SJW: Most Abused Term Ever?

[Chris]

Well, although like any term it can be misused, I don't consider it to be an insult. I understand Polly's point - a thing isn't necessarily indicative of "social justice" or "feminism" because a woman is involved where someone may have expected to see a man...or, for that matter, because a racial minority is involved where someone might have expected to see a White person.

Context is vital, but generally speaking I think of a legitimate "Social Justice" cause as being one wherein an attempt is being made to convince the general population - the Society - that a particular attitude is either beneficial or destructive - conducive to fairness, or bad for everyone.

Yes, you're talking about social justice. Polly is talking about social justice warriors.

[Chris]

I think whether you'd be considered to be a "SJW" - in the non-pejorative sense - would depend on your proposed solution(s) to those issues. Promoting sex education and the availability of birth control information would certainly impact numbers one and three in a positive way - while just banning the one and demonizing the other, as Conservatives too often seem to advocate, are as ineffective as they are unrelated to justice. As for your number two, while we're agreed that divorce is generally bad for society because of the adverse effect it too often has on the children of those marriages, aside from leading a crusade to make divorce unlawful, I'm not sure how that one fits into the picture.

The solution doesn't determine whether one advocates social justice. If that were true those who have advocated welfare to fight the war on poverty have all failed. No, it's in the advocacy. With, say, abortion, those who argue the right of the woman and those who argue the rights of the unborn both advocate for social justice.

[Chris]

SJW has a meaning and it is what it is.

"Social justice warrior" (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views,[1] including feminism,[1][2] civil rights,[1] multiculturalism,[1] and identity politics.[3] The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signalling.[5][according to whom?]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1][how?] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.[1][2][why?]

The term has entered popular culture, including a parody role-playing video game released in 2014 titled Social Justice Warriors.[6][7][8]

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

That's why I opened up with SJW being phonies.

An individual that is defined by their constant attacking or addressing of anything they find inappropriate, offensive, or triggering in their eyes. People that promote and address the social issues that truly matter on social media should be applauded, but social justice warriors are in a league of their own. They repeatedly bash any content (even if its innocent) and aggressively call for the downfall of the person who carelessly offended them.

The REAL problem with social justice warriors is their superficial mentality. There are many issues that are heavily affecting many people across the world but these individuals detract from many of the real problems but continuing to address and argue about meaningless topics in order to boost themselves in the eyes of their peers.

@ http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...tice%20warrior

[Chris]

Also, I used the term phony because I was then reading an article called The Golden Age of Phony. It's all about this desire to take up social causes merely make oneself look good and others evil. SJW is actually old, the new term is virtue signalling.

...This dependence on anger and emotion in politics has given birth to a new term: virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is not a scientific concept. It’s a hokey litmus test that public figures give, and it’s the opposite of a wink-and-nod.

Virtue signaling is a primal scream of self-righteousness. In the Bush era, it looked like t-shirts and bumper stickers that read “Never Forget,” “Support Our Troops,” and “American Patriot,” which were almost always worn by people safe from the danger of fighting global terrorism. In the present, it’s left-of-center America’s inclination to connect everything they don’t agree with to racism, and the corresponding public persecution of people who do not share their heightened sensitivity.

Virtue signaling is the political equivalent of a magic trick, one that allows elected officials to distract the public with their perfect morality in one hand, while in the other hand, they torture inmates in Guantanamo Bay or use illegally collected CIA intelligence (the definition of a police state) to undermine the White House.

But calling out politicians for flaunting their fake moral superiority isn’t entirely fair, because phony virtue signaling is everywhere in American culture. It’s what the people want, and it’s what they’re getting....

[Standing Wolf]

Have you considered that many self-identified Social Justice Warriors may not care if some folks - or even most folks - use the term ironically or pejoratively?

[Green Arrow]

I wouldn't say most abused ever. But it is pretty ridiculously abused.

[Chris]

Have you considered that many self-identified Social Justice Warriors may not care if some folks - or even most folks - use the term ironically or pejoratively?

I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise. That's the point.

[Mister D]

Failing to demonize single mothers isn't the same as applauding or enabling them - it's recognizing that "single mothers" covers a lot of territory. Maybe when you hear the term, you see a 280-pound ghetto mom churning out a kid a year for the increased welfare check...and I'd be all for putting some dampers on that industry, vis-à-vis going after fathers for support as a condition for receiving increased benefits...but it also describes widowed mothers; well-employed, self-sufficient mothers; and little girls barely into their teens who were taken sexual advantage of by older, manipulative men.

I put "demonize" in scare quotes because I think it's a ridiculous characterization of attaching a stigma to behaviors we both agree are destructive. Yes, "single mothers" does encompass quite a bit of territory but I also think we both know what we're taking about so this is a pointless distinction. Murphy Brown is the exception. More importantly, you're demonstrating my point: you are much more concerned with the self-esteem of single mothers than you are about single motherhood as a destructive phenomenon. You focus on the individual impact rather than the impact of this phenomenon on living together (i.e. society).

Secondly, I also resent the implication that I'm talking about fat black women. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that you were better than that. It's certainly true that single motherhood is an unqualified disaster in the black community but it's impact affects us all even if it was confined to the black community (ditto gun violence).

In fact, you are enabling this behavior because you cannot and will not condemn it.

[Chris]

I wouldn't say most abused ever. But it is pretty ridiculously abused.

Social justice, perhaps, but social justice warrior, no, it's a term that's evolved to describe certain types of people. The abuse, if any, is its commercialization in gaming.

Abused words: Liberal, socialism. freedom, evangelical, to name a few. But you can't stop what people do with words.

[Mister D]

The solution doesn't determine whether one advocates social justice. If that were true those who have advocated welfare to fight the war on poverty have all failed. No, it's in the advocacy. With, say, abortion, those who argue the right of the woman and those who argue the rights of the unborn both advocate for social justice.

Exactly and it's still unclear what "justice" even means in this context.