The SJW shuffle

[Al Swearegen]

SJW, I assume that stands for Social Justice Warrior, often used in negative terms. But isn't social justice a good thing? And wouldn't be a warrior for it be something of a virtue?

Hm.

Righting social wrongs and mistreatment is a good thing. But a warrior is somebody who faces death and fights back. It's a sarcastic term when used to describe somebody who blogs anonymously on Tumblr ( unless they're a targeted minority under an oppressive government ). The point is to call out the hypocrisy of people who demand others change their behavior from the safety of their computer screens while offering nothing but petulant outrage in return.

Absolutely watch the first minute of this and then the 15:30 mark to maybe 18:42

The rest is great too but this kind of spells out the big problem with these social justice warriors



BTW I am not a fan of Dinesh. Much of what he says or does I do not agree with BUT he is right on point here.

[Pyraxis]

I hate videos. I watch them with the sound off. Somehow I suspect watching this video with the sound off would not be very enlightening. Would you make the same points via text?

I think there are a lot of problems with social justice warriors. However I was engaging Ceilidh on that point, not you.

I agree with a lot of what you said in your answer to Ceilidh, but it was terminology soup. Highbrow name calling. I'd rather tease a nuanced message from the subject.

[Al Swearegen]

I hate videos. I watch them with the sound off. Somehow I suspect watching this video with the sound off would not be very enlightening. Would you make the same points via text?

I think there are a lot of problems with social justice warriors. However I was engaging Ceilidh on that point, not you.

I agree with a lot of what you said in your answer to Ceilidh, but it was terminology soup. Highbrow name calling. I'd rather tease a nuanced message from the subject.

I think it would be extremely enlightening which is why I mentioned it.
You may have been talking to Ceilidith, but I was talking to you. I was not aware this was a private message based for Ceildith alone. I thought it was an open discussion on the board.
I have no idea where I would get the 5 minutes of transcript from?

[Pyraxis]

If you understood his points, surely you could summarize them. 

Like this:

He said that the difference between historical civil rights movements and social justice today is that historically, people fought for equal rights under the law. Now, people are fighting for the correction of historic wrongs, which conflicts with a free society because you have to seize people's property.

And he challenges people who told him he held ill-gotten privilege to give up their own privileged opportunities (like going to Amherst College) before they asked anybody else to do so, or face their own hypocrisy.

[Gopher Gary]

If you understood his points, surely you could summarize them. 

Like this:

He said that the difference between historical civil rights movements and social justice today is that historically, people fought for equal rights under the law. Now, people are fighting for the correction of historic wrongs, which conflicts with a free society because you have to seize people's property.

And he challenges people who told him he held ill-gotten privilege to give up their own privileged opportunities (like going to Amherst College) before they asked anybody else to do so, or face their own hypocrisy.

You watched the video. 

[Al Swearegen]

If you understood his points, surely you could summarize them. 

Like this:

He said that the difference between historical civil rights movements and social justice today is that historically, people fought for equal rights under the law. Now, people are fighting for the correction of historic wrongs, which conflicts with a free society because you have to seize people's property.

And he challenges people who told him he held ill-gotten privilege to give up their own privileged opportunities (like going to Amherst College) before they asked anybody else to do so, or face their own hypocrisy.

If you understood his points, surely you could summarize them. 

Py, you have been posting here for many years, you know I am a boring, long winded, novel sized posting, old fart. Are you being realistic that I would "summarize" anything? Like anything at all? 

EDIT:BTW Nice summary

[Pyraxis]

Py, you have been posting here for many years, you know I am a boring, long winded, novel sized posting, old fart. Are you being realistic that I would "summarize" anything? Like anything at all? 

 

That's what I figured. Hey, I stepped out of my comfort zone and watched your stuff. You never know when an old fart is going to learn a new trick.

[Kaelyrhn]

SJW, I assume that stands for Social Justice Warrior, often used in negative terms. But isn't social justice a good thing? And wouldn't be a warrior for it be something of a virtue?

Hm.

Righting social wrongs and mistreatment is a good thing. But a warrior is somebody who faces death and fights back. It's a sarcastic term when used to describe somebody who blogs anonymously on Tumblr ( unless they're a targeted minority under an oppressive government ). The point is to call out the hypocrisy of people who demand others change their behavior from the safety of their computer screens while offering nothing but petulant outrage in return.

And yet changing minds and opinions is a huge part of social justice and change, and the internet is an excellent platform for the dissemination of ideas...

[Pyraxis]

But where is the reciprocity? You can't just decide you want to change someone's mind and then harangue them, and expect it to work.

Also, I'm all for the dissemination of ideas and online debate,  but that doesn't make the participants into warriors. In fact I would think that a fighting analogy would be counterproductive. It would encourage polarization instead of genuine understanding.

[Al Swearegen]

SJW, I assume that stands for Social Justice Warrior, often used in negative terms. But isn't social justice a good thing? And wouldn't be a warrior for it be something of a virtue?

Hm.

Righting social wrongs and mistreatment is a good thing. But a warrior is somebody who faces death and fights back. It's a sarcastic term when used to describe somebody who blogs anonymously on Tumblr ( unless they're a targeted minority under an oppressive government ). The point is to call out the hypocrisy of people who demand others change their behavior from the safety of their computer screens while offering nothing but petulant outrage in return.

And yet changing minds and opinions is a huge part of social justice and change, and the internet is an excellent platform for the dissemination of ideas...

Nope.

They are not about the exchange of ideas. There is no give and take or right to disagree. Difference of opinion is described as "hate speech" and "triggering". The person sharing that difference of opinion is described as a bigot (racist, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist, sexist, transphobic, whatever). There can never be a situation in which this person is afforded the right to disagree or the right to an opinion. The person if not buckling to the right ideological view or parroting the same line, will be dogpiled, shouted down, banned, censored, mocked and often outed to employers & friends and sometimes fired. Why? Because the holding of a different viewpoint than the established one is too great a crime.

In addition, there is great efforts for these outrage warriors to try to continually out-do each other in their efforts to virtue signal ideologically pure talking points and gain more victim points.

Its not empowering nor constructive. Its rather dangerous and removes agency and disempowers the SJWs as it hurts those they choose to target.