Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
How do you feel about that?
Honestly, this is fairly weird thing, isn't it?
seems a bit harsh to pick out two posters to scold for potentially expressing theirs, -dan-
the people who get picked out most and discouraged from expressing our opinions are me and gb
fair, you're a DiS legend and you must be feeling left out
Every time i see someone checking someones privelege on the internet they get called a white knight
used by all sorts to mean "someone who is implying I should do better, and I don't like it"
hence before all this amazing #gamergate bullshit it seemed mainly to be used by Dawkins, and New Statesman columnist types
to being called out on intersectionality, etc.
but I think you're underestimating it's use amongst MRA types, right wing bloggers and the like. In comparison, it's a drop in the ocean.
seems that TERFs are also starting to use it, which is pretty amazing when you think about it.
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
the other day. It's a very similar insult: saying that you don't really believe in the thing you're arguing for.
but often, yes, agreed
" They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. "
dismissing people as "just going for x points" is a very DiS thing to do
Like how social media should automatically be a Good Thing because it's a nice easy way of keeping in touch with people but in actual fact it's got a pretty bad rep because it's mostly people chucking buckets of water over themselves and Alan Sugar being obnoxious.
Similarly social justice warrior should be a good thing, but through experience everyone knows it's usually a Guardian-reading blowhard who wants to prove their righteous indignation is more righteous and indignant than yours.
No internet talent becomes a legend on their own. Every man's heart one day beats its final beat. His lungs breathe a final breath. And if what that man did in his life makes the blood pulse through the body of others and makes them bleed deeper and something larger than life then his essence, his spirit, will be immortalized. By the story tellers, by the loyalty, by the memory of those who honor him and make the running the man did live forever. You, you, you, you, you, you are the legend markers of Social Justice Warrior. In the back I see many potential legends. Some of them with warrior spirits. And you will do the same for them. You will decide if they lived with the passion and intensity. So much so that you will tell your stories and you will make them legends, as well. Social Justice. You are the Social Justice Warrior fans. And the spirit of the Social Justice Warrior will run forever!
I'm already sick of it.
is that it says much more about the person flinging it around than it does the person it's directed at.
It's been in use for well over a decade now, even if it's been popularised in the last couple of weeks by misogynist gamer types in their defences of their behavior.
It's something that might exist, but the fact that the accusation is thrown around so readily just illustrates how defensive and unwilling to engage people become when they're shown to be prejudiced. It also displays a narrow, bitter opinion of humanity and an extreme self delusion to think that people don't genuinely want a better world.
If it existed at the time it's an accusation that would have been flung at men who argued that women should get the vote and white people who campaigned for civil rights.
this would be the definitive line on the matter
because... she shagged a dude whose game she didn't actually review, or something?
then they got arsey when people said they shouldn't have done that
Basically they saw this as some kind of smoking gun to prove the whole gaming media is in the pocket of the industry, despite said dev being a barely known indie type and her game being available free. Also, yeah, the journalist never wrote a review for it.
Then they did a bunch of cruel misogynistic stuff in the name of justice. Or something.
(ie the internet/America)
of these idiots.
ah no, they have.
the journalist was consistently calling the world of video games out for its rampant misogyny and these people couldn't handle their precious hobby being criticised. so they dealt with it by... being even more hateful towards women than usual. *slow clap*
imagine being a self-identifying "gamer", and being so thin-skinned about it, lol
although sadly both involved people being driven from their homes, Anita Sarkeesians supposed crimes were talking about the misrepresentation of female characters in games.
Whilst Zoe Quinn supposed slept with members of the gaming community to get her (free) game better coverage, something which was comprehensively dismissed by kontaku
Also the former has lead to the creation of this fan funded documentary
"Anita Sarkeesians supposed crimes were talking about the misrepresentation of female characters in games"
Yeah, that is why she has been subjected to the repugnant abuse. There have also been some reasonable criticisms made about her project, although they often overstate their significance to the underlying points Anita is making.
if more people responded to Anita like this
rather than using death or rape threats this wouldn't be an issue.
Worth remembering that the bald guy of the pairing had a video up until recently where he explained 'Why blacks fail' (that was actually the title of the piece) which was a huge racist rant, couched in the sort of 'I admire blacks, they can do things I could never do' language that you associate with slave times. It's been removed due to YouTube's hate speech rules, thankfully.
yet moan when politicians just say what they think you want to hear.
