Can you be a selective SJW?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes ... there is something inherently wrong with people who try to make life better for others, right? <- Sarcasm

I currently have the book John Brown, Abolitionist. Certainly one of the most famous SJWs in US history. He did have other SJW concerns like the rise of abusive corporations. His fight against slavery was life long. After have befriended a slave boy as a boy, he was always believed slavery should be ended and African-Americans should be accepted as equals. This position was rare even amongst abolitionists.

He was certainly not a liberal in today's sense of the word. He was not interested in change through politics. He saw successful slave revolts in places like Haiti and thought the same could happen in the US.

The new Showtime drama about John Brown, The Good Lord Bird, doesn't seem very good.

Yeah, that is the trouble with all of those commie hippie losers?  Why can they not mind their own business instead of always trying to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, free the slaves, and assure equal treatment of women and non-whites under the law.
This is all sarcasm, by the way.
Why can they not simply avoid the draft, cheat on their wives and taxes, lie to Congress, and support the Proud Boys, just like our president?

If SJW's were what they said they were it would be one thing,there ideals are not bad at all.

I grew up in a liberal college town in the most liberal state the country.

I know the heart of the liberal like no one else.
They are in truth they are really

Liar's
Hypocrites
Are really mean and cruel people and are against everything they say they stand for.

I'm reposting this because it needs reposting.

!	magz wrote:
	I would like to remind everyone that sweeping generalisations about groups of people are not allowed on Wrong Planet. I'm removing the most obvious attack and I ask everyone to keep a level of consideration for diversity of our site.

Obviously not.  You claim to know "the heart of the liberal" (as if liberals all shared one heart) based on your experiences with only a handful of east-coast liberals -- you have not met every liberal in the world, and likely not every liberal in your own neighborhood.

Besides, you can only imagine their intentions and motivations, so you cannot possibly know what the "heart" of anyone is really like -- no one can.

You hate liberals.  We get it.  You have no valid reason to hate liberals.  We get that, too.

Qft

We are an odd lot, human beings. Things that should cause us cognitively dissonance frequently go unnoticed by us. I fully drop myself into the human category here. Ive been contradictory before, will likely be so again. It seems to me it's easier for people to find fault with others than to find it with themselves. Especially when they have a cause lighting their metaphorical fire. Passion is a helluva motivator. As is anger and outrage.

I'm not a SJW. I've been around several of them and while I appreciate their passion, outrage, and desire for change. I also find their approach often alienates the very people they want to reach. They have been extreme types though, very vocal and in your face, abrasive. It confuses me.

One last thing, I think you might have to be selective when being a SJW. If you took up every cause, you would be spread so thin that you couldn't effectively work towards any change. though I'm not sure if that's what's you mean, OP.

The term "Social Justice Warrior/SJW" is a typical "Snarl word".

It doesn't have any rigorous definition, but instead serves as a means of signalling disapproval and contempt of certain political views and persons (as several previous posts in this thread demonstrate). Furthermore, it is often a straw man argument which frequently corresponds poorly (if at all) to the views actually held by whoever the label is assigned to.

It's a bit like cultural marxism, wingnut, liberal, trumptard, repugnian, homofascism, snowflake (unless one is referring to the actual crystallization of water at low temperatures), MSM, statist, teabagger etc... and my new (un)favorite: Coastal Elite...

In fact, even more traditional labels like Liberal and Conservative have become so diluted and divorced from their original meanings that they are increasingly becoming meaningless...

And here is a suggestion when applying a political label to someone else:

Check if they use that label when describing their own political views.

I think they base their causes on who the perpetrators of injustice are, rather than the victims. I've noticed that when "rich white Christians" are the perpetrators, they're more likely to help the oppressed, compared to, for example, China's treatment of the Uyghurs, Tibetans and Hong Kong, or Burma's treatment of the Rohingya people.

I am all for people letting people self identify about personal stuff like autistic or genderqueer. But censorious bullying people who language police I am not going to give that consideration to. And unlike “liberal” the definition of Social Justice Warrior is a term the defines a combination of personality, action and a certain political view. So how does The WP rule against labeling groups of people with a pejorative work with a groups of people who are defined by pejoratives?

While SJW’s are defined by their “woke” political views and “snowflakes” are usually defined as zoomers, boomers and conservatives can be censorious snowflakes.
Snowflake Censorious Conservative Outrage Mobs
Please Don't Offend Snowflake Boomers

There is no rule against discussing SJWs, whatever we mean by this term.
There is a rule against claims like "all <group members> are <something awful>".

I think either political side can be a SJW. You can be a SJW for freedom of speech where you can sprout homophobia and say racist things and transphobic things and whine about censorship on social media platforms.

I have seen SJW for where they deny science for obesity and say it's all a conspiracy and doctors just hate fat people and they shame anorexia and people who are losing weight to benefit their lives and health. They also think it's fine to body shame thin and skinny people. Yes they are hypocrites and so are freedom of speech SJWs because they are fine with it just as long as no one tells them their negative opinion about their views.

You do not seem to understand what "SJW" means. I suggest you look it up on urbandictionary.com, which is relevant because SJW is largely an Internet meme.

Also, not speaking publicly about something is not the same as "ignoring" it. And everybody is selective about sociopolitical issues. No one has the capacity to focus on every issue going on in the world.

I don't think it's SJW but I think almost all sides can be PC (politically correct).

However there is a difference between conservative and libertarian and whatever the heck the right's turned into these days.

Conservatives* have their own branch of PC. Their own things which are offensive. For eg, anti-sex rhetoric, anti-swearing, pro-god, pro-nation etc. They don't like you burning their national flag, despite it not physically hurting any human being. They want you to call it 'poo' or 'rubbish' rather than 'the s word'. I've actually been told off by one of them for saying 'the c word' only to realise it was 'crap' (I didn't use the actual c word at the time for feminist reasons).

As long as it's not veering into homophobic, transphobic, sexist territory or lying about believing in a god I don't believe in, I don't mind privately adhering to the PC inclinations of a conservative. It's not right to talk about sex with someone who's not wanting to hear about it, anyway.

I'd argue this conservatism has historically been responsible for more censorship than the left. For eg, Lady Chatterley's Lover being a banned book in the UK due to sex and swearing. I don't think it should've been an illegal book. I'd argue texts (including Mein Kampf etc) shouldn't be illegal. Or, on a smaller/more recent context, I've noticed recently Coronation Street using swear words and talking openly about sex - in the past this wouldn't have been allowed before the 9pm watershed and it still gets complaints (my advice, don't watch it if you're offended and I wouldn't personally allow a child to watch a program with as much implied violence as Corrie anyway...).

* I'm not talking about the Conservative party here I'm talking about a type of political thinker who may or may not align to them

Taxes are an inherent element of participating within a society. Infrastructure can't pay for itself up front, even if it will pay for itself in the long run.



This is why they won't take you seriously.



I believe the word you're looking for is fascist.

I believe you went one step too far.