Grunching, but, in regards to P it'd be hard to find an example that WASN'T about some manner of quasi-institutional/systemic racism.

Like, when somebody 'lets the veil slip' what results is a support of disenfranchisement, or derision about the mere notion of reparations, or some half-baked defense of slavery, or etc. I can't recall anything like, 'Oooo I hate those blacks so much, I walk around biting my thumb at them on the weekends.'

So again, I 'dispute that is not the most common usage' for more than 1 reason.

shots fired

Can a halt to the proceedings for a moment be made, and a slight backtrack to the train of defining the political spectrum? A graph or possibly Venn Diagrams of the respective political affiliations of groups is needed. Indeed, required to pigeon hole who is in, who is out, and who needs the most reforming to correct thinking practices and charitable giving. As an aside, it would also be interesting where the monarchists are pegged. Just for my own reference. I will already assumed that the bias will be towards what happens in the political forums here and the discussions on 2+2. Thanks.

It's not that easy.

Different peeps have different spectrums, circles, two-space, or who knows what else in their "secret inner" minds. Most of these newfangled terms directly indicate a spectrum, basically those terms containing the words 'left', 'right', 'near' and 'far'.

However, some other of these newfangled terms like 'SJW'-er do not directly imply a spectrum. I'm right with you here... I'd love to know if 'SJW'-ers are to the left or right of the 'Far Left'-ers, or if it is a superset, or a subset, or if they're overlapping sets, or whatever.

This is a DIY thread.

Don't expect to be spoon fed answers. Do you use any of these newfangled terms? If so... please share with us what you mean by them. If not, are you familiar with how they are used? If so... please share your suppositions on what the peeps who do use them might mean. Otherwise... you'll pretty much be able find out at the exact same time as the rest of us.

<--Dragons----really whiny SJWs----whiny SJWs----SJWs----utopian socialists----technoprogressives----center--Dragons--center----actual small government conservatives as legend tells it----spoiled selfish childen--lolbertarians--selfish spoiled children----United Oligarchies of America----Pv7.0----Dragons-->

If it means anything the SJW doesn't fit on your spectrum as far as I can see. Obviously most (all?) are on the left but there's nothign in principle to stop them being right wing in many respects.

It's about the methods they use, not the social values they hold.

Which would mean we have no SJWs on 2+2.

To my complete shock and amazement... it turns out the 'SJW'-ers got their own damn Wikipedia page, and have weaseled their way into at least one dictionaries. The English language weeps. Damn those 'SJW'-ers !!!1!

Before I share this distressing news, I'd like to make a few points. First, the amature Wikipedia editors aren't any more authoritative than successful novelists who write silly blogs on the side. Second, professional dictionary editors "give definitions". For our purposes ITT these "given definitions" are irrelevant. What is relevant is why they chose to "give" this or that definition.

At this point I think we can stick a fork in that novelist's silly blog post... 'cause it's done.

He was making up history when he claimed that 'SJW'-ers "forced" S.Ballmer to buy out the Sterlings at a over $1B premium. This is of course, absurd on the face. Believe me, I've seen folks call the Evil Carpetbagging Spanos family a whole lotta worse than r-word-ers... and this isn't only just anonymously spew on the interwebs... this is also actual IRL yelling and screaming. None of that is going to get those odious reprobates bought out, or to kick down $1B. LMFAO !!!1!. And... now it seems he was making up history regarding the 'SJW' term too.

Eh, the only voice so far claiming peeps who are calling others 'SJW'-ers are referring to methods, and not ideology, is that one silly blog post by a successful novelist. This is the same silly blog post which claimed these (so far mysterious) methods could IRL "force" the prima dona billionaires who own our major sports franchises to do this-or-that.

IMO, the fact that this blog post is mostly all silly fiction, goes to the credibility of the blogger's purported conjecture regarding what these 'SJW'-er calling peeps really mean. IMO, it sounds like he's projecting what he'd like these peeps to mean... or alternately, he's trying to put his words into their mouths.