"ideological" is only used as a pejorative when the thing which is actually ideologically driven is sold to everyone as something else - ie austerity being sold as fiscally essential when it's actually about fucking over poor people cos that's what your party's ideology is
rather than the "social justice"
someone's probably said this, but im a very important man
you should probably peruse this and try to get through some of the accompanying video:
I'd be interested to know how you think you can effect social justice in an unjust society without being perceived as a 'warrior' by those who don't notice society is really unjust, tbh.
im talking about why "social justice warrior" is an insult - the warrior bit. dont think "social justice activist" is an insult. the very same person, acting in the same way, would be classified as one by reactionaries and the other by progressives
my eyes bled for hours.
also the smoking gin guy in the video just had one of his other videos taken off youtube because it was promoting racial hate. lovely!
I don't think there's anything too much wrong with being passionate and forthright about injustice, but you are inevitably inviting confrontation if you approach debates with that mindset. And you can definitely cross a line in such a way that it becomes a counter-productive way of debating things that does more harm than good.
it's really not policing to say I think something is counter-productive. That's just as a moronic as 'thought-police' or 'we can't even say Moslem anymore' shite. You can all say what you want. Please do.
I used to quibble over tone. As Theo says, that's not something that's possible to keep moderate and light-hearted if you're up against a wall of tradition-led indifference. Sometimes shouting makes people actually stop and reconsider because, hey, why is someone *this* angry about something I don't worry about as much? etc
BUT in my eyes SJW is more the people who keep looking at the camera while they're giving that impassioned speech. It's those people wielding passion for image and self-aggrandising backslap.
But equally, there are times it's not. If you're shouting about everything all the time, as some people I know do, you're just going to piss everyone off and look like a bellend, even if you're sometimes making valid points.
tbh though, we all have bad days. And when someone less shouty has a bad day, they shout, and people go 'calm down'.
But when someone often shouty has a bad day, they tend to unfortunately shout about something they really shouldn't be, and then it tars the rest of their (justified) frustration with an element of bitterness.
leads you to the 'pick up the gun' scenario though. The individuals setting the terms of the discussion - in the whole Zoe Quinn thing for example, these were the people distributing her personal documents and conversations - can claim to be acting in the name of openness and neutrality, ignoring the fact that what they're doing is massively harmful to individuals (as well as, you know, gender relations in general).
Don't you expect people to get angry under those circumstances? I'm a million miles from the whole thing and it still gets me fuming. Confrontation is invited by bringing the discussion to the table, not by the people who respond to it.
I think it's absolutely fine to be angry about a lot of things. I get angry about things. But I know if I start standing up for something I believe passionately in, and use emotive language, I'm going to enter into a confrontational debate, whether I want to or not, because in doing so, you're challenging people's values in quite an aggressive way. When I do it, I like to think I'm doing it with good reason.
Whilst I think that's fine, you can definitely cross a line and just become an arsehole. I've probably done that a few times too.
what you're saying does not apply in these circumstances. The post you're replying is about 'warrior' as a pejorative term that's designed to suggest that the person in question is picking a fight for no reason, when in fact they're really fucking angry at what's happening.
If your point is, in fact, that it is bad to pick fights from the off for no reason, then, well, *shrug*
until a few moments ago when I read up on gamergate. Obviously that's unrelated to the things I'm talking about, and is rank. If 'social justice warrior' as a term is indelibly linked to that kind of thinking, then yeah, it's a load of shite.
incredibly sparingly during the most obvious times that the "They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return."
But now completely null and void because utter cretins use it to defend themselves when anyone disagrees with bigoted commentary.
cause it's used to disparage the reason someone holds an opinion, which is, like, pretty impossible to prove?
it's not a term used to pick out something agreed upon in the world, it's a term used to say "this person's opinions are invalid and bad". So I don't think there's even an idea case where *real* SJWs are correctly picked out? I don't think that's a possible thing?
But then again, there are definitely points (although i'd not bother to call them out as it's a pointless effort anyways) when I can think of people reflexively backing up someone's opinions for a lack of their own considered worldview.
But yes, you're right. You should do your post about analogies btw.
Can we have examples of it happening? For extra points (whaaaay) find an example of it that supports (or at least doesn't contradict) your own point of view in the discussion.
"refugee" and "asylum seeker" became exclusively pejorative terms in the '90s. And that was through the mainstream media (and government) rather than social media.
Ha ha, this prick’s been tortured and is seeking a better life for his family! What a fucking liability!
odd, it's exactly the same thing in my mind as the use of 'political correctness' as a pejorative term
social justice & political correctness are obviously things that as a society we ought to be making our goals but that means the privileged need to readjust their position and behaviour and for a lot of them their only way to defend themselves is to appeal to other privileged to join forces - hence the absurdity of these terms being pejorative; they're used as a call to arms by the idiots
to mean what people on the right mean by 'the race card'
used by reddit and 4chan types to put down anyone that calls them out for being misogynists or racists and validate themselves (i.e. 'what i said was fine, they're just a sjw so must have a problem with everything')
used by members of the 'men's rights' movement and 'anti-feminist's to dismiss views that go against their own
#gamergate is awful
really bad taste in the mouth :-\
is...I don't even know.
unfortunately it takes up a really sizeable part of the internet
that anywhere on the internet that becomes popular where speech is truly free and unregulated eventually turns into a hateful bile-drenched everlasting clusterfuck.
