What's wrong with being an SJW

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Actually, it depends very much on what you mean by "justice."

When I think about justice, I think about there being one rule of law and everyone is treated the exact same under those laws no matter what their personal conditions or preferences or orientations, ect., may happen to be. It would be like playing Monopoly. There are not special exception rules for you if you happen to be this or that minority because of ancestral oppression. You do not get to add an extra pip to your dice if you are in a wheelchair, blind or deaf. When you pass Go, you do not add an extra $100 to the allowance of those who are actually below a certain household income in reality.

And yet, these are the kinds of exceptions that social justice makes in reality because of those reasons. We allow it because it makes us feel good, but the reality is that it lifts up some at the expense of others. And, as explained by a very wise man (Thomas Sowell), no matter how often you tinker with laws like this, you will always advantage some more than you intended and disadvantage others too much creating every more inequality in the system, more problems that will need fixing.

You simply cannot legalize equal outcome which is what the aim of true social justice is. Not truly equal treatment, but the philosophy of thinking that if we really had equal treatment, we would also have equal outcome, in all things, everywhere, which is a false premise and impossible. Anyone who plays a game like Monopoly with one set of rules - the same one for all - even where everyone begins at the same start point, knows this.

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.

No, it's not about what you see. It's about what pronounce. You see "S," but to say it, you pronounce "ess." That pronunciation starts with an "eh."

I've been a professional editor now for nearly 10 years. This acronym likely has an official position in the AP Stylebook for just this reason.

Another good example would be some words that start with "h." It's a history book because we pronounce the "h" at the beginning, but he received an honor because we leave that "h" silent.

a reply to: lortl

First off lose the word warrior.
You are not warriors.

And secondly your movement has been hijacked by some of the most rabid twisted frothing at the mouth crybullies and spank arsed loons the world has ever assembled and none of them can fight they just gang up en mass and scream like kids having a tantrum when the milk is late.

a reply to: lortl

A vegan doesn't eat meat.
An SJW vegan doesn't want anyone else to eat meat.

A person gets offended by something.
An SJW gets offended and wants to ban it.

SJW's want to ban speech, burn books, limit free expression.

SJW's are the antithesis of what many fought for. They are authoritarian extremists.

a reply to: lortl

Though it's a few pages down I can tell you what's wrong with being a sjw. It's not the fact that they stand up against racism/sexism, it's not the fact that they stand up for equal rights, nor is it the fact that they support free healthcare. Those beliefs do not make you a sjw, they make you a good person. So what would make you a sjw??

Ignoring all logic when it comes to said defenses, and not caring about whether you ruin someone's life because of it. Let me give you an excellent example of a story I read in the news awhile back, sorry, I've got no link because I'm kind of rushed this morning. It can be googled, though.

Let me start with this. A man hit his girlfriend. Are you mad yet?? Do you feel the fire of social justice rising up within you?? Or do you actually want to know more about this story before you condemn??

Ok, he hit his girlfriend in the car. Are you wanting this man's life ruined yet?? Or are you waiting to hear the rest before you condemn??

The story goes that a man is driving his car with his girlfriend in the passenger seat. They get into an argument, and at one point he hits her in the face. Have you judged him yet, because a man should never ever hit a woman, right?? Or are you willing to hear his side of the story??

They did get into an argument but it wasn't he who struck first. His girlfriend got so mad at him that she started hitting him. In fact, if I recall correctly, she even went so far as to remove her high heel and hit him with it. She was hitting him so much that she caused him to swerve into oncoming traffic and they almost had a head-on collision. The only way he was able to get her to stop was to slap her. He was in trouble with the law because when they arrived at home their neighbor noticed she had a bruise on her face and called the cops on him. FYI, the guy who this happened to was one of the actors from the movie "The Sandlot". I don't remember which one, but it happened sometime last year??

So the question is this: Does knowing why he slapped her even matter in your decision to judge/jury/execute this person socially?? Do you still tell yourself "You should never hit a woman!!!" even knowing that she almost caused a wreck that would not only have hurt/killed them, but others as well?? What if there were children in that car??

That right there is what's wrong with social justice warriors. They don't care about rhyme or reason, let alone the truth. All it takes is an accusation of rape and/or abuse for them to go out of their way to ruin someone's name, and neither of them care if it's true or not. All it takes is the play of the race card, whether race had a factor or not, for a sjw to sound the trumpets and call for someone's head.

