What's with Social Justice Warriors?

[Lark]

You make a good point as Adam Smith was not only an economist but also a moral philosopher, who who not only recognised that that interest on capital led to national wealth, but also that the producers were tempted to conspire against the public.

So Adam Smith strongly advocated public morality in order to regulate competition among producers and help them avoid the temptation to fleece the public.

Australia is a good example of a wealthy nation that has gained its wealth through interest on capital, together with strong moral regulations supporting competition among producers.

If you wish to learn how Australia provides moral regulation of producers under capitalism, you might like to click on Australian Competition and Consumer Commission , and see we follow what Adam Smith taught us 350 years ago.

Again, The Wealth of Nations is not about the charging of interest on capital, you've not read it and you are not citing your source for quotations of Adam Smith since its clearly not the book you mentioned but going off on some tangent because you've been caught out.

 

[Typh0n]

Yeah, SJWs are annoying, because they try to make themselves into self-righteous champions of morality. I don't care if someone leans left or whatever, but don't act like your morals are superior because of that. When you think about it we all have selfish reasons, be we right or left, to believe what we do, so theres no point pretending one political philosophy is more "altruistic" than another.

 

[Cellmold]

I've taken to calling them "the religious left." It's almost creepy how allegorically they compare to the religious right. It's encouraged to shame others into being what they are, but the other way around is condemned as apostasy. Original sin was swapped out for privilege. The devil was swapped out for the patriarchy. And churches were swapped out for college campuses, mobile protests, and online echo chambers.

In that case it suggests something more about human nature (the ever added to and philosophically inclined seeking that this inaccurate term implies) than political slants.

Or that it makes our understandings and ideas of division in politics quite blurred.

Funny how we enjoy a figure of eight.

 

[Avocado]

Yeah, SJWs are annoying, because they try to make themselves into self-righteous champions of morality. I don't care if someone leans left or whatever, but don't act like your morals are superior because of that. When you think about it we all have selfish reasons, be we right or left, to believe what we do, so theres no point pretending one political philosophy is more "altruistic" than another.

I have adjudsted my label to libertarian-leaning liberal since I think the new liberals, SJW, are crazy bitches and authoritarians to boot.

 

[Blackout]

Okay I was thinking about this more and I think that-----with some of these people that I was talking about specifically, they only want or care about equal rights...when it best serves them!

and as well, they don't only want equal rights, they want equal rights to superiority; thus more rights to be superior, and they couldn't really be damned about others rights.

That's sort of what I see, all these equal rights people, as if they couldn't manage warp and destroy anything else.

 

[citizen cane]

Social justice warrior is really just a throwaway term for anyone passionate about left-wing causes that the user of the term disagrees with. If you can't deal with political discourse, whether you're liberal or conservative or something else entirely, without making allusions to the opponent being a 'warrior' or something combative and harmful without any kind of reason to back it up other than emotions, then buck up motherfucker, because life is not just about those that agree with you.

 

[Blackout]

Social justice warrior is really just a throwaway term for anyone passionate about left-wing causes that the user of the term disagrees with. If you can't deal with political discourse, whether you're liberal or conservative or something else entirely, without making allusions to the opponent being a 'warrior' or something combative and harmful without any kind of reason to back it up other than emotions, then buck up motherfucker, because life is not just about those that agree with you.

I agree, but there's others who are kind of a different breed...where it comes beyond championing or having causes, lol.

Or maybe a different label is good here.

 

[citizen cane]

I agree, but there's others who are kind of a different breed...where it comes beyond championing or having causes, lol.

Or maybe a different label is good here.

Do elaborate.

 

[S16M4]

In that case it suggests something more about human nature (the ever added to and philosophically inclined seeking that this inaccurate term implies) than political slants.

Or that it makes our understandings and ideas of division in politics quite blurred.

Funny how we enjoy a figure of eight.

Political Horseshoe theory?

 

[Cellmold]

Political Horseshoe theory?

I'm ignorant of it, but now I've learned something, thanks.

I just made that observation based on what he wrote.

 

[misfortuneteller]

people need to feel useful

i couldn't agree more. i have found these SJWs to be bog-standard NFJs that haven't found their calling yet.

