Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Thomas Eshuis · **#421** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 1:21 pm

Sadegh wrote:Have seen it used against people demanding MUH TRIGGER WARNINGS etc.

And black and white dimissal like this will certainly help any rational discussion of the subject.

Arjan Dirkse · **#422** by **Arjan Dirkse** » Aug 30, 2015 1:32 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Arjan Dirkse wrote:It's crazy how a term like "social justice warrior", which only seems to denote a positive thing - what could be better than fighting for social justice ? - has become a pejorative. Very telling about our times.

Using such a term to express their sentiments really says all about the people who have come to use it as a pejorative. "You're such a ...such a...good person! It''s disgusting!" If that is what you have come to use to insult the other side, you've already lost the argument.

As has already been explained, "Social Justice Warrior" means no such thing.

It refers to someone who advocates for social justice issues in such an absurd manner as to raise serious doubts as to their intelligence and/or actual commitment to solving the issues they claim to care about.

It is most definitely not a claim that, "You're such a ...such a...good person! It''s disgusting!". The kindest meaning that it can have is that of "moron".

On the other hand, SJW, in my experience, does get thrown around more and more and more often at any person or group of people who are fighting against social injustice. In that sense I think Arjan is right that it get's used as a term of blind dismissal rather.

Yeah my point exactly. It really muddles the water. There are significant groups of people use the term to refer to anyone who is genuinely voicing concern on the internet about social injustices.

Now you can use the term "sarcastically" to refer to a small group of idiots who just harrass under the guise of fighting for social justices, but the danger is tarring, or ridiculing, the larger group of people who are genuinely concerned about genuinely real problems.

Sadegh · **#423** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 1:44 pm

I know, it's very important that we have pronouns like "xir"; in all but the written form, Chinese has gender-neutral pronouns and there's no sexism in that country.

Thomas Eshuis · **#424** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 1:46 pm

Sadegh wrote:I know, it's very important that we have pronouns like "xir"; in all but the written form, Chinese has gender-neutral pronouns and there's no sexism in that country.

I'm sure you think you're making a point there, but it's pure gibberish.

Sadegh · **#425** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 1:48 pm

Well the extreme importance placed on "xir", "ze", "zy", "zo", whatever by some is gibberish as well, so I guess that's parity.

Thomas Eshuis · **#426** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 1:53 pm

Sadegh wrote:Well the extreme importance placed on "xir", "ze", "zy", "zo", whatever by some is gibberish as well, so I guess that's parity.

Except that it isn't gibberish and that it has no direct bearing on anything that's been discussed these past two pages.
No-one mentioned genderneutral references. It's fine if you want to go off on non-sequitur tangeants, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

*The only thing I mentioned was genderneutral passports which don't use the terms mentioned above.

Sadegh · **#427** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 1:56 pm

"I've seen SJW used against those who advocate for language awareness vis a vis racism, sexism etc."

That might reasonably be construed to encompass "ze zy zo zum, I smell the blood of cis scum"

Thomas Eshuis · **#428** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:01 pm

Sadegh wrote:"I've seen SJW used against those who advocate for language awareness vis a vis racism, sexism etc."

That might reasonably be construed to encompass "ze zy zo zum, I smell the blood of cis scum"

Look Sadegh if you've got nothing to offer but peurile blind dismissal I see no point in continuing this discussion with you.

Sadegh · **#429** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 2:04 pm

Not sure if you were aware, but this is essentially how a lot of people see SJWs, I would even dare to guess most people who know much of anything about them:

Thomas Eshuis · **#430** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:08 pm

Sadegh wrote:Not sure if you were aware, but this is essentially how a lot of people see SJWs, I would even dare to guess most people who know much of anything about them:

And like I said before, I don't care what you think about SJW.
I'm talking about people who use the term as blind dismissal of any and all social issues and the people who advocate for them.
Including real issues and people with rational arguments.

Sadegh · **#431** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 2:10 pm

SJW definitionally excludes having a rational argument.

I've yet to come across one who wasn't a dense dickhead.

Thomas Eshuis · **#432** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:12 pm

Sadegh wrote:SJW definitionally excludes having a rational argument.

Yet that doesn't prevent people from employing it in the manner I described above.

Sadegh wrote:I've yet to come across one who wasn't a dense dickhead.

And I've yet to meet an Eskimo. Doesn't mean they don't exist Sadegh.

Sadegh · **#433** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 2:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sadegh wrote:SJW definitionally excludes having a rational argument.

Yet that doesn't prevent people from employing it in the manner I described above.

I'll bet you know less than 1% of the people who use the term SJW.

Thomas Eshuis · **#434** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:16 pm

Sadegh wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Sadegh wrote:SJW definitionally excludes having a rational argument.

Yet that doesn't prevent people from employing it in the manner I described above.

I'll bet you know less than 1% of the people who use the term SJW.

1. I'm not talking about SJW in the post you quote above.
2. Unlike you, I'm not making blind generalsing assertions about everyone who uses the term SJW. All I've said is that there are people who employ it incorrectly and dishonestly.

Nicko · **#435** by **Nicko** » Aug 30, 2015 2:20 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:On the other hand, SJW, in my experience, does get thrown around more and more and more often at any person or group of people who are fighting against social injustice. In that sense I think Arjan is right that it get's used as a term of blind dismissal rather.

Which is a perfectly valid criticism. That the label is being unjustly applied. I don't know of any term used as a pejorative that isn't.

Sadegh · **#436** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 2:20 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:On the other hand, SJW, in my experience, does get thrown around more and more and more often at any person or group of people who are fighting against social injustice.

I take it these are findings from the People Who Say "SJW" Poll of 2014.

Thomas Eshuis · **#437** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:23 pm

Nicko wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:On the other hand, SJW, in my experience, does get thrown around more and more and more often at any person or group of people who are fighting against social injustice. In that sense I think Arjan is right that it get's used as a term of blind dismissal rather.

Which is a perfectly valid criticism. That the label is being unjustly applied. I don't know of any term used as a pejorative that isn't.

True enough.

Thomas Eshuis · **#438** by **Thomas Eshuis** » Aug 30, 2015 2:23 pm

Sadegh wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:On the other hand, SJW, in my experience, does get thrown around more and more and more often at any person or group of people who are fighting against social injustice.

I take it these are findings from the People Who Say "SJW" Poll of 2014.

Nicko · **#439** by **Nicko** » Aug 30, 2015 2:25 pm

Sadegh wrote:SJW definitionally excludes having a rational argument.

I've yet to come across one who wasn't a dense dickhead.

Of course you haven't.

This is because the term - at a minimum - means a person to whom it is accurately applied is a dense dickhead. If you thought they were advocating for social justice in an intelligent and effective manner, you wouldn't be calling them an SJW.

It's like saying you haven't met a misogynist who doesn't hate women.

Sadegh · **#440** by **Sadegh** » Aug 30, 2015 2:29 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote::roll:

Yeah, well, don't reason from anecdotes (which by the way everyone is on some level forced to do) and then whinge about reasoning from anecdotes when no proper statistical data are available.

Nicko wrote:This is because the term - at a minimum - means a person to whom it is accurately applied is a dense dickhead. If you thought they were advocating for social justice in an intelligent and effective manner, you wouldn't be calling them an SJW.

That's kind of the point.

Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Re: Internet Aristocrat Explains Social Justice Warriors

Who is online