Support NeoGAF

[Boylamite]

Congratulations for proving my point.

You must be a lot of fun just preaching and getting angry at people who hold an "ignorant" opinion because of their upbringing. A lot of people genuinely need to be educated, acting like this helps nobody. It just makes them go "fuck this guys a dick, but it sure is funny seeing how upset he is getting". Just going in calling people ignorant isn't going to help anything. But whatever.

Your mother should have educated you, not me.
And honestly, the majority of time I see 'SJW' used is when someone shitty says something shitty, and a reasonable person reacts in disgust.

It's quite hilarious to shame someone for advocating basic human rights and decency.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[cartographer]

During the gamergate days I'd also dismiss anyone using that term.

Today I'm more careful and try to discern where they are coming from before making any judgment.

There's a fringe of the left that does fit into the caricature such as the evergreen college protesters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cMYfxOFBBM
If someone needs to label them and uses SJW then I think that's reasonable. Even though its a terrible term (as many have said, by definition there should be nothing wrong with being a social justice warrior) language is a fluid thing and most people understand what you're saying when the term is brought up. And provided there's some context you can find out if the person who used SJW is an Alt-Righter or someone on the left referring to extremists.

This is still the "gamergate days." They are still harassing people. They largely rallied behind a white supremacist and helped elect him president of the US.

The Evergreen stuff is merely one story of a continued campaign to present things in a disingenuous manner in an attempt to slowly influence people. And it's worked on you a little, as you find the use of the term reasonable in certain circumstances even though you know the shitty viewpoints it represents.

They consider you a success, even if a small one.

 

[uncelestial]

"Virtue signalling" I agree happens, but I think of it terms of a liberal criticism of "allies" who aren't actually helping anyone but themselves. For example: white feminisits who never lift a finger for women of color or trans women but make a big stink about their feminist beliefs to get internet points.

But I don't need the term the alt-right uses, because their point is to project their own lack of empathy onto everyone and cast a cynical eye on everything that is done in the name of social progress. So fuck the term "virtue signalling."

Just to clarify, my comment about "internet points" is not agreeing with the alt-right canard that nobody speaks up about social issues except to get kudos. The white feminisits I'm talking about are 100% sincere in what they believe, it's just that they jump to the part where they're preaching solidarity while actually doing very little to help anyone else. No self-examination has occurred, and they have huge blind spots, but are publicly acting very self-righteous. Eh, hope I'm making sense...

 

[Mahonay]

They're probably garbage.

.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

As a SJW, I don't give a shit about the panties of right-leaning people curling in a bunch because I get slightly pissed at their ignorance and usual concern trolling.

Seriously. Fuck them.

 

[Razorback]

This is still the "gamergate days." They are still harassing people. They largely rallied behind a white supremacist and helped elect him president of the US.

The Evergreen stuff is merely one story of a continued campaign to present things in a disingenuous manner in an attempt to slowly influence people. And it's worked on you a little, as you find the use of the term reasonable in certain circumstances even though you know the shitty viewpoints it represents.

They consider you a success, even if a small one.

I didn't say I use the term, only that I try to discern context before dismissing someone who does say it.

 

[The Albatross]

The overwhelming majority of the time it's used by someone who is an idiot and using it in an idiotic way, to describe anybody that they disagree with.

So if I hear someone I don't know use the phrase, I'm likely to think that they're an idiot.

Like someone else mentioned, the phrase has been beaten to a pulp with overuse, similar to 'political correctness' a generation ago, and so it's come to mean "someone I disagree with, but I'm not smart enough to explain why I disagree with them."

 

[psyfi]

I just think of gamer gaters. Which is not a good thing.

 

[cartographer]

I didn't say I use the term, only that I try to discern context before dismissing someone who does say it.

No, you said you find the use of the term from others in that instance reasonable. Which is normalizing the use of it. Despite you seemingly understanding the garbage opinions that term represents.