 

[yeghor]

Old thread from 2016:

"Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term used for an individual who promotes socially progressive and liberal views, including feminism, civil rights, gay and transgender rights, and multiculturalism.The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

The term Social Justice Warrior I think encompasses the following characteristics:

• Extreme left wing political view (Anarchism, denoting inclination for violence/destruction, deconstructivism)
• Female chiavunism (Disregard for male needs, seeing males as rivals/enemies to be oppressed, sexism against males projected onto males as seeing them sexist)
• Hyperfemininity (Lack of respect for logic, seeing it as oppressive or bad)
• Irrational thinking (Self-affirming emotional convictions not cross-checked against logic)
• Bigotry and fanaticism (caused by Lack of Critical Thinking)

All core types (FJ, TJ, TP, FP) can result in different flavors of oppressive behaviour if taken to extreme at the expense of other temperaments. For instance extreme TJ behaviour can lead to fascism.

In the case of SJWs, it represents Feeling Perceiving (FP) behaviour taken to extreme, thereby becoming oppressive and dictatorial.

 

[ceecee]

Anti-SJW are more reactionary and knee jerk than any SJW I have ever encountered. Look at the amount of people in this thread that are banned and what they had to say.

Anyway, Dan Arrows has the best commentary on this subject. Very easy for the anyone to understand regardless of position and it doesn't punch down.

 

[Hypatia]

Sigh..

A recent intra-forum debate sparked my curiosity about trans rights. I've linked my thoughts about a) nonbinary heteronormativity and b) nonbinary homogeneity here.

 

[yeghor]

Anti-SJW are more reactionary and knee jerk than any SJW I have ever encountered. Look at the amount of people in this thread that are banned and what they had to say.

Anyway, Dan Arrows has the best commentary on this subject. Very easy for the anyone to understand regardless of position and it doesn't punch down.

All I understood from the video is that there are far right activist youtubers who are against SJWs because the latter is leftist, and the former are misrepresenting SJWs (and the video implies SJWs are actually not that bad?). He does not care to explain what SJWs are actually are. He just counter-attacks anti SJWs.

Any mindset be it right or left, if it lacks critical thinking and self-checks, will lead to delusional (in case of left) or preferential (in case of right) biased thinking, dogmatism, partisanship etc.

The kettle-pot argument in the video is a logical fallacy in itself. It does not justify the positions of the either ideology.

When we develop all our functions over time, our understanding of the world moves from the extreme ends of the political spectrum to the centre. We become more well-rounded. Both SJWs and anti-SJWs are extremists IMO.

Look at the amount of people in this thread that are banned and what they had to say.

That is interesting isn't it? Can there be an alternative explanation for that?

 

[Totenkindly]

Maybe I just don't move in the right circles, but I don't know any people who refer to themselves as social justice warriors. It's typically a term used to dismiss arguments that are to the left of what someone believes and is never used to encourage discussion.

That is interesting isn't it? Can there be an alternative explanation for that?

The range of creative alternative explanations is endless, isn't it?
But it sounds like you have a particular interpretation in mind.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Anti-SJW are more reactionary and knee jerk than any SJW I have ever encountered. Look at the amount of people in this thread that are banned and what they had to say.

I'm finding some posters I'd forgotten about, like that S16M4 dope who would always go on about r-k selection. Is FreeBeer, the guy who liked to use triple parentheses also a participant in this thread?

 

[yeghor]

Sigh..

A recent intra-forum debate sparked my curiosity about trans rights. I've linked my thoughts about a) nonbinary heteronormativity and b) nonbinary homogeneity here.

In the "embracing nonbinary heteronormativities" video I agree that insisting on non-binary pronousn is a bit counter-productive. People can see themselves as non-binary (non-gendered?) but feeling oppressed if someone labels them with a gender (based on their looks) and also insisting people to use the non-binary's nomenclature is a bit oppressive to others in itself.

It is like you are living a country with its own set of laws and culture and you insist that some parts of the law/culture should apply differently to you because you are different from the binary norm. It is like asking for preferential minority treatment but to me it feels like being entitled.

One cannot expect an entire cultural denomination to revise itself around one's needs. People are living on streets and going hungry/cold, dying of wars, compared to all that this is minor issue and anyone who makes a big deal of it needs to learn some humility first IMO.

