What is a Social Justice Warrior?

[AthenaAwakened]

" Social Justice Warrior", commonly abbreviated as "SJW", is a pejorative term for a person expressing or promoting socially progressive views, particularly relating to social liberalism, political correctness or feminism.[1][2] The accusation of being an SJW implies that a person is engaging in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise their personal reputation.[3] In internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with the Gamergate controversy and wider culture war fallout, including the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards

Or so sayeth the Wiki.

How do you spot a SJW?
How can you know the sincerity of an accused SJW?
Is social justice without the warrior part a bad thing? Is social injustice a good thing?
Were the social reformers of the past SJW?
Are gun rights advocates, pro-life demonstrators, county clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, corporations who won't carry insurence that covers birth control all SJW? Can they be?

If you oppose SJWs, does the make you a social INJUSTICE warrior? Is that why the initials are used and not the words?

 

[laughing dog]

As the article notes, the term did not devolve into a pejorative term until very recently. It is interesting that there are people who feel that pushing for social justice is a bad thing.

I do think that most of the people who oppose "leftist" SJWs are themselves SJWs - social justice whiners.

 

[JonA]

Yup.

Just another Liberal 'academic' more concerned about bullshit stuff like inventing terminology or trying to 'spot' people and label them than actually solving real problems.

Honestly, who the fuck cares?

 

[repoman]

Ok, I will link the same video I put in the SJW or Stormfront thread.


And also a video using it as an example of them being SJWs...


Also, how about this song from "Hair"?

How can people be so heartless?
How can people be so cruel?
Easy to be hard, easy to be cold

How can people have no feelings?
How can they ignore their friends?
Easy to be proud, easy to say no

And especially people who care about strangers
Who care about evil and social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend? I need a friend

How can people be so heartless?
You know I'm hung up on you
Easy to give in, easy to help out

And especially people who care about strangers
Who say they care about social injustice
Do you only care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend? I need a friend

How can people have no feelings?
How can they ignore their friends?
Easy to be hard, easy to be cold
Easy to be proud, easy to say no



Read more: Hair - Easy To Be Hard Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Being charitable, I think that this song may actually be about assholes who glom onto positive social movements, but it doesn't stop them from being assholes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A SJW is whatever the social conservative wants them to be.

 

[SimpleDon]

Aren't we all suppose to be after social justice? And what we disagree on is how to obtain it?

For example, the reason that we are suppose to be converting our economy to the self-regulating free market is that only it can achieve True Social Justice™?

 

[marc]

In my experience SJW as a pejorative is used for the extremist or nutty members of social movements. This is not a conservative/liberal thing, as people who would not be described as conservative have used it to describe some people fighting for what would be liberal causes.

In any kind of large social group it is almost inevitable there will be some who are a bit nutty. George Carlin poked fun at some feminists in his day, saying that they had good points, but some take it too far: "They think that thing in the street should be a 'person-hole' cover".

While I've seen SJW used mainly to describe what would be liberal crusaders, I think it would be fair for it to apply to extreme right wing social activists, like Kim Davis.

 

[Nexus]

Anyone that's not being disingenuous should know that labels don't need to have the same meaning of the component words. The various "People's Republics" of brutal totalitarian regimes should make that apparent. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a SJW because he had legitimate grievances and fought against actual inequalities that affected real people's lives. A SJW fights for the rights of pixels in video games not to be objectified.

Let the comparison sink in, Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to stop African-Americans from getting water hosed and attacked by dogs for asserting their rights. Anita Sarkeesian is fighting for Princess Peach to not be rescued from Donkey Kong by a "man" or rather a digital cartoon representation of a man.

Pretending SJWs don't exist or even more silly calling people that criticize SJWs complaints SJWs themselves doesn't change the fact SJWs are ridiculous. The term social justice warrior became pejorative because SJW are rebels without a clue and their antics earned them derision not the definitions of the words in their label.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone that's not being disingenuous should know that labels don't need to have the same meaning of the component words. The various "People's Republics" of brutal totalitarian regimes should make that apparent. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a SJW because he had legitimate grievances and fought against actual inequalities that affected real people's lives. A SJW fights for the rights of pixels in video games not to be objectified.

Let the comparison sink in, Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to stop African-Americans from getting water hosed and attacked by dogs for asserting their rights. Anita Sarkeesian is fighting for Princess Peach to not be rescued from Donkey Kong by a "man" or rather a digital cartoon representation of a man.

