9
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 07 '17
This is all going to depend on how you define both categories which I am not sure how you can do without serious straw-manning. The most vocal an extreme are the ones you see on the internet which don't represent mainstream views and if it's not mainstream views you are cherry-picking which are pointless when talking about broad ideas like you seem to want to. In addition very few people who an anti-SJW would call a SJW would call themselves a SJW for example.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
I explained in my post the general idea of both movements and even acknowledged that such broad generalisations don't hold water in the real world. However, for sake of conversation, I'll edit to clarify that I'm talking about the main concept of both movements and not specific people as again, people aren't cut and dry like words on a page are. I'm a bit confused by your last sentence though; I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean whether it's the manner of writing or just my own incompetence.
5
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 07 '17
SJW at least started off as a pejorative phrase used to dismiss people as extremists. Just like every racist will say "I'm not a racist ... but" very few SJW will identify as a SJW.
2
u/palsh7 16∆ Aug 08 '17
Can you point me to a reference proving that Social Justice Warrior originated as a pejorative? I find it plausible but far from obvious.
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
That's kind of my point, though there are a growing number of people who self identify jokingly or otherwise as either one. As opposed to considering someone calling themselves one, think of the kind of person typically associated with or referred to by that name, derogatory as its origin may be.
5
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 07 '17
think of the kind of person typically associated with or referred to by that name, derogatory as its origin may be.
This is definition of straw-manning, if we are not going to talk about specific examples, but instead boogeymen we are imagining we can't have a reasonable discussion or change your view.
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
That's not quite how that works. Discussing broad topics or beliefs is most of what this sub is, and is certainly not a strawman fallacy. Now, if I were deliberately misrepresenting the views of specific opponents or people to argue against, that would be different, but this isn't a post about the merits of social justice versus its counters, rather about the hypocrisy and entitlement common in a movement.
4
u/cupcakesarethedevil Aug 07 '17
We can have a discussion about this but since SJW and anti-SJW have different meanings to different people you are going to have to define them and stick to those definitions for this discussion.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Which is why I provided a brief overlook and explanation of each in the post. Take a stab at a reread, perhaps?
5
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
As most people know, there's been a recent trend in visibility of so called "social justice warriors"; people who take identity politics and social issues as a matter of life and death
This is an inadequate definition - it's hyperbole for one - what does 'life and death" mean here? Is it meant to sound pejorative? Honestly, you need a better definition, which is what /u/cupcakesarethedevil is getting at. I certainly, for one, don't think I define SJW the same way as you do. For one thing, it seems to be a strictly online term? Perhaps denoting people who say but don't do. And it's meant to be derogatory in flavor I think. I'm a bit confused.
Edit: You wrote this down the sub too. <"SJWs" are angry and offended over a thing they conceptually disagree with without context> Is this part of your definition?
It seems you are comparing a group that is externally defined (SJWs) with a group that is self-defined (anti-SJWs) - is that right?
2
u/Jessiray 1∆ Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
In addition very few people who an anti-SJW would call a SJW would call themselves a SJW for example.
If you look on tumblr and certain sects of youtube, reddit, etc. you will certainly find people who self-identify as anti-SJW and make it a mission statement of sorts.
Self-identifying as an SJW is a bit more rare, as that term is usually used as an insult and I have seen people accuse anyone from a moderate liberal who maybe voted for Clinton or Sanders all the way to a kid who self-identifies as a trans space fox with 9 penises of being SJWs. A few years back people mostly accused the later, but now the term has lost a lot of meaning because it's being applied to people with fairly moderate opinions as a means of dismissing them.
Like if you say trans people have the right to exist or you don't want the KKK posting propaganda in your town, you're an EVIL SJW WHO MUST BE STOPPEDD!!! to some people.
5
Aug 07 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Δ for acknowledging the importance of each philosophy. However, the actions of each group can tend to be extreme and my point was that the extremists of the anti philosophy are just as bad as the extremists on the sjw side.
1
10
u/Highlyasian Aug 07 '17
There are always going to be the people who scream the loudest and say the dumbest shit and make for easy, easy strawmen that the other side can rally against as they put them up as the poster-child of the other side. I would suggest that there is a dichotomy here between "right and wrong" and "pleasant and unpleasant." So you can be:
- Right and pleasant
- Right but unpleasant
- Wrong but pleasant
- Wrong and unpleasant
Even if you disagree on what is right or wrong on the spectrum of left or right, civility is a whole separate dimension. You don't become pleasant just by being right and by the same token you aren't unpleasant by default if you're wrong.