All it means is that their framing of the Evergreen story worked on you, at least in a small way.

 

[Mahonay]

I just think of gamer gaters. Which is not a good thing.

Well the term did get popularized during that shit.

 

[Razorback]

No, you said you find the use of the term from others in that instance reasonable. Which is normalizing the use of it. Despite you seemingly understanding the garbage opinions that term represents.

All it means is that their framing of the Evergreen story worked on you, at least in a small way.

What framing? You think Vice is a right wing?

 

[Mahonay]

What framing? You think Vice is a right wing?

Vice can be weird sometimes.

One of their original founders, Gavin McInnes, is after all an outspoken misogynist and white supremacist. He's not been with them for a long time, but it's something that I have trouble ignoring.

 

[sephi22]

I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal and I use the term unironically to refer to the crazies like the Hula Hoop Lyft girl.

I'm no gator or MRA, but I do think there are certain people that the term can be applied to. Social justice is a cause worth championing, but when you go too far into the rabbit hole and start calling yoga cultural appropriation, or a dad joke sexual harassment like the Hugh Mungus situation, I feel like the term is apt. Doesn't fit many gaffers, but can be applied to a few Tumblr users for sure.

I make the same distinction between rational liberals vs SJWs, as fans vs fanboys, or religious people vs fanatics/extemists. It's a pretty good term that has unfortunately been beaten to death by right-wingers/gamergators by referring to any centrist or liberal as SJW.

I know this puts me at odds with most of this thread, and some of you think I'm garbage, but oh well. Can't win everything.

 

[cartographer]

What framing? You think Vice is a right wing?

The entire story was popularized and pushed by right wing sources leading to more mainstream outlets to cover a story in a way that was far more outrageous than reality. Vice does not have to be Breitbart for this to have an effect.

See: CNN helping normalize right wing views in election coverage despite not being right wing themselves.

Finding portions of their behavior and attacks "reasonable" in some circumstances is just them making in roads. It's a step on the way to treating them as legitimate.

 

[The Albatross]

No, you said you find the use of the term from others in that instance reasonable. Which is normalizing the use of it. Despite you seemingly understanding the garbage opinions that term represents.

All it means is that their framing of the Evergreen story worked on you, at least in a small way.

I think the video that other poster shared was from Vice, which isn't typically considered a weapon of the alt-right, and so I don't know why Vice would want to frame the Evergreen story in a way to try to "turn someone into a success story" or what have you.

It's a dangerous idea to be presented with something that might add nuance to your perspective, however small, and then decide that it's just "them" trying to work on you in a small way and "they consider you a success." You usually see this concept (that anything other than ideological purity is a trick or conspiracy by the opposition) from far right, climate deniers, or religious zealots.

 

[Hybris]

It is a dead acronym to me. Co-opted and turned into something to stifle all dissent. It had its uses early on especially when you read something ridiculous on tumblr but now its like wanting pay equity, these damn sjw's etc. I don't know anyone who uses it in a real sense anymore aside from those on the far right.

I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal and I use the term unironically to refer to the crazies like the Hula Hoop Lyft girl.

I'm no gator or MRA, but I do think there are certain people that the term can be applied to. Social justice is a cause worth championing, but when you go too far into the rabbit hole and start calling yoga cultural appropriation, or a dad joke sexual harassment like the Hugh Mungus situation, I feel like the term is apt. Doesn't fit many gaffers, but can be applied to a few Tumblr users for sure.

I make the same distinction between rational liberals vs SJWs, as fans vs fanboys, or religious people vs fanatics/extemists. It's a pretty good term that has unfortunately been beaten to death by right-wingers/gamergators by referring to any centrist or liberal as SJW.

I know this puts me at odds with most of this thread, and some of you think I'm garbage, but oh well. Can't win everything.

Spot on.

I've always thought the term to be sort of sarcastic when describing people so far gone that they have actually become the nutjobs that conservatives envision when they use the term. The acronym has lost all meaning and is now useless. It's not worth using because the intent is almost certainly going to be lost no matter who you are talking to.