Pretending SJWs don't exist or even more silly calling people that criticize SJWs complaints SJWs themselves doesn't change the fact SJWs are ridiculous. The term social justice warrior became pejorative because SJW are rebels without a clue and their antics earned them derision not the definitions of the words in their label.

Aren't they typically rebels fighting a war no one heard of and their influence is relatively miniscule?

The idea there are not any "out there" lefties is a ridiculous concept. Of course there are. Of course, almost none of them have any influence in this country. So complaining about them seems silly.

And of course, as long as someone wants to consider any argument they want to belittle (such as how women are portrayed in the media) as "ridiculous", the label SJW goes a long way.

 

[Nexus]

Aren't they typically rebels fighting a war no one heard of and their influence is relatively miniscule?

No Anita Sarkeesian has been invited to speak before the UN. And she was hired by Twitter to censor people.

And of course, as long as someone wants to consider any argument they want to belittle (such as how women are portrayed in the media) as "ridiculous", the label SJW goes a long way.

Leftists have no problem tossing out labels of those they want to belittle. And since you think how people are portrayed in media is so important would you like to discuss how men are belittled?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No Anita Sarkeesian has been invited to speak before the UN. And she was hired by Twitter to censor people.

And of course, as long as someone wants to consider any argument they want to belittle (such as how women are portrayed in the media) as "ridiculous", the label SJW goes a long way.

Leftists have no problem tossing out labels of those they want to belittle. And since you think how people are portrayed in media is so important would you like to discuss how men are belittled?

Anita S. is typical of SJW? Are all SJW speaking at the UN? Just how much censoring has AS and any other SJWs done over at Twitter?

This belittling of men, what effects has it had on the life chances and social, political, and or economic positions of men in the culture?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No Anita Sarkeesian has been invited to speak before the UN. And she was hired by Twitter to censor people.

Has anything changed because of her?

And of course, as long as someone wants to consider any argument they want to belittle (such as how women are portrayed in the media) as "ridiculous", the label SJW goes a long way.

Leftists have no problem tossing out labels of those they want to belittle.

True, ld is calling some of them SJW's.

And since you think how people are portrayed in media is so important would you like to discuss how men are belittled?

That is off topic here. The OP is asking what is a SJW. The answer seems to be 'people who fight for "ridiculous" social causes'. Kind of vague, but that is the benefit of such a label. It gets around better that way.

 

[Terrell]

And none of you seems to get the real problem: that the games are made for men.

From the thread about anita sarkeesian's complaints about butts in video games; this is an example of what gamers are talking about when we criticize SJWs. Why is it a problem that said games are made for men?

 

[Nexus]

Anita S. is typical of SJW? Are all SJW speaking at the UN? Just how much censoring has AS and any other SJWs done over at Twitter?

One SJW like Anita speaking at the UN is one too many.

This belittling of men, what effects has it had on the life chances and social, political, and or economic positions of men in the culture?

I could try to answer that if you can answer what effects Princess Peach being cast as a damsel in distress has harmed the life chances of women.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

One SJW like Anita speaking at the UN is one too many.

This belittling of men, what effects has it had on the life chances and social, political, and or economic positions of men in the culture?

I could try to answer that if you can answer what effects Princess Peach being cast as a damsel in distress has harmed the life chances of women.

You don't actually answer questions, do you? Is it a religious thing?

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone that's not being disingenuous should know that labels don't need to have the same meaning of the component words. The various "People's Republics" of brutal totalitarian regimes should make that apparent. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a SJW because he had legitimate grievances and fought against actual inequalities that affected real people's lives. A SJW fights for the rights of pixels in video games not to be objectified.

Let the comparison sink in, Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to stop African-Americans from getting water hosed and attacked by dogs for asserting their rights. Anita Sarkeesian is fighting for Princess Peach to not be rescued from Donkey Kong by a "man" or rather a digital cartoon representation of a man.

Pretending SJWs don't exist or even more silly calling people that criticize SJWs complaints SJWs themselves doesn't change the fact SJWs are ridiculous. The term social justice warrior became pejorative because SJW are rebels without a clue and their antics earned them derision not the definitions of the words in their label.

SJWs exist. There is no doubt about it. Martin Luther King was a SJW. Rosa Parks was a SJW. So was Hubert Humphrey and LBJ. So was William Buckley. So is Pat Buchanan and Donald Trump. All fought or are fighting for their views of social justice.

Now, SJW is used as a pejorative by small-minded people to quickly dismiss people who espouse "disagreeable" social views.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here is the Urban Dictionary definition that does a better job of describing what people don't like about Social Justice Warrior.