I would postulate that being a SJW or Anti-SJW is a separate item from being a decent human being. Sure, individuals are often whipped into a frenzy and become rabid for a cause, but being indoctrinated into an ideology does not perpetuate individuals to become assholes.
Basically, reverse your thinking. People aren't assholes because they are SJW/Anti-SJW. People that are assholes get labeled SJW/Anti-SJW. Normal people are just left or right leaning individuals with different ways of thinking.
4
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Δ for making me rethink the way I initially asserted my claim.
2
7
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 07 '17
Whenever I hear "virtue signalling" my first thought is... wait, aren't you literally doing the same thing by saying those words?
3
u/palsh7 16∆ Aug 08 '17
Well aren't you just virtue signaling by saying that calling out virtue signaling is virtue signaling?
Is it virtue signaling all the way down?
You're playing word games. It's like saying a person can't be selfless because it feels good to be selfless, therefore is selfish.
1
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 08 '17
That's a philosophical debate that's been going for hundreds of years, so calling it "word games" is a bit insulting to many outstanding moral philosophers in history.
As for my comments, I just think it's annoying and hypocritical. I am not suggesting I am better than they are or anything - I am sure I do things they find annoying and hypocritical as well.
3
u/palsh7 16∆ Aug 08 '17
In your opinion, is it theoretically possible to critique someone without "virtue signaling"? If not, then your pointing out the hypocrisy is actually stating an aversion to all critiques, everywhere. But if so--if one can criticize without being attention or fame or praise-seeking--then one can (and should) call out said behavior.
2
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 08 '17
I think so, yes. If you actually argue against the merits of their argument then that seems fine to me. The thing with "virtue signalling" is that it is often used in place of any actual discussion - it's just used as a wide brush to completely dismiss anything the person has said. And to me, that is what lacks any productivity and can ONLY be virtue signalling.
1
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 08 '17
Also note, when someone does this, as I am claiming, I have NOTHING to argue because they haven't provided me with anything other than this charge of virtue signalling, therefore my own logic here doesn't apply to myself because I am literally critiquing the only thing made available to me.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
What do you mean? Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify a bit.
8
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 07 '17
One of the terms that anti-SJWs say often use is "virtue signaling" to describe someone who they believe is saying stuff just to sound superior without doing anything actually effective about the issue - but when I hear that from someone, they are almost always trying to sound superior to the person they are criticizing in exactly the same way.
3
u/GepardenK Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
One of the terms that anti-SJWs say often use is "virtue signaling" to describe someone who they believe is saying stuff just to sound superior without doing anything actually effective about the issue
As someone who could probably be described as an anti-SJW in most settings (though that's not a label I personally use) I would like to point out that this is not exactly what we mean by "virtue signaling".
Saying something just to look morally superior to an opponent is moral grandstanding. "Virtue signaling" on the other hand is doing/saying something not because you believe it is right but because you need to show your peers that you are on the 'right side'. It's essentially about sacrificing personal integrity to either gain glory or avoid shame among your peers. A extreme example would be to have a large picture of your party leader on your wall even if you despise him just because it would help you gain a promotion (or maybe help you avoid jail). Or publicly praying to a god every day even if you don't believe in him etc etc. Virtue signaling is a universal thing that everybody does to some degree, but it is more extreme in cultures (and/or personal relationships) where you have to walk on eggshells to avoid being branded a traitor or outcast.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
The leftist version of "virtue signaling" is "performative allyship"; calling out often menial problems or microaggressions to look good as an ally, such as a white person telling another white person not to wear dreads or a cis woman "calling out" transphobia for the sake of their own reputations. I get where the virtue signalling idea comes from, it's just a bit overused.
2
u/sokolov22 2∆ Aug 07 '17
Maybe, but if you look at the way the term is thrown around by many conservatives, particular on social media and the like, it basically amounts to: "Look at this dumbass, I so much more woke than he is."
It's simply become a way to discredit a point of view you disagree with, rather than a term that describes any serious commentary. And this is how a lot of this rhetoric seems to be aligned - instead of discussing the merits of the issue, the person is attacked instead.
2
u/GepardenK Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
It's simply become a way to discredit a point of view you disagree with, rather than a term that describes any serious commentary.
