  • It came out of Law school.
  • Is explicitly postmodernist (and this obvious in content, too)
  • relies on "alternate methodology in the expression of theoretical work" whatever that means (you're in po-mo land, they write that way).
  • which means it's based on "narratives" and other literary techniques". In other words, not science.

Further Reading[edit]

‘Shut the f*** up’, ‘you have no rights here’: Critical Race Theory and Racialisation in post 7/7 racist Britain, a Marxist critique. Not that I endorse all of this, either, but it shows that not everyone is on the same page even in the left pond on the left shore.

RationalWiki and Sarah Nyberg[edit]

The RationalWiki covers for Sarah “Butts” Nyberg, evades accountability and claims harassment and trolling. See for yourself: The whole case is even more interesting, as we see again the multi-dimensional hypocrisy and double-standards, as well as the claim that it was “harassment” to hold people accountable and ask them on their talk page what they did (which is otherwise a standard procedure). Labeling it “harassment” is of course the standard trick, when someone calls things inconvenient for the “social justice movement” and (faux left) authoritarians. They even manage to consider it harassment and violence, when people make critical videos or write critical blog posts. The rationale is then that this somehow incites “harassment” by unnamed readers and followers (which is curiously nearly impossible to demonstrate, but accepted by the SJ believers).


College Humor "literally" knows the type, too. Even the "wrong side of history" thing is there, too.

Stormfront or Social Justice Warrior[edit]

Found this nice quiz collection:


  1. they are also fond of special definitions as usual
  2. Ross 1995, p. 346 (quoted from Sokal & Bricmont on the coinage of "Science War", 1998, p. 184
  3. *handwave*
  4. The Left is a notorious herd of cats, and feminists come in waves with different factions often quite cross with each other
  5. Uni Ottawa Yoga Class Suspended for Cultural Approriation by Jerry Coyne
  6. Eating Ethnic Food is Cultural Appropriation by Jerry Coyne
  7. a necessary technique to overcome the danger of democracy