Social Justice Warriors, Unite, again!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Wait, so, y'all (who scream and yell about the horrors and depridation of "SWJs") want to argue that despite hanging the "Social Justice Warrior" moniker all over my account if I'm polite I can't be a "Social Justice Warrior" because you have defined "SWJ" to be someone who is constantly rude and shrill?

Prithee, where did your power to enforce such a defionitional standard upon the rest of us come from, perchance?

[Inigima]

Scot,

It's basically because it's not a good-faith term. It's a pejorative used to dismiss an argument with which the speaker does not wish to contend. If they don't agree, it must be because you're a social justice warrior.

[Lord Freypie]

Lyanna Stark, on 24 Nov 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

So an angry feminist is an SJW, but a soft spoken one is not, even if they are arguing the same thing?

Keeping a sense of nuance and proportion isn't just being "soft spoken" (I know this sophism is used to turn the "tone arguement" into a valid excuse to ignore any invitation to practice self criticism, sorry but it's just wrong), it's making a difference between a problem desserving to be mentionned and one desserving to organize a full blown crusade. It's making difference between people opinions instead of categorizing them in large groups (ie : making a difference between "a portion of a group of hardcore gamers gathered on anonymous free speech forums" and "gamers" may avoid to grant the first a large support when labelling them "sexists"). It's being open to discussion and having a chance to convince instead of being definitive and categoric and only making enemies you then have no option to deal with but aggression. It's avoiding in general the use categorizing terms for persons instead of arguements or attitudes, before you know the persons and are sure these arguements or attitudes can resume their global views, so you avoid to essentialise them and create a solidarity between people feeling they were unfairly treated and real opponents to your cause. It's practicing call-ins more than call-outs (reserving the last for individuals you are absolutely sure to desserve one). It's situating the fronteer between left and right, or supporters and opponents of your cause, half-way between the two extremes, not 90% of the way in your direction. It's not considering being angry as a valid excuse not to be objective (not to say people have to be perfect all the time, but if I insult you because I'm angry I ideally apologize and nuance my views when back to calm, I don't continue with more agression).

If you don't like Julie Bindel, read the debates about call out culture even in rather radical feminist circles. Suddenly when intersectionnality make them become targets of their own usual vocal violence people start to realise there's something wrong with its excesses (see there and there and there and there and there for example).

TL:DR - Keeping a sense of nuance and proportion isn't just being "soft spoken" it's being as objective and comprehensive possible to avoid turning neutrals and moderates into opponents.

Also stop thinking you (feminists) are alone in the world having to deal with this tendancy to efficiently defend social justice or being able to discuss those movements strategies. To be clear I'm from Bourdieu country and studied sociology, the "french theory" which is the basis modern feminism and modern anti-racism are both based upon. I also have a very visible drip of north african blood and have supported various anti-racist organizations most of my adult life, I know both what social justice means and what being in a racized minority means. I've also experienced and seen our movements experience a lot of different approaches, and after so much trials and errors, may have an idea about which attitudes are working and which ones can only end detrimental in the long run, because all they do is radicalizing essentialized opponents, and making moderate neutrals consider social justice defenders and social justice opponents as two intolerant radical entities, sharing as despicable attitudes.

I know there are truths that are better kept for ourselves as true they may be, that denying dominants any right to voice their complaints because they are dominants only make people (the large majority of people only having a vague idea of the theory this arguement is based upon) see us as defending double standards. That silencing people make unable to adress their arguements one by one, and find a common ground with their views to make them evolve. I've let my anger dominate me an incalculable number of times, I've essentialized people as racists for a few words and then gave same treatment to people just defending them, I've silenced people because they were not of my group (be it my militant group or my "racial" group), I've been violent in my discourse and even physically sometimes, and I've been part of movements indulging all that as "victims (or those recognized as their defenders) can't be wrong", and I've seen their impact on society as a whole, and reactionnary counter-revolution gain more and more ground (up to now having a quasi-fascist credited with 40% in presidential polls, and "moderate" right sharing most of her positions). And people still convinced to be absolutely right all the time because they are on the good side thinking it's only a sign it's the moment to intensify the "fight" and be even more agressive, "we are outnumbered and encircled, never question ourselves, let's chaaaarge !".

And my own small minority in the small minority of people concerned by our fight, finally realising that we've been losing the plot for a long time, we've forgot and betrayed the lessons of those who succeeded to impose civil rights, we've indulged ourselves becoming tormenters as we were victims, and made people feeling like our victims become tormenters in turn, reproducing the endless cycle of violence (if a verbal one for the most part), we've been forgetting our love for humanity while fighting for humanism, an humanity that must include our "enemies". and that the real strength and only efficient method is answering with a positive energy to a negative one, not reproducing it.

