PDA

View Full Version : SJW: Most Abused Term Ever?



IMPress Polly
04-21-2017, 01:54 PM
So I saw this posted about Cosmic Star Heroine (the new classic RPG-inspired game on Steam and PlayStation 4 I've been playing) recently:

17950

Yep, it's an adventure game. With a female lead. Who wears pants and everything. Heaven forbid.

Branding such a title "an SJW game" to me is kind of like saying that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Carly Fiorina were feminists because they ran for public office while female. I mean maybe relative to those few people who still believe that women are emotionally unqualified to hold public office perhaps they were, but by no higher standard could you brand them as feminists. Same basic principle applies here. When I think of "SJW games", I think of titles like Gone Home, the Portal games, Diaries of a Spaceport Janitor, Never Alone, and Night in the Woods (all outstanding games IMO, btw!): games that thematically revolve around issues like gender oppression, same-sex relationships, economic exploitation, that sort of thing, not just any game that happens to have a female lead. The latter might have passed for political and specifically left wing 20 or 30 years ago, but today it is no longer truly a novelty just for a game to have a female hero. The feminist and "social justice" monikers typically imply something more specific than that these days in my mind, and I suspect in most people's as well. You see what I'm saying?

This (the above) really seems to be the typical use of the "SJW" label. When the typical use is an abuse, I think that says something about those who throw it around. And it has become perhaps the most common 'insult' that gamers use against other gamers, developers, publishers, writers, etc. in recent years. In this context, can we not say that it is the most abused term in circulation in the gaming community writ large?

Chris
04-21-2017, 02:02 PM
SJ is a game played by phony warriors.

Standing Wolf
04-21-2017, 02:07 PM
SJ is a game played by phony warriors.

Critics of Social Justice frequently have as little understanding of how societies work as they have any interest in justice for anyone but themselves.

Mister D
04-21-2017, 02:08 PM
First, let me make it clear hat I really don't care about video games.

Anyway, every time I have asked for specificity regarding the term "feminist" I get a lot of self-righteous indignation but no answer. Have you ladies finally decided upon a definition that makes it quite clear that the term does not apply to the likes of "Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Carly Fiorina"?

Mister D
04-21-2017, 02:10 PM
Critics of Social Justice frequently have as little understanding of how societies work as they have any interest in justice for anyone but themselves.
What does "social justice" mean to you? Trying to decide if I am a critic or not.

Safety
04-21-2017, 02:12 PM
It's definitely an abused term on tPF.

FindersKeepers
04-21-2017, 02:18 PM
It's definitely an abused term on tPF.


Not by me. I never use it.

I prefer to say "purveyors of social engineering." :wink:

Or, "snowflakes." I'm kind of fond of that one.

Standing Wolf
04-21-2017, 02:21 PM
What does "social justice" mean to you? Trying to decide if I am a critic or not.

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.

Safety
04-21-2017, 02:25 PM
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.

Well, in one point, it is used as a pejorative to try and marginalize someone. When I first arrived here, I was constantly called a SJW, until it was known that I was black, then the term was never used towards me again. Funny that, huh?

So, in my experience, people have evolved with their use of terms for things they can't outright say in public. I see SJW as the newest form of a term...

AeonPax
04-21-2017, 02:34 PM
`
`
I prefer linear RPG games that allow me to operate in the nude....or close to it.

Mister D
04-21-2017, 02:45 PM
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.
It's precisely the vague nature of these concepts that results in their misuse. Would you not agree? For example, I think abortion, divorce and single motherhood are bad for society. Is that "Social Justice" too? I'm guessing, no, it's not and your average progressive would suggest that I mind my own damn business. I thin the American right has this one right: SJ is just a way of describing a progressive bias.

The Xl
04-21-2017, 02:52 PM
Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's completely accurate.

Mister D
04-21-2017, 02:56 PM
And, no, the title of most abused term ever would be a contest between racist, communist, socialist and fascist.

sachem
04-21-2017, 03:11 PM
What does "social justice" mean to you? Trying to decide if I am a critic or not.
You're a critic of everything. :tongue:

Standing Wolf
04-21-2017, 03:23 PM
It's precisely the vague nature of these concepts that results in their misuse. Would you not agree? For example, I think abortion, divorce and single motherhood are bad for society. Is that "Social Justice" too? I'm guessing, no, it's not and your average progressive would suggest that I mind my own damn business. I thin the American right has this one right: SJ is just a way of describing a progressive bias.

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.

sachem
04-21-2017, 03:30 PM
Well, in one point, it is used as a pejorative to try and marginalize someone. When I first arrived here, I was constantly called a SJW, until it was known that I was black, then the term was never used towards me again. Funny that, huh?

So, in my experience, people have evolved with their use of terms for things they can't outright say in public. I see SJW as the newest form of a term...You're black????







:D

IMPress Polly
04-21-2017, 03:36 PM
AeonPax wrote:
I prefer linear RPG games that allow me to operate in the nude....or close to it.
'
I recommend giving Tales of Berseria a try then. :wink:

(It actually is a pretty good game.)


The XL wrote:
Sometimes it's abused, sometimes it's completely accurate.

Superb dodge, as usual. :wink:

Mister D
04-21-2017, 03:47 PM
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 complete absence of any social stigma attached to abortion, divorce and single motherhood has certainly contributed to an increase in all three. Make no mistake about it. Your disdain for "demonizing" socially destructive behavior is part of the problem. It's perceived as unfair and cruel to those who suffer from such a stigma but it's not about what's good for individual people but what's good for collective living (i.e. society). Incidentally, this hyper-individualism is something shared by both the "right" and the left. You just give it different accents.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how justice fits into any of this. That's why I asked my question in the first place.

Standing Wolf
04-21-2017, 04:14 PM
The complete absence of any social stigma attached to abortion, divorce and single motherhood has certainly contributed to an increase in all three. Make no mistake about it. Your disdain for "demonizing" socially destructive behavior is part of the problem. It's perceived as unfair and cruel to those who suffer from such a stigma but it's not about what's good for individual people but what's good for collective living (i.e. society). Incidentally, this hyper-individualism is something shared by both the "right" and the left. You just give it different accents.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how justice fits into any of this. That's why I asked my question in the first place.

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.

Chris
04-21-2017, 05:54 PM
Critics of Social Justice frequently have as little understanding of how societies work as they have any interest in justice for anyone but themselves.

We're talking here about social justice warriors. In general those who are not themselves oppressed but who take up such causes merely to make themselves look good and others bad.

Social justice, what you're describing, is something nobly sought and discussed ever since man could speak.

Chris
04-21-2017, 05:57 PM
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
04-21-2017, 06:02 PM
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
04-21-2017, 06:15 PM
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/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior

Chris
04-21-2017, 06:30 PM
Also, I used the term phony because I was then reading an article called The Golden Age of Phony (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/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
04-21-2017, 07:00 PM
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
04-21-2017, 07:06 PM
I wouldn't say most abused ever. But it is pretty ridiculously abused.

Chris
04-21-2017, 07:39 PM
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
04-21-2017, 08:08 PM
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
04-21-2017, 08:10 PM
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
04-21-2017, 08:11 PM
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.

