The_Walrus wrote:
Well, for example, in the opening post, it is suggested that thinking that anyone can be autistic regardless of traits is a form of SJW-ism, even though on the face of it that has nothing to do with social justice or thought police. A few posts later, a user suggests that SJWs don't know that adults can have autism, and that SJWs would never date autistic people (weird, must have been imagining that). There's a few people suggesting that SJWs adopt autism self-diagnoses to feel special. Someone says that SJWs think autism is a choice. Someone cites Jenny McCarthy as a SJW. A few users say things like "some SJWs are fine but some take it too far". One user says that they think "SJW" should be used to refer to people who latch onto social causes they know nothing about and can't really help, like Kony 2012. There seems to be considerable confusion about the term.
The urge to fisk is strong, but I'll try and resist it. There are a lot of separate items there to address, but some are arguably superfluous.
First up, I don't think that teksla was necessarily suggesting that behaviour was endemic to self- or professionally diagnosed autistic SJWs. I do think there could be a correlation between collectivism and a predisposition to projecting traits onto others in search of solidarity - "Wow, you have green eyes too! We're totally the same, we should hang out." - but that's by no means confined to any one collective (or indeed to collectives).
I admit to having no idea what Datalis meant with the "SJWs [don't understand] adults can have autism", but that doesn't necessarily mean he's othering so much as misapplying.
Presumably, then, what you're interested in is the ambiguity of the term due to this frequent misapplication, rather than with the potential for casual dismissal - and I agree. I believe the only useful solution is to seek clarification when encountering ambiguity, as you have done.
From my own perspective, anyone who uses the term to describe anything other than adherence to authoritarian Progressive thought-, behaviour- and language-policing isn't using it correctly (though I stand by my "infantry" clause where appropriate).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But if you define it as something like "someone who would take "intersectional" as a compliment", then you'll find an awful lot of overlap with the people who think neurodiversity is good and Autism Speaks is bad.
We're getting into venn territory here, but that certainly wouldn't be a good definition.
So do you think a) too many people who would take "intersectional" as a compliment are not SJWs or b) too many SJWs wouldn't take "intersectional" are a compliment? Or both?
Whilst I don't think it's an entirely independent variable (would be very difficult to measure either way), I don't believe it's diagnostically relevant. SJW describes behaviour far more than it describes beliefs (much like MRA does). In response to the question, I'm reasonably certain that most people who viewed "intersectional" as complimentary would also exhibit such behaviour.
Quote:
Personally, when I see "SJW" used pejoratively I presume the person is referring, roughly, to people who would take "intersectional" as a compliment (or who would use "cis" to refer to people unironically). Then there are the groups who are just out for their identity, particularly some radical feminist groups, where you could argue either way, but they don't really fit the traditional image.
Again, I think this is a matter of correlation rather than causation. It just so happens that those who tend to progressive authoritarianism are likely to approach intersectionality with dogmatic fervour.
Quote:
Posted here and quoted on the previous page.
Ah, I'd skimmed past the repeated instances of those images.
That quote certainly seems to be written in the language of Black Pride, with its message of overcoming shame. Of course, human politics being the muddled mess of warring ideologies that it is, there are no true "conservatives" or "progressives". This could easily be driven by either motivation (or both), or it could just boil down to ego.
Dox47 wrote:
Exactly. It's not lost on me that my reaction to moralistic scolding from the authoritarian left is identical to my reaction as a younger man to moralistic scolding from the then ascendant socially conservative right; that they've somehow switched places is sort of mind boggling to me. I don't know how much American popular culture and the controversies surrounding it seeps through to you guys in England, but I can vividly remember the Christian Right throwing it's weight around when I was in middle and high schools, railing against Marylin Manson and gangster rap, and how startlingly similar the rhetoric was to the stuff I see these days coming out of Twitter and tumblr concerning "problematic" artists and ideas.
I like to think that I have my finger fairly firmly on the pulse of the UK, and at least somewhere in the vicinity of the USA's - I predicted Brexit as well as Trump's inauguration (should have placed a bet on both outcomes, as well as Leicester's Premiership title win, I'd have made a fortune) - but the one thing I can say with certainty is that I'm not representative of all Brits regarding my understanding of US politics.
What I can do is point out the differences in sentiment and structure, and comment on how US politics is reported over here, as well as point out that our press doesn't represent or affect the mood and thoughts of the people as much yours - we're aren't quite so partisan, generally.
There's certainly a bias in our coverage of the US - it stands to reason as our most "right wing" party is a hair's breadth from the centre - in that "Republican" is presented as regressive and authoritarian, whilst "Democrat" is sugar, spice et al, by the majority of publications and stations, including the BBC (albeit to a slightly lesser extent). Thankfully, our electorate seems to have realised that there's a whole world of alternative perspectives at their fingertips (praise Science!), and are educating themselves via the interwebs. Anti-establishmentarianism is, I think, a step ahead of the US amongst the British people.
Social Justice extremism hasn't gained the foothold here that it has over there, either (we're mostly a nation of moderate classical liberals, truth be told), though it has gained a number of footholds in the "corridors of power", as is its wont.
I completely agree that this movement has a great number of parallels with the puritanical anti-pop-culture Christian Right (Jack Thompson vs Anita Sarkeesian mash-up anyone?), and that justifies the slur "Regressives" which is also prevalent on social media. The movement presents as an extreme religious cult, with all the inherent dangers that typically carries.
Hence:
Quote:
Eh, I'd think the warrior part would make it somewhat self evident that the term refers to zealots rather than just anyone who advocates for social justice
That's certainly my understanding of it.
29 Jan 2017, 10:26 pm
