Is the word SJW (Social Justice Warrior) overused?
Didn't read but here is an interesting plant
Comment has been collapsed.
tl;dr but contributing with a cool lizard thingy
Comment has been collapsed.
SJW turned into a slur towards people who care more about a distinct/some social group or person that someone else does, in this way the definition is already obsolete.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was a weird three-step.
First it was a self-assigned tag for people who confronted public stuff they saw.
Then it was a perjorative for people who never tried the civilised route and revelled in bullying anyone who didn't toe the line.
And finally it ended up being a shorter version of the absurd taunt "moralfag".
Now that it is finally in the hands of the mouthbreathers that unironically spam "nigger nigger nigger" in comment sections or gaming voicechat, there's no way anyone is gonna reclaim it. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
just like "white knight", overused when people have no argument in a discussion.
i don't think it can be compared to racist/xenophobic or homophobic, at least in the social cirlces i'm in i don't see those terms being misused or out of context.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never hear the term SJW in the mouth of well mannered, thoughtful, nice, compassionate people. Quite the opposite
That has to mean something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Originally "SJW" was a label people applied to themselves, meaning they were unafraid to confront people when it came to people being openly douchey about subjects such as equal rights, non-heterosexuality, etc. As the mentality gained traction, people started taking it way too far, to the point they would go to absurd lengths to pick fights and paint themselves as the good guy.
The term "SJW" then became a derogatory to refer to people who used hostility and bullying as the primary method, with the connotation that they would also latch onto any issue for their personal catharsis. That spread like wildfire, but got eaten up even quickly and further mutated to it's current state, which in common usage is usually "Anyone who disagrees with me".
Sad really, it was a handy term for differentiating between people who were genuinely trying for progress on various issues, and those who just wanted to lash out and co-opt various causes as a shield. Now it's as meaningless as the word 'communist', and it's harder to short-hand refer to those who hide within progressive groups that passively enable racism/sexism.
Gonna be over here waving my little 'egalitarian' flag, wondering how long it will take for an acid reflux of idiots to ruin even THAT term too. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Originally it wasn't as negative indeed, just the name of people who had often similarly less knowledge of social issues, yet they charged in like an internet "white knight" to defend something noone asked to be defended. Like the classic example was when SJW lashed out of people who liked anime that it belongs to the japanese culture and unless you're of a japanese heritage you shouldn't even watch it because it's cultural, and stop stealing other nation's culture. Meanwhile reality: we know that 0 fucks are given by the japanese that the west likes anime, they are happy for it as it's a profuct/way of presentation to be sold.
Today it's really down to the point of racist people calling non-racists SJW because they care about PoC and such... so the whole term lost it's niche, and got degraded to a blanket-term of slur.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welcome to the internet. If any word can be used/modified to degrade other people, then it will happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Me, a cheese? That's baloney.
What's being a "cheese" though?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for that, I do not need to comment now (seems I did anyways). Here is my:
+1
Comment has been collapsed.
Frickin Abraham Lincoln and Nelson Mandela... bunch of SJW beta cucks
Comment has been collapsed.
Fact is: there is no right/wrong place/time to defend equality. Though the idea seems to annoy some people, since their "right" to be unpolite or to keep on saying that some abusive behaviours are acceptable seem menaced.
Comment has been collapsed.
Umm... yes there is? When no one is being attacked and you choose to get offended over something someone said, that is the wrong time to defend equality. If we all act as if everyone around us is made of glass and can be shattered at any slightest infraction, then we have a serious problem on our hands.
There's nothing wrong with sticking up for someone being crapped on, especially if it's happening for no reason, but there is definitely a time and a place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then feel free to, but know this: not everyone cares about oversensitive views and they have a right to ignore it. See it however you like, but at least don't be like those people who believe they dictate (by law if necessary) how everyone else acts to avoid hurt feelings.
Comment has been collapsed.
And not everyone cares about being SJW or something like that, since it is, as said, a way to try to prevent people to act like that, but not a real argument. I think people have the right of not having to stand abusive opinions, especially when they didn't ask for them. If certain people had good sense by refrain themselves from judging other people's stuff, there would be no need for laws about it. Laws are direct consequences of the lack of common sense of that same kind of people who don't want to have to police themselves (something they should have learnt since childhood), so they are the real responsible for that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because we're in an SJW thread, doesn't mean it's all about SJWs. I'm merely stating what should be obvious, but many people lack an understanding of. Your ingrained morals are yours and yours alone. You can try and convince others to believe in them, but you cannot force them. The only thing you'll do is turn people against you.
