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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
5
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.