You might be a social justice warrior (SJW)

[vaguelyhumanoid]

If by "critical examination" you mean presumptions and sweeping generalizations.

Spend some time on reddit. Much of the time, any acknowledgment of systemic racial inequality, gender inequality or in some places even using the word "cisgender" will get you labeled a "SJW".

 

[Revoltingest]

Spend some time on reddit. Much of the time, any acknowledgment of systemic racial inequality, gender inequality or in some places even using the word "cisgender" will get you labeled a "SJW".

They cheapen the term by over-using it.

Although "cisgender" does raise a red flag.

Spoiler: language

 

[freethinker44]

I thought it was a variant of keyboard warrior...regardless...calling people SJWs probably won't advance society but it won't harm it either. It should be noted that these clowns are directing their pretensious crap at people who are genuine activists as often as at genuine bigots. They seem to spend a lot of time attacking people advocating variations of the principles they claim to be defending and often siding with the bigots in the process. Anything that can puncture that narcissism is good in my book.

Exactly, they often turn on each other. Just like they did with Joss Whedon.

 

[freethinker44]

Yes, "cis" anything does raise a red flag for SJWism.
Also, using the pronouns ze, xi, zhe, and whatever else they made up.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, "cis" anything does raise a red flag for SJWism.
Also, using the pronouns ze, xi, zhe, and whatever else they made up.

What's wrong with the term "cisgendered"?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You might be (behaving like) a SJW if you attempt to win a debate by calling your opponent a "hater" for disagreeing with you, and redirecting the conversation to be about you, and your own efforts and battle scars, so as to appear morally superior, and attempt to create the impression that the person who is opposing you has personally attacked you, when they have done nothing of the sort.

Well, not that I disagree with you that it's wrong to demonize people who disagree with oneself, but let's put it this way: if someone makes uninformed statements about, say, rape and the motivations for it, and then someone comes along and says, "You know, I have worked with rape survivors and have experience, and I think X and Y because Z," I think that's merely being factual or at least rational about stating one's opinions. I know that some people would love to claim that this is an instance of "redirecting the conversation to be about the person, their own efforts, and their battle scars so as to appear morally superior," but that doesn't detract from the validity of the person's experiences.

Furthermore, when someone tells another person that they are too emotional to have a rational opinion on any given subject because they were subjected to a specific kind of assault or violence, yes, that is personally attacking them. That it is opposition doesn't preclude its being a personal attack.

I understand why so many people are so quick to dismiss the experiences of others and call them "SJWs" to make light of their opinions, though. After all, bigotry and misunderstanding thrive on casual dismissal of facts and experiences. I see this in my everyday life, where bigots of different stripes justify themselves by dismissing opposition as being "fickle" or "whimsical," among other things. To them, anything that points out bigotry and calls it out by its name is "too emotional" or "self-righteous." Religious bigots do it. Non-religious bigots do it. Atheist bigots do it. It is the same pattern of thinking across the board; it just goes by different labels and disguises itself differently for different contexts.

I'm just waiting for someone to casually dismiss this post for whatever reason or call me a "SJW." Watch this: Someone, most likely someone who denies that any given kind of discrimination or bigotry exists, will probably come along and find a reason to brush this post under the rug in an offhand manner. I don't mind, though; after all, some of these people have dismissed feminists as "professional victims," for example. I guess one shouldn't expect standards to be high when the threshold is in the gutter.

Edit: For clarification, my post is not directed at you, 4C, but at the behavior of certain people in some threads. I don't think you maliciously intended your post, so my criticism is directed at other posts of a certain kind.

 

[freethinker44]

What's wrong with the term "cisgendered"?

Nothing, in and of itself. It's just been so overused by SJWs that its usage is a red flag that you might dealing with a SJW.
Here's the Urban Dictionary definition:
"meaning someone who identifies with the sex they were born as. Typically used by whiny tumblr users who complain about not being accepted for who they are and yet bash these "cis" people for being born and being okay with the sex they were born with."

 

[Revoltingest]

What's wrong with the term "cisgendered"?

If I may jump in here.....
There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, but it is a shibboleth of SJWs.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Also, something just came to mind: are you, @freethinker44, using "SJW" as an insult? That is, do you mean to insult people who believe some of the things you've mentioned here?