[P]"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."[/P]

I underlined the key aspect. It is people who rush to be the first to point out (or share) a rumored injustice before giving any reasoned thought to the situation or having enough facts to actually know that an injustice has occurred or what the nature of the injustice is.
People that sincerely care about injustice want to reduce them. This goal is objectively harmed by false positives of "injustice" and inaccurate assessments of what the nature and real cause of it is. Since avoiding false positives and inaccurate understanding of injustice is only possible via careful evidence gathering and reasoning about and event, those who act (which includes expressing outrage) before they plausibly had the time and available evidence to make these determinations must not care sincerely about reducing real injustice. They are SWJs. The label works as irony. People that care about injustice generally don't try so irresponsibly hard to show you how much they care about injustice. They essentially are labeling themselves. That is their ulterior motive. This irony of the term is so transparent that Nexus is quite right that anyone implying that anyone using the term pejoratively must be against actual social justice is being dishonest.

Basically, an SJW is someone that abuses the cause of fighting for justice as a game of one-upmanship. Much like the person that seeks to show their superiority by being the first to adopt a commercial trend, the SJW seeks to be first to adopt a new outrage. Also, you get double the points if you not only protest a presumed instance of something that would be a legit "injustice" if it had occurred, but also promote the idea that everyday interactions that are not injustices should be classified as injustices (as is the case with much of what falls under cultural appropriations and micro-aggressions).

Obviously, conservatives are going to latch onto the term and abuse it discount any and all claims of injustice. But, as with "politically-correct", that doesn't mean the term does not refer to a real and problematic tendency among many on the left who do more to distract from actual injustice and to fuel the conservative base than to promote justice or fight bigotry.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the Urban Dictionary definition that does a better job of describing what people don't like about Social Justice Warrior.

[P]"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,[/P]

[P]Fuck, that's half of my... no 3/4's of all my posts!

...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."

[/P]Well, this is a learning lesson. SJW apparently doesn't mean what any of us thought.

I underlined the key aspect. It is people who rush to be the first to point out (or share) a rumored injustice before giving any reasoned thought to the situation or having enough facts to actually know that an injustice has occurred or what the nature of the injustice is.

Actually, from the quote (feels weird to type quote without brackets!) a SJW is merely an online boaster who wants people to listen to them and to be popular. The only connection with social issues is that it is the flame they use to attract flies... I mean supporters of them (not the cause). SJW #1, Nancy Grace.

 

[repoman]

 

[laughing dog]

Here is the Urban Dictionary definition that does a better job of describing what people don't like about Social Justice Warrior.

[P]"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."[/P]

I underlined the key aspect. It is people who rush to be the first to point out (or share) a rumored injustice before giving any reasoned thought to the situation or having enough facts to actually know that an injustice has occurred or what the nature of the injustice is.
People that sincerely care about injustice want to reduce them. This goal is objectively harmed by false positives of "injustice" and inaccurate assessments of what the nature and real cause of it is. Since avoiding false positives and inaccurate understanding of injustice is only possible via careful evidence gathering and reasoning about and event, those who act (which includes expressing outrage) before they plausibly had the time and available evidence to make these determinations must not care sincerely about reducing real injustice. They are SWJs. The label works as irony. People that care about injustice generally don't try so irresponsibly hard to show you how much they care about injustice. They essentially are labeling themselves. That is their ulterior motive. This irony of the term is so transparent that Nexus is quite right that anyone implying that anyone using the term pejoratively must be against actual social justice is being dishonest.

Basically, an SJW is someone that abuses the cause of fighting for justice as a game of one-upmanship. Much like the person that seeks to show their superiority by being the first to adopt a commercial trend, the SJW seeks to be first to adopt a new outrage. Also, you get double the points if you not only protest a presumed instance of something that would be a legit "injustice" if it had occurred, but also promote the idea that everyday interactions that are not injustices should be classified as injustices (as is the case with much of what falls under cultural appropriations and micro-aggressions).

Obviously, conservatives are going to latch onto the term and abuse it discount any and all claims of injustice. But, as with "politically-correct", that doesn't mean the term does not refer to a real and problematic tendency among many on the left who do more to distract from actual injustice and to fuel the conservative base than to promote justice or fight bigotry.

Again, the problem is not that there are not people like that. The problem is the mistaken belief that
1) one can instantaneously discern what someone actually believes, and
2) this type of person is restricted to one end of the political spectrum.