DanteGabriel Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Independent thinker? Moi? I'm a straight down the line Roman Catholic conservative, I'm as far removed from independent thought as you'll find in the western hemisphere. Interestingly, and as Scot brought it up, the term social justice was a phrase coined by the Roman Catholic Church to describe virtuous behavior in post agrarian societies, it's meaning has changed somewhat obviously, which is why it's frustrating and utterly pointless discussing it as it's become such a moveable feast, from unreformed Marxists to petit bourgeois moralists everyone seems to carry their own concepts around with them. I'm not sure it's the "unreformed Marxists and petit bourgeois moralists" who have broadened the meaning of "social justice," since (outside of the counter-meme in this forum that Scot helped start) they rarely refer to themselves, as far as I have seen, with the "social justice" moniker at all. I generally see "social justice warrior" thrown around as an insult by unreconstructed bigots and assholes. Myself, due to my own Catholic upbringing (mostly with Jesuits), I have a fairly specific conception of social justice, but it can manifest in many ways and places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.T. Phipps Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 "Social Justice Warriors" remains on of the most stupid insult phrases ever coined. It's the kind of label only someone who considers the fight for social justice wrong-headed would find offensive. I have a shirt for Cons which got me nasty responses which said, "Social Justice Assassin." :) But yes, I think Anita Saarkesian is wrong in the context that pacifism and feminism should not be equated and that female action heroes should be lauded rather than derided as solving problems in "masculine" ways. I also think her treatment of Mattie in True Grit and the Witcher series ignores a lot of very very important stuff to suit her own biases. I also think 99% of her detractors are complete asshats who hate her because she dares think, GOD, that maybe video games shouldn't treat women as nothing but disposable eye-candy or objects. As for Gamergate? I'm pleased to say they briefly listed my blog as one to boycott (due to my detraction of their cause). Sadly, they realized I took it as a point of pride and released a statement I was too small to bother with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I'm not sure it's the "unreformed Marxists and petit bourgeois moralists" who have broadened the meaning of "social justice," since (outside of the counter-meme in this forum that Scot helped start) they rarely refer to themselves, as far as I have seen, with the "social justice" moniker at all. I generally see "social justice warrior" thrown around as an insult by unreconstructed bigots and assholes. Myself, due to my own Catholic upbringing (mostly with Jesuits), I have a fairly specific conception of social justice, but it can manifest in many ways and places. Well sure Social Justice Warrior is part descriptor of specific groups, radical feminists, far left activists and the like, but mainly intended as a disparagement. What Scot was taking exception to is the term social justice being used as an insult right? My only problem with that is as the meaning has become so amorphous it's hard to justify upset at misappropriation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 If people are going to toss out terms like bigot and asshole to describe people they disagree with then social justice warrior used as an insult should not be an out of bounds remark. Social justice warrior is surely no more of an idiotic insult than neckbeard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It's the kind of label only someone who considers the fight for social justice wrong-headed would find offensive. I have a shirt for Cons which got me nasty responses which said, "Social Justice Assassin." This is a really good example of what I mean. What are you fighting for exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 What Scot was taking exception to is the term social justice being used as an insult right? My only problem with that is as the meaning has become so amorphous it's hard to justify upset at misappropriation. To me, it's not about misappropriation, it's that the person using it as an insult says a lot of things about their own viewpoint and priorities. I judge people who use "social justice warrior" as an insult much the same way as I judge people who derisively use "PC" as an insult. Also, on the topic of online game harassment, here's some research that points out something that, I think, a lot of us already knew: As they watched the games play out and tracked the comments that players made to each other, the researchers observed that -- no matter their skill level, or how the game went -- men tended to be pretty cordial to each other. Male players who were good at the game also tended to pay compliments to other male and female players. Some male players, however -- the ones who were less-skilled at the game, and performing worse relative their peers -- made frequent, nasty comments to the female gamers. In other words, sexist dudes are literally losers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/07/20/men-who-harass-women-online-are-quite-literally-losers-new-study-finds/?tid=sm_fb If people are going to toss out terms like bigot and asshole to describe people they disagree with then social justice warrior used as an insult should not be an out of bounds remark. It's not out of bounds. As I said, people who use it as an insult make me think they're a bigot and asshole. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Eyenon, I don't think the remark is "out if bounds". I think it is stupid to claim that somone who fights for social justice is worthy of derision for such efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Eyenon, I don't think the remark is "out if bounds". I think it is stupid to claim that somone who fights for social justice is worthy of derision for such efforts. Jeez this is frustrating. What are you fighting for when you fight for social justice? Some people take social justice to mean complete equality of outcome in the culture and society. Is it OK to deride someone who believes in turning the nation into a version of North Korea? Is there a generally accepted definition I'm unaware of beyond 'let's try and be nicer to each other'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Some people take social justice to mean complete equality of outcome in the culture and society. Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Hayyoth, Then mock and deride people who want complete equality of condition. Don't use a generalized lable that includes people fighting for equality of opportunity within its aegis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyenon15 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Eyenon, I don't think the remark is "out if bounds". I think it is stupid to claim that somone who fights for social justice is worthy of derision for such efforts.The likelihood is that many people using the term as an insult dont think the target(s) is actually fighting for social justice, or is doing it in an extremely unproductive way. If a person becomes a police officer and claims they want to be a legal justice warrior, then when they get on the job if what they really do is abuse their power and bully people.... Any criticism against them can be cast aside by saying "It's stupid to criticize someone that's fighting for peace and justice!" It seems you are saying as long as someone is claiming that they are fighting for a noble cause then they should be above any sort of ridicule, which is a very dangerous idea IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Examples? Marxists? Deep green environmentalists? Their concepts of social justice would be very different from the other. If you're arguing for the existence of an accepted definition of the phrase please educate me and we'll move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Marxists? Deep green environmentalists? Their concepts of social justice would be very different from the other. If you're arguing for the existence of an accepted definition of the phrase please educate me and we'll move on. It's hard to have a discussion with you when you're mostly intent on jousting with stupid caricatures. And I fail to see how either of these bogeymen you've conjured are for "equality of outcome in culture and society." How the fuck are "deep green environmentalists" interested in that at all? Your critique so far is nonsensical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Fighting, for one, the erroneously held belief that criticizing nastiness like sexism, racism or inequality is somehow akin to the practices of a totalitarian regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Hayyoth, Then mock and deride people who want complete equality of condition. Don't use a generalized lable that includes people fighting for equality of opportunity within its aegis. The problem is it includes both which is why the term has become essentially meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnionAhaiReborn Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 The problem is it includes both which is why the term has become essentially meaningless. If the term is meaningless, why were you the first person to use it in this thread? Were we meant to assume that you were purposely using nonsense language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It's hard to have a discussion with you when you're mostly intent on jousting with stupid caricatures. And I fail to see how either of these bogeymen you've conjured are for "equality of outcome in culture and society." How the fuck are "deep green environmentalists" interested in that at all? Your critique so far is nonsensical. You should probably try and read a reply before you go in to full rant mode. I wrote the complete opposite of what you said I did as in 'Their concepts of social justice would be very different from the other'. Fighting, for one, the erroneously held belief that criticizing nastiness like sexism, racism or inequality is somehow akin to the practices of a totalitarian regime. That's your definition, it's not the only one, or even the most widely used one. For example, Islamic purists use the term to mean the complete opposite of what you've written. As I said it's an utterly meaningless catch all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Jeez this is frustrating. What are you fighting for when you fight for social justice? Some people take social justice to mean complete equality of outcome in the culture and society. Is it OK to deride someone who believes in turning the nation into a version of North Korea? Is there a generally accepted definition I'm unaware of beyond 'let's try and be nicer to each other'? Let's start here: I think people should not be threatening to rape or kill women for voicing opinions about video games. I also think they should not be stalking women for the same, nor harassing them, nor publicizing the real-life details of someone who is currently identified only by an online handle for the purpose of inviting legions of like-minded people to do those same things (doxxing). I don't think this is a big ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 You should probably try and read a reply before you go in to full rant mode. I wrote the complete opposite of what you said I did as in 'Their concepts of social justice would be very different from the other'. You're the one who said some people want full equality of outcome in culture and society. I asked for examples. You named "deep green environmentalists" as part of your response. What the suffering fuck do "deep green environmentalists" have to say about "full equality of outcome in culture and society?" I am literally just responding to the things you say, which do not connect in any logical way. I am reading you fine. It's just what you say is incoherent strawmanning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 If the term is meaningless, why were you the first person to use it in this thread? Were we meant to assume that you were purposely using nonsense language? Asked and answered. I used the term as a handy descriptor for discussing the groups involved in the gamergate clusterfuck. Anyway follow the argument, it's not so much the phrase having no meaning at all, just that the meaning changes radically depending on the individual and group using it. As a definitive phrase however it is without meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.