 

[Totenkindly]

In the "embracing nonbinary heteronormativities" video I agree that insisting on non-binary pronousn is a bit counter-productive. People can see themselves as non-binary (non-gendered?) but feeling oppressed if someone labels them with a gender (based on their looks) and also insisting people to use the non-binary's nomenclature is a bit oppressive to others in itself.

It is like you are living a country with its own set of laws and culture and you insist that some parts of the law/culture should apply differently to you because you are different from the binary norm. It is like asking for preferential minority treatment but to me it feels like being entitled.

One cannot expect an entire cultural denomination to revise itself around one's needs. People are living on streets and going hungry/cold, dying of wars, compared to all that this is minor issue and anyone who makes a big deal of it needs to learn some humility first IMO.

I have mixed feelings, but I also feel as if our culture is experiencing a lot of growing pains by being confronted with things outside its norm -- things it has ignored or never addressed. (Some of these things are pretty awful, like systematic racism. Others are more subtle.) Systems do not change unless confronted. The river doesn't change its course until you throw rocks into it. Those who aren't confronted daily with issues will naturally focus on the things important to them and/or their own lives, due to conservation of energy at best and denial / indifference at worst.

I grew up in a very homogenous (religiously, racially, politically) area and felt very isolated, alone, imploded, until I got outside of that pocket and discovered there was a lot more variety in the world that could be accommodated. It was a scarring, minimizing experience that leads one to doubt even one's own thoughts. Just because something is outside of a norm doesn't mean it should not be shared and addressed in some way. Maybe those who are more often within the norms aren't as aware of how awful that experience can be or how it really can mess you up and inhibit freedom and growth.

It is also not up to you to determine which things are "worse" than other things. There are various kinds of damage that can happen to human beings. I agree some of them are far more overt and crucial to physical survival, but it doesn't mean others should be ignored. In a global society, there will always be people worse off than you, with more seemingly pressing needs, but it's not an excuse to avoid addressing local trauma of various kinds.

non-binary stuff can seem rather ambiguous. Our culture hasn't even dealt with other things outside the norm (gay and trans issues), refusing to accept much of the inherent systematic trauma that can occur when growing up in repressive environments, so it's not a surprise that non-binary can seem even more spurious and people have even less of an understanding.

To be honest, though, it's a pretty minor "inconvenience," isn't it? to address someone by the pronouns of their choosing? And not have expectations for people based on jamming them into a particular binary gender box? I mean, who cares? The conflict is all wrong -- it's more about defending something as "this is how it's always been, and inconveniencing me / confusing me about how to immediately pigeonhole someone, so I refuse to budge!" versus "Hey, here's this person I don't know and they are asking me to address them a certain way, very much as I would learn their name and use it, so hey no problem." You might not agree with someone's marriage but you would learn their married name and use it as well. Why is this any different? I'll tell you why -- people like being able to gender-box people and all the baggage that comes along with it, and they don't like the ambiguity of not knowing how to relate to someone if they aren't already wrapped up in that nice little box.

Movements that are just starting out are always going to make demands / assert themselves loudly. You don't change a river's course by tossing a pebble into it. You have to toss some pretty big rocks in or else a TON of smaller rocks, to make a difference.

From the other side, I would simply say that you have to find a way to make your needs known that puts them in public view so people have to react to them, but at the same time try to find a sweet spot to not generate automatic pushback and refusal to consider.

 

[yeghor]

It is also not up to you to determine which things are "worse" than other things.

To be honest, though, it's a pretty minor "inconvenience," isn't it? to address someone by the pronouns of their choosing?

Movements that are just starting out are always going to make demands / assert themselves loudly. You don't change a river's course by tossing a pebble into it. You have to toss some pretty big rocks in or else a TON of smaller rocks, to make a difference.

That's the problem, it is not up to you or the non-binaries to decide those things for me either.

If they become demanding or imposing, it will backfire.

From the other side, I would simply say that you have to find a way to make your needs known that puts them in public view so people have to react to them, but at the same time try to find a sweet spot to not generate automatic pushback and refusal to consider.

Yes.