 

[cartographer]

I think the video that other poster shared was from Vice, which isn't typically considered a weapon of the alt-right, and so I don't know why Vice would want to frame the Evergreen story in a way to try to "turn someone into a success story" or what have you.

It's a dangerous idea to be presented with something that might add nuance to your perspective, however small, and then decide that it's just "them" trying to work on you in a small way and "they consider you a success." You usually see this concept (that anything other than ideological purity is a trick by the opposition) from far right, climate deniers, or religious zealots.

This isn't a purity test. I'm not condemning him. I'm offering my view on how the Evergreen story worked itss way through media.

 

[gutter_trash]

I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal and I use the term unironically to refer to the crazies like the Hula Hoop Lyft girl.

I'm no gator or MRA, but I do think there are certain people that the term can be applied to. Social justice is a cause worth championing, but when you go too far into the rabbit hole and start calling yoga cultural appropriation, or a dad joke sexual harassment like the Hugh Mungus situation, I feel like the term is apt. Doesn't fit many gaffers, but can be applied to a few Tumblr users for sure.

I make the same distinction between rational liberals vs SJWs, as fans vs fanboys, or religious people vs fanatics/extemists. It's a pretty good term that has unfortunately been beaten to death by right-wingers/gamergators by referring to any centrist or liberal as SJW.

I know this puts me at odds with most of this thread, and some of you think I'm garbage, but oh well. Can't win everything.

I agree with you on Hugh Mungus, there is a minority in the SWJ side that fishes and baits for reactions to go off ape shit just like in the Hugh Mungus incident

 

[Razorback]

The entire story was popularized and pushed by right wing sources leading to more mainstream outlets to cover a story in a way that was far more outrageous than reality. Vice does not have to be Breitbart for this to have an effect.

See: CNN helping normalize right wing views in election coverage despite not being right wing themselves.

Finding portions of their behavior and attacks "reasonable" in some circumstances is just them making in roads. It's a step on the way to treating them as legitimate.

So we can never point out flaws on our side because the other side might use it as fuel to legitimizing their cause?

 

[spiderman123]

I have always wondered where the term came about. I have never used it but from what I've heard when people use it on you tube, it seems to tither on the boundary of being a derogatory connotation and people passing it off as a sort of politically correct term.

 

[cartographer]

So we can never point out flaws on our side because the other side might use it as fuel to legitimizing their cause?

I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I said you should not find flaws with the Evergreen story either. I believe my discussion related to finding the use of the term reasonable in that context and how that related to the story.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I don't think of them as inherently bad people, but I anticipate that anyone who says SJW unironically may be a bad person.

 

[chadtwo]

How is that the obvious read though

And it appears to not be what he meant, anyway. Speaking of which



I'm unsure why you immediately went to censorship here. Is it because you're a content creator yourself?

Why would bigots/sexists/homophobes/generally insecure young men calling people "SJWs" lead to you being worried about people banning/removing questionable media from view?



Both sides!

we got both sides here!

It's the obvious read because the construction "at the expense of X" pretty much exclusively necessitates that X denote something positive -- that's what makes it an expense. He/she is saying you lose something of (in this case societal) value. Are you unfamiliar with the expression?

You're going to have to enlighten me as to how that's not what he/she meant, too.

At any rate, so that this post contains at least some relevancy to the discussion at hand, I maintain that "SJW" as a pejorative expression is completely devoid of argumentative merit and serves pretty much exclusively to dismiss (without justification) any appeal to socially progressive ideals without having to seriously confront them. All I presume to know of anyone who uses the term is that they likely belong to the same political cohort that got Trump elected, and have, like most voters, probably not critically thought about the key issues that invoke accusations of being an "SJW."

 

[Oppo]

Vice can be weird sometimes.