So if you can listen to logic and not hate someone all from an accusation, or are at least willing to listen to the full story before you judge, then I wouldn't say you're a sjw, you're a good person. If you're quick to judge and quick to maim without a care for logic and/or the truth, then you're a dirty sjw. That's whats wrong with being an sjw. If you think I'm terrible for understanding why that guy did what he did to his g/f at that particular moment, then we know what category you belong in.

a reply to: ketsuko

Everyone who starts a game of monopoly starts with the same number of dollars or pounds, the same set of dice to work from, and the only limitation to their success is the roll of the dice, and the purchases they choose to make with that money. The same dice. Not a different set, not a weighted set.

For the few, dice ARE weighted on the 1 side, with the result that sixes come up more often. With the many, dice ARE weighted on the 6 side, meaning that one comes up more often. For the few, they start with more than a single game of monopoly comes with, in terms of dollars or pounds, having pre-existing access to community chest benefits and already owning property. For the many, they start with less dollars or pounds than the regulation amount, having to earn access to any community chest benefits by slogging their way, one space at a time, to the correct space on the board, and own no property at the start of the game.

Monopoly and real life differ in one other key aspect. Monopoly is a game, having no consequences of any sort. Life is not a game. Life is lived by flesh and blood people, whose ability to get through it without UNDUE suffering and hardship, is dictated often by birth as much as anything else, and the consequences of a bad start can be devastating for individuals and communities alike.

Life and a board game have next to nothing in common. Monopoly is much fairer than any real life ever lived has been.

a reply to: lortl

Nothing is wrong with being an SJW. Some people can't handle that other people are about equality and Social Justice so they over react and get all melodramatic and try to portray themselves as victims, as being discriminated against as if they are no longer allowed to say things when the reality is that they can they just are too afraid of being insulted and labeled for the things they want to say... so they've turned it into a pejorative.

Of course there are SJWs that go too far or are completely nuts but every group has those, they for instance do actually have supremacists in their midst and those willing to commit violence on minorities or women as well as their own raging nuts that make them all look bad.

There's assholes in every group, these fragile little things throwing SJW around as a pejorative can't seem to disengage group think or have any capacity for nuance.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You have clearly never played monopoly with my 6 year old , but otherwise I completely agree.

The same people who do nothing but spew pejoratives at others all day long are now complaining that "SJW" is a pejorative.

And it hurts their feeeelings.



Maybe if you guys stopped calling everyone you don't agree with every name in the book you might get a little more respect. I wouldn't expect any, in fact, until then. It's called "reciprocation".

a reply to: Necrobile

Nope.

It's more complicated than that.

Regardless of the fact that some people use the term as a pejorative, it is incorrect to do so. Both idiots who would misjudge the man in your example, AND those who would not, could be social justice warriors.

I am afraid that simplifying things down to the point where everyone who is X is Y, and everyone who is A is B, is not either logical, or effective. It's both more complicated and far simpler than that. There are morons in every single demography on this planet. There are xenophobic nitwits in every culture, there are homophobic armpit dwellers in every walk of life, there are people who jump to snap conclusions about all sorts of things, identifying as a myriad, a smorgasbord of different things including SJWs. There are also fair minded folks in every walk of life as well, reasonable, decent, caring folks who take things apart before they decide what the lay of the land might be.

Making sure one is the right sort of SJW, and making sure that one is only having outlandish reactions to the waffle of the wrong sort of SJW, is what is crucial here.

a reply to: ketsuko

It would be like playing Monopoly. There are not special exception rules for you if you happen to be this or that minority because of ancestral oppression. You do not get to add an extra pip to your dice if you are in a wheelchair, blind or deaf. When you pass Go, you do not add an extra $100 to the allowance of those who are actually below a certain household income in reality.

Whilst I admire the analogy, it makes me think of wheelchair access ramps and elevators in colleges, offices and universities. It conjures images of embossed pavements at crossings and ATM machines with special audio for people with hearing aids.

From there, my mind drew a parallel with the legislation that required seat belts in vehicles and child seats for the under-12s. After all, the absence of seat belts created a lot of people with disabilities or dead children. How many people needed wheelchairs prior to legislation and how did disabilities effect their life chances?