Mister D
04-21-2017, 08:15 PM
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 don't doubt that at all. You haven't done much to convince me that these "SJW" are anything but self-righteous progressives who, rather hypocritically, try to legislate morality

resister
04-21-2017, 08:22 PM
It's definitely an abused term on tPF.like RWNJ?

IMPress Polly
04-21-2017, 08:24 PM
Chris wrote:
Yes, you're talking about social justice. Polly is talking about social justice warriors.

Polly was talking about a term.

Personally, I don't mind if people call me a "warrior", even if they mean it as an insult, because I am, in fact, an advocate for social equality and am not ashamed of that in any way. But what I sought to convey in the OP was that the people who do use that term as an insult seem to just assume that everything not explicitly right wing is automatically left wing by default and that that's pretty disingenuous and narrow.

resister
04-21-2017, 08:26 PM
Polly was talking about a term.

Personally, I don't mind if people call me a "warrior", even if they mean it as an insult, because I am, in fact, an advocate for social equality and am not ashamed of that in any way. But what I sought to convey in the OP was that the people who do use that term as an insult seem to just assume that everything not explicitly right wing is automatically left wing by default and that that's pretty disingenuous and narrow.
So this is a one way street?

Chris
04-21-2017, 09:36 PM
Polly was talking about a term.

Personally, I don't mind if people call me a "warrior", even if they mean it as an insult, because I am, in fact, an advocate for social equality and am not ashamed of that in any way. But what I sought to convey in the OP was that the people who do use that term as an insult seem to just assume that everything not explicitly right wing is automatically left wing by default and that that's pretty disingenuous and narrow.

We all advocate social justice, only some are phony warriors, who can be right as well as left wingers.

my impression is you advocate justice, equality, which is great, whatever that abstraction means. I don't think you do it to make yourself look good and others bad.

decedent
04-21-2017, 09:40 PM
I hear that almost every university activist is an SJW. Amazing coincidence.

Mister D
04-21-2017, 09:41 PM
We all advocate social justice, only some are phony warriors, who can be right as well as left wingers.

my impression is you advocate justice, equality, which is great, whatever that abstraction means. I don't think you do it to make yourself look good and others bad.
We all do advocate social justice but in the same way that we all advocate feminism (i.e. these terms don't refer to anything specific but only to a vague good will).

Mister D
04-21-2017, 09:42 PM
I hear that almost every university activist is an SJW. Amazing coincidence.
Fascinating.

decedent
04-21-2017, 10:22 PM
Useless.

Chris
04-21-2017, 11:40 PM
Now for the latest in social justice, Could “Social Justice Benefits” Be The Newest Employment Trend? (https://www.fastcompany.com/40407672/could-social-justice-benefits-be-the-newest-employment-trend): "Some companies are recognizing their employees’ social consciences by offering paid time off for political involvement, and even covering bail for employees arrested while peacefully protesting."

Everything from PTO to bail to travel expenses.

It's a social justice world!

William
04-22-2017, 03:37 AM
As I understand it, 'social justice' means more than a vague feeling. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. have a strong sense of social justice throughout the population, and this means they have systems which prevent the poor or disabled from too much suffering cos of their situation. It gives them a much higher standard of living than countries which value free-enterprise capitalism above social justice, and while there may not be as many billionaires, there are far fewer people sleeping under bridges. I guess it all depends on what you value.

And to say that 'social justice warriors' are only concerned about these things to make themselves look superior to others, seems both mean-spirited and ignorant to me. Both my parents seem very concerned about, and contribute a lot of money to, social justice, but I never hear them talking about it.

resister
04-22-2017, 06:03 AM
I wouldn't say most abused ever. But it is pretty ridiculously abused.Epic, dude! :laugh:

Chris
04-22-2017, 08:12 AM
As I understand it, 'social justice' means more than a vague feeling. Countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc. have a strong sense of social justice throughout the population, and this means they have systems which prevent the poor or disabled from too much suffering cos of their situation. It gives them a much higher standard of living than countries which value free-enterprise capitalism above social justice, and while there may not be as many billionaires, there are far fewer people sleeping under bridges. I guess it all depends on what you value.

And to say that 'social justice warriors' are only concerned about these things to make themselves look superior to others, seems both mean-spirited and ignorant to me. Both my parents seem very concerned about, and contribute a lot of money to, social justice, but I never hear them talking about it.


The Nordic nations have a strong social welfare system, though they're backing away from that now. That's not really social justice which is more like some group, women, blacks, gays, etc, is oppressed and equality, whatever that means, is sought for them. We all seek justice, most of us anyhow, in some sense or other. SJW does however mean someone who is a phony about that, it's just the way people use the term. Do some overuse it, sure, probably.

resister
04-22-2017, 08:27 AM
The Nordic nations have a strong social welfare system, though they're backing away from that now. That's not really social justice which is more like some group, women, blacks, gays, etc, is oppressed and equality, whatever that means, is sought for them. We all seek justice, most of us anyhow, in some sense or other. SJW does however mean someone who is a phony about that, it's just the way people use the term. Do some overuse it, sure, probably.
Similar to RWNJ.

Chris
04-22-2017, 08:46 AM
Similar to RWNJ.

Sure. Equally dismissive. Sometimes deserved, sometimes not. Except there's an irony to SJW, a sarcasm involved.

Standing Wolf
04-22-2017, 08:57 AM
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.

Give an example of how you believe society should "condemn it" that it doesn't currently employ? In other words, what would you like to see me (and others) do and say to discourage single mothers from existing?

While you're at it, do you believe that we should similarly "demonize" single fathers?

One more question, please. If a gay father or mother is single, would their marrying a same-sex partner make it better for society, or worse?

William
04-22-2017, 11:19 AM
The Nordic nations have a strong social welfare system, though they're backing away from that now. That's not really social justice which is more like some group, women, blacks, gays, etc, is oppressed and equality, whatever that means, is sought for them. We all seek justice, most of us anyhow, in some sense or other. SJW does however mean someone who is a phony about that, it's just the way people use the term. Do some overuse it, sure, probably.

Thanks Chris - TBH, I never heard of SJW until now, and I had to Google it. Obviously I misunderstood the way it is used, but I think maybe 'social justice' is a bit of a dirty word amongst some people in the USA. To us, it is an essential part of civilisation.

Lol, I mean no disrespect by this - but I don't think I will ever really understand American society. :wink:

Chris
04-22-2017, 12:13 PM
Thanks Chris - TBH, I never heard of SJW until now, and I had to Google it. Obviously I misunderstood the way it is used, but I think maybe 'social justice' is a bit of a dirty word amongst some people in the USA. To us, it is an essential part of civilisation.

Lol, I mean no disrespect by this - but I don't think I will ever really understand American society. :wink:

No problem. On the face of it you'd think if social justice is good a warrior for it ought to be too. But language is funny that way. Remember when Mickael Jackson meant good by bad?

William
04-22-2017, 12:16 PM
No problem. On the face of it you'd think if social justice is good a warrior for it ought to be too. But language is funny that way. Remember when Mickael Jackson meant good by bad?

Lol - I know what you mean. Bad still means good in some contexts at my school, and wicked means really excellent. :wink:

Mister D
04-22-2017, 01:07 PM
Give an example of how you believe society should "condemn it" that it doesn't currently employ? In other words, what would you like to see me (and others) do and say to discourage single mothers from existing?

