Whats the deal with using the phrase "social justice warrior" as an insult?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Whats the deal with using the phrase "social justice warrior" as an insult?

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

icantfindaname posted:

There's a not-insignificant contingent of them on Tumblr, yes. I don't think they do it to 'win arguments' per se, but rather to attract attention.

I can't really find any beyond the few big name ones that quit posting. Do you have any? I don't really Tumblr.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 04:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 15:10

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

If you try to communicate honestly with an SJW they can't help but be sanctimonious and insulting, and if you try to get them to stop for the sake of a possibly productive conversation they throw some bullshit about "tone arguments" at you.

Basically a way of legitimizing "I'm going to be a dick and demand you respect my opinion at the same time".

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 04:47

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

disheveled posted:

I don't like the term "social justice warrior" because this is honestly the first thread where I've seen people generally stick to ripping on the obnoxious morons with tumblrs; when I hear the term in real life, it's usually coming from someone who is getting all pissy after being called out for having a lovely MRA or racist opinion. I've managed to ignore the radical tumblr crap, so my perception of "SJW" has been more like a sort of insult that people fling around when they don't want to acknowledge an argument about "why sexual assault is a problem".

I can't say I've ever heard the phrase "social justice warrior" anywhere except the internet!

# ¿ Apr 3, 2014 15:23

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

icantfindaname posted:

ummmmmmmmmm

no not really

Are you really denying that men's and women's glands begin producing different hormones during puberty that cause different brain structures to be more or less pronounced on average between the genders? Because that is the case.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2014 00:02

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Numerical Anxiety posted:

Yeah, but no one has really convincingly demonstrated that those brain structures have definite effects on predisposition that can be isolated from other determining factors. Do they matter? Probably, to some extent. How much? Well, that's yet to be figured out, if it ever will be, but certainly not enough to hold together the usual arguments.

I haven't made any specific arguments besides that the structure of the brain affects cognition, personality, and disposition. Please don't dismiss my arguments with a pithy :biotruths:

emoticon.

Look into neuroscience. A sociopathic person, for example, exhibits an amygdala with decreased responsiveness to stimuli.

Mental state(all such factors that go into personality) and physicality(of the brain) are inseparable, and what is perceived to be purely mental can actually cause changes in physical structures. Theres a feedback loop between cognition and the physical function of the brain. That's not :biotruths:

, it's just the way the human brain works. Men and women have different hormones released during puberty and their brains are structured differently as a result, creating broad trends in behavior.

That doesn't mean a loving thing about what a person should be allowed to do, or about gender roles. It's just a biological disposition towards various behavior -- not a value judgment on those who don't fit gender stereotypes.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2014 17:37

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

BigFactory posted:

In my experience, engineers are particularly unqualified to speak on almost any topic. Maybe how to build a box, but even then I'm probably looking elsewhere.

Same, but women.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2014 17:51

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

BigFactory posted:

When you see women you look elsewhere?

Edit: I tend to leer.

I wouldn't ever ask a woman for their opinion on anything, except maybe how to maintain a box. And a lot of them can't even get that right, amirite fellas?

# ¿ Apr 12, 2014 10:39

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Omi-Polari posted:

I think a lot of it also has to do with youth.

A lot, I would say most, of SJW politics is really identity politics, and young people's identities are experiencing a great deal of flux. They're experimenting with new identities, and necessarily creating new boundaries by doing that. Some people become very protective of those boundaries. It might be something like your identity as a lesbian or an Asian woman in America and how you express that, or it might be something ridiculous like the white girl who calls herself black. It might be your identity as a vampire, or wookie, or whatever. They're insecure about their identities and compensate by being extra-protective of perceived slights. At the same time, they're also leaving the protective bubbles of their suburban hometowns and are encountering a world that's way more complicated than they know, including how to deal with other people.

They like to say their hyper-progressive politics are a reflection of the more progressive millenial generation, and there might be something there, but I don't think most of them will behave this way after age 40 or even 30. The most radical voices for this I've seen among older people not coincidentally appear to be people who actually work in the rigmarole of academic social theory. I forget the exact age of the girl who tried to cancel Colbert, but she had to have been barely out of her teen years.

