"Social Justice Warrior" is a bad thing?

Bad thing or good thing, it is a "thing".

notrump wrote:

Bad thing or good thing, it is a "thing".

Keep your "thing" for yourself!

Expert, The wrote:

MLK would be considered an SJW today.

Oh no he wouldn't. The modern day SJW's would have nothing to do with him nor would he want anything to do with them.

MLK fought for equal rights, equal opportunity not special rights.

MLK was ultimately all about love and not hate. He said in his 'I have a dream' speech that he wanted the grandchildren of former slaves to be holding the hands of grandchildren of former slave owners. He fought for integration. SJW's fight for segregation.

MLK said "In our thirst for freedom, let us not drink from the cup of bitterness and hatred". The SJW's manufacture divisive hatred everywhere they turn.

MLK also said that we should judge a person by the content of their character and NOT the colour of their skin. He would not be down with the whole "white privilege" thing. SJW's love genetic arguments if it fits their interests. They stereotype whites and believe that you are automatically responsible for, and must pay for, actions done by others who accidentally happen to share white pigmentation. Yet they abhor the idea of profiling if it is applied to blacks. (I abhor the idea of profiling anyone. I judge people by their actions regardless of race, etc)

I think MLK would still be concerned today about some disproportionate police responses to blacks. But he also said a long time ago that the black community needed to own their higher rates of crime. I think he would propose reasonable solutions (like better training, a better system of accountability) note these are solutions which do not include rioting and looting and blaming all police.

SJW's think America is evil. MLK didn't go there.

Note that there are people who are trying to legitimately deal with some issues such as corporate corruption, worsening income inequality, unfair housing, disproportionate police responses who do not fall into the SJW camp. The extreme right insincerely lumps anyone proposing even middle ground solutions to these issues, into the SJW camp. To have a vibrant economy even it is reasonable to find solutions to these issues.

As I am mostly a moderate (with slight libertarian leanings), I feel the extreme left and extreme right have tried to steal the spotlight too long. You are either forced into one or the other camps. When are the moderates going to take back this country?

thejeff wrote:

If you are young and not a liberal, you have no heart.

If you are old and not a conservative, you have no brain.

The more you do, create, and earn, the more protective of the fruits of your labor you will become. Check back with us in 10 years after you graduate high school and start a family.

Explain me, a middle aged moderate. I guess that means I use both my heart and my brain :).

Expert, The wrote:

MLK would be considered an SJW today.

I'm pretty sure if MLK looked around at how today's world looks versus how his world looked, he would be amazed. Much of what he fought for has been accomplished and then some (did you already forget who the last president was?). Comparing millionaire athletes to MLK and the like is an insult of what people like MLK had to overcome. What is wrong with many of the SJWs of today is they stereotype the hell out of police, white people, the military, etc.

At some point people have to take responsibility for their own life choices. The system is designed for minorities to succeed (much more so than it is for poor Asians or whites). Affirmative action has been in place for over 50 years (2-3 generations) and has been extremely successful. But at some point people have to start taking responsibility for their behavior (until the 75% illegitimacy rate among African Americans is corrected, there will continue to be inequality of position, but don't argue that there is an inequality of opportunity when the opposite is true).

White privilege is a stereotype that does not apply to many whites and is seen as justification for discriminatory practices against many poorer whites and Asians in this country.

The problem arises when normal conversation becomes a trigger session for the social justice warrior type with a strong and very distinctive black and white mentality like that of a borderline.

At dinner you might say, "I enjoy canned vegetable soup."

But then the social justice warrior chimes in. "No canned soup is bad. The company you like was protested for anti-humanitarian worker rights in Asia."

You may respnd with, "Oh I didnt know that."

She may respond with, "He is male chauvanist."

You may change the subject on that train of thought and say, "You know what dish I really like? Fried asian duck heads."

She may respond with, "I cant believe you would approve of that type of slaughter against animals. Plus undocumented oil company spills oil that kill ducks . Corporate oil companies are so evil."

You may say, "Well arent you eating a hamburger? How is killing cattle different than killing ducks?"

"This is a non-GMO meat product."

"Oh. Well what about those plastic earings?"

She'll look at your shoes and notice youre wearing Nike, "Well at least I dont support sweat shop labor practices."

Changing the subject again you might say, "I met a short asian lady, probably 70 years of age who was a black belt in karate. Never wouldve expected that."

"Why because youre against women? What do you have against asians?"

