What's wrong with being an SJW

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: lortl

What's wrong with being AN SJW?

Grammar, that's what.

Actually, that is correct. If the word has a vowel sound at the beginning(in this case 'ess'), one should use an. For a consonant it is 'a')

S is a consonant. Calling it "ess" doesn't make it less of a consonant. Nice try.

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: lortl

What's wrong with being AN SJW?

Grammar, that's what.

Actually, that is correct. If the word has a vowel sound at the beginning(in this case 'ess'), one should use an. For a consonant it is 'a')

S is a consonant. Calling it "ess" doesn't make it less of a consonant. Nice try.

Uh dude, I'm an English teacher, I know what I'm talking about.

www.writersdigest.com...

Many people adhere to a belief that you use the article “a” before words that begin with consonants and “an” before words that begin with vowels. But that isn’t the rule, and it’s important to avoid this rookie mistake before turning over your manuscript to agents and editors.

The real rule is this: You use the article “a” before words that start with a consonant sound and “an” before words that start with a vowel sound. For example, He has a unique point of view on the subject and talked about it for an hour. The “u” in “unique” makes the “Y” sound—a consonant sound—therefore you use “a” as your article, while the “h” in “hour” sounds like it starts with “ow”—a vowel sound.

a reply to: cuckooold

say this word out loud please. "Social"

then get back to me.

a reply to: Vector99

But SJW is not saying Social Justice Warrior, it's an acronym. You are saying 'Ess Jay Double U'.

blog.apastyle.org...

The general rule for indefinite articles is to use a before consonants and an before vowels. The trick here is to use your ears (how the acronym is pronounced), not your eyes (how it's spelled).

HIV (pronounced "aitch eye vee") begins with a vowel sound, so an HIV patient is correct. HIPAA (pronounced "hippa") begins with a consonant sound, so a HIPAA form is correct.

H is only one of a handful of consonants in English whose names start with vowel sounds.

Here are some more examples of acronyms that might trip you up, depending on whether they are pronounced as words or as a series of letters.

a FASB rule; an FOB airfield

a LAN schematic; an LAPD memo

a MOMA exhibit; an MRI test

You are wrong.

a reply to: cuckooold

from your own link

a SAM base; an SAT exam

sam
ess-ay-am

nice bro, nice. I see why the U ESS A lacks in literacy.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: cuckooold

from your own link

a SAM base; an SAT exam

sam
ess-ay-am

nice, bro nice. I see why the U ESS A lacks in literacy.

If the acronym is sounded as a word, you would say SAM just like the name.
If the acronym is pronounced as letters (not a word) you would use ess. An SAT exam is pronounced ESS AY TEE .

I'm done talking to you as either you are trolling, or you are completely thick.

See you, have fun with your illiteracy.

a reply to: cuckooold

Okay then this one

a FASB rule; an FOB airfield

Again from your source.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: cuckooold

Okay then this one

a FASB rule; an FOB airfield

Again from your source.

FASB pronounced 'Fazba' like a word, not individual letters.

An Eff Oh Bee, sounding out the letters.

I'm done here, apologies for derailing the thread.

a reply to: Vector99

Way to derail the ever loving hell out of a thread, while also expressing staggering ignorance about the language we are all speaking. Top marks.

Can we discuss the subject matter now, or is it still amateur hour?

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: cuckooold

Okay then this one

a FASB rule; an FOB airfield

Again from your source.

FASB pronounced 'Fazba' like a word, not individual letters.

An Eff Oh Bee, sounding out the letters.

I'm done here, apologies for derailing the thread.

Ok here you go on FASB

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Vector99

Way to derail the ever loving hell out of a thread, while also expressing staggering ignorance about the language we are all speaking. Top marks.

Can we discuss the subject matter now, or is it still amateur hour?

Really, replying to comments made my way is derailing a thread? Maybe you should read through.

*sigh*

a reply to: Vector99

IT takes two people to make a mess of a thread, and you refused to let it go already.

Drop it, move on, discuss the subject matter.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Vector99

IT takes two people to make a mess of a thread, and you refused to let it go already.

touché good sir, think about that statement, ok?

On topic, as I said before being a SJW basically means you just get in other people's business when you shouldn't.

It's not a good thing.

a reply to: Vector99

I am participating in this thread, and this thread and what happens on it are taking up bandwidth on a site which has been under repeated hacking attacks, which have come disastrously close to damaging its ability to remain on stream. So not only are you wasting my time, you are wasting bandwidth on which this sites continued functionality relies.

This is my home away from home, it is under threat right now and that makes it my business. It makes it everyone's business.

Like it or not, you cannot change that fact.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You literally just did the thing you were stinking at me for. Made a completely offtopic post.

Drop it, move on, discuss the subject matter.

I did.

Do you think being a SJW is a good thing?