While you're at it, do you believe that we should similarly "demonize" single fathers?

One more question, please. If a gay father or mother is single, would their marrying a same-sex partner make it better for society, or worse?
Whoever tries to employ this social stigma or even make reference to it is castigated by...well the likes of you, Wolf, and you know this so I have to wonder why you woudl even ask such a question. You don't like stigmas because you think they're cruel and unfair but it shouldn't surprise you that the behaviors those stigmas were meant to curb have grown in their absence. We could not place an inappropriate emphasis on rape and forced marriages. We all know they represent a very small fraction of the problem. Why are we talking about them? What's the purpose of that, Wolf? Coudl it be to cast single mothers in a sympathetic light? That's sort of the point, sir.

Absolutely. Single motherhood is much more common for several reasons but I see no difference in impact. Would single parenthood suit you better? Do you think this is an attack on women?

Gay marriage is inane. It's also another topic.

Chris
04-22-2017, 01:10 PM
It incentivizes unintended consequences.

IMPress Polly
04-23-2017, 10:23 AM
Some people (mostly Mister D) have been asking what social justice means. Justice is a term that literally refers to balance or equality, so when I hear the term 'social justice', I think of balanced or equitable relationships between people, however one interprets that. Used in a political context, it's basically another term for left wing ideas in general, cultural or economic (either equality itself or that vague concept that is 'equal opportunity'), to my way of thinking. The antithesis of social justice is privilege. It's obviously a somewhat subjective term, but that's only because a lot oppressions themselves (especially the psychological kinds) are not easy to measure concretely. We do our best.

The pejorative "social justice warrior", always used in the sarcastic form, is an attempt by rightists to stigmatize leftists broadly as hyper-sensitive in nature, as if all we really care about are "issues" like whether your wearing a sombrero constitutes theft of Mexican culture. The point of the OP was to highlight the extreme irony of this assessment, as it would seem that our right wing critics are quite overly sensitive themselves; indeed probably more so than most of us.

As to single mothers, let me just say that people often have good reasons for getting divorced. My mom did, as I'd be forced to find out for myself first-hand eventually. She was also the best and most caring of the three parents that I had and the only one I'm still on speaking terms with. That's my only thought on that whole matter.

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:42 AM
Some people (mostly Mister D) have been asking what social justice means. Justice is a term that literally refers to balance or equality, so when I hear the term 'social justice', I think of balanced or equitable relationships between people, however one interprets that. Used in a political context, it's basically another term for left wing ideas in general, cultural or economic (either equality itself or that vague concept that is 'equal opportunity'), to my way of thinking. The antithesis of social justice is privilege. It's obviously a somewhat subjective term, but that's only because a lot oppressions themselves (especially the psychological kinds) are not easy to measure concretely. We do our best.

The pejorative "social justice warrior", always used in the sarcastic form, is an attempt by rightists to stigmatize leftists broadly as hyper-sensitive in nature, as if all we really care about are "issues" like whether your wearing a sombrero constitutes theft of Mexican culture. The point of the OP was to highlight the extreme irony of this assessment, as it would seem that our right wing critics are quite overly sensitive themselves; indeed probably more so than most of us.

As to single mothers, let me just say that people often have good reasons for getting divorced. My mom did, as I'd be forced to find out for myself first-hand eventually. She was also the best and most caring of the three parents that I had and the only one I'm still on speaking terms with. That's my only thought on that whole matter.


Sorry, but there are phonys who pretend to argue social justice...as described above. Are some who truly argue social justice sometimes misidentified, yes...as described above. Same can be said about conservatives and libertarians accused of being haters, racists, misoginists.

I think Mister D's criticism is social justice, just like equality, is too abstract. As Hayek put it: "I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice."

The Xl
04-23-2017, 11:47 AM
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of social justice, but it also isn't the 1940s anymore, and to some, not all, social justice means advocating for and justifying additional rights and privileges for certain groups, sometimes directly at the expense of others.

rcfieldz
04-23-2017, 11:55 AM
Are Single Jewish Women getting into gaming? Who knew?

The Xl
04-23-2017, 12:00 PM
Unrelated, but that cosmic star heroine game looks cool af. I hope it gets released mobile at some point.

Chris
04-23-2017, 12:05 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of social justice, but it also isn't the 1940s anymore, and to some, not all, social justice means advocating for and justifying additional rights and privileges for certain groups, sometimes directly at the expense of others.

There's that too about social justice, the injustice of means.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9DazlxgWTg

“That the state ought to treat all people equally in spite the fact that they are unequal; you can’t deduce from this, a rule, that because the people are unequal, you ought to treat them unequally in order to make them equal, and that’s what social justice amounts to. It’s a demand that the state should treat different people differently in order to place them in the same position. The rule of equal treatment applies only to things the state has to do in any case, but to make, making people equal a goal of governmental policy, would force government to treat people very unequally indeed.”

sachem
04-23-2017, 01:29 PM
Is TRUMP a term?

IMPress Polly
04-23-2017, 05:34 PM
The XL wrote:
Unrelated, but that cosmic star heroine game looks cool af. I hope it gets released mobile at some point.

It IS cool! I think I've almost finished it and the best way I can think of to sum it (briefly) so far is a cross between Phantasy Star and Chrono Trigger. :cool2: I think you'd like it!


There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of social justice, but it also isn't the 1940s anymore, and to some, not all, social justice means advocating for and justifying additional rights and privileges for certain groups, sometimes directly at the expense of others.

You know what people will be saying 80 years from now? "It isn't the 2010s anymore, you know?" It's all perspective.

William
04-23-2017, 09:33 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting totally confused here. Are people saying that (a) there is no such thing as social justice, or (b) social justice is a bad thing, or (c) social justice is a good idea but just not practical?

I probably have the totally wrong idea of what 'social justice' is, but to me, it is not a system to make everyone equal - economically and socially. The idea of social justice certainly involves creating equal opportunities, but is mainly concerned with reducing suffering (physical, social, and economic) in society. I don't care that one man is an Earl or Baron (due to being born to a certain family,) or that another is a billionaire for much the same reason. What I care about is that people are defended from exploitation and abuse by other people more powerful than them. That children do not go to bed hungry, or go to school in raggedy clothes, and that a father is not tempted to commit a crime in order that his children be properly fed, clothed, and sheltered. And that these concerns are not restricted to only those whom we consider worthy cos they are hard working or agree with our politics. The children of the 'unworthy' feel hunger and cold just as much as the children of the 'worthy'.

So call it what you like, but 'social justice' is essential to any society that wants to be a civilisation.

Chris
04-23-2017, 10:10 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting totally confused here. Are people saying that (a) there is no such thing as social justice, or (b) social justice is a bad thing, or (c) social justice is a good idea but just not practical?

I probably have the totally wrong idea of what 'social justice' is, but to me, it is not a system to make everyone equal - economically and socially. The idea of social justice certainly involves creating equal opportunities, but is mainly concerned with reducing suffering (physical, social, and economic) in society. I don't care that one man is an Earl or Baron (due to being born to a certain family,) or that another is a billionaire for much the same reason. What I care about is that people are defended from exploitation and abuse by other people more powerful than them. That children do not go to bed hungry, or go to school in raggedy clothes, and that a father is not tempted to commit a crime in order that his children be properly fed, clothed, and sheltered. And that these concerns are not restricted to only those whom we consider worthy cos they are hard working or agree with our politics. The children of the 'unworthy' feel hunger and cold just as much as the children of the 'worthy'.