The sooner people understand that, the better. Now I'm going to take my own advice and leave this lost cause alone. Reply at will, I'm done here.
Comment has been collapsed.
You also lack an understanding of: it's not about forcing someone to believe something. It's about preventing them to spread their inner prejudices around the world, which hurt people, that's fact. Nobody cares about what you think or feel deep inside about something. The problem is when you feel you have to blabber about it. A bit of self-control doesn't hurt anybody. Nobody ever defeated prejudice by waiting people to learn it by themselves and will never do it.
P.S.: I thought the discussion had finished when I said only "I disagree", but didn't want to keep on with a pointless discussion. But since you answered back...
Comment has been collapsed.
Being mean doesn't prevent a person from living a normal life, they do that by themselves when they cannot cope with reality.
Your argument against mine was absolutely unequivocally pathetic. Next time you want to discard someone's argument, you should try not being a total idiot.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have literally never seen anybody ever use SJW as described. I have only ever seen it used against the people who call themselves "feminists".
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder where you engage with the internet. It's most common usage in it's current form has been to mock anyone who dissents from the unironic internet meme-fountaining stuff. I got called an SJW because I worried a pet cat might accidentally inhale a packing peanut on a video where they dropped a cat into a bathtub full of styrofoam packing bullets. Not even ranting or anything, just in the context of "I would be too worried for them to do that". It's pretty much just the latest and most popular version of calling someone a 'moralfag', whether or not someone gave them an equivalent of a 'not cool man'.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most common usage has always been to mock the people calling themselves "feminists" when they want more rights and not equal rights. The ones who say batshit insane comments or lie about a situation. I guess for an example the whole Hugh Mungus bullshit.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only that were true.
The term "SJW" has been siezed by typical internet mouthbreathers and has been overused as a catch-all insult for anyone showing resistance to meme-spewing childishness. As much as we might try to cling to a better usage of the term, it has been utterly poisoned to the point that the meaning has changed again. Posting concern about animal health on a youtube video gets you called an SJW. Saying "Wow aren't you edgy" in response to someone harassing a woman in gaming voicechat makes you an 'SJW'. Saying that phoning people to tell them their elderly relative has died isn't a prank but simply being a douchebag, makes you an 'SJW'. Asking people to not use official hashtags of childrens movies/cartoons (and use an alternate hashtag) when sharing pornographic art on twitter makes you an 'SJW'. Dissenting from redpill opinion makes you an SJW. Hell I even got called an SJW because I refused to pass an insult on to a friend who had previously blocked an individual, and they in turn had been called an SJW because they corrected someone by pointing out an individual was a Sikh and not a Muslim.
As much as it sucks, majority rule tends to be the main force in mutation of words. Even though the most common use of 'SJW' is incorrect, that is the form it now takes. The amorphous quality of words can suck sometimes.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you're posting outlier examples and claiming them as a majority. I literally gave you an example that you never even acknowledged.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't need to pause to explicitly acknowledge your example when my central point is that the most common usage has changed (from your example, which acknowledges it in passing). Your reply is strangely pointed and almost personal, which I find odd. What makes you think these are outlier examples? I assure you these are far from unique experiences on the internet.
You have to factor in the sheer volume of people misusing the term, the frequency it gets misused, and range of subjects it is misapplied to. Such vast misusage holds incredible leverage over words. Even if people try to retain ownership of the term, by the sheer exposure the term has become poisoned. Even if you use it correctly, due to its poisoning the people who read it are more likely to assume it as a hollow attempt to devalue others and consider your other points weakened by proxy. SJW was never a formal descriptor and so it doesn't have much to anchor itself against such misusage, and while 'SJW' helped to separate the hypocrites from the more legitimate left-leaning activists, it also doesn't help that it was very frequently used by hypocrites on the opposite side of the whole 'gender war' flavored discussion even before it became common slur.