I don't, and I've stated why a few times.

a reply to: Vector99

I think that being a social justice warrior is fine, as long as it is done right.

There are plenty of modern examples of people who simply do it utterly wrong, gaining traction by developing a false victimhood for themselves, refusing to meet counter arguments, prefering instead to make the opposing statement appear like an assault on their character, when it is simply a request for clarification or similar. Anita Sarkeesian (is that her name?) is an example of such a person. She could not argue her way out of a wet paper bag from what I have seen of her debate style, and yet is much applauded by various feminist groups, although equally despised by unafilliated, genuine feminists.

However, there are those trying to make positive difference, with reasoned positions that stand up to scrutiny. Few of these gain any media attention, because they are simply going about their lives getting things done, and it has to be said that controversial persons are far more prone to attracting media attention, than those who simply have a solid position on the issues.

So being a social justice warrior, or more precisely, having and stating a position on the issues which matter, which seeks to unite rather than divide, show compassion rather than hatred, give succour rather than harrowing the downtrodden, is a positive thing in my book, as long as it comes from the right place and is done right.

I think we should have equality on all levels regardless of race, sex and view.

I do think the us vs them thinking in Abrahamic religions manifest in Zionism, Crusader movements and Islamism (Wahabbism (Sunni fundamentalism)), Shia fundamentalism) and all three religions should be equally criticized for their deviation from the golden rule.

SJW in it's current form do not allow people to discuss problems with culture/ideas without calling you racist. Zionist use anti semitic as a tool to stop discussion. Muslim use the term islamophobia to stop the discussion.

In my country Sweden you can be arrested for hate speech if you say something people get upset about even if you afterwards have the facts to back up what you said. Emotions of feeling like a victim wronged, trumps facts and logic.

originally posted by: lortl
a reply to: Sublimecraft

You are assuming all SJWs fit this mold, or just painting all with the same brush?

IMO it seems more like SJW is used a pejorative by conservatives wanting to diminish real social justice by saying 'look, here are some violent idiots'

Dickheads come in all political size and shapes.

Do you support BLM?

a reply to: TrueBrit

That I agree with 100%

Unfortunately today's SJW's do it for attention usually. There is absolutely nothing ever wrong with believing in a cause and promoting it, but when you cross the line of manipulation and falsification of events to push an agenda that you feel strongly about, it's no good. Especially when you throw it in my face, which is the big thing I cannot stand.

There are ways to get your point of view out there, but forcing anything down anyone's throat tends to cause the opposite reaction you might be hoping for. There are also a lot of issues in the world that people can be very involved in. That is another thing that drives me nuts about modern day SJW's, they find one damn cause and think everyone should focus on just that, while millions of other SJW's do the exact same thing about other worldly issues.

Like I said before, my personal opinion is if it doesn't affect you personally and/or directly, sure go ahead and support whatever your thing may be, but don't sit there and scream OMG WHY WON'T YOU LISTEN!!!

a reply to: Vector99

I think the thing is, that many people are affected deeply by things which are not directed at them, regardless of whether they are the target of a given behaviour or not.

Take me for example. I am a heterosexual, whose gender identity matches his biological and physical traits. However, I have close friends who are homosexual, as well as close friends who are lesbian and close friends who are transgendered, as well as heterosexual friends! These people are family to me, parts of my life, without which the whole would be a less rich and wonderful thing. When someone makes them feel bad for being who they are, they are not simply attacking the individual, but attacking my family, my tribe. I am a Christian, and I have Muslim friends, Christian friends, atheist friends and agnostics, I have friends who vote differently than I do, and all manner of people in my life, who are necessary to that life.

My tribe is not limited to one faith, one flesh tone, one political belief, one sexuality or gender normal archetype, or one nationality or creed of any kind.

When someone decides that they are going to attack, belittle, degrade and dehumanise someone, because they fit into a particular pigeon hole, that is not something I can let slide, any more than I would allow someone to go undealt with if they made insinuations about my mothers honour. I am fiercely loyal to my friends, what hurts them hurts me, and I have friends all over the world, from every walk of life.

I believe this is what it is to be human first, to be connected with the greater whole of humanity. To be able to love and cherish and nurture persons from any walk of life, so long as they do the same thing. It is a bond which transcends all concerns which are beneath it, as all concerns must be if this species is to survive long enough to achieve its potential. It is unavoidable that along the way, this determination to uphold ones fellow persons, to protect their personhood, will bring one into contact and conflict with those who refuse to link themselves to others through fear and mistrust of others. That will always be a problem that needs solving, not one which ought to be left to fester.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: lortl

What's wrong with being AN SJW?

Grammar, that's what.

Actually that depends. When you see "SJW" does your mind think the full "social justice warrior" or does it simply think the letter names "ess jay double-you?" If the latter, then you are correct, you need an; if the former, you need a. Either one can be correct in this case with this acronym.