Above we got another usage caught in the wild here on 2+2... this time from OOT. The poster is referring to 'SJW' as being a subset of 'feminism'. Once again, no reference to "nefarious means", or means at all.

I'm not sure why we care what those blog posts say. I'm trying to get at something that is distinctive and broadly captures something that could be called SWJ. Afaics it doesn't make any sense for it to be an ideology so we can move on from that.

We're coming from a somewhat different place because I'm not considering it as a pejorative. Like PC, I dont care where it originated from or why. What matters is whether there's some useful meaning and it at least seems like there are some distinctive characteristics of those who are called SWJs - obviously it's not goiing to nice and neat but that's true of all these lables.

edit to respond to your edit: Yes that could be seen as a distinction between feminists who are SJW's because of their methods (that includes methods for reaching conclusions) and feminists who aren't. For example I'm a feminist and I've been called many things but never an SJW.

This is that subtle point again.

The reason we care about what the peeps who use these newfangled terms really mean is that is what the thread is all about. Think of it as an oral history, or something.

The reason I'm going to ask you to start your own damn thread to chat about "something that is distinctive and broadly captures something that could be called SWJ" is that this kinda shiz isn't what this thread is about. I'm not saying a discussion regarding proactively engineering the language to reclaim the term 'SJW' wouldn't be an interesting conversation (if that's what you're getting at). I'm sure it would.

However, that's a topic that deserves it's own thread. In addition, combining a discussion about how things should be changed, with a discussion about how things are right now, as always a poor choice.

You've become quite cranky Shame Shame, I suggest beer.

Here's another take on the matter:

http://quillette.com/2016/12/01/the-...ded-new-world/
And here she points out something I've been saying awhile, "SJW's" and the Alt-Right feed off each other:

I dont want to mess up your thread but it's not about changing the meaning in the way you suggest. The aim is to identify a set of characterists whereby if those peeps you talk about pointed out all the people who they think are SJW's then they would broadly select the same group of people as defined by those characteristics.

Where I 'reclaim' it is that those peeps mean something derogatory by it when it seems to me that the people so identified are generally quite proud of having those characteristics so have no reason to mind being so identified, beyond it being meant as a pejorative. The analogy with being one of the PC brigade is pretty good in that respect.

Well, first we got another leadoff of pure fiction. Activism hasn't got "more radical". We are discussing real world USA... I think. Second that's not a new hot-take at all. In fact, I just posted that exact same hot-take above from 2011...

What this hot-take is doing is smearing the motives of those called 'SJW'-ers... and deflecting from discussing what these name-called peeps may or may not do. It's basically calling them a buncha hypocrites. What it is not doing... once again... is referencing the name-called peeps "nefarious methods", or any methods at all.

For someone requesting different points of view on this, Shamey, you don't seem too keen on hearing any of them.

[QUOTE=Shame Trolly !!!1!;51519065]

It's not that easy.

........snip..........

Don't expect to be spoon fed answers. Do you use any of these newfangled terms? If so... please share with us what you mean by them. If not, are you familiar with how they are used? If so... please share your suppositions on what the peeps who do use them might mean. Otherwise... you'll pretty much be able find out at the exact same time as the rest of us.[QUOTE]





That's why I wanted you to do it.



I do not use any of these newfangled terms. The terms seems to almost wrap around themselves.

But I think I can help if even in a small way. To following on your SJW posts, which I though done well, I think the concept is hitching a ride on what is known as Crusading Journalism. This throws things back some. [Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle, though a novel is something of an example]. So what has occurred is that through investigative/crusading journalism many things are exposed that get people to froth at the mouth - from both the traditional right and left. However the term SJW evolves it stems from that base. Thus I think many are correct to say that the term has no real specific political slot. It rides the beam of the entire spectrum. To fulfill whatever political agenda the sources want to make and to influence opinion and action. Many will not see it that way - but so what. That's my quick and dirty take.