This isn't to say older people aren't concerned about basic issues of fairness. Or issues of racism or sexism. It's not to say "you become more conservative as you grow older." But it's to say that older people are busy with life and don't have as much time or energy to devote to flipping their ever-loving poo poo over any perceived slight. (Not flipping your poo poo is considered a sign of maturity!) They're better at regulating their emotions and come to accept that giving in to those emotions would be giving the perpetrators of those slights too much room inside your own head. You can remain calm when other people treat you poorly because you've already been through a bunch of poo poo already.

Edit: If you have a few minutes, listen to this:

http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/24028?in=17:09&out=20:55

And when you say something like your last paragraph is when they shut you down with a "tone argument" dismissal.

A lot of SJWs aren't really out to debate or change minds. As soon as they feel overly challenged, they pick an accepted reason to dismiss your argument and dehumanize you. "You made a tone argument", "you're white cishet male", "it's not my job to educate you", "you're literally a pile of poo poo".

# ¿ Apr 14, 2014 13:47

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

I honestly don't see why a person shouldn't be allowed to get species reassignment surgery if gender reassignment surgery is a thing.

The entire premise is built on the idea that somehow this person's expectation of what they "should" be differs from the reality of what they are, and this causes them distress so to try to mitigate that distress they take surgical and hormonal action.

Why not allow someone to try to become a cat or whatever? Who is anyone else to deny them, if we are going to accept the premise that the reduction of mismatch of reality vs expectation by altering reality(rather than expectation) is acceptable?

So that's what I don't get, why are SJWs so often biased against otherkin? I guess I'm just more open minded since I have no problem with it :smug:

# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 20:51

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Interesting. So you seem to be arguing for biological transsexualism rather than transgenderism.

From my understanding, sex is biological but gender is a social construct: so no surgery or hormonal replacement is theoretically necessary to be transgender.

Why then are the two terms so conflated? Why do most people getting SRS(*sexual* reassignment surgery) call themselves transgender as opposed to transsexual?

Thanks for answering my questions, I ask out of genuine curiosity and am afraid to ask such questions in the E/N trans thread.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2014 22:16

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Tartarus Sauce posted:

The reasons why a person might be and/or might identify as trans, genderqueer, genderfluid, or the like are also legion, because of all the possible biological and social and psychological factors that are consistently in play.

Could you go more into that? Because women with beards(isn't that what "genderqueer" type stuff is about?) feel like they're just playing a joke via their appearance. Like, haha, a beard, on a lady. Weird.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2014 04:38

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

blowfish posted:

This is a good post.

Cultural Appropriation is a Very Overrated Problem. Seriously, appropriating things other people have come up with and copying/changing/improving them is the main way anything good about any culture has been spread and developed.

Please don't seriously say "but you aren't native/oppressed enough to do A Thing ", manbabies.

The only argument against cultural appropriation I can see would be one against cultural invasion, in other words: a majority group appropriating a minority group's cultural expressions to the point where members of the minority group feel unwelcome participating any more.

I've been wondering about this lately, e.g, there's a genre of music coming up now with ridiculously pale white kids from all over the world(internet dweebs) appropriating black rap memes and fashion. Look up Yung Lean or Spooky Black. It could just be an ironic joke, but they seem sincere with it -- which is itself laughable.

I dunno, poo poo's wack niggas.

# ¿ May 2, 2014 23:44

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Suey literally used the "it's not my job to educate you" argument when she was asked to present her viewpoint in an interview. She's the worst things about the SJW stereotype.

It's a smug condescension: "the point I'm trying to make is obvious, and you'd get it if you weren't such an idiot."

Look at posts from SJWs in GBS and elsewhere -- they're full of insults and admonitions for people to "go and die". Awful.

Ultimately SJWs are people who don't understand that anger doesn't make for good conversation. Anger can be used to destroy and hurt people who you think are oppressing you, but it won't convince them in argument.

This is why I think shutting down "tone arguments" is moronic.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 6, 2014

# ¿ May 6, 2014 23:00

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Tartarus Sauce posted:

I generally agree.