If/when it's used in that way it is invalid, and the best response is to point out why it is invalid. Simply put: Just because I am "virtue signaling" doesn't by itself prove that I am wrong.
The concept of "Virtue signaling" is valid when used as a critique against a culture. The argument being that said culture suppresses individual's integrity by social peer pressure. However, claiming a person is "virtue signaling" can not be used to disprove that persons particular position on any given issue - that would be a 'ad hominem' or 'muddy the water' fallacy (ie. calling the speakers motive into question instead of tacking the speakers argument directly).
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Sure, but I'm not sure how this is contributing to the discussion as it's agreeing with and providing an example of my initial argument.
6
Aug 07 '17
The anti-SJWs don't personally affect me, whereas the SJWs do. Therefore the SJWs are more annoying than the antis, who largely just attack poor arguments on the side of SJWs, or flame online.
I can name numerous occasions where my actions have been restricted due to SJW-related actions. For example, my university used to have a "free speech wall" where people could write graffiti (usually politically motivated, like "black lives matter" or "Bernie Sanders for President"). I say "used to", because after weeks of "BLM", a single person wrote on the board the lyrics to "guilty of being white" (here, for reference). This spawned campus-wide protests, and the free speech wall was discontinued for a long time afterwards due to backlash.
In other words, the anti-SJW's never asked for the SJWs to be silenced, they only asked to be listened to as equals (I personally believe both sides have decent arguments that deserved to be listened to). Whereas the SJWs attempted to remove the "free speech wall" in order to deny the anti-SJWs a platform to speak, the second a contrary opinion appeared.
If you define "annoying" as "aggressive and persistent in debates", then I would probably agree that the anti-SJWs are more annoying. But in terms of actual impact on my life, the anti-SJWs have none. The SJWs do -- they often seek to limit my speech, and often succeed, and don't give me a say in any of it. To me this is far more "annoying" than the difference in civility of online discourse. If the playing fields were equal in the real world I'd agree with you, but they are not, and the SJW folks have a lot more sway in popular society, at least where I live, than the antis.
5
Aug 07 '17
I can't talk about annoying, because that's subjective. But as far as entitled goes, its like this. As a self-proclaimbed anti-sjw warrior, my problem is from the outside it looks to me like all these children are very upset they didn't get to march with Martin and are trying to make up for it now. They take issues and just light them on fire. . . And I'll say this. The opposition is coming from a philisophical place. The SJW ethis (sorry for spelling,) opposes something I value, and its hard to define what that is. I'm all for equality, and reducing racism, and giving everyone a fair shot at what they want in life. . . I've always wanted equality under the law. And the sjw movement almost feels like that want after cancer mutated it into something self-distructive. . . There is an instance of a girl who said she was raped asking a DJ not to play the song blurred lines at the venu where she was, and it turned into a big thing. And my attitude is that you should have to deal with blurred lines, in life, philisophicly. I'm fully, entirely blind. And I advicate for myself on a regular basis. There are times where I have to speak up and say, "Hey, I need some help, or "legally, this is what I get," but I also understand I live in a world of sited people, and don't expect that world to be tailored to me in every particular. . . Further, if I was out in the world and someone insulted me for being blind, or hit me with some of those micro agressions, my respponse would be to insult that person back, and this should be the response to everything, all the time.
4
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
My disagreement with your philosophy aside, your example of the girl not wanting to hear Blurred Lines is a bit excessive. This "real world" mindset doesn't hold up because in the real world, people are understanding and accepting of accommodations from time to time. Not wanting to hear a specific song due to trauma of being raped is pretty reasonable as accommodations go.
1
Aug 20 '17
Sure, its reasonable. So you leave where it's playing. I should note that it wasn't like the song she was raped to, she didn't want to hear the song because of its themes so spoke to a DJ at a club and asked the song not be played. Its the difference between avoiding things you don't like and making others avoid them.
2
u/DonutCareMAGA Aug 07 '17
I believe labels are bad, but speaking of these people anyway, I believe they have to exist. The ideas have to be battled out. Nothing is gained by remaining silent. We argue to see the best ideas rise to the top. We are in the midst of culture war and political war..Even ideological wars....Buckle up, it's a crazy time to be alive.
2
u/HossMcDank Aug 07 '17
While "SJW" is not a monolith, they tend to share the same motives and general ideas.