“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” (Martin Luther King)

TL:DR - I'm not saying that because I'm alien to the subject of social justice, but because the same attitudes and debates about them exist in movements I've followed and supported for decades, and having seen their difficulties to efficiently defend their cause have an idea about which approaches can only end detrimental in the long run.

And about why an appelation including "warrior" for social justice supporters will always sound bad for me (if you don't add "peaceful" at least), it's because returning violence for violence and hate for hate, and silencing your empathy, is exactly what warriors do.

That said I certainly won't blame you if you rate my views as angelism or even as an attack on your just cause. It's certainly how I'd have reacted 10 or 15 years ago.
I'm not here to judge anyone, in self criticism there's "self". All I'm saying is that efficient defense of any ideology or cause, as good it may be, need some and more.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Inigima,

;)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Lord Freypie,

It's avoiding in general the use [of] catagorizing terms for persons instead of arguments or attitudes

So, by your own definition labeling people you define as "social justice warriors" as "SWJs" makes you a "Social Justice Warrior".

Welcome to the clan brother!

[Lord Toblerone]

Lord Freypie,

So, by your own definition labeling people you define as "social justice warriors" as "SWJs" makes you a "Social Justice Warrior".

Welcome to the clan brother!

What Scott said.

I had the same thought but then I got lost in the wall of text.

and absolutely people should be self-aware and self-critical, including people like Julie Bindel and Sarah Ditum.

[Lord Freypie]

Lord Freypie,

So, by your own definition labeling people you define as "social justice warriors" as "SWJs" makes you as "Social Justice Warrior".

Welcome to the clan brother!

If you had read my first post, I was answering to someone giving his definition of the term (about people making carreer of it), in a thread of people either defining themselves as SJW (positive version) either labelling people as SJW (pejorative version). I've just given mine, insisting on attitudes that may explain why this term is understood as pejorative.

I don't think I ever used this term out of this context.

(And even if I did I never pretended to be perfect. I'm also shockingly labelling a quasi fascist as a quasi fascist somewhere. ;) )

[Lord Toblerone]

If you had read my first post, I was answering to someone giving his definition of the term (about people making carreer of it), in a thread of people either defining themselves as SJW (positive version) either labelling people as SJW (pejorative version). I've just given mine, insisting on attitudes that may explain why this term is understood as pejorative.

I don't think I ever used this term out of this context.

(And even if I did I never pretended to be perfect. I'm also shockingly labelling a quasi fascist as a quasi fascist somewhere. ;) )

Ser Scot actually started the original thread to comment on what a ridiculous term "Social Justice Warrior" is as a label used to discredit and insult people.

And people started ironically adopting the moniker.

[Lord Freypie]

Ser Scot actually started the original thread to comment on what a ridiculous term "Social Justice Warrior" is as a label used to discredit and insult people.

And people started ironically adopting the moniker.

So we all agree, as there was also that in my first post :

I hate "SJW" label, as it's an insult to "Social Justice" to assimilate it with the excesses of a few very vocal activists, who are not fighting for social justice but against people they imagine to be its enemies.

SJW is a wrong label used to describe excessive people losing the plot when they think they are fighting for social justice, or just using it as an excuse to bully people, and then assimilate all social justice supporters to those excesses.

[Lord Toblerone]

Yeah, I think our reasoning was a bit different to yours.

[Serious Callers Only]

I'll just leave this here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SCO,

:shocked:

[Relic]

I'll just leave this here.

Wow, what a fuckwad. I was going to Turkey next year, but i think i'll pass for now. He also sounds like he might have had a sexual relationship with his mom??

"He recalled: "I would kiss my mother's feet because they smelled of paradise. She would glance coyly and cry sometimes."

WTF?

[1918me]

I'll just leave this here.

I think Scot and Relic summed up my reaction pretty well, but holy fuck! That was hard to stomach, especially coming from someone with so much influence.

[David Selig]

Apart from all the other stuff wrong with Erdogan's statements, It's so idiotic that sexist morons like him make it sounds as if women haven't done heavy physical work until communism was invented. The communists didn't start that at all, it's always been the case for a lot of women. So many people seem to have some version of history where all women until the 20th century lived like Victorian era upper class ladies.

[sologdin]

relic, with respect, if you define sex as mere foot sniffing, i think that maybe you're doing it wrong?

[Relic]

relic, with respect, if you define sex as mere foot sniffing, i think that maybe you're doing it wrong?