One of their original founders, Gavin McInnes, is after all an outspoken misogynist and white supremacist. He's not been with them for a long time, but it's something that I have trouble ignoring.

This is.. a weird phrasing, no?

Anyways, not sure where you got your info, he left Vice in 2008, almost 10 years ago, so rest easy. He's also barely Canadian, having grown up here but born in the UK and currently lives in NYC I think. He's a weirdo. Married a first nations woman, then turned catholic (previously atheist). Guy's got issues.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It's the obvious read because the construction "at the expense of X" pretty much exclusively necessitates that X denote something positive -- that's what makes it an expense. He/she is saying you lose something of (in this case societal) value. Are you unfamiliar with the expression?

You're going to have to enlighten me as to how that's not what he/she meant, too.

What

 

[chadtwo]

What

What are you still hung up on, it's really not too difficult.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I'm not hung up on anything. The conversation continued without you just fine.

Basically: nevermind, man. We kept talking while you were out.

 

[Glass Shark]

It's a great shorthand to let me know whose opinions not to listen to.

 

[Razorback]

I don't believe I said that. I don't believe I said you should not find flaws with the Evergreen story either. I believe my discussion related to finding the use of the term reasonable in that context and how that related to the story.

Fair enough. I'm still having a bit of trouble with your statement that the story worked on me and made me a success story like I was a victim of propaganda.

Is the story inaccurate? I'm open to a fairer interpretation if you have one.

 

[chadtwo]

I'm not hung up on anything. The conversation continued without you just fine.

Basically: nevermind, man. We kept talking while you were out.

I'm well aware. By my count it's been four or five pages, and that's why I responded on-topic after replying to you moments ago. But as long as you keep responding to me I'm going to keep replying. That hardly seems unreasonable.

But, nevermind it is.

 

[How About No]

If I hear it in IRL I'd just have a huge painful grin and unbreaking eye contact until they stopped talking

 

[Mahonay]

This is.. a weird phrasing, no?

Anyways, not sure where you got your info, he left Vice in 2008, almost 10 years ago, so rest easy. He's also barely Canadian, having grown up here but born in the UK and currently lives in NYC I think. He's a weirdo. Married a first nations woman, then turned catholic (previously atheist). Guy's got issues.

As a New Yorker I've read/seen a lot on him. Yes, he is definitely a disturbed, fucked up person who is attempting to build his own little following with his group "Proud Boys", an effort to make racism/bigotry/misogyny hipster-cool. Shit scares me. Wish he would fuck off and leave.

 

[sephi22]

I agree with you on Hugh Mungus, there is a minority in the SWJ side that fishes and baits for reactions to go off ape shit just like in the Hugh Mungus incident

The minority is the SJW side. Atleast that's the way I use the term. I don't use the term for great causes like BLM or the Women's march. Another example is the lady that berated that white kid in college for rocking dreads.

 

[Moze]

I don't like using it but there are definitely alot of insincere white people who spend their time online 'virtue signalling'. 'SJW' is a term i associate with those people. There are also alot of them that want to argue about things. They like confrontation about these things.

 

[cartographer]

Fair enough. I'm still having a bit of trouble with your statement that the story worked on me and made me a success story like I was a victim of propaganda.

Is the story inaccurate? I'm open to a fairer interpretation if you have one.

I dont think you're a victim. I think we're all influenced by media coverage in various ways and various degrees. I don't think that necessarily says anything negative about us.

But I do believe the way this story was pushed and covered, especially on a national scale, was heavily influenced by right wing media and subsequent coverage was handled with that in mind and treated as the base.

 

[Oppo]

I'm not hung up on anything. The conversation continued without you just fine.

Basically: nevermind, man. We kept talking while you were out.

jesus Bobby it was six minutes

 

[chadtwo]

jesus Bobby it was six minutes

In fairness he's talking about a reply he made to one of my posts from several pages ago.

 

[The Jazz Cabbage Master]

I typically engage them in conversation. It usually shows me that my preconceived notions were incorrect.