Again, I have to wonder exactly where you engage on the internet, because the misuse of this term is incredibly widespread. Do you usually browse only a select few sites or keep mostly to closed / well moderated communities? Or do you just avoid the cesspits of open social media and the comment sections? I appreciate this might sound patronising, but it may have a lot to do with what content and groups people are exposed to, but in my experience of the open and mostly unmoderated internet (at least the english speaking corners), it has irreparably butchered the term.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most common usage has not changed. That's my point. Just because you think it has doesn't mean you're right. The most common has always been pointed at the people claiming they are feminists when they really aren't.
Comment has been collapsed.
And just because you think its most common form is one of the old definitions doesn't mean you're right either. :U
I offered the my reasoning and cited easily observable sources, and you have not tried to refute these but instead focused on prodding myself rather than my points. If you can't or won't engage, I guess that means we're at an impasse.
Comment has been collapsed.
You sighted anecdotal evidence at best and even then you didn't even provide a link showing somebody actually did say that stuff. If you want to be that serious then the burden of proof is on you to back up your claims since you were the one who made the original claim.
Comment has been collapsed.
You want me to cite individual examples of 'SJW' being misused as a plain taunt meant to devalue the targets stance? And you're even citing burden of proof? Really? :/
Or are you saying that my experiences with the term SJW being used against myself or my friends simply cannot be used in discussion unless I have screenshots? I'm sorry but no. For all my neurosis I at least don't have a weird chronic archivist mentality of documenting my every interaction online, much less save them over the years.
I'm also not going to go trawling gutters to make a screenshot montage of its misuse only to have you then question the contexts of the attached subjects/videos. Lemme instead amend my original statement to satisfy the pedant aspect :
"In my experience, "SJW" is overwhelmingly used as a reductive insult with little baring on the actual stance of the target, and this mentality has been mirrored by most who I meet and observe online (save perhaps for those who tend towards the more active "anti-SJW" stuff). I am aware of no studies having been performed to gather statistics on incorrect usage and I apologise for insinuating my observance as fact, no matter how compelling the political crowd mishandling factor may be."
I only wanted it to be 'serious' insomuch that you actually discuss the matter rather than plugging your ears to the matter unless an equivalent signed and dated study is at the core. A little elaboration and actual conversation goes a long way, but you're obviously not interested with this so that's that I suppose. ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe some of it but definitely not the burden of proof part.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually regardless of the evidence the person making the claim is the person who has to provide evidence. So a flat earther would have that burden if they were the one making the claim. Just as the same as a normal person making the claim the earth is round. The second person would have numerous more sources to choose from. Valid ones for that matter. A flat earther would have some "sources" but they wouldn't be good or valid ones.Telling somebody to "google it" as an argument pretty much just automatically loses the debate for that person regardless of the evidence that can be found by googling it since it's their responsibility to provide that evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet you excluded the most important word "especially" Not "must".
Comment has been collapsed.
Especially does not mean "must". In fact the way the word is used means anything else is valid. It is singling something out but not saying that is the only way it is used.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here. That is the original purpose of the term, to mock people who like to pretend they are helping with empty tweets and feigned outrage...
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on whether not you care more about the original definition of word/term or more about the evolution of a single word(e.g. the "happy" word and how it's been twisted to mean something else). These days, I more or less see it used as an exaggeration of white knights, and especially applied to hypocrites(on the specific subject of internet harassment and what have you) and extremists. Whether not this is justified is something I'm not sure of, but it is an overused word.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was the second form of SJWs, and was pretty much used to highlight extremists and false progressives. That slipped way off the deep end and now SJW is slung at anybody not going full tilt for the "fuck you I say what I want to" internet-brat mentality.
Would have loved it to stay as it was, was a handy term.
Comment has been collapsed.
Informed people call SJWs regressive often now, directly in response to their claim of being progressive, while generally maintaining a very singular identity feature as the most important aspect of a person. A person isn't just their race, their gender, or their sexuality, but the regressive ideas try to make people that. Siding with people simply because of their race, gender or sexuality, while attempting to demonize others for those of another. Generally targeting white, straight males as the cause of all problems in the world. It's amazing how often these people call people Nazis while what they do is a flawless replication of what Hitler did to the Jews before he got power. Not that their greatest foe, Trump, doesn't also do this, only substituting foreigners. They are two sides of the same wrong idea, identity politics.
Comment has been collapsed.