Normally I'd say you have a point solo, but foot sniffing in conjunction with coy glances and references to Paradise... Well... That's some kinky Shit.

[Summah]

Beyond that calling someone a SJW is generally an attempt to marginalize or silence people, Lord Freypie have you considered that the more radical elements in a movement serve a very important purpose. Take the US civil rights movement. Most white people did not support the movement in its early days, but the movement continued and there were some radical groups in the movement like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, most white people looked at those groups as too extreme, but at the same time their existence started to make civil rights leaders like MLK and groups like the SNCC very reasonable, and probably increased the support of white people towards the mainstream part of the movement.

[Lord Freypie]

Beyond that calling someone a SJW is generally an attempt to marginalize or silence people, Lord Freypie have you considered that the more radical elements in a movement serve a very important purpose. Take the US civil rights movement. Most white people did not support the movement in its early days, but the movement continued and there were some radical groups in the movement like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, most white people looked at those groups as too extreme, but at the same time their existence started to make civil rights leaders like MLK and groups like the SNCC very reasonable, and probably increased the support of white people towards the mainstream part of the movement.

It may be right for the sixties but I don't think situations of current SJ movements are actually comparable.

- out of very small changes, we are not fighting governments to get new rights but mostly fighting ideas that may question them and cultural stereotypes as a source of discrimination. Ideas and stereotypes which aren't carried by followers of a bunch of white supremacists, but a very large population not even conscious of the damage they may cause. It makes having a radical aggressive attitude against them far more problematic, and looking far more as a pile on on some poor dude who happened to be remarked when doing/saying something thousands are doing/saying as well. I also don't think people feel really terrorized by that kind of radicality, some guy being labelled sexist or racist on the internet, even if it damages his life or political carreer, isn't really comparable with having your neighborhood burning.

- the only real riots I've seen in my life weren't organized by radicals but spontaneous reactions of unpolitized lower class (mostly young sons of migrants) usually after (supposed) police abuses. Far to make anti-racist organizations more popular, they were mostly used to say "look what the guys you spent your time protecting are doing", and they triggered an huge increase of racism (especially the big ones in 2005). It's not like current SJ supporters, be them radicals or not, are popular leaders listened to by the kind of people likely to riot. Last time there were massive youth and leftist protests in France (against changes in some education law under Sarkozy), the few hundreds leftist radicals and anarchists who were staying after dispersion to provoke the police ended fighting lower class rioters trying to steal their cell phones and portables.

- people are globally far less politized, the most important group being probably the one of people who just don't want to hear anything about politics, only reacting if they feel directly threatened (or someone they identify with is), and rarely to make very intelligent decisions

- those politized far less likely to join big organized movements (I don't know for other countries but in France the 3 main institutionalized anti-racist movements have around 10,000 active members each, while one had up to 300,000 members in the eighties ; and I don't think any feminist organization is even close to those numbers)

- what we have instead is a galaxy of small militant groups, gathered around associations fighting for a particular aspect of their cause and bloggers in a permanent righteousness competition, who are easily called out if they dare being too moderate. They are not part of a movement lead by larger organizations to obtain precise things, they are the main force able to grant or deny them support in an heartbat, and so very often the ones fixing the agendas larger groups are forced to follow (and one often based on buzz actuality).

- in the case of european anti-racist groups, it's also complicated by the question of islamophobia, as most victims of racism are also muslims, and lots of militant small groups are centered around the defense of muslim communities, with agendas often hurting non religious or christian europeans (for example when newspapers published cartoons of the prophet in the name of free speech there was an heavy pressure on anti-racists groups to try to get them condemned for racism, while anticlerical left naturally supported the newspaper, ending in a big clash between anti-racist movements and one or the other kind of their most traditionnal supporters)*

- make hard to compare its situation with civil rights movements in American sixties, where you had one moderate group also lead by people of the main religion of the country, very likely to recieve white men support, one leftist radical group only likely to recieve support from other radicals, and one muslim radical group, all organized, disciplined and having real popular support. And all sharing one clear priority, equal rights, if they had different methods and ambitions for the next steps.

(* and as well I reckon next weeks for european anti-racists movements will be damage control for what that dick Erdogan said, who probably succeeded to make islamophobia and sexism progress in the same speech :bang: , and of course dealing with reactions and counter-reactions to that speech will be very divisive, as we can be sure some will fail to be nuanced)

[Gears of the Beast]

I'll just leave this here.

You guy's are really still surprised when Muslims say/do something sexist..? Women are constantly marginalised and abused at the hands of that repugnant cult. But of course that doesn't compare the oppression women are subjected to in the west.