This may be of interest, its just an abstract, that illustrates the above:

oxfordjournals.abstract

Uh no. The idea is to take each example and evaluate them. See if they make sense. I'm keen on hearing all examples. The more the better !!!1! Data points really help too... like the poster who said H.Clinton was a SJW. And... we want to place this shiz on the spectrum.

However, examples which happen to be silly will evaluate as just being silly (ex: SJWs "forcing" billionaires). Examples that are an exact duplicate of what I just posted like two posts up (which I assume you didn't read... again) will be evaluated as repeats.

However, if that is what the peeps who call other peeps SJW-ers really mean, that they're a buncha hypocrites, what are the peeps who call other peeps SJW-ers doing? Here, it seems you really haven't thought this through, I'm going to guess... but peeps who go around calling other peeps hypocrites are attacking the arguer, not the argument. There's even a fancy latin name for this: ad hominem.

I appreciate the effort. Dragons abound it seems. Can't argue with that. That they wrap around to the other side so to speak adds clarity, I think. Others will think differently.

The United Oligarchies of America is a slot that I would be proud to slide into. I'm only an indirect member through my financial investments but I know it is a heady group - proud, determined, progressive for their own ideals, very forward looking and intelligent and influential. My sample size is small but having dealt with them throughout my professional career I just love these guys (and yes they are mostly men). They are very nice people. My best experience was a causal dinner with a former bigwig of Exxon. This was in Vail, Colorado* where he and his wife have a winter home. I paid for my share of the dinner by the way. If you want more information about this encounter send me $500 and I'll write up a short blurb for your personal enjoyment.

*The skiing was great.

Not laughing anymore.

I think the reason why the owners don't get evaluated as SJWers is because people think they are in some sense supposed to be the audience of the protests. I think the idea is supposed to be that if enough people complain/boycott/protest against odious people like Mr. Sterling that the bad PR will incentivize the other owners to push him out because of their concern that the value of their own franchises will decline as well. This works differently from normal boycotts because the NBA is a cartel. That is, if you boycott some company, you aren't expecting its competitors to pressure them to change their practices, you are hoping to directly incentivize the company to do so.

Shameypoo, I don't get your logic. You seem to be missing the forest, AND the trees here. Okay, there are plenty of hypocrites out there using the term, SJW. Give them a name. How about alt-right trolls?

But you seem somewhat offended that there could be a term that broadly describes actual aholes on the social justice left, and so it's like you're trying to pretend all these different examples must mean the term is just worthless, and somehow that will score points and vindicate all the aholes on your team! As if that would help the movement somehow. Not going to work. Just accept aholes exist everywhere, no matter what their politics, distance yourself from their actions .and try not to let them destroy the work you're doing. And for gods sakes try not to act like one yourself.

I'd say if you really want to zero in on how "SJW" is used in any common way, you've got your hands full. I'm afraid you will find it encompasses all sorts of garbage, the dross of human behavior, with one thing in common: those who deserve the label generally think they have some sort of moral high ground because they read a blog about social justice and decided everyone else should know about it. That leads to a sort of demented bloopers reel of of frothy busy bee sick ****s who raise enough stink to get Justine Sacco and hundreds of others sacked, and constantly harrass normal people on the interwebs with idiotic charges of racism, and literally more examples than you have time to watch. So for my money, even if I wouldn't want to use it too often, I think it's probably good there is a quick easy term with the primary function of dismissing that sort of BS in all its forms.

I should add myself as a data point. I don't recall using the term SJW except maybe in IRL conversations with some philosopher friends to mock pomo nonsense. I have no real sense of the gamergate or political sense of the term - for me it is more in reference to postmodern philosophical styles such as Deconstruction/Lacan/Foucault/Derrida/Althusser and similar schools of criticism and philosophy. I think I entirely avoid using it in public conversation as it seems basically just an insult with little more content beyond: person arguing vehemently and illogically for silly leftish ideas about race/sex/privilege/class or similar topics.

Wait, so which Warriors of/for Social Justice are not SJWs?

Oh man I miss this racist idiot already.

5ive, you know the rules now. No more of this in content threads please.