As it usually is, the biggest assholes ruin everything for everyone. Anyone who just wants things to be nice & good for everyone is called an SJW because there are people who pretend to want nice & good, while really just being egotistical assholes. It makes normal people look bad. Similar for people who describe themselves as anti-SJWs. It's good to point out when people are pretending to use real social issues to peddle shit or gain attention, but the biggest assholes make everyone look bad when they fling vague accusations without thinking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah. Now you can't use 'SJW' without it seeming like a huge red flag that you're actually just an asshole.
It wouldn't be such a bad thing but it was handy for places like twitter where that shorthand was invaluable, and originally let you specify just the people out to pick fights and draw lines in the sand (and not the legitimate causes that they claim to be supporting). Trolls ruin everything. \:3/
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say they're all just about as meaningless. So much so, I've actually been branded just about all of them. SJW, White Knight, Alt Right, Nazi, Racist, White Supremacist, and more. Just depends which side you're arguing with at the time how you get branded. Not sure why people use all the words as insults, and even less sure why people get insulted. People can call me w/e the hell they want, I could care less tbh.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Head over heels" is an idiom. "Could care less" is poor grammar.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't aware that you defined the rules of the English language.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, so thefreedictionary.com classifies it as an idiom. It doesn't make you look any less inept when you say it.
Seriously, think about the words you're using.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to think I'm inept, all the power to you. I could care less.
:)
Comment has been collapsed.
Whether or not people who brand themselves SJW's actually care about what they're fighting for is irrelevant to me. The majority I encounter are extremely uninformed on the things they're advocating for or against. In addition to such, they also seem to refuse to accept any evidence you share which contradicts their "beliefs" or "opinions". As a result, I've actually had friends stop talking to me over time because I wouldn't just blindly give into their misinformation. Never did I display any hatred, rudeness or anything towards them. Simply put, I disagreed with them and that's it. But that in itself is enough to make people behave like children these days.
I'm not an SJW, but I do believe in freedom and equality for everyone. However, I believe in facts above all else. Does this mean I'm always informed or know the facts? Hell no, we all think we know stuff at times and it's just not the case, but... If someone shows me I'm wrong, I will accept it, and appreciate it, even if it ends up being embarrassing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Recently on Reddit, one guy made a joke that people should go through an IQ test before having a child. Other guy attacked that guy, I defended him saying it surely was just a joke, and tl;dr it turned into a huge discussion in which the attacker claimed that making racist/sexist/offensive jokes surely meant that you were a racism/sexist/nazi person. Appereantly I was a maniac of eugenics for defending that joke. I asked him to post a study that shows a correlation between , he replied with a Tumblr opinion piece. I forced him to give me a study, he gave one, and appereantly he didn't even read it, because the study raised 3 options for making racist/sexist/offensive jokes, and none of those three were "the person making the joke is racist/sexist/nazi".
Oh, and he called me a Nazi, and tried to psychoanalyze my "terrible" (?) relationship with my father, purely based on the fact that I ridiculed him for saying that sociology is super important because HIS DAD (mathematician) asked him for help once.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a sense of humor makes you literally worse than Hitler these days. People just want to be offended at anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
Having a sense of humor doesn't make you immune to the blowback of poor timing or poor phrasing. The political scene is pretty tense right now, it doesn't take a superpowered degree of futuresight to predict what a misplaced or misworded thing might cause (from either side). A fine example of misplaced 'humor' is someone using overly familiar "I fucked ur mom" lines on someone who isn't super close to you, or worse, a virtual stranger. Making light of sore situations that are still really fresh is a surefire way to end up in a ton of aggro.
But yeah, it sounds like that person on Reddit was a bit of a douchenozzle. I would be tempted to consider them a troll or a sockpuppet (misportrayal of an 'enemy group' by acting out an extreme totem of them). Reddit is well known for being a minefield of idiots from both sides, as is Tumblr. It's hard to tell apart the trolls from the genuine idiots, because usually there is only a very fine line seperating them. \:3/
Comment has been collapsed.
SJW was only of use as sarcasm and humour - people who use(d) it for real....well, nuff said.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not overused more than any other similar term.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meaningless? Mwahahaha - just wait for the purge to find out.
disclaimer this is dark humor disclaimer2: fun/lulz not guaranteed the purge is
pic1, unrelated;
pic2 related:
Comment has been collapsed.
SJWs are the reason why Trump was elected. Just sayin'..