I find that many of the SJW "Rules" originally had a reasonable rationale behind them, before that rationale got lost or perverted. The "tone argument" is no exception to this.

I have encountered people who like to intentionally play "button button" by asking people to phrase their argument or objection "just so," and then maaaaaaaaaaaaybe they'll consider it. This is disingenuous bullshit, and does deserve to be called out.

But, the total moratorium on "tone arguments" has given some "oppressed victims" an excuse to straight-up bully, harass, and browbeat people they disagree with or dislike. When someone protests or objects, they're told that marginalized people have a right to be "angry," and shamed for making a "tone argument."

My general feeling is, you absolutely have a right to be angry, but you do not have a right to express your anger any way you want. The emotion does not justify the behavior, and this is a standard that is good for all geese and ganders, be they privileged or not.

Of course, the standards of behavior might shift based on the situation, what's at stake, or the power dynamic between the parties involved. There are times to be firm, loud, and even rude, just as there are times to be polite, considerate, and tactful.

Problem is, a lot of SJWs burn their bridges before even attempting to cross them.

They have a right to be angry and express that anger, and other people have a right to completely ignore shrill, insulting crazies. Any course in conflict management is going to push being compassionate, understanding, and emotionally disinvested as much as possible. Where this conflicts with SJW ethos is that identity politics by nature is something people become emotionally invested and clingy towards.

I think the push in Western society of "finding yourself" leads to this sort of thinking and adjective/identity fetishism. People are "finding themselves" through adjectives and taxonomy, making those the ultimate meaning in their life rather than lived experience.

My belief is that taxonomic adjectives of identity(gay, trans, POC, nerd, whatever) shouldn't be for the individual, but for other people to use to reduce complexity. SJWs take the taxonomic classification and construct their identity based on it.

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 7, 2014

# ¿ May 7, 2014 20:14

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Patton Oswalt making a brilliant point and making overly aggressive SJW types look stupid today: http://mashable.com/2014/05/07/patton-oswalt-fake-apology-tweets/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link

# ¿ May 7, 2014 20:52

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Berke Negri posted:

Sensitivity when dealing with gendered pronouns is fine, but I think that part of the problem is ambiguity and inability to know how someone wishes to be addressed unless they explicitly tell you, or someone else does (but then who are they to assign gender to another person )

What do you mean by sensitivity?

# ¿ May 9, 2014 02:44

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Tartarus Sauce posted:

Increasingly, it seems like some people are confusing "Choices, trade-offs, and sacrifices we make in life" and "inconveniences one encounters" with "lack of privilege."

Next, tops will be complaining that *bottoms* are the ones with privilege, because as a top, you end up with a lovely dick.

To be fair, I think they were right to defend Kim Kardashian (that feels weird to say) in this case, because Jezebel is being bitchy and unfair when they expect everyone to discover Social Justice in Kindergarten. They should just be happy that she's had a revelation that's inspired her to become more concerned about and aware of racism and the like.

I would say that the way that Jezebel writer treated Kim Kardashian actually hurts their cause of women's liberation and social justice. They are rejecting an open and receptive person because it's easy and socially popular.

It also reveals them as petty and catty... ooooh Kim Kardashian, we don't like her, what a bitch! Time to write rude and dismissive things about her needlessly, while simultaneously bitching about people who are rude and dismissive of us...

All the anti-Kardashian hate I've seen has a strong current of misogyny to it, calling them "vapid" and "whores" and the like. I personally see no reason to dislike/hate Kim Kardashian, I've ignored her and she hasn't been upset at me about it. For an ostensibly feminist writer to engage in pointless, petty social posturing through needless sarcasm and dismissal is highly questionable.

Edit: sorry to 'mansplain'(be male and express an opinion) :rolleyes:

ashgromnies fucked around with this message at 12:15 on May 9, 2014

# ¿ May 9, 2014 12:05

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Earwicker posted:

Ok sure? I wasn't making any kind of point about Kardashian at all, just pointing out that an article like that is really a far cry from "SJW" type stuff.

Jezebel's cause is not "women's liberation and social justice", it's "making money though people clicking on ads". It's a celebrity gossip blog, part of Gawker, not some social justice organization. Being catty and petty is simply part of their business model.