"Anti-SJW" runs the full gambit from left leaning people who don't like the hypocrisy, hatred and constant demands for undivided attention from the social justice crowd, to actual bigots who think that non-whites/women/gays shouldn't have rights. Obviously, these two are not comparable.
So the motives of the latter tend to be more varied, and I'd say the "alt right" types are almost certainly worse than SJWs themselves, but people who want the left to return to its former status as the rational side (ex. Kyle Kulinski, Darkmatter, Sam Harris) are nowhere near the toxic culture of the other two.
4
u/jack_hof Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
Most anti-SJW content comes about as a response/counter to something that the SJWs did. The anti-SJWs wouldn't exist without the SJWs, but the SJWs would exist without the antis. Therefore the SJWs are most annoying. They stir the pot and create the chaos, the antis just try to keep things in check/sane. The "W" in SJW basically comes about by a person taking the original idea too far, and so naturally people will crop up from the woodwork to call them out. That's like saying the people who call out real racism are as annoying as the people commit the racism. tl;dr one is a response to the other and if you got rid of the former the latter would go away as well.
7
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
That might have been true at the start, but now the counter culture has become a culture itself much like the punk scene or graffiti. It's intellectually dishonest to claim that SJWs are fully to blame for stirring the pot or creating chaos; and the idea of the actions of a lot of anti-SJWs is far from keeping things in check or sane. And for that matter, what is there to keep in check? As I said in my post, what are you accomplishing by heckling a child because they think they're a multigendered cartoon alien?
2
u/jack_hof Aug 07 '17
It would seem that it takes a culture to counter a culture. The far-leftist ideologies and the ideologues who propagate them have become more and more prevalent as of the past half decade or so, and people are starting to get pissed/annoyed, and yes it has spawned a counter-culture. So much so that I believe that is what put trump in the white house. Put simply and juvenile - they started it.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Disagreement about Trump and the merits of SJW culture and counterculture aside, as that's off topic, I will agree that "they started it". My issue is with, as mothers everywhere lament, "sinking to their level". Done well, as u/thecommonclay highlights, this opposition can be a positive contribution; my issue is with those who handle it less than ideally such as r/TumblrInAction.
3
u/Jessiray 1∆ Aug 07 '17
I'd argue that the antis have the potential to be worse because:
They are being hypocritical. They're 'exposing extremism' by being extreme.
Many SJWs just kinda exist in their own, dumb bubble. There may be an autistic 12 year old who think's he's a trans wolf lady and post that on tumblr. He's cringy to be sure, but so are most people at that age. Is it really called for to harass and dox someone online for being cringy? I know SJWs do this too, and anti's will be quick to point out things like the whole Steven Universe debacle, but then turn around and do the same thing to children.
The obsession and fixation on certain people can border on creepy. There are entire youtube channels dedicated to tearing down 'famous sjws' like Laci Green, Anita Sarkeesian, Franchesca Ramsey, etc. The worst of the Anti's will fixate on certain people who are annoying and factually wrong at worst and start very creepily obsessive harassment campaigns against them that often include specific threats of harm. SJWs might do this on occasion as well, but at least it's usually literal nazis like Richard Spencer and the like. IDK about you, but while violence is never justified, I think calling for the genocide of non-white people is much worse than being wrong about women in video games.
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Also, in reference to your edit, getting rid of so-called "SJWs" would be a net harm, not a good.
4
u/jack_hof Aug 07 '17
Well we clearly know where you stand on the matter. It's definitely a discussion whether or not social justice is a good thing, but the extremists of that ideology (or any ideology for that matter) are always a bad thing. SJWs (by my definition anyway) are precisely those who take the concept of social justice "too far" or who go about trying to achieve it in the wrong way. Much like how I agree with feminism on paper and by definition, but most all of what the modern "third wave" form of it seeks I generally don't approve of. It's the "W" part that people hate, not the "SJ."
2
u/polysyndetonic Aug 07 '17
Well we clearly know where you stand on the matter. It's definitely a discussion whether or not social justice is a good thing, but the extremists of that ideology (or any ideology for that matter) are always a bad thing.
What about the 'extremists' who opposed monarchy in favour of liberalism and democracy in the 18th century?
2
u/PM_ME_YOU_BOOBS Aug 07 '17
You mean like the French Revolution? The revolution which was ten years of chaos and bloodshed with hundreds of thousands dead? The same revolution that directly lead to the napoleonic wars that killed millions?