So call it what you like, but 'social justice' is essential to any society that wants to be a civilisation.

To me, social justice is rightful action towards others.

But that's not always so easy to define.

Some say it is equality. But what do they mean by that? It's an abstraction, and as such never satisfied. Take equality for women. Certainly, it cannot me make women the same as men for we are different. Can it mean make women like men, same jobs, same pay, but then why do women want to be like men? If men are oppressors do women wish to become oppressors? Why not be who they are, be the best of who they are, be all they can be--which sounds like the Army.

The other problem with equality is the means of achieving it. Say with gays, should straights be treated less equally to make gays more equal? How achieve equality by unequal means?

Another consideration is the real injustice, the real oppression comes not from your neighbor but the government. Yet those who seek social justice tend to seek it through the power of the government.

All I can do is try to treat others as equals.

The Xl
04-23-2017, 10:14 PM
It IS cool! I think I've almost finished it and the best way I can think of to sum it (briefly) so far is a cross between Phantasy Star and Chrono Trigger. :cool2: I think you'd like it!



You know what people will be saying 80 years from now? "It isn't the 2010s anymore, you know?" It's all perspective.

Where is the parallel though? There are legitimate social justice causes, to be sure, like how the drug war disproportionately affects minorities, how the justice system only functions for the upper middle class and up, etc, but those who both champion the SJW label, and those who are considered SJWs, don't really push for important stuff like that.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2017, 10:47 PM
Critics of Social Justice frequently have as little understanding of how societies work as they have any interest in justice for anyone but themselves.

lol

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:17 AM
Where is the parallel though? There are legitimate social justice causes, to be sure, like how the drug war disproportionately affects minorities, how the justice system only functions for the upper middle class and up, etc, but those who both champion the SJW label, and those who are considered SJWs, don't really push for important stuff like that.

So do laws against murder and car theft. if, as Polly suggests, "Social Justice" is just another term for equality it's nonsense.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:19 AM
So do laws against murder and car theft. if, as Polly suggests, "Social Justice" is just another term for equality it's nonsense.
Blacks and whites don't commit car theft and murder at the same rates though, as they do with non violent drug crimes. In any case, a different topic for a different thread.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:24 AM
Blacks and whites don't commit car theft and murder at the same rates though, as they do with non violent drug crimes.
The drug trade causes, or is at the very least strongly associated with, exponentially more violence among blacks than among whites. I'm not sure why you can't or won't acknowledge the link between violence, gang activity and tougher police action toward drug dealing.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:26 AM
The drug trade causes, or is at the very least strongly associated with, exponentially more violence among blacks than among whites. I'm not sure why you can't or won't acknowledge the link between violence, gang activity and tougher police action toward drug dealing.
I have no issue with bringing the violent criminals to justice, but when non violent blacks are arrested and prosecuted at much higher rates for non violent drug crimes than whites, it's an issue. One of the few modern social justice issues that has any legitimate traction, in my opinion.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:27 AM
Anyway, it does appear that "Social Justice" is just another word for progressive causes. I'm leaning toward critic at this point.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:32 AM
Anyway, it does appear that "Social Justice" is just another word for progressive causes. I'm leaning toward critic at this point.
Social justice is code word for wealth redistribution and privilege justification for certain groups at the expense of other groups, usually white and Asian males. Very little of it has to do with actual social justice issues.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:35 AM
I have no issue with bringing the violent criminals to justice, but when non violent blacks are arrested and prosecuted at much higher rates for non violent drug crimes than whites, it's an issue. One of the few modern social justice issues that has any legitimate traction, in my opinion.
If you are dealing crack in South Central LA, for example, this appeal of "non-violent crime" won't fly with law enforcement and rightly so. It's directly associated with the violence and gang activity that makes too many black neighborhoods unlivable. If there were drug turf wars in my neighborhood I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that white teenagers would be routinely frisked, patted down and pushed around by the police. But there is a homicide here every 20 years or so.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:35 AM
Social justice is code word for wealth redistribution and privilege justification for certain groups at the expense of other groups, usually white and Asian males. Very little of it has to do with actual social justice issues.
It's looking that way.

Safety
04-24-2017, 11:37 AM
So, it boils down to why should anyone be concerned about someone else's condition if they don't look like you.

Vying for equal treatment does not mean white people have to be oppressed. For the ones that think that way, that's the f'king reason SJW even exist.

Private Pickle
04-24-2017, 11:37 AM
If you are dealing crack in South Central LA, for example, this appeal of "non-violent crime" won't fly with law enforcement and rightly so. It's directly associated with the violence and gang activity that makes too many black neighborhoods unlivable. If there were drug turf wars in my neighborhood I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that white teenagers would be routinely frisked, patted down and pushed around by the police. But there is a homicide here every 20 years or so.
Then they should put themselves in jail for propagating the War on Drugs which is directly responsible for our overcrowded prisons and the illegality that inevitably results in gang violence.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:39 AM
If you are dealing crack in South Central LA, for example, this appeal of "non-violent crime" won't fly with law enforcement and rightly so. It's directly associated with the violence and gang activity that makes too many black neighborhoods unlivable. If there were drug turf wars in my neighborhood I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that white teenagers would be routinely frisked, patted down and pushed around by the police. But there is a homicide here every 20 years or so.

The prohibition of these drugs is what creates all of that, creating a black market for gangbangers to get armed and rich off. In any case, the non violent users and sellers shouldn't be being prosecuted. The lack of quality affordable attorneys to the poor are another legitimate social justice issue, but again, modern day SJWs aren't interested in things like that. They push for transgendered bathroom rights and other silly horseshit like that.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:40 AM
Then they should put themselves in jail for propagating the War on Drugs which is directly responsible for our overcrowded prisons and the illegality that inevitably results in gang violence.
You are much better off attacking the feasibility of the so called War on Drugs generally without making these appeals to, largely fictional, racism.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:42 AM
So, it boils down to why should anyone be concerned about someone else's condition if they don't look like you.

Vying for equal treatment does not mean white people have to be oppressed. For the ones that think that way, that's the f'king reason SJW even exist.

SJWs frequently aren't looking for equal treatment, though. That's the issue. Not to mention, they actually ignore real social justice issues, and there are plenty of them that are still prevalent in the country.

Let me also add that that's not all of them. There are a few that do. And I wouldn't categorize them by that term, as I have respect for them.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:44 AM
The prohibition of these drugs is what creates all of that, creating a black market for gangbangers to get armed and rich off. In any case, the non violent users and sellers shouldn't be being prosecuted. The lack of quality affordable attorneys to the poor are another legitimate social justice issue, but again, modern day SJWs aren't interested in things like that. They push for transgendered bathroom rights and other silly horse$#@! like that.
That's fine. Go with that. I tend to agree it's a policy that does more harm than good but, until that policy is changed, the police are just doing what we pay them to do. This isn't a conspiracy against black people.

I agree with the rest. SJW tend to be frivolous.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 11:44 AM
So, it boils down to why should anyone be concerned about someone else's condition if they don't look like you.