Comment has been collapsed.
No, bitter moderates who were upset that Bernie Sanders wasn't the democratic candidate and a split liberal base were the reason why Trump was elected. Also gerrymandering and that we're still using the outdated electoral college system.
The real issue with liberals/progressives in the U.S. is that we are so hung up in our perception of the ideal good that we can't collectively rally behind "good enough" in order to prevent crap like this from happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well the real problem is that any leftism is hijacked and watered down by Neoliberal corporatism and called "good enough". Need to follow and limit the power of money in politics and economics. Globalism isn't even a problem. It's rampant greed and corruption of a small few that is, and has been, the problem all along. The Right only has power because they virtue signal, values, morals, and tradition while being quite devoid of any of it. Basically the real leftists won't vote for you just because your "on their side" if you're clearly corrupt. While the right will swallow their distaste as long as you pay lip service (evangelicals voting for Trump is the perfect example) and claim to be on their side.
Comment has been collapsed.
If we're talking about overused, misused, and misleading terms how about "Political correctness" (or incorrectness) which was originally a serious term (with serious consequences) used by the communist party in Soviet Russia and had a clear definition which does not apply in the least to the deflective shield (and dog whistle) it became on those old BBSes like Usenet and into today to basically excuse saying any bigoted and obnoxious thing you want. Notice you don't use the term political correctness in reference to any government organization or political party since we don't have a government body (at least in the US) that censors words outright with penalties (you don't get sent to the Gulags for using the wrong term cough) or the like and I suspect it was being used ironically when it first popped up but is now used seriously in order to defend indefensible opinions. Indefensible against what? Social and cultural moors which are not determined by the government (rather time and growing compassion for others enhances cultural sensitivity) and therefore not political and making the whole term a misnomer. Basically if you use "Sorry I'm not being politically correct but..." you're probably at the very least a jerk if not a full blown demagogue. Thanks for letting me hijack your thread :3 Also Homeland Security, another misnomer.
Comment has been collapsed.
What do you think?
I think far too many people are delusional, yelling and carrying on about how others behave without checking themselves, first. If everyone focused on how to improve their own behavior and treat others well, most things would be sorted fairly easily. As it is, however, too many sheeple are distracted and redirected by the trolls among us resulting in few problems being solved. Life is full of trials and tribulations. We can whine about them, or we can deal with them and move forward.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. I'm not perfect and I make a lot of mistakes. I don't correct my behavior much anymore, even though I know I should. A lot of people act the same way.
We're all so convinced of our superiority and world view that we refuse to acknowledge our faults. Cognitive Dissonance is a good term to describe it.
Although I have to disagree that if everyone focused on how to improve their own behavior that things would be sorted easily. Not everyone actually wants to treat others well. Some people quite literally just don't care. You would have to change the very core of some people to fix that and in the end, they wouldn't be themselves anymore.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not everyone actually wants to treat others well.
On the one hand, you could say that the condition is not met, so the result is not achieved. On the other hand, you could say that my words were "general," and that if the majority followed through, the minority of "trolls" would be forced to toe the line. It is true that people have free will, and therefore choice, but it is also true that most people choose the path of least resistance. Give them a good environment, and they behave well. Give them a bad one, and they behave badly. It is the groups on either end of the spectrum (the "Heroes" and the "Villains") who push and pull at those in the middle.
I'm not sure I explained that well, but I'm really tired. P
Comment has been collapsed.
I get it, but your statement was very idyllic and a bit unfair, so I had to adjust the rules. If everyone was considerate, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation. It would all work out on its own.
So the question has to be changed to whether or not people could be convinced to not only see their flaws, but to also try and fix them. Would that work? Probably not for most people. Would it make things better? Who knows?
I am also really tired, so I probably don't actually get what you're saying and just ranted in the wrong direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am also really tired, so I probably don't actually get what you're saying and just ranted in the wrong direction.
Like the rest of us, then? D
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that a majority of us simply don't have the intrapersonal skills to realize that we are flawed. A lot of the time we think we're right, or that the flaws of others are much more pressing and it's easier to criticize and tell others how they should be fixed than trying to sort through our own shit. Even identifying what is wrong with us is monumental because it shows an extreme level of self-awareness that unfortunately not many have. It may be simply because worrying about how, why, and what we think, feel, and believe is something that, if everyone were to do, we wouldn't get much done cuz we're so busy indulging in solipsism.
