I get it's often being used as a pejorative. As is being PC.

I wanted to know from the point of view of those who are SWJ's or approve of whatever it is that makes them SJWs

As far as I can tell it is only used as a pejorative. Usually by conservative people as a way to denigrate someone who doesn't agree with their hate speech. Currently it's a pretty easy way to tell who is serious about having discussions versus who is just trolling, like people who spell Microsoft with a $ sign.

No Kerowo, what has become of liberalism is distasteful to many people. Just because you're a fringe lefty, it doesn't mean all opposition to you is fringe right.

This whole "alt-right" label in my opinion refers to people that are disenfranchised by what's become of the left wing, but don't fit in with the traditional right, either.

I never really had any interest in politics until people started calling W Bush hitler, I always thought that was outrageous

It seems like everyone of your posts includes hate speech!!

Chezlaw on the other hand...very Hitleresque.

More seriously, what do you mean by disenfranchised? They can't vote? Live in the US? Get jobs? Or just that they aren't allowed to post on some online forums in the way they want? And how do they not fit in with the traditional right?

Maybe disenfranchised was the wrong word?

I mean someone who agrees with liberal principles but can't relate to actual liberals.

Somebody Tristram Shandied himself trying to move the Overton window.

The Alt-right, coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer, is just your basic center-right movement. Sure thing.

You don't think there is a disagreement of principle between liberals and members of the alt right? That it is just a personality conflict?

10 PRINT "SJW"
20 GOTO 10

I recall some identifying with SJW as a good thing. Plus if it was just someone who didn't agree with hate speech then that would include far more of us.

Among other things it seems to require seeing polarisation with, and even hatred of, the people we disagree with as a good thing. That's not just an accusation coming from others.

Why wouldn't someone identify positively with it if they feel they are standing up to gamergate level idiocy from the right?

Chez, you've made a habit of supporting people who call other people SJWs, you are closer using the term seriously to accuse someone else of limiting speech than you are to call someone a racist. It's not difficult to figure out whyyou have problems understanding the term.

The polarization exists because of their views not their vocabulary.

Ok so people do at least sort of identify with being SJW. The question I'm asking is what are the necessary attributes to be an SWJ from the perspective of those who dont see it as a pejorative.


Clearly I oppose the polarisation and hatred, that's not in dispute.

Obviouuly its about views. We're talking about the view that polarization and even hatred of those with different views is a good thing. Does someone have to hold that view to be an SWJ?

I see it as freedom vs equality

So the alt right doesn't hold liberal principles then? They favor liberty and liberals favor equality?

are you saying liberty is right wing?

Only in the sense that people turn the tables on their tormentors by trying to own the names they are being called. See the Queer conversation in that Milo thread.

Too bad you don't oppose racism and bigotry.

What are you on about? I seriously don't understand what point you are trying to make? People don't self identify as SJWs until they are called SJWs. The person being called an SJW has little to do with being called an SJW. Why are you validating the people using the insult?

You described the alt right as people who agree with liberal principles but can't relate to actual liberals. Now you are saying it is about liberty and equality - presumably a difference of principle? That seems to contradict your earlier statement.

Scott Alexander waxes paranoically a couple years ago about a "special strain of social justice" which I think we can comfortably describe as the most horrifying definition of SJW:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07...s-words-words/

blah blah blah. how insulting can the term 'social justice warrior' possibly be? people being offended by every term that is used in a perjorative way is exhausting.

"Trump guy"
"Bible nutter"
etc etc etc

i was correcting myself and expanding on what I meant.

the way I see it, this new right wing is made up of many people who previously self identified as liberal, until the left wing became somewhat dominated by identity politics

i don't think this is a profoundly original statement, to be honest. Then again I noticed this stuff happening as early as 2003 or possibly earlier. I'm not sure.

Uh, you misunderstand what this thread is about. This isn't the thread to whine about being called 'SJW', and this isn't the thread to whine about peeps whining about being called 'SJW'. Or any other term for that matter. If you wanna chat about whining, start your own damn thread.

Uh, you do know that D.Sterling is a slumlord, correct? As a slumlord he has multiple convictions for not renting to minorities, renting unsafe buildings, harassing tenants, and such. Here's some info on that POS's day job. I really gotta wonder what possible sense of the word 'horrified' here which doesn't refer to D.Sterling actions.

But sure TYVM. We've just got ~29 new data points for 'SJW'. That's because we know exactly who fined, banned, and forced D.Sterling to sell at an all time record price. These 'SJW'-ers are...

That's totally untrue. Best we don't continue in this thread.

Shamey, not sure we can pin the term on the owners, who I'm sure knew he was a bad guy, or else why would they have waited for the twitter/press storm? They should have cut him out much sooner... but you're missing the point:

There's a lot more in the post about how racism, privilege, a lot of other words are defined differently from common usages by this "special strain of the social justice movement," conveniently used in different ways at different times (motte and bailey) never allowed to be used against them and so on.

I seem to recall having almost all these discussions with you, Shamey, lol.

How can we not. The quote you shared, which you characterized as 'the most horifying', said that D.Sterling was (a) fined, (b) banned, (c) bought out at an all time record price, (d,e,f,g,h) called a r-word-er. Well anyone can call that POS a r-word-er... freedom of speech donchaknow. But only his fellow owners can do (a,b,c). So I'm really at a loss. The claim is 'SJW'-ers did (a,b,c). The people who did (a,b,c) are his fellow owners. So his fellow owners are 'SJW'-ers /QED. WTF am I missing here ??

As for calling D.Sterling a r-word-er... I got two points to make about that.

First, he's a public figure, and AFAIK he doesn't post on 2+2. The usual complaints we hear around these parts are about "name calling" and "attacking the arguer not the argument". Neither of those apply to D.Sterling. So it's not really clear what the alleged problem even is.

Second, he's been convicted of several civil rights violations. Here's a good example... Isn't insisting that nobody call J.Sandusky a pedofile the exact same thing as insisting nobody call D.Sterling a r-word-er ??

I gotta disagree here.