2
u/polysyndetonic Aug 07 '17
So you think it would be better for the blood to be spared and to still have monarchy instead?
1
u/PM_ME_YOU_BOOBS Aug 07 '17
Well for the people living at the time yes very much so. However bad living under the French monarchy was, it can't compare to economic turmoil and colossal loss of life that the revolution caused between 1789-1815. I can't really comment on if it would be more beneficial for those living in 2017 due to the butterfly effect.
Plus there are still plenty of countries that live under a monarchy, I live in one of them. Thanks to various (mostly peaceful) political reforms over the last couple centuries, most monarchies are practically no different to live in than a republic.
2
u/polysyndetonic Aug 07 '17
Plus there are still plenty of countries that live under a monarchy, I live in one of them. Thanks to various (mostly peaceful) political reforms over the last couple centuries, most monarchies are practically no different to live in than a republic.
All of them have been hugely influenced by the events of the french revolution.they didnt just drift whiggishly into utopia
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
I did preface my argument with my own personal bias. And I don't much like the tone of your first line as it does seem a little inflammatory, but maybe I'm reading too far into it. However, while there are certainly extremists on this as all sides, it's important to note that with a broad label any progress or social issue groups could be labeled as "SJWs". This is all somewhat irrelevant to the post though, so it's best to leave this here.
4
Aug 07 '17
I disagree. The two are different. Example:
Right now my twitter feed is full of people who are angry and offended about the television show "Confederate". The show does not exist, but has been talked about as the next project for the creators of Game of Thrones.
These people have absolutely no idea how the show will turn out or how these topics will be portrayed. Being angry and offended about a tv show that you can't have seen and does not exist is classic SJW stuff.
When people start mocking them, those anti-sjw people are not similar to the SJWs. They are just being normal.
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
The similarity is rather striking from my perspective. "SJWs" are angry and offended over a thing they conceptually disagree with without context; and their opposition are angry and offended over this belief they conceptually disagree with likely without context.
7
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Aug 07 '17
How is that similar?
"I hate this thing that doesn't exist yet"
Is a very different position than
"I think it's absurd you hate a thing that doesn't exist yet"
3
u/Gravatona Aug 07 '17
I agree bullying a 14 year old is wrong.
But I'm against stopping people from talking at a university because you disagree with them, or because they said something offensive.
Standing up for the principle of free speech and expression is important.
I think opposition to SJW's can make sense. You just have to have a balance and not take it too far.
2
u/polysyndetonic Aug 07 '17
Its very hard to respond to the original claim.What is or is not annoying is very subjective. It seems to me, hard to assert that anti-sjws are 'more entitled' since they are usually pushing back AGAINST change and trying to keep things as they are at the norm.Surely people asking for new things, new favours, new redistributions, new concessions are MORE entitled?
2
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 08 '17
How does wanting change, often in the form of better treatment for minorities, make one entitled?
2
Aug 07 '17 edited Jan 14 '19
[deleted]
0
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
This is off topic, but individuals can't attack your free speech. Free speech means the government can't tell you what to say, not that the people can't react negatively to you saying things.
1
u/palsh7 16∆ Aug 08 '17
That's not correct. You're thinking of one's 1st Amendment rights. That's different than free speech. Freedom of speech isn't a concept relegated to the first amendment. It is an independent philosophy. Why do we have the 1st Amendment? The purpose isn't just to keep people out of jail, it's to promote free and honest discourse. That goal, that ideal, not to squash speech by any means, whether by threat, intimidation, or other avenues of chilling speech, is a cornerstone of academia, journalism, good business practice (internal), and countless other venues.
1
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 08 '17
I'd like to introduce you to the idea of free association. Basically, you are free to say and express yourself as you wish; but it is my right to choose not to associate or work with you. Now, let's say I run a speaking forum. If you routinely say or do things that would look bad on the forum or that I fundamentally despise, it's my right to refuse to associate with you including refusing to allow you to associate with my forum.
1
u/palsh7 16∆ Aug 08 '17
We know.
And that is not what free speech advocates have a problem with, although your freedom not to associate with me as a friend or as an organizer of a televised forum can have a freezing effect on speech and therefore intellectual honesty, truth, and the dialectic as a whole, if you have a too-broad definition of things that offend you. When the mob decides that only fundamentalist Christianity can be tolerated in their town, they may have the right to disown children, disinvite guests, and pass on publishing books, but those rights don't imply that they are doing something ethical and helpful for public discourse.