Even if we identify the problem, it's very difficult to change who we are. People say "I'll do this" or "I'll try to be this" and then they fall short or slide back into their old ways. Sometimes it's out of a lack of personal drive, other times it's just ...well, our old ways are so familiar that it's like parking a car into trenches in the dirt that were made by the tires parking there year after year.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Conceited? I'm not conceited. Conceited is a fault, and I have no faults!"
Most people seem able to admit that they are flawed. Like our own mortality, however, it is something most of us are uncomfortable acknowledging, so the tendency is to avoid it. I think that may have been the issue to which you were referring. Regardless, my point seems to have been lost in translation. Specifically, ...
If everyone focused on how to improve their own behavior and treat others well, most things would be sorted fairly easily.
Focused, not obsessed.. Improve, not perfect. Treat others well, not debase oneself. Most things, not everything. Fairly easily, not effortlessly. I did not choose wording which was extreme, so there is no need to go to extremes when interpreting what I wrote. My response was in light of the patterns of behavior I see all around me, these days.
- Instead of us being responsible for our own actions, we blame others.
- Instead of being honest and dealing with life as it is, we lie and avoid every problem we can.
- Instead of earning and giving respect, we brown-nose and denigrate.
- Instead of leaving people to their own point of view, we brow-beat them into accepting ours.
- Instead of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, we focus on "getting ours."
I could go on, but that should be sufficient to make my point. Every person is capable of asking his or herself, "What effort am I making to improve myself?" The follow-up to that should be, "Can I see the results of that effort? Can anyone else?" You don't have to be a saint to point yourself in the direction of being a better person and take a step forward.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't have to be a saint to point yourself in the direction of being a better person and take a step forward.
That is a personal flaw of mine and one I've battled with, where I feel like a failure if I've resolved to do better and I ultimately fail. I get shaken up easily if a "routine" or a set way that I do things suddenly stops, or for some reason I fail to keep up with my personal goal. It's the knowledge that my actions and beliefs are stable that bring me comfort, and if they're compromised it's like "then what was the point?"
Comment has been collapsed.
As a perfectionist and sufferer of OCD, I can empathize. I've learned that it's not the achievement of perfection that is the true goal, however. It is the continued improvement which is the goal. Yes, I may take one step forward and two steps back, but it is the fact that I persevere and take another step forward that is true success. As long as I keep striving, I am reaching the true goal. Failure only comes when I stop.
Comment has been collapsed.
My definition of SJW's is:
They are spoiled brats who get easly offended by everything they do not like or want (like an advice, rules or laws of every kind). This is then used to throw a massive temper tantrum because it's always unjust when things don't get along the way they want.
This laughinstocks are candidates for a lunatic asylum until they toe the line.
Comment has been collapsed.
The bigger problem or more embarassing is that most people use it wrong, like most of the cool and trendy new words that sooner or later will only be less than a footnote in history anyway. Meh, so who cares.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is overused for sure, but those sexist & racist bigots that try to polish their own shield certainly exist and in abundant numbers, and it's just right to call them SJW.
Comment has been collapsed.
Didnt read anything as Im in a hurry, just commenting that I fucking hate seeing that phrase, it is overused and often used improperly.
Comment has been collapsed.
The Urban Dictionary's definition of Social Justice Warrior, according to Urban Dictionary is:
"A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle."
I've seen people who legitimately care about police brutality and racial profiling to be labelled "SJW"s. I've seen people who care about hate crimes and harassment against LGBT community be called SJWs.
Do SJWs exist? Yes, they most certainly do, but now I think that these people have become conflated with actual activists who do those marches, raise that money, talk to the people affected by issues, and campaign for change, and I mean of issues that actually need to be addressed. If you talk about the obvious racism that non-white people face from cops --whether in the past or present -- you'll be called an SJW. Want a male video game character to have a boyfriend just to switch it up a bit? SJW. Want a film that talks about the life and experiences of a trans black woman? SJW (even though that would be a really interesting film to watch if done right).
What do you think? Have moderates and actual closeted bigots turned this word into a similar piece of cheap ammo like "Leftists" utilize the word "racist" and "homophobic" or is the word still relevant and carry weight?
Comment has been collapsed.