I know math and science doesn't really fit into the SJW paradigm, but the Dallas Neurosurgeon murders could have been prevented much faster. I'm not sure what would do more justice for society than systematically protecting medical patients in vulnerable settings.

It seems one of the few words that goes along with social justice reliably is protection. Mutual protection is innovative again!


But hilariously, like as a lord who makes enemies without actually knowing them, the alts just balls out attack people specialized particularly in the area of protection. They believed the gossip and rumors the people are stupid. lol

So creationists and climate change deniers are SJWers too ??

At this point, it's only fair to ask, who isn't a SJWer?

How are SJWs preventing this?

I heard social justice commandos were alpha-striking health care all over at any time.

They aren't. I'm just saying there are other reasons to cry for help.

I might not understand what SJW means either.

Add'l: I triangulated a series of tweets with Mark Cuban, Bill Gates, and whoever operates the Warren Buffet account. I believe there is now hope that psychopathic doctors will be getting checked at the door.

What's so bad about social justice?

People think "PC Police runnin' amok!" when really all that's happening is people are doing or saying ****ty things and normal nice people are reacting to them. Then the "offenders" cry about getting shouted down and free speech without realizing that their complaints about free speech should also apply to the shouters, but that's too big a leap in logic for some, plus there's the whole thing about them being right or something. I dunno.

Anyway I prefer Social Justice Worker (SJW) because the true work of trying to improve the world is a slow burn. It's not a glorious affair where you get to swing a sword around. It's more of an every day, just doing different good things and not being ashamed of it thing. It's an interesting world that we live in.

Accepting the SJW term to me is kinda like accepting the Obamacare moniker instead of just always referring to it as the ACA. It is laden with negative connotation and at this point, no matter how good (or bad?) it is, people that were ever against it just have an automatic negative response to hearing it. It might be best to fight the label and find a new one.


Although queer is making a comeback and is being used in a positive manner recently, so maybe I'm wrong. I just think SJW is too tainted at this point.

Well, maybe we need to get to the root of the cause. What institutions in the United States are causing social justice to be an unpopular idea in the first place? What institutions benefit the most from that? And if we simply accept that "social justice" has a negative connotation, well we've already given up everything.

Yeah, when the idea of 'social' 'justice' starts triggering you to the Xtreme I think it's time for an are-we-the-baddies moment.

Grunching here.

-------------------------------------

There's a distinction between calling out people for being douchebags and being a SJW.

Chiding a person for dropping the n-word is the former while getting angry at somebody for not criticizing people who wear Native American costumes is being a SJW. When you police speech to that degree, you are basically taking away your own right to free speech. Since speech is an extension of our thoughts and opinions, attempts to police it are forms of thought control.

Unfortunately, most people who complain about SJWs don't think that way. They just want to hate black people and Muslims without people calling them *******s for doing it.

I equate SJWs as the same types of people who would interrupt a pharma chemists speech on how drugs work to go 'scorched earth' before being escorted out.

Let's see if I got this right.

Getting angry at someone for not criticizing a third party makes you a SJWer. What if such criticism isn't delivered with anger. For instance, "Damn it, criticize them as Radical Muslims, you MSM cucks !!!1!" makes that person a SJWer, while "It would be nice if the MSM would criticize Radical Muslims by name, but I'm not offended by their poor word choices, not in the least" would not ??

Also, the fool who was angry above would then loose his free speech rights !!!1! Really, you think the governments taking away our free speech rights is a good thing ??

SJW is tainted, but fine--it's a stupid, clunky abbreviation anyway.

I don't know if "social justice" is tainted, though.

I always want to post The Surprising Adventures of Sir Digby Chicken Caeser but the opportunities are limited comparatively.

Its not the terminology or the idea of social justice that annoys me. Social Justice sounds great on the surface.

Its the regressive polices that people adopt to try to achieve "social justice" that I take issue with. I believe they are taking us backwards not forward as a society. Maybe the term means different things to you than it does to me.

When I hear the term social justice I think of POC only safe space (as if safe spaces werent a stupid enough idea) and more importantly the stifling of free speech which in my opinion holds us back from advancing as a society.

How about a veterans only safe space?

To clarify here, when you say "free speech", you are chatting about something other than governmental violations of the USA#1 1stA, correct?

The thing is, whenever I'm confronted with an actual "safe space" policy, I'm almost always underwhelmed. At my uni here in England, there were "societies" for everything. All it meant was a few people formed a society as it granted them access to campus and student union facilities. There was a Conservative society, a Muslim society, a Reggae society, a Capoeira society, I personally ran the poker society. All these little pockets of students had their own "constitution" that governed their running and internal dealings, but all were to some greater or lesser degree "safe spaces" for those people. You couldn't go to the UKIP society and troll them with left wing politics, because they were there to talk about being idiot UKIPpers. You couldn't come to our poker games and preach that gambling was a sin. Security could kick you out for doing that ****. So when I hear about some small area of a large uni where some like minded folk can get together and talk about the issues that affect them personally I think, so ****ing what? That's what we all did, we just didn't call it that at the time.

Can you see the difference between having a veterans only safe space and a safe space that excludes those of certain races?

I am talking about stifling of free speech that involves people expressing different ideas political opinions as I believe free speech is what moves our society forwards. Nothing good has ever come of stiffing free speech and I would argue that offensive ideas in the past have actually shaped our society for the better.

No doubt some ideas are repugnant and the downside of free speech is that these views will be aired but the alternative is far worse. Show me a dictatorship or repressive regime that allowed free speech.

The problem is it starts out like that and devolves into something worse. The situations you described above are nothing like having a safe space that excludes people of certain races. That is us going backwards as a society..... and all under the harmless sounding name of "social justice"

Yes, of course.

I was asking you if you also had problems with spaces that excluded non-veterans. Care to answer?

By default here in Los Dos Politardia, we're talking about the regime we have right now here today in the good ole'USA#1. So given that context... I'll ask again... when you say "stifling free speech" are you talking governmental violation of the 1stA... or are you talking about something else entirely?

They are both fundamentally about people with shared experience and perhaps shared interests, being able to talk freely with one another, absent people without that shared experience.

Why do you feel (or maybe you don't) that e.g. a group of Somali immigrants studying in the UK shouldn't be able to assemble privately without a white native-born student being present?

If your answered yes to my question then you will know the answer to your own question.

I just described what I meant by the stifling of free speech.