I am a SJW

[Revoltingest]

See, now that is just good sense.
But whoever decided it was a good idea to start putting car batteries in the wheel well, screw that guy.

I would never work on products like cars because the design compromises serving low cost & maximum interior room at the expense of maintainability & durability were unacceptable to me. So I did aerospace, heavy machinery, surgical tools, heavy trucks & other low volume high priced products. These markets let me concentrate on quality, durability, function, & art. Yes art....things had to please the eye & the mind.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yet the term attempts to paint it in a negative light.

You have it backwards. The word describes a behavior(or a collection of) and that behavior is what paints social justice in a negative light.

I'll refer you back to post 32. All of those are real world actions. Every time they are done in the name of social justice and the rest of the left turns their head and says "well they are doing it for the right reasons", social justice loses its luster.

Let me put in another way, the derision of the SJW is not an attack on the idea of social justice, it is an attack on the idea that social justice should, or even can, be fought for with lies, bigotry, and petty spiteful vindictiveness.

 

[Mister Emu]

But whoever decided it was a good idea to start putting car batteries in the wheel well, screw that guy.

I remember the first time I had to change one of those. I always wondered who the car repair tech was that pissed in that guy's cheerios.

 

[icehorse]

People don't notice the really well designed products because they don't have to think about them.
One of my engineering goals was to have my products be like a refrigerator.
You walk up to it, & you instantly know what to do.
You don't need a manual.
It behaves predictably.
It always works.

It's a tangent, but I gotta ask - have you read "The Design of Everyday Things"? In other words, can we swap affordance horror stories? Hmmm... I feel a thread coming on...

 

[Timothy Bryce]

I often hear this pejorative slung about the forums. A cute way to belittle those whose actual argument is different than one's own, when one's own falls short of any moral reasoning.

So, let's have at it. What are your gripes with me, the SJW?

I'm not easily offended, but that I am not offended doesn't mean I won't stand for justice.

I can't really stand any form of organised religion, but I'm completely tolerant of religious people. It's a "don't hate the player; hate the game" type situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's a tangent, but I gotta ask - have you read "The Design of Everyday Things"? In other words, can we swap affordance horror stories? Hmmm... I feel a thread coming on...

I haven't read it.
But I know horror.

 

[Curious George]

I did spend a lot of time in the shop making things.
But then I had to take them outdoors to use them.

Not inside the shop, inside the fridge. The most obvious use.

 

[Curious George]

How is it more nebulous than the others?
I say it's pretty well defined.

"SJW" & "obscenity" have much in common....we know it when we see it.
Anyway, the "SJW" is by definition not merely one who talks about a glass ceiling or advocates for gay marriage.
I posted the Urban Dictionary definition, which is a good working definition, but another animal entirely from mere advocacy for an important issue.

That is my point with obscenity.

People feel they know a sjw when they see it as well. Yet, the definition varies too greatly. That is a poor definition of sjw. Here's why:

pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation.

According to this definition they often engage in a shallow manner. This means they do not have to engage in a shallow and vehement manner. So, this part of the definition certainly gives us an idea of what a sjw means, it doesn't really define it. sjw's also, according to this definition must engage for the purpose of raising their reputation. This would preclude all of the people who actually sought change. So, the Harvard seal kids, or people who wanted the confederate flag removed, or any feminist, unless we assume they can want change but their primary or secondary purpose is related to reputation. This causes a problem though. How do we define whether someone is acting for reputation? And what qualifies as acting to better one's reputation? Could any speaking be qualified as such?

So as we cannot determine one's motivation, there is no requirement that the argument be shallow and vehement, we are left with the truth that it is a pejorative for people discussing social justice. But, let's be honest, it isn't just discussing it is really just liberal discussion on these issues.

 

[Digital_Monk]

Holy crap I am so old and out of touch. I had to hit up Urban Dictionary to learn what the heck a SJW is. Who cares? You're into what you're into. Bravo. Glad you have causes to champion. Please don't get it on me.