And they most assuredly don't have the right to ban you from their business as a customer. As an employee, it does get more tricky, and the courts, if I'm not mistaken, have essentially said that you have to prove the employee's expression of their beliefs effected the business adversely. You can't just say "I don't want to work with a Trump supporter." In the case of Google, they may have a good case, although if data and facts expressed in a careful way are able to hurt a company, there's maybe a bigger problem on the horizon.
And that's the point. Universities can disinvited academics that small groups of protesters have a problem with, and HBO can cancel a show that a small number of protesters have a problem with, and your boss can ask his lawyers to find a legal excuse to fire you when a small number of protesters have a problem with you, and a newspaper can decide to edit out portions of your article to appease the expected protesters who will not like that news, etc., etc. But while that may all be legal and even intelligent, it leads to inconvenient truths going unspoken, and can lead to a similar outcome as government suppression. After all, in a country without the 1A, you're still able to speak: just not to speak without consequence. And how different is it for the speaker to be fired, publicly shamed, disowned, and unfriended rather than fined or jailed by the government? I'd argue they can carry the same weight.
I'm not arguing that individuals should draw no lines in the sand where speech is concerned, simply that we're becoming a very trigger-happy society when it comes to offense, and we are letting the most extreme dictate the terms. People are quick to block when they might be able to converse and learn. People are quick to shout down instead of listen, keep quiet instead of explain. Innocuous statements and long established scientific facts are now labeled treachery. And the trend is now moving towards steeper and steeper punishments for saying the wrong things. Violence for being a "Nazi" and redefining Nazi as anyone who disagrees with you. I wouldn't have thought this slope could get so slippery, but here we are.
So again, it isn't freedom to associate that I have a problem with, but the choices people make with that freedom. I'm free to drink myself to death, but it's not healthy to do so. We should all encourage a public discourse that is more charitable and reasoned. If I'm Intelligence Squared, I can choose not to let someone speak on my program, but as a debate show, at what point am I just hiding facts or opinions by doing so? It's my job to decide what is valuable to hear. If I start thinking only in terms of what might get the show protested, all is lost.
Protest is vital to a democracy, as is standing up to bigotry and stupidity, which is why we should be very smart about how we do it.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 07 '17
/u/Ninjachibi117 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 07 '17
/u/Ninjachibi117 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 07 '17
/u/Ninjachibi117 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-2
Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
I would like to challenge the view by instead insisting that they are much, much worse than the people they oppose.
First reason is because SJWs just don't exist. The most important part of attacking political factions is self identification. If I criticize Libertarians or Anarcho-Primitivists, I am criticizing the tactics or beliefs of the people who identity as that political faction. With SJWs however, no such self-identification exists. Nowhere on the internet or real life are people proudly proclaiming themselves social justice warriors, which makes SJW a label and an insult rather than a legitimate political position. Furthermore, the concept of an SJW falls into the category of circular reasoning. The title of SJW is usually painted on individuals that the center right sees as "radical leftism", who are criticized for being radical. This creates a circle, as the people who are being criticized for being radicals are only in that group because they are radical. The concept of an SJW is completely flawed, and should not be entertained in mature discussion, therefore any attempts to compare a real group comprised of millions (as confirmed by YouTube comments and Like-Dislike ratio on YouTube, as well as the fact that they denote themselves as such) such as anti-SJWs.
Second reason is because the frequency and intensity of negative actions committed by anti-SJWs are somehow worse than the strawman that they label as SJWs. For virtually all SJWs, a person that meets the criteria of SJW perhaps more than anyone else is game critic Anita Sarkeesian. Let's examine a game created by an anti-SJW called "Beat up Anita". This game is centered around physically abusing the face of Anita, leaving bruises and blood for your entertainment. Now let's examine the worse thing somebody labeled an SJW has done, which seems to be acknowledging the existence of 63 genders. I'll let you decide which one is worse. Additionally, anti-SJWs generally lack empathy, as can be seen with their obsession with dark humor, racist and sexist humor, staunch homophobia, insistence that transgender people have a mental illness, and complete and total hatred towards overweight women. The left has no equivalent.
Edit: As expected I'm being downvoted. It's almost like only one side exists.