Just goes on and on and on to no end. Round and round too. Everything becomes chauvanistic, anti-humanitarian and somehow unjustified. They love to stick up for the "little [person]" but emphasizes that she didnt mean midget by that. The white male, 18-65 is the psychopath enemy. You cant even gave a conversation with these people because the content of the conversation is routinely hijacked with their issues with issues. Just totally annoying and a waste of life.

One could just as easily ask: Is blind hatred and divisiveness a bad thing?

norphxc wrote:

john utah wrote:

Yes it is a bad thing. You will understand more as you mature and become an adult.

Can you try explaining it to me? I want to understand why (some) people think it is a bad thing.

It sounds nice, but when you pay attention to the philosophy and proposals of SJW attitude, it is actually a "means justify the ends" sort of thing. The means of being unfair to the "privileged" in order to bring equality-of-outcome to the "oppressed." For example, confiscate money from the rich to disperse it to the poor sounds nice, until you actually acknowledge that you took the legally and fairly earned money from someone just because they have more money compared to someone else. Also, telling someone to "check their white privilege" is essentially telling a person that their opinion is worth less because of their skin color.

In most instances, the SJW wants to disregard the rights of the INDIVIDUAL based on their membership in a particular GROUP. They justify this by saying that the group has oppressed others historically. But is it fair to punish a child for the sins of their ancestors? SJW probably started as something pure, but it has morphed into the same prejudiced and de-humanizing sort of attitude that have caused many of the violations of INDIVIDUAL rights throughout human history. It is ironic that SJW are actually perpetuating the basic attitudes that they presume to be fighting, but such is the tragedy of the human soul.

If you care to study history and ethics, you will quickly see that anytime the value of the INDIVIDUAL is ignored in order to serve some "greater good," bad things happen. When individual willing sacrifice their own desires for the greater good, it is a good thing. When you force other to sacrifice for the greater good, you get into real trouble.

To realize this, is to value LIBERTY. And unfortunately, the SJW attitude is actually at odds with personal LIBERTY.

You make some good points, they would be very compelling 50 years ago. The real SJWs won. The problem with social movements is they don't know how to end when they've accomplished their goals. We have in this country the greatest equality of opportunity possible. Generally speaking, if there is still inequality of outcome, people have only themselves to blame. For example, you sight that HUD study and say that minorities are discriminated against when searching for a house. I used the internet to find the house I bought. Do minorities not have the internet? Is there some Jim Crow law that doesn't allow POCs to buy an iPhone, or go to a public library and use the free internet (like I did when I was a poor collage student)? Come on back to reality please.

norphxc wrote:

I know SJW is an insult here and through out the Internet. But why is this phrase supposed to be insulting?

I hear "warrior" and think of someone that fights for something. And we mostly use it in a positive light, so it must be something good that the warrior is fighting for.

Then if it is a ..."justice warrior" the affirms that the warrior is fighting for justice, definitely a noble cause.

And finally "social justice warrior" means the warrior wants justice for all of society! That sounds great! Fight on!

Like I would assume human rights activists, civil rights leaders and protesters for women's suffrage would all be considered SJWs...

Yes, very bad.

1. Their definition of "Social Justice" and the underlying value system is not virtuous at all, but actually unamerican.

2. Social Justice "Warrior" beta-types are literally the exact opposite of warriors. Complaining and tweeting is the opposite of warrior like. It's like calling a fat guy, skinny.

It’s the kissing cousin of virtue signaling.

This interview is 35 years old, and strikingly on point. The leftist mindset is very predictable, and this interview supports the idea that psychology largely does not change over time.

At the 3:50 mark, Yuri describes how the SJW's will react to the environment they advocate for, when implemented...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA

The problem with SJWs is that they forcefully pin their opinions on others. This is usually done in a threatening manner and attempt to bring others down such as anyone who doesn't support their opinion or the people/person/group they're trying to bully/shame. They are typically hypocritical saying theyre fighting for human rights and such yet they try to tyrannically run the show. We don't need these SJWs around. They only disturb the peace and bully people. Usually they just want attention and use their "cause" as a front for getting the attention they need.

Prolly should go 4 a run now wrote:

The problem with SJWs is that they forcefully pin their opinions on others. This is usually done in a threatening manner and attempt to bring others down such as anyone who doesn't support their opinion or the people/person/group they're trying to bully/shame. They are typically hypocritical saying theyre fighting for human rights and such yet they try to tyrannically run the show. We don't need these SJWs around. They only disturb the peace and bully people. Usually they just want attention and use their "cause" as a front for getting the attention they need.

Sounds like people pushing their religious views on others.