Vying for equal treatment does not mean white people have to be oppressed. For the ones that think that way, that's the f'king reason SJW even exist.

yeah, something like that. :rollseyes:

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:49 AM
That's fine. Go with that. I tend to agree it's a policy that does more harm than good but, until that policy is changed, the police are just doing what we pay them to do. This isn't a conspiracy against black people.

I agree with the rest. SJW tend to be frivolous.

I don't think it's a police conspiracy, at least at the low level. The higher ups and the political class know the score though, and they also know it does more harm than good.

Safety
04-24-2017, 11:49 AM
SJWs frequently aren't looking for equal treatment, though. That's the issue. Not to mention, they actually ignore real social justice issues, and there are plenty of them that are still prevalent in the country.

Let me also add that that's not all of them. There are a few that do. And I wouldn't categorize them by that term, as I have respect for them.

SJW is a place holder, nothing more. The descriptor of what it describes has evolved over time, but the premise is still the same. The white folks marching with King in the 50's and 60's were called a different name, but the underlying marginalization is the same.

Safety
04-24-2017, 11:50 AM
yeah, something like that. :rollseyes:

No, exactly like that.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:51 AM
SWJ is a place holder, nothing more. The descriptor of what it describes has evolved over time, but the premise is still the same. The white folks marching with King in the 50's and 60's were called a different name, but the underlying marginalization is the same.

White folk marching with King in the 50s and 60s would be tackling real social justice issues like the drug war and how the justice system has socioeconomic/racial issues. SJW is code name for those who focus on silly stuff like the 1% of the population who have issues with using their biological bathroom.

Safety
04-24-2017, 11:53 AM
White folk marching with King in the 50s and 60s would be tackling real social justice issues. SJW is code name for those who focus on silly stuff.

What determines what a "real" social justice issue is? Is it only something that is tangible and easily seen? Why would an issue that a transgendered person faces, not be deemed real?

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:56 AM
What determines what a "real" social justice issue is? Is it only something that is tangible and easily seen? Why would an issue that a transgendered person faces, not be deemed real?
Because of biology. Many of those who take the hormones don't even go through with the surgery. It's because of biology and because it's a clusterfuck.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2017, 11:57 AM
I love the implication that, because I'm white and do not experience traditional discrimination then I am too stupid to recognize and gauge it.

Yeah, fuck you and your arrogance.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:58 AM
I love the implication that, because I'm white and do not experience traditional discrimination then I am too stupid to recognize and gauge it.


Yeah, fuck you and your arrogance.Many poor white males are pretty fucked by the way our system operates, that's a social justice issue that gets literally no traction.

Safety
04-24-2017, 11:58 AM
Because of biology.

Then a transgendered citizen would disagree with you, which presents another conundrum....whose rights are more important.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 11:59 AM
Then a transgendered citizen would disagree with you, which presents another conundrum....whose rights are more important.
I mean, they can disagree all they want, biology isn't on their side. There isn't much of a conundrum here. I'm also not 6'10, as much as I'd like to be. Reality can be cruel, doesn't make it a social justice issue.

Safety
04-24-2017, 12:03 PM
I mean, they can disagree all they want, biology isn't on their side. There isn't much of a conundrum here. I'm also not 6'10, as much as I'd like to be. Reality can be cruel, doesn't make it a social justice issue.

That same logic can be applied for everything under the sun. What gives black people the right to think they can have equal protection under the law, considering the effort the south undertook to prevent it?

I'm sure when women were fighting for the right to vote, there were some that argued that because of their biology, it should not happen.

Chris
04-24-2017, 12:13 PM
SJW is a place holder, nothing more. The descriptor of what it describes has evolved over time, but the premise is still the same. The white folks marching with King in the 50's and 60's were called a different name, but the underlying marginalization is the same.

No, they were marching for something they believed in.

SJW is someone who adopts causes to make himself look good at the expense of others. Someone complains Civil War monuments are being torn down, the SJW cries racist. Someone supports a business choosing whom they serve, the SJW cries anti-gay! So on so forth.

Chris
04-24-2017, 12:16 PM
What determines what a "real" social justice issue is? Is it only something that is tangible and easily seen? Why would an issue that a transgendered person faces, not be deemed real?

People do just like people decided SJW was a pejorative.

Safety
04-24-2017, 12:16 PM
No, they were marching for something they believed in.

SJW is someone who adopts causes to make himself look good at the expense of others. Someone complains Civil War monuments are being torn down, the SJW cries racist. Someone supports a business choosing whom they serve, the SJW cries anti-gay! So on so forth.

Once again, who/what makes that determination that the "SJW" is only adopting the cause to make them-self look good? Your explanation seems to be too subjective.

Chris
04-24-2017, 12:18 PM
Once again, who/what makes that determination that the "SJW" is only adopting the cause to make them-self look good? Your explanation seems to be too subjective.

People do. People, in their use of the term, decided what it means. You can't stop that.

Safety
04-24-2017, 12:37 PM
People do. People, in their use of the term, decided what it means. You can't stop that.

Five people say a person is a SJW, ten people say that person is a civil rights advocate. Who is wrong?

Chris
04-24-2017, 12:43 PM
Five people say a person is a SJW, ten people say that person is a civil rights advocate. Who is wrong?

I'm talking about the meaning of the term as determined by how people use it. You're talking day to day personal opinions.

Safety
04-24-2017, 12:44 PM
I'm talking about the meaning of the term as determined by how people use it. You're talking day to day personal opinions.

Context on how a term is used, generally determines whether or not it is a pejorative.

Chris
04-24-2017, 12:51 PM
Context on how a term is used, generally determines whether or not it is a pejorative.

How people use it is in context. No idea what point you're trying to make.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 01:11 PM
That same logic can be applied for everything under the sun. What gives black people the right to think they can have equal protection under the law, considering the effort the south undertook to prevent it?

I'm sure when women were fighting for the right to vote, there were some that argued that because of their biology, it should not happen.

Black people have the right to equal protection because they're citizens and human beings. Females have the right to vote because they're citizens. Transgendered don't have a right to use the other sexs bathroom because they're not of that gender. It's a false equivalency.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:14 PM
Black people have the right to equal protection because they're citizens and human beings. Females have the right to vote because they're citizens. Transgendered don't have a right to use the other sexs bathroom because they're not of that gender. It's a false equivalency.

Nobody has a "right" to use any bathroom. It's not as simple as you are implying it is.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:17 PM
I don't think it's a police conspiracy, at least at the low level. The higher ups and the political class know the score though, and they also know it does more harm than good.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think the powers that be wish they could just ignore the mayhem.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:19 PM
That same logic can be applied for everything under the sun. What gives black people the right to think they can have equal protection under the law, considering the effort the south undertook to prevent it?

I'm sure when women were fighting for the right to vote, there were some that argued that because of their biology, it should not happen.
That analogy would work if women demanded the right to vote because they were really men.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 01:19 PM
Nobody has a "right" to use any bathroom. It's not as simple as you are implying it is.