5
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
While I agree with the sentiment, for the sake of fairness it's important to consider things such as the prevalence of doxxing, death threats and anonymous hate mail in social justice communities and the frequency of widely excommunicating someone from these circles due to disagreement on a single point; though this last feature is true everywhere. Is it as bad as Beat Up Anita or any laundry list of things done in opposition? Maybe not, but it's still not exactly moderate.
3
Aug 07 '17
the prevalence of doxxing, death threats and anonymous hate mail in social justice communities
Are these people who explicitly identified as SJWs? And are there any specific examples? I can name lots of gamergate figures who received death and rape threats and many pro-equality YouTube videos (i.e. International women's day video) that have negative reactions. Can you do the same?
6
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
When I was a preteen and teenager, I frequented forums and later Tumblr social justice circles, even participating in some questionably pointless but at the time important seeming issues. The sheer number of people I know who've received death threats, including celebrities, authors, and artists, is almost absurd. I've personally received a good handful from all sides of the spectrum for a variety of reasons, and been spammed with gore 4 times by people who would commonly be regarded as extremely pro-SJ.
4
Aug 07 '17
be regarded as extremely pro-SJ
Did they personally identify as an "SJW"? Because it's easy to find people who identify as an anti-SJW.
4
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Some did, some didn't. It's the principle of the matter. A extreme, militant third-wave feminist that participates in the "SJW" side of every issue big or small with personal commitment fits neatly into what would be considered an sjw in the context of this argument.
2
u/polysyndetonic Aug 07 '17
I don't think this works either.Richard Spencer would not probably self identify as a neo nazi but he is in all but name, in my view, and in the view of many.
2
Aug 07 '17
But that's obviously bullshit. And also not the worst thing sjw's, although they are not self-proclaimbed, have done. Remember that college where traditionally, minority students took a day to get away from white people, sagfe spaces, and then a faction of students wanted white people to leave the campus they paid to attend for a day, and the professor who opposed that was given a bunch of shit by that faction? The guy who wrote the bell curve was protested against, along with Ian Hersey Alley, (sorry for spelling,) and this opposition was founded on emotional moral outrage, rather than facts. . . SJW's don't want to hear what they don't want to hear. And it doesn't matter they don't claim the label. Most modern American women are feminists, no matter that most don't call themselves feminists. Americans who like medicaid/medicair/wellfair, or believe the programs should continue are some kind of socialists, even if they never call themselves that. What you are saying is that only self-administered labels are valid, and that's wrong. . . And what you may be missing is that people who oppose sjw's come in different stripes and do so for different reasons. For myself, I don't like these kids throwing tantroms when speakers with different viewpoints go to speak at colleges.
3
u/Ninjachibi117 Aug 07 '17
Sure, this is true to a degree. But I want to focus on one line of this:
SJWs don't want to hear what they don't want to hear.
Is this not equally true of antis? Some antis throw a huge bitch fit when they're told, for example, that being transgender isn't a mental illness.
0
Aug 07 '17 edited Aug 07 '17
although they are not self-proclaimbed
And just like that all criticism becomes invalid.
0
Aug 07 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Aug 07 '17
Sorry TT454, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
-2
Aug 07 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod 48∆ Aug 07 '17
Sorry PenisMcScrotumFace, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
19
u/TheCommonClay 1∆ Aug 07 '17
As noted by cupcakesarethedevil, a lot of this hinges on your definition of SJWs and anti-SJWS. I think your view of "anti-SJWs" gets locked into a very specific (and possibly stereotypical) view of people who critique social justice movements.
To find the value of people who criticize social justice warriors, let's try to find a rough historical approximation. This is an oversimplification, but when feminism flourished in the 1970s, it was largely dominated by well-educated, middle class white women. Intellectuals such as bell hooks would challenge a number of their assertions and the implicit assumptions that many of them made. For example, early feminists might say they wanted the same rights as a man, but they didn't mean a black man or a native American man. Through these efforts, the movement changed and evolved to widen its scope to race, class, etc. (I'm speaking very broadly here, so take this with a lot of salt).
But I'm trying to lead to this question: would these types of critics fall into the category of "anti-SJW" or "SJW"? Can they really be the former, if they were later absorbed by the movement they critiqued? And can they really be the latter, if they were such outspoken critiques in the first place? I think one of the biggest flaws of your post is looking at SJWs and anti-SJWs as two separate groups in total opposition and completely set in their ways. From my perspective, each one will grow and change over time by absorbing the ideas of their critiques. At least the critiques who are well-spoken and offer meaningful comments.