The legislation was inspired by people working for social justice in the face of profits. In a way, the 'dice' had to be loaded in their favour to give them equal opportunities. Left to their own devices, the manufacturers wouldn't have introduced seat-belts. Similarly, deaf, blind or physically-disabled people wouldn't have had equal chances of employment or education without those ramps and elevators.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I think you missed my point though.

True social justice philosophy is that we should all have equal outcome which, even if we all started with equal beginnings as we do in Monopoly would still be false.

Even if you took twenty people and gave them equal parcels of land and equal parcels of supplies to make what they could of their lives on those parcels of land, they would all have different outcomes. Just like Monopoly, and I am not talking about some of those people being potentially handicapped. I am talking about twenty otherwise perfectly healthy people.

Run the same group with the same setup twenty difference times and you would have twenty different results, too, just like you would have twenty different endings to your Monopoly game.

Thus the Social Justice quest to create a world of legally enforced equal outcomes for all is a utopian impossibility born out of the politics of greed and hatred.

a reply to: ketsuko

Taken to absolute extremes, yes.

But equal inputs of time, effort, and resources besides, should produce equal outcomes, and would, in a world not beset by incorrect measures of worth for working people. There are people with nothing who work harder than those who have much, and that will never be right, no matter how hard one looks for a fallacy to support it!

a reply to: ketsuko

None of us in life have equal opportunities.

We do, however, all have the equal opportunity for change. We can all better ourselves and improve our lot in life. In that regard, we are all equals.

Also, all of us are given a bank of time when we are born. We have so many seconds, minutes, hours and days to live. All of us are equals in that we are all freely given time by the universe upon birth. It's something everyone has, and its up to each of us to spend it wisely for maximum benefit.

Many people have given up on the world and they want other to also give up so that they don't look like selfish jerks and some will even go out of their way to make sure that people fighting for good fail.

There is nothing wrong with being a Social Justice Warrior when the cause is real and important.
Don't let the bastards drag you down.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thus the Social Justice quest to create a world of legally enforced equal outcomes for all

That's not even close to the goal of social justice, even Communists who embrace using the state to dole out equal measures (these people by the way are very rare) know that you can't guarantee equal outcome. Equal access is the goal.

originally posted by: NthOther
The same people who do nothing but spew pejoratives at others all day long are now complaining that "SJW" is a pejorative.

And it hurts their feeeelings.

Maybe if you guys stopped calling everyone you don't agree with every name in the book you might get a little more respect. I wouldn't expect any, in fact, until then. It's called "reciprocation".

I think you're missing the point, whether that is intentional or not I have yet to see.

Try to step past the polarization and see the exchange for what it is.

And yes, SJW is definitely a pejorative. A greater problem we have now with the label is that anyone championing any views that veer slightly left on a social issue is immediately painted an "SJW" and followed by sarcastic phrases such as "it hurts their feeeelings. "

Which is as childish as it is evidence of partisan confirmation bias and submission to mob mentality.

a reply to: DeadFoot

SJWs have been doing this to their opponents for decades, and now they're being given a dose of their own medicine.

And they can't stand it.

If I had a nickle for every time I was called a bigot for breathing on someone wrong, I'd be a 1%er. Bigot here! Bigot there! Bigots everywhere! Racist! Homophobe! Misogyny!

Your taking offense to "SJW" only indicts the very tactics on which you depend to stifle open discourse.

Am I missing the point? I think not. Don't be surprised (or offended) when SJWs have to experience the same onslaught of juvenile harassment they've been dishing out with impunity for... ever.

Will it get them to think about the offensive language they use, and maybe reconsider it's value as a debate tactic? Are they even capable of seeing the juxtaposition and realizing their own hypocrisy?

I'm not holding my breath.

a reply to: NthOther

It's funny because, in public, I have never once been accused of being a bigot, racist, homophobe, or misogynist.

The only time I really see these monstrously outrageous SJWs is online.

Ever think it might be you being an entitled loudmouth (not unlike these SJWs themselves) and not that "everyone is a SJW"?

No offense, but I've seen you call people SJWs on the boards on multiple occasions when it is not a fitting label, that's all.

The entire left wing is not SJWs, just as the entire right wing is not bigots. If you're getting that label a lot, it's probably your own fault. Humble yourself an keep your mouth shut once in a while; see if your problem subsides.