Private companies have a right to structure their use of bathrooms. There is a reason why we separate males and females in bathrooms. In any case, no one is arguing against the logic of having gender separated restrooms, and since that's the case, transgendered people don't have much of a case, because their argument hinges on the premise that they are no different biologically than the sex they wish to use the bathroom with, which isn't reality.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:39 PM
That analogy would work if women demanded the right to vote because they were really men.

Instead, women demanded the right to vote because they are the same as men under the law.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:42 PM
Private companies have a right to structure their use of bathrooms. There is a reason why we separate males and females in bathrooms. In any case, no one is arguing against the logic of having gender separated restrooms, and since that's the case, transgendered people don't have much of a case, because their argument hinges on the premise that they are no different biologically than the sex they wish to use the bathroom with, which isn't reality.

The argument is much more complex than you are stating. The law that passed in NC forced people to use the bathroom of the gender they were born as, who is going to be the person guarding the bathroom stall to make sure the blonde woman going in is really a woman? That was the law the transgendered were fighting.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:43 PM
Instead, women demanded the right to vote because they are the same as men under the law.
Right.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:45 PM
Right.

Expand that across every ethnicity, race, and sex. That is social justice.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:46 PM
Expand that across every ethnicity, race, and sex. That is social justice.
It already is, Safety, so maybe SJW should take a up more serious pastime.

Chris
04-24-2017, 01:47 PM
Instead, women demanded the right to vote because they are the same as men under the law.

As citzens, as I think Xl pointed out. IOW, not because they are women, or because they can be made like men, but because they are citizens and that is the way of liberal democracy.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:47 PM
It already is, Safety, so maybe SJW should take a up more serious pastime.

Then we are back at the criteria of whom gets to make the determination of what is serious. It appears to be dependent on the person fighting the cause.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:48 PM
Then we are back at the criteria of whom gets to make the determination of what is serious. It appears to be dependent on the person fighting the cause.
I think we just reached an answer. Post #106.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:49 PM
As citzens, as I think Xl pointed out. IOW, not because they are women, or because they can be made like men, but because they are citizens and that is the way of liberal democracy.

They were women who were denied the right to vote, because they were women. No different than being forced to ride in the back of the bus, although for some, it appears that just letting them on the bus should have been good enough. Different times, same mindset.

Chris
04-24-2017, 01:52 PM
Expand that across every ethnicity, race, and sex. That is social justice.

Insofar as it is based on some common ground, some universality, applied to all, as a standard. All citizens can vote. Then women, blacks, gays voting does not impose on or interfere with the equal rights of others.

SJWs, by definition, seek the privileges of some at the expense of others. There's no universal standard to that.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 01:53 PM
Insofar as it is based on some common ground, some universality, applied to all, as a standard. All citizens can vote. Then women, blacks, gays voting does not impose on or interfere with the equal rights of others.

SJWs, by definition, seek the privileges of some at the expense of others. There's no universal standard to that.
It was also a struggle our SJWs were born too late to participate in.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:55 PM
Insofar as it is based on some common ground, some universality, applied to all, as a standard. All citizens can vote. Then women, blacks, gays voting does not impose on or interfere with the equal rights of others.

SJWs, by definition, seek the privileges of some at the expense of others. There's no universal standard to that.

The implication of someone being labeled SJW, is in fact, the subjective nature of the argument. Which is furthered by the opinion that someone is gaining an upper hand at the expense of someone else, when in actuality, no such burden is proven.

Chris
04-24-2017, 01:55 PM
They were women who were denied the right to vote, because they were women. No different than being forced to ride in the back of the bus, although for some, it appears that just letting them on the bus should have been good enough. Different times, same mindset.

Right, and by a universal standard, in this case, all citizien can vote, they had right behind them in their demnd and won the day. Good social justice cause.

Chris
04-24-2017, 01:57 PM
The implication of someone being labeled SJW, is in fact, the subjective nature of the argument. Which is furthered by the opinion that someone is gaining an upper hand at the expense of someone else, when in actuality, no such burden is proven.

Yes, but no one in particular creates that definition, it emmerges as a description. From "which" on is far too vague and abstract.

Safety
04-24-2017, 01:58 PM
Right, and by a universal standard, in this case, all citizien can vote, they had right behind them in their demnd and won the day. Good social justice cause.

The acceptance/dismissal of a social justice movement is not confined to any individual's concept. There is no need for permission on whether or not a social justice cause is good, because as history have shown, there will always be someone that tries to marginalize someone else's efforts.

Safety
04-24-2017, 02:00 PM
Yes, but no one in particular creates that definition, it emmerges as a description. From "which" on is far too vague and abstract.

The definition was not created for use because there was a void, it was evolved from a different term that is no longer apropos.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:08 PM
The definition was not created for use because there was a void, it was evolved from a different term that is no longer apropos.

Creation from something else...to fill a void in meaning. "SJWs" existed, people saw it happening, came up with a sarcastic phrase for what they saw. Nobody planned it, it wasn't designed, it just happened.

Private Pickle
04-24-2017, 02:09 PM
You are much better off attacking the feasibility of the so called War on Drugs generally without making these appeals to, largely fictional, racism.

When did I bring up race?

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:10 PM
The acceptance/dismissal of a social justice movement is not confined to any individual's concept. There is no need for permission on whether or not a social justice cause is good, because as history have shown, there will always be someone that tries to marginalize someone else's efforts.

No one here is talking about dismissing social justice or any movement for that. The topic is SJWs, the phonys who latch onto movements like parasites, and they do exist.

Safety
04-24-2017, 02:16 PM
Creation from something else...to fill a void in meaning. "SJWs" existed, people saw it happening, came up with a sarcastic phrase for what they saw. Nobody planned it, it wasn't designed, it just happened.

Yea, it just happened that people saw the "SJW" creation in 2009. To think, in 2009, that's when people started to fight for social issues to make others look bad...

Nah, that's when the right was trying to find a phrase to marginalize people, after the term liberal stopped having the sting it once did.

Safety
04-24-2017, 02:17 PM
No one here is talking about dismissing social justice or any movement for that. The topic is SJWs, the phonys who latch onto movements like parasites, and they do exist.

I'm aware of what the topic is, and just because someone on the right does not approve of a movement, that gives them zero right to call someone associated with that movement a parasite or phony.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:20 PM
Yea, it just happened that people saw the "SJW" creation in 2009. To think, in 2009, that's when people started to fight for social issues to make others look bad...

Nah, that's when the right was trying to find a phrase to marginalize people, after the term liberal stopped having the sting it once did.

Language is not something people plan and design. There were marginal people who pretended to be for social justice, the name evolved to describe them. That says nothing about those who truly seek social justice.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:21 PM
I'm aware of what the topic is, and just because someone on the right does not approve of a movement, that gives them zero right to call someone associated with that movement a parasite or phony.

The term is applied descriptively.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:22 PM
There is also the question, in some cases, as to what social justice exactly is sought.

Safety
04-24-2017, 02:24 PM
Language is not something people plan and design. There were marginal people who pretended to be for social justice, the name evolved to describe them. That says nothing about those who truly seek social justice.

Once again, it's not your place to decide what someone is pretending or is honest about. It's pretty arrogant to assume you can read minds.

Safety
04-24-2017, 02:24 PM
The term is applied descriptively.

As a pejorative.

Mister D
04-24-2017, 02:42 PM
When did I bring up race?
That was the context of my discussion with Xl. You joined in a discussion about race and the Drug War.

