Not being a SJW, but not being totally insensitive

[East]

It's been very interesting watching the creation and rise of the term "Social Justice Warrior." I turned around and one day everyone's talking about SJWs like the group's been around forever. It helps me understand how powerful a stereotype can be in undermining someone's argument. Now a days, if anyone mentions the possibility of curbing language in particular circumstances for the consideration of other people feelings (god forbid, I know) then they're called an SJW and the discussion is magically over. Where once there could have been a conversation about such things, now the conversation ends at "Eh, you're one of them fuckin' SJWs. Shut the fuck up you goddam SJW. SJWs... sheesh, they're all like that."

Not to say that there aren't people who fit this new stereotype, there are. But it's not across the board. I think it's a lame and lazy tactic to throw that term around when someone's arguing for something you may disagree with. If you disagree with a position, then explain why.

Good point Wade...the term (which I do not use) is intended to insult and marginalize the people who..for example..were the ONLY ONES fighting for equality under the law for everyone for quite some time....when no one else bothered. If you are gay...you should be thanking them... because you wouldn't have gotten this far without them .

I will take 10 of them before one of the bigots....

[Virge]

It's been very interesting watching the creation and rise of the term "Social Justice Warrior." I turned around and one day everyone's talking about SJWs like the group's been around forever. It helps me understand how powerful a stereotype can be in undermining someone's argument. Now a days, if anyone mentions the possibility of curbing language in particular circumstances for the consideration of other people feelings (god forbid, I know) then they're called an SJW and the discussion is magically over. Where once there could have been a conversation about such things, now the conversation ends at "Eh, you're one of them fuckin' SJWs. Shut the fuck up you goddam SJW. SJWs... sheesh, they're all like that."

Not to say that there aren't people who fit this new stereotype, there are. But it's not across the board. I think it's a lame and lazy tactic to throw that term around when someone's arguing for something you may disagree with. If you disagree with a position, then explain why.

There's a problem with that Wade. Go find a SJW who does not use the EXACT same tactics, words and attitude you described above when they're talking about or to people they disagree with.

Don't even try to pretend that one side is worse than the other.

[TonyAndonuts]

There's a problem with that Wade. Go find a SJW who does not use the EXACT same tactics, words and attitude you described above when they're talking about or to people they disagree with.

Don't even try to pretend that one side is worse than the other.

So SJWs are all the same? There's no such thing as an SJW that actually wants to have a respectful and stimulating discussion?

[Rareboy]

I pretty much glazed over as soon as the OP used an acronym for social justice warriors. My own experience is that people who go gunning for SJW's are invariably only trying to validate their own SIA attitude toward minorities, religions they don't like, equality for women and homos...etc. etc. etc.

And 99 % of us are phobic about something and probably use terminology or jokes about it that we deserve to get called out for by someone who does not share our perspective. Without this checks and balances...we would live in a coarse and thuggish society where groups of people could effectively de-humanize others, with...as we have witnessed in the 20th and this century....horrifyong results.

So at the end of the day, I'd much rather be annoyed with an over-zealous and overly 'sensitive' SJW in my face than to live in a world where everyone believes they have the right to offend everyone all the time and then laugh about it.

[ShiftyNJ]

I volunteer in social justice work but I don't think I'd describe myself as a "warrior" ... my role is try to get people to think beyond their entrenched attitudes about "the other" which is rarely accomplished through shaming. We try to get people to listen to one another and get some new perspective to see they have more in common than they think.

There's an old joke... "How many (militant feminist, but it could be militant anything) does it take to change a light bulb?" The answer is of course "THATS NOT FUNNY!!!!"

I think a big difference between the person you're describing and someone who can actually make a difference is a sense of humor. If we are unable to laugh at ourselves and get people to relax around us, the likelihood of getting them to open their mind to a new way of seeing is not very good. Also, as [MENTION=18508]East[/MENTION] pointed out, acknowledging our own ingrained attitudes and be willing to examine where they came from as part of the discussion. If you try to sell yourself as "above" any such prejudices yourself, nobody is going to take you seriously.

[Aike]

I do not mind being cautious of the language one uses, and I agree that people who are annoyed at SJWs are often just idiots who don't like being told to have some respect for other people. However, my general problem with political correctness and policing of language is not that it's too restraining and controlling but, on the contrary, that it doesn't go deep enough. If we're obsessed with offensive language and want to control it directly, it's a sign that we've already lost and just want to cover up the damage.