 

[chadtwo]

I typically engage them in conversation. It usually shows me that my preconceived notions were incorrect.

Could you elaborate here?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

There are pages beyond the ones we are posting on, Nerf. VAST WORLDS of disposable text scrolling backwards and forward as people traverse their individual paths...

(seriously tho, thanks for the clarification, Chad)

 

[excelsiorlef]

Immediate disqualification as someone worth listening to.

 

[chadtwo]

You're welcome, Bobby.

 

[Mahonay]

I typically engage them in conversation. It usually shows me that my preconceived notions were incorrect.

What

Immediate disqualification as someone worth listening to.

Yes. This.

 

[LordKasual]

it immediately informs me that the person i'm about to engage with is far too invested for me to get any useful experience out of a real conversation with them.

But to be fair, I recently have developed waning interest in engaging with people who are immediately infuriated by the term, either. For the same reason.

 

[Oppo]

/hattip Bob, sorry for confusion

Immediate disqualification as someone worth listening to.

doesn't this mean, though, that you are assuming a stance whereby you are actually admitting you have no interest in moving the needle on these issues, preferring to simply attack?

I'm actually ok with this stance but one does sort of have to admit that they're essentially engaging in a slightly masturbatory pummeling of obviously-bad ideas from a mostly-safe vantage. If you write off anyone who uses "SJW" then you are simply not even trying to convince anyone, you just want a fight (with assholes, most of whom I do not believe you can help, but some you can, imo).

 

[Jangowuzhere]

I've said this in the past, and I'll say it again. I'm a liberal and I use the term unironically to refer to the crazies like the Hula Hoop Lyft girl.

I'm no gator or MRA, but I do think there are certain people that the term can be applied to. Social justice is a cause worth championing, but when you go too far into the rabbit hole and start calling yoga cultural appropriation, or a dad joke sexual harassment like the Hugh Mungus situation, I feel like the term is apt. Doesn't fit many gaffers, but can be applied to a few Tumblr users for sure.

I make the same distinction between rational liberals vs SJWs, as fans vs fanboys, or religious people vs fanatics/extemists. It's a pretty good term that has unfortunately been beaten to death by right-wingers/gamergators by referring to any centrist or liberal as SJW.

I know this puts me at odds with most of this thread, and some of you think I'm garbage, but oh well. Can't win everything.

I feel like you can call out these people out without resorting to a worn out and shitty label.

Even if you did end up using it "correctly," you would still look like a complete doofus in my eyes. It's not so much the hate of the term that gets me these days, it's overuse as an insult is just so damn laughable.

Not quite the same thing, but the pejorative "noob" is no longer in style these days. Using that term these days only makes you look lamer than the person you would attempt to insult with it.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

It's one of those "insults" that's supposed to be more hurtful than it actually is. Anybody who uses it unironically is just a moron.

 

[TatteredHat]

Depends on the context, but 90% of the time the context is them just being rather insufferable.

 

[excelsiorlef]

/hattip Bob, sorry for confusion



doesn't this mean, though, that you are assuming a stance whereby you are actually admitting you have no interest in moving the needle on these issues, preferring to simply attack?

I'm actually ok with this stance but one does sort of have to admit that they're essentially engaging in a slightly masturbatory pummeling of obviously-bad ideas from a mostly-safe vantage. If you write off anyone who uses "SJW" then you are simply not even trying to convince anyone, you just want a fight (with assholes, most of whom I do not believe you can help, but some you can, imo).

Who said anything about attack.

They're the ones attacking via invocation of the term.

Listening too as in beliving they are arguing in good faith or have general views worth respecting. None of my post implies tactics in a debate... though my time on this planet is limited so I'm less inclined to spend much of it trying to debate people who use SJW in earnest

 

[Lesath]

People who have a persecution complex who go trawling through the deepest recesses of tumblr looking for the most extreme examples to point at and go "There you go, see? I'm being oppressed!"