Private Pickle
04-24-2017, 02:45 PM
That was the context of my discussion with Xl. You joined in a discussion about race and the Drug War.
The Drug War isn't necessarily color blind...regardless my point stands in context or out of it...

Mister D
04-24-2017, 02:55 PM
The Drug War isn't necessarily color blind...regardless my point stands in context or out of it...
Not necessarily but I haven't seen anyone make a serious case suggesting otherwise. It's almost always a matter of disparate impact = racism.

I don't disagree with your objections to the Drug War. I think it does more harm than good.

Chris
04-24-2017, 02:59 PM
As a pejorative.

Yes, expression of contempt or disapproval of phony fights for social justice.

Safety
04-24-2017, 03:21 PM
Yes, expression of contempt or disapproval of phony fights for social justice.

Sure, just as subjective as calling it phony.

Chris
04-24-2017, 03:27 PM
Sure, just as subjective as calling it phony.

Except the referent of SJW exists objectively. There are those who fight for social justice and those who pretend to for their own advantage.

Safety
04-24-2017, 03:33 PM
Except the referent of SJW exists objectively. There are those who fight for social justice and those who pretend to for their own advantage.

Irregardless of what they choose to fight for, nobody is in a position to judge their intent. Period.

Chris
04-24-2017, 03:35 PM
Irregardless of what they choose to fight for, nobody is in a position to judge their intent. Period.

Regardless, everyone does.

And you're quibbling about words, not reality.

Safety
04-24-2017, 03:37 PM
Regardless, everyone does.

And you're quibbling about words, not reality.

This is a discussion, we are discussing, guess what media we are using for that exchange...words. Let me know when reality posts on tPF.

Irregardless, my previous post still stands.

CreepyOldDude
04-24-2017, 03:39 PM
So I saw this posted about Cosmic Star Heroine (the new classic RPG-inspired game on Steam and PlayStation 4 I've been playing) recently:

17950

Yep, it's an adventure game. With a female lead. Who wears pants and everything. Heaven forbid.

Branding such a title "an SJW game" to me is kind of like saying that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Carly Fiorina were feminists because they ran for public office while female. I mean maybe relative to those few people who still believe that women are emotionally unqualified to hold public office perhaps they were, but by no higher standard could you brand them as feminists. Same basic principle applies here. When I think of "SJW games", I think of titles like Gone Home, the Portal games, Diaries of a Spaceport Janitor, Never Alone, and Night in the Woods (all outstanding games IMO, btw!): games that thematically revolve around issues like gender oppression, same-sex relationships, economic exploitation, that sort of thing, not just any game that happens to have a female lead. The latter might have passed for political and specifically left wing 20 or 30 years ago, but today it is no longer truly a novelty just for a game to have a female hero. The feminist and "social justice" monikers typically imply something more specific than that these days in my mind, and I suspect in most people's as well. You see what I'm saying?

This (the above) really seems to be the typical use of the "SJW" label. When the typical use is an abuse, I think that says something about those who throw it around. And it has become perhaps the most common 'insult' that gamers use against other gamers, developers, publishers, writers, etc. in recent years. In this context, can we not say that it is the most abused term in circulation in the gaming community writ large?

I've never thought of the Portal games as having any SJW sense to them. I've just always considered them really good games.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 03:39 PM
I'm aware of what the topic is, and just because someone on the right does not approve of a movement, that gives them zero right to call someone associated with that movement a parasite or phony.

When a movement ignores huge issues at the expense of more minor ones, it's phony. Or at the very least, terribly misguided.

Safety
04-24-2017, 03:42 PM
When a movement ignores huge issues at the expense of more minor ones, it's phony. Or at the very least, terribly misguided.

Now we may be getting somewhere...it's like accusing someone of lying when they are just misinformed. What one person deems "a huge" issue, may not be a huge issue to them, whereas, another issue that one deems "minor" may be huge to them. Perception is a big issue when dealing with different backgrounds and experiences.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 03:46 PM
Now we may be getting somewhere...it's like accusing someone of lying when they are just misinformed. What one person deems "a huge" issue, may not be a huge issue to them, whereas, another issue that one deems "minor" may be huge to them. Perception is a big issue when dealing with different backgrounds and experiences.

That's nice and all, but when you're not a female, you don't have the right to use the women's bathroom, you don't even have a case. Perception is irrelevant in cases like that.

CreepyOldDude
04-24-2017, 03:56 PM
There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of social justice, but it also isn't the 1940s anymore, and to some, not all, social justice means advocating for and justifying additional rights and privileges for certain groups, sometimes directly at the expense of others.

Or, you know, the same rights the majority has. Which, to our snowflakes on the right, constitute special rights and privileges.

Chris
04-24-2017, 04:09 PM
This is a discussion, we are discussing, guess what media we are using for that exchange...words. Let me know when reality posts on tPF.

Irregardless, my previous post still stands.

It stands with every other incoherent non sequitur nonsensense you post. I doubt anyone has a clue what your point is more that you don't like the term.

The Xl
04-24-2017, 04:11 PM
Or, you know, the same rights the majority has. Which, to our snowflakes on the right, constitute special rights and privileges.

In many cases, That's simply incorrect.

William
04-24-2017, 09:46 PM
Before we can use the phrase Social Justice Warrior as a pejorative, don't we need to define 'social justice' and what that means to us? I set out what the term means to me in a previous post, but I have seen posts here which treat it with contempt.

If we think social justice is a bad or phony thing, then treating someone who fights for it with contempt makes sense. But if we think social justice is essential to civilisation, then surely such a person is admirable. But then, if we say that person is only fighting for social justice to make others, who don't believe in social justice, look bad - surely we are presuming to know the motives of someone we have never met, and don't know the first thing about? That makes about as much sense as calling someone who votes for a certain political party a 'liberal' (which doesn't mean that at all).

As our English Master often says - "The English language has a lexicon of nearly a million established words - it is the most expressive tongue on earth - yet it lies rusting for want of use; because people are too lazy to learn it, and invent verbs from nouns, misuse terms, and torture the poor wee thing in so many other ways." :grin:

Captain Obvious
04-24-2017, 10:19 PM
Is "social justice" achieved by handicapping those who don't engage in administering social injustices simply because they belong to a certain demographic?

I think many if not most need to consider the concept of "justice" in "social justice".

William
04-25-2017, 12:17 AM
Is "social justice" achieved by handicapping those who don't engage in administering social injustices simply because they belong to a certain demographic?

I think many if not most need to consider the concept of "justice" in "social justice".

I agree with what I think you are saying - as far as the concept of justice is concerned, anyway. I'm not so sure what you are getting at with the "handicapping those who don't engage in administering social injustices simply because they belong to a certain demographic" bit. Can you explain what you mean? :smiley:

IMPress Polly
04-25-2017, 05:40 AM
The XL wrote:
Where is the parallel though? There are legitimate social justice causes, to be sure, like how the drug war disproportionately affects minorities, how the justice system only functions for the upper middle class and up, etc, but those who both champion the SJW label, and those who are considered SJWs, don't really push for important stuff like that.