Fuckin' people, man.
If anyone calls you a SJW just retort with Mail-Reader
I think the thing I see a huge problem is that the intellectuals (pseudo- and otherwise) have assigned Twitter with the role of the forum for all this sorta debate.
The enforced brevity of communications turns everything into just yelping your summarised, watered down soundbite of a viewpoint; someone else yelping back their watered down soundbite of a rebuttal and so on, until we have a (ffs) "Twitter storm", which hack journalists will leap to report on, in a pathetic attempt to demonstrate how relevant their worried medium is.
If you're into social justice / feminism / identity politics / anything and you're trying to express your world view in a pithy sentence or two and a hashtag; there's a fair chance that you'll look totally one-sided and a bit of an idiot.
If you're someone who takes issue with that; and does so in a pithy sentence or two and a hashtag; there's a fair chance again that you'll look totally one-sided and a bit of an idiot.
If arguments then boil down to exchanges of the same repeated words and easily-digestible, miniature-form ideas and concepts and criticisms; then everyone'll just look like one-sided idiots bleating at one another until the merciful release of exceeded bandwidth.
Aaand, if you're a hacky journalist with a particular agenda to apply to your simple-minded, easily-digestible, shit clickbait for twats; then you pretty much have free reign over who gets to look like the biggest, most one-sided idiot.
Or something, I dunno.
Just don't express your political / social views with .gifs. Come on.
can pretty generally shit right off up a funnel though.
most 'social justice' types will also write blogposts of varying eloquence and perspicacity, whereas their inquisitors will usually stick to social media where their intellectual deficiencies won't be so stark
sadly, yeah, the hacky journalists (redundant mediators) won't usually go for the blogposts and you'll have to find them yourself (or be linked to them via social media)
as someone with an apparent total inability to stick to a concrete yes-this-is-my-position on a lot of subjects, I keep finding myself irked a bit by the effect that social media and instant near-enough-direct communication has had on this sort of things.
Hence why I tend to end with or something on these things. Or something.
I sometimes wish my brain could stop rushing about like a mad rumination-horse when I get to thinking seriously about stuff; but I don't even know if I think it's a total character flaw either.
is a superpower that you must always cherish
Having more time to express themselves does not do much to avoid the general problem you describe.
probably because it's a bit ablest/classist - not everyone needs to justify their views with an essay to appease you
it doesn't necessarily make their views any more valid
people like catlin moran (managed to use twitter to alienate and prove she doesn't care about poc, the disabled, sex workers and victims of abuse and assault) are the problem here - not twitter
in general, i cba to put effort into arguing with people who have the facts staring them in the face and yet would rather live with their perceptions of things/admit that they were ever wrong because it would bruise their ego
it's nice that the 'social justice warriors' are trying to make this world a bit more inclusive and tolerable for women, transpeople, non-ablebodied people and poc - and i commend them for that because they're obviously not in the wrong for wanting to do that.
the fact that i've physical, neurological and learning disabilities means that i cba with self-editing too
things are often not worth the pain, time and stress
because the word justice, to me, implies morality, and I think that the social justice movement in general is more concerned with ethics than the kind of inherent rightness which morality suggests. It makes it sound kinda sententious and plays into the hands of people who like to dismiss everyone who is interested in equality as just doing it to make themselves look good etc.
The word justice ALSO implies a kind of 'us against them' outlook, a 'righting of wrongs' which includes blame and punishment. This doesn't accurately reflect what is actually being achieved, as the majority of causes the movement is concerned with are advanced through the spreading of information and encouraging people to change certain perceptions, for example in relation to trans issues and gender binary issues. Most of the people involved in social justice (predominantly straight, white and young) had no idea about trans issues until a few years ago, so it's obviously within their interests to educate people rather than 'out' them for being ignorant or attack them for being complicit in the perpetuation of inequality, which is what so many morons seem to think they do (the term 'feminazi' etc).
But yeah, I think it's brilliant that there is more discussion and engagement with inequality and under-representation, and I've learnt so much from it. There is stuff I would've said or done a couple of years ago without even thinking was problematic, whereas these days I understand how wrong or offensive it can be.
It's just a shame that the term 'social justice' doesn't represent the cause very well. It's also a kinda overused, blog buzzy cliche (and just quite American, in that irritating way), a bit like 'slut shaming' 'victim blaming' etc, which gets up my nose- obviously massively important subjects, and the titles are good for distilling the concepts down to twitter-size, but when I see them in journalism or blog posts it just feels like lazy writing.
hey, yer alright calumlynn