Direct answer, please.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, not that I disagree with you that it's wrong to demonize people who disagree with oneself, but let's put it this way: if someone makes uninformed statements about, say, rape and the motivations for it, and then someone comes along and says, "You know, I have worked with rape survivors and have experience, and I think X and Y because Z," I think that's merely being factual or at least rational about stating one's opinions. I know that some people would love to claim that this is an instance of "redirecting the conversation to be about the person, their own efforts, and their battle scars so as to appear morally superior," but that doesn't detract from the validity of the person's experiences.

Furthermore, when someone tells another person that they are too emotional to have a rational opinion on any given subject because they were subjected to a specific kind of assault or violence, yes, that is personally attacking them. That it is opposition doesn't preclude its being a personal attack.

I understand why so many people are so quick to dismiss the experiences of others and call them "SJWs" to make light of their opinions, though. After all, bigotry and misunderstanding thrive on casual dismissal of facts and experiences. I see this in my everyday life, where bigots of different stripes justify themselves by dismissing opposition as being "fickle" or "whimsical," among other things. To them, anything that points out bigotry and calls it out by its name is "too emotional" or "self-righteous." Religious bigots do it. Non-religious bigots do it. Atheist bigots do it. It is the same pattern of thinking across the board; it just goes by different labels and disguises itself differently for different contexts.

This works both ways.
The archetypical SJW doesn't readily acknowledge experiences from those of us they see as privileged.
The solution is for us all to listen thoughtfully to others, with special attention to those on the other side of an issue.

I think the most striking example is with trans folk.
Their experiences are so foreign to me, that all I know about their perspective is what they tell me.
I take them at their word.

I'm just waiting for someone to casually dismiss this post for whatever reason or call me a "SJW." Watch this: Someone, most likely someone who denies that any given kind of discrimination or bigotry exists, will probably come along and find a reason to brush this post under the rug in an offhand manner. I don't mind, though; after all, some of these people have dismissed feminists as "professional victims," for example. I guess one shouldn't expect standards to be high when the threshold is in the gutter.

It does look odd, reacting to a hostile response which hasn't occurred, based upon the possibility of eventually receiving one.

 

[freethinker44]

Also, something just came to mind: are you, @freethinker44, using "SJW" as an insult? That is, do you mean to insult people who believe some of the things you've mentioned here?

Direct answer, please.

It's definitely not a compliment, but insult might be too strong of a word.
Believing these things doesn't mean you are, it just means you might be.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's definitely not a compliment, but insult might be too strong of a word.
Believing these things doesn't mean you are, it just means you might be.

That's not a direct answer.

Let's put it differently: do you consider "SJW," as you are using it, to be a negative term or not?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

If I may jump in here.....
There's nothing inherently wrong with the term, but it is a shibboleth of SJWs.

There's no demographic who call themself "SJWs". There is no diagnostic test of a "SJW", and no uniform. At the end of the day, it's just a right-wing snarl word that used to have an internally consistent meaning, once upon a time.

In any case, the term "cisgender" simply means a person who is not transgender, was coined from Latin roots that were already in use in the English language and has been used in an academic context since the 1990s. Yet tons of "anti-SJWs" will act like it's a slur and think it was coined on tumblr a couple years ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no demographic who call themself "SJWs". There is no diagnostic test of a "SJW", and no uniform. At the end of the day, it's just a right-wing snarl word that used to have an internally consistent meaning, once upon a time.

SJWs need not be a defined demographic in order to exist.
Just as you use the term, "right-wing", members of this group have a set of traits which lead to their inclusion.

"Snarl word".....that's a new one to me.
But right or left or in-between, all have their own such words.

In any case, the term "cisgender" simply means a person who is not transgender, was coined from Latin roots that were already in use in the English language and has been used in an academic context since the 1990s. Yet tons of "anti-SJWs" will act like it's a slur and think it was coined on tumblr a couple years ago.

It's a useful word.
But among SJWs, it's particularly common, just not deterministic.

 

[freethinker44]

That's not a direct answer.

Let's put it differently: do you consider "SJW," as you are using it, to be a negative term or not?

Yes, I consider it to be a negative term.

 

[Laika]

**Thread Closed for Moderation**​