Language is always situated in a social context, which is to say that words carry different meanings and have different effects in different contexts. So, for example, the word "fag" cannot be said to be offensive as such. The tone of the word depends on who uses it, to whom it is said, and in what situation. It's a different thing to hear it from another gay guy, in a friendly manner, than to hear it from homophobic bullies on a street. The logic of political correctness, at its worst, only cares about the language and not the context, therefore assuming all circumstances to be equal.

So when I say that political correctness doesn't go deep enough what I mean is this: the goal should be to create a society where the word "fag" simply doesn't work as an insult, where the offensive connotations of that word would fall to deaf ears. And if some homophobe were to offend gay people she or he would be automatically dismissed as an idiot without debate. So, I don't think we're going to get very far by this obsession with offensive language.

Moreover, I think this SJW trend reflects the recent turn to emphasizing psychological injury and trauma in gay politics and LGBT support communities. We're not supposed to be radicals and revolutionaries anymore (as the gay movement was in its early days) but to obsess over our traumatic childhoods and psychological problems. The way to fight homophobia nowadays is not to overthrow the hegemonic heterosexist social order but to use non-offensive language and trigger warnings. Jack Halberstam wrote an *excellent* controversial blog post on this last summer and I advise everyone to read it.

[TonyAndonuts]

Again, I'm gonna quote something from another forum as to why I generally don't believe the whole "words are just words" and "let's change the word's definition" argument.

The reason we use the word "shit" to describe a form of entertainment that is bad is because... well, shit is bad. We don't like shit. No one wants to play with shit. No one wants to look at shit. When you're saying "this game is shit," you're not changing the definition of "shit" to mean "bad," you're changing the point that shit conveys. You're expressing that this game is bad, much like shit.

This can be transferred to words like "gay," "faggot," and "retarded" as well. We live in a world where homosexuality is met with much social stigma. As a result, the word "gay" was originally and still is used to refer to something stupid. Why? Because people think that homosexuals are stupid. Just like they think mentally ill people are stupid. You're not changing the definition of "gay" or "retarded" to "stupid." You're creating a comparison.

This is why it always confuses me when people try to defend their use of "gay" and "fag" as insults by saying they weren't specifically talking about gay people. What if I decided to use the word "nigger" to relate to really stupid people, where I'm not specifically talking about black people, I'm just talking about stupid people in general. I really don't think it would go over too well.

[MakeDigitalLove]

It's been very interesting watching the creation and rise of the term "Social Justice Warrior." I turned around and one day everyone's talking about SJWs like the group's been around forever. It helps me understand how powerful a stereotype can be in undermining someone's argument. Now a days, if anyone mentions the possibility of curbing language in particular circumstances for the consideration of other people feelings (god forbid, I know) then they're called an SJW and the discussion is magically over. Where once there could have been a conversation about such things, now the conversation ends at "Eh, you're one of them fuckin' SJWs. Shut the fuck up you goddam SJW. SJWs... sheesh, they're all like that."

Not to say that there aren't people who fit this new stereotype, there are. But it's not across the board. I think it's a lame and lazy tactic to throw that term around when someone's arguing for something you may disagree with. If you disagree with a position, then explain why.

This, the term SJW literally has just become a term to use an an insult or to shut down an argument.

Yes there are people that come on too strong and are way too sensitive when it comes to a topic or about the way someone might say something. To the other side of that the people who aren't so PC can be just as bad when someone questions or challenges something said that might be racist/homophobic,etc.

Again, I'm gonna quote something from another forum as to why I generally don't believe the whole "words are just words" and "let's change the word's definition" argument.

And I agree with that quote. The "words are just words" "argument" is something that has bothered me for a very long time and it is a very lazy statement to use.

[meridannight]

huh?.......

[ShiftyNJ]

This, the term SJW literally has just become a term to use an an insult or to shut down an argument.

Yes there are people that come on too strong and are way too sensitive when it comes to a topic or about the way someone might say something. To the other side of that the people who aren't so PC can be just as bad when someone questions or challenges something said that might be racist/homophobic,etc.



And I agree with that quote. The "words are just words" "argument" is something that has bothered me for a very long time and it is a very lazy statement to use.

Agreed If "words are just words" then one should not be so married to them that we don't care if they are a trigger for somebody else. It is not a lot to ask that we not use words that are pejorative to another group of people. Use a different word, otherwise what you're saying is "I'm too important to worry about your feelings."

On the flip, I'm reading an interesting book right now that describes "stages of ethnocentrism" and it says we have a whole generation of people who think you are sufficiently evolved just by knowing the list of "Bad words" not to say, and yet become remarkably intolerant of someone who did not grow up with those same taboos, instead of giving them a chance to learn why they are a problem. If we are ever to have a truly just society, we have to get beyond that to understanding WHY certain words are problems and actually listen to each other.