Have you read Jezebel? They have a lot of focus on issues of social justice and feminism.

Check this interview with the founder: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/10400095/Jezebel-founder-I-wanted-to-make-womens-magazines-irrelevant.html

quote:

�I hoped that by using pop culture, celebrity and fashion, we could politicise young women, kind of subversively. It would have a strongly feminist sensibility,� she says.

The stated goal is feminism and by extension social justice. If you want to be cynical and say they only said that in order to get money from people, whatever, but I will take her at her word.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 13:43

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Marketing is reality in a way, though, if people accept it.

Jezebel might be a cynical operator playing the feminism card for marketing, but it doesn't really matter. What does matter is that a lot of people take their mission statement at its word and see Jezebel as one of the largest and most influential feminist media resources, thus giving it legitimacy as such in the general public.

The posters on Jezebel call themselves "Jezzies" and many see themselves as feminist crusaders, and Jezebel as a feminist site.

# ¿ May 9, 2014 14:10

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Bleu posted:

Yeah, uh, yeah, that'd be Jezebel.

it's kinda gross because they present themselves as a voice of feminism but act exactly like the worst stereotypes of women. like literally acting in the way that makes men go, "women, amirite?"

# ¿ May 10, 2014 17:45

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

blowfish posted:

what a complete clusterfuck of a conference.

While regardless of my low opinions on anarchism it's at least consistent to criticise a speaker at an anarchist conference if you think he wanted the ~~police~~ rent-a-cops to show up, going on about triggering and patriarchy etc. in that context is laying it on thick while missing the forest for the trees (just come out and straight up accuse him of being authoritarian or something).

Also if his opinions are so terrible, why not just debate him into the ground for the benefit of the public/new attendees/anyone who hasn't heard of any previous take downs of his views? If you try to shut up someone you already think is an opponent of your ideals anyway at this kind of conference, you can bet their first reaction will be to shout "Help I am being oppressed" at the top of their lungs to smear the conference and the movement in the eyes of any newcomers. I guess if you don't care about things like growing your movement or real world relevance it lets you circle jerk in peace

You just wrote paragraphs in response to an activist named "Ian Awesome". What the gently caress kind of name is that? This is all such a joke. What has this group accomplished? Anything besides arguing with themselves and yelling at strangers?

# ¿ May 14, 2014 01:42

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Qu Appelle posted:

I think that 'Ian Not-quite-so-awesome-but-never-mind' was taken.

I will also defend my friend's right to be as awesome as he wants to be. Megaawesome, even.

Okay, so other than being awesome, what have they accomplished? What has he done to earn the title awesome? Does this group do anything? Put out publications? Direct action?

# ¿ May 14, 2014 05:11

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Darth Windu posted:

You're right, they're also upset that they can't call people n*ggers anymore either.

Naggers? What's wrong with that? I don't get it.

# ¿ May 14, 2014 13:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 18, 2024 15:10

ashgromnies: Jun 19, 2004

Lowly posted:

So ... talk about something else? As far as I know, people are free to talk about whatever they like within a given forum as long as it's on topic, and it's the moderators who decide what's on topic, not random forum users. If it's off-topic, the mods will shut it down, in my experience. So if a moderator is letting the discussion happen, then it seems it's on topic within the forum's rules?

It's also possible to have multiple discussions happening simultaneously. If you aren't interested in one discussion, just have another alongside it. If people are interested they'll respond. If they're not, they won't. You can't force people to only talk about the topics you like best.

I don't really look in the video game forums too often so maybe it's different there, but most threads I look at, the discussion moves so fast, it doesn't really stay on one topic for that long unless you're checking it every few minutes. I almost never get to respond to topics I'm interested in because I don't check the forums all that regularly. Usually when I do check, I find that four or five topics have been discussed since I last looked. If you feel like a certain discussion is taking up too much forum space, just leave and come back in like a day, the conversation will have moved on.

If we went by what mods thought was acceptable, every thread would be full of child porn.

# ¿ May 14, 2014 15:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Whats the deal with using the phrase "social justice warrior" as an insult?