I don't know if you're just misinformed about this or simply possess a rejectionist attitude toward ideas that won't move you up the social ladder of coolness, but I definitely care about causes like those, as I'm sure you've noticed over the years by now. And if you're referring to the campus social justice movement at all, then you should also realize that the modern iteration of that movement, which began in late 2014, was originally inspired by the events in Ferguson, Missouri that year and has primarily revolved around actions protesting police attacks on unarmed people of color and poor people. If you're talking about the feminist movement, then let me point out that every women's rights organization I'm aware of on some level or other supports Black Lives Matter. The biggest divide in the American center-left in my observation is over the question of what economic justice looks like (hence the Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton camps), not civil rights. Or at least not the basics of civil rights anyway.


Social justice is code word for wealth redistribution and privilege justification for certain groups at the expense of other groups, usually white and Asian males. Very little of it has to do with actual social justice issues.

Social justice is about abolishing privilege, not "redistributing" it. And frankly, it's not like you can name a lot of ways in which your demographic is structurally disadvantaged relative to say mine. If you don't believe me, just look at the demographic composition of America's corporate board rooms or Congress or the White House or the police or your college professors or the Internet (including not least this message board) or the pro sports teams you watch or who the center of the media's attention is (be it movies, video games, TV, comic books, whatever) or who owns that media, etc. Your demographic controls basically everything in America. There are marginal exceptions here and there that you can point to, but that's really a matter of reaching, not an honest look at the big picture. The big picture is that women still make 20% less than men overall despite working longer hours (once you take both paid and unpaid labor into account) and being better educated, both. And yet you complain of being oppressed by women. And people of color. You see how that's kind of disingenuous from where I'm standing? Maybe, possibly, you as an individual have genuinely had a hard life. But there's no way you can honestly look at the statistics concerning your demographic overall and conclude that it is not a favored one that gets oodles of special treatment just for existing.

Many poor white males are pretty $#@!ed by the way our system operates, that's a social justice issue that gets literally no traction.

That's just another lie. The fact that I concern myself with the struggles of women, people of color, and yes LGBTQA people as well, in addition to those of poor people in general (and I think you know by now that I most certainly DO care about ending the exploitation and oppression of poor and working class people) doesn't mean that I hate impoverished white men. It just means you take nearly everything that doesn't benefit you personally as an attack. Most of the stuff I advocate (like the rights of people of color and LGBTQA people and of animals and nature) doesn't benefit me personally. I manage because I'm not actually an immensely selfish person, contrary to your portrayal.


Safety wrote:
What determines what a "real" social justice issue is? Is it only something that is tangible and easily seen? Why would an issue that a transgendered person faces, not be deemed real?

EXACTLY!! You'd think that oppressed people themselves would get to define these things or that others would at least listen to them.

Safety
04-25-2017, 07:24 AM
I love the implication that, because I'm white and do not experience traditional discrimination then I am too stupid to recognize and gauge it.

Yeah, fuck you and your arrogance.

What is an example of discrimination you as a white person experience from the government? Not you personally, but in general that you've heard of.

Captain Obvious
04-25-2017, 10:21 AM
What is an example of discrimination you as a white person experience from the government? Not you personally, but in general that you've heard of.

I can make a strong case that I was turned down for jobs because I am white and because I am a male. Lets put it this way, if genders and race were reversed for these two examples I am stating it would be a slam dunk lawsuit.

But since I am a white male my chances at successfully suing for discrimination are... go ahead and guess.

So... there, a two-fer.

Captain Obvious
04-25-2017, 10:26 AM
So if that is what is meant by "social justice" and some will accuse me of not getting it then I will continue to extend my invitation for you to go fuck yourself.

... not you Safety , general statement.

Safety
04-25-2017, 10:36 AM
I can make a strong case that I was turned down for jobs because I am white and because I am a male. Lets put it this way, if genders and race were reversed for these two examples I am stating it would be a slam dunk lawsuit.

But since I am a white male my chances at successfully suing for discrimination are... go ahead and guess.

So... there, a two-fer.

I'm guessing this was in the private sector, as being the case, you should have taken it to court if it was a strong case like you said. Having said that, I don't know you personally, so I am not privy to the information about the particulars of your situation. But, to address the concept that because you are white and male, you are not protected under the law, is in error.

http://www.diversityinc.com/legal-issues/white-employee-wins-racial-discrimination-lawsuit/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/09/white-teacher-wins-in-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit-against-school-system/
https://usnews.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/09/10362607-white-firefighters-awarded-25-million-in-discrimination-case
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/23/white-man-awarded-150000-in-racism-lawsuit.html

The law is clear, "RACE" is protected, not blacks, latins, asians, etc....but race. If you are discriminated against because of your race, you have a lawsuit. Hell, I've seen black people sue other black people over race discrimination. The idea that so many minorities are suing people because of discrimination has no bearing on white people being able to sue because of discrimination.

Captain Obvious
04-25-2017, 10:40 AM
I'm guessing this was in the private sector, as being the case, you should have taken it to court if it was a strong case like you said. Having said that, I don't know you personally, so I am not privy to the information about the particulars of your situation. But, to address the concept that because you are white and male, you are not protected under the law, is in error.

http://www.diversityinc.com/legal-issues/white-employee-wins-racial-discrimination-lawsuit/
http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/09/white-teacher-wins-in-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit-against-school-system/
https://usnews.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/09/10362607-white-firefighters-awarded-25-million-in-discrimination-case
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/08/23/white-man-awarded-150000-in-racism-lawsuit.html

The law is clear, "RACE" is protected, not blacks, latins, asians, etc....but race. If you are discriminated against because of your race, you have a lawsuit. Hell, I've seen black people sue other black people over race discrimination. The idea that so many minorities are suing people because of discrimination has no bearing on white people being able to sue because of discrimination.

These examples are clearly outliers, you should know better.

Lawyers aren't tripping over each other to take on discrimination suits for white guys.

Safety
04-25-2017, 10:54 AM
These examples are clearly outliers, you should know better.

Lawyers aren't tripping over each other to take on discrimination suits for white guys.

But you are arguing two different things, how can there be discrimination against you being a white male, if you are able to sue just like black/brown/yellow males? If you are referring to sheer numbers of minorities suing, then just look around the forum to see how many posts are from white males about black males to see why there would be a discrepancy in the numbers. Do you think someone that creates a thread about blacks going back to Africa would not have some bias in who he hires? It seems like you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Chris
04-25-2017, 11:19 AM
Is "social justice" achieved by handicapping those who don't engage in administering social injustices simply because they belong to a certain demographic?

I think many if not most need to consider the concept of "justice" in "social justice".


Yes, in some cases. Example. MLK fighting for black vote, clearly seeking justice before the law, asking to enfranchise one group like everyone else, protects black right without taking away anyone else's right. Sort of like the market, win win. OTOH, quotas in company hiring and college acceptance when the person is less qualified than others, clearly there is here an injustice being done and it's unclear what the justice is--in the market, win lose. Another example. The fedederal government forcing states recognizing gay marriages, seems to me just protecting the right or privilege of marriage for all, without denying anyone else's right/privlege. But the government, at any level, forcing a business to serve gays, there is an injustice done in regulating private proeprty, without any clear justice served. I could go on but the distinction is, I think, social justice is positive involves pushing the government to treat all equal in the law, but it is negative when the government is used to try and change society.