People and their silly acronyms.

 

[Curious George]

You have it backwards. The word describes a behavior(or a collection of) and that behavior is what paints social justice in a negative light.

I'll refer you back to post 32. All of those are real world actions. Every time they are done in the name of social justice and the rest of the left turns their head and says "well they are doing it for the right reasons", social justice loses its luster.

Let me put in another way, the derision of the SJW is not an attack on the idea of social justice, it is an attack on the idea that social justice should, or even can, be fought for with lies, bigotry, and petty spiteful vindictiveness.

Alright post 32

Then you aren't a SJW. Sorry, those are the breaks kid. You need to up your insanity to a level where you say things like "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" or taking a literal page out of 1984 with Crimestop "purge myself of dangerous 'unthinkable' thoughts, mindkill myself regularly." Or "the only way to be rational in this world is to be irrational."

To say, and a quote from a person who is supposed to be an academic "E=mc^2 is a sexed equation" or that solid physics being easier than fluid mechanics is sexist.

You have to be a hypocrite, to say that an all white and/or male(group/cast/workplace/etc.) is sexist and/or racist, but a different homogeneous group is empowering. That everyone should feel welcome everywhere, but having "PoC" or women's only spaces is good.

An SJW sees that men are routinely more successful at negotiating wages and instead of saying we need to help women become better negotiators so they can improve themselves, says that we should ban negotiating for wages.

SJWs get people fired, or try to, for jokes. They attack a scientist for wearing a shirt they don't like, that a female friend made and gave to him. They try to get an advertising campaign from a fitness based company because it asked if you were in shape. SJW professors call for muscle against student reporters.

SJWs say that a false rape accusation can be a good thing for a man.

An SJW sends pictures of his kid to a pedophile because they are both SJWs.

SJWs throw **** bottles at people they disagree with.

I know, I know, there are people on the other side of things that are illogical, violent, racist and sexist too. But to deny there is a phenomenon among advocates of social justice of rejecting logic, morality, and any other facet of human decency in search of social justice is absurd. There is a reason SJW is a term that is still gaining traction.

I disagree with many social justice advocates in that I don't believe that you should fight inequality with inequality. But we are both looking for a path to the same place.

Well I am not sure what all these instances are talking about: was that sh*t bottles? Who thinks it's okay to send child porn? How is a false rape allegation good for men? Who thinks it's okay to get someone fired for jokes?

Okay women only spaces...there is one about which I can talk. We generally try to avoid discrimination. But sometimes discrimination is warranted (how is that for a cherry pickable quote). In an area where the government is involved or a service or goods are sold, we require there to be a good reason. Not all discrimination is the same. Racial discrimination for instance has quite the history and when it is necessary to discriminate racially it requires a very d*mn good reason, gender discrimination requires a d*mn good reason, and most other discrimination just requires a good reason, however some discrimination requires no reasoning at all. So, to exclude men one needs a d*mn good reason the same as to exclude women. Then there are areas of the public sector which the government can't touch. So, discrimination can and does happen. We could for instance start a He-man women haters club, and no one could do anything about it. The public often views these instances in the same light as the instances wherein the government is involved. So, even though it is legal such a group might experience public disapproval unless one had a d*mn good reason.

So, you characterize "women's only spaces" as bad, but it really depends on the instances.

Yet, all post 32 did was communicate where you draw the line, and I am not sure it did that clearly. Other people draw different lines. Can you offer a clear and concise definition upon which we could judge the uses of SJW?

 

[Revoltingest]

Not inside the shop, inside the fridge. The most obvious use.

No, they're not intended to be occupied.
The shelves are set up all wrong for that.
But they're great for holding food.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to this definition they often engage in a shallow manner. This means they do not have to engage in a shallow and vehement manner. So, this part of the definition certainly gives us an idea of what a sjw means, it doesn't really define it. sjw's also, according to this definition must engage for the purpose of raising their reputation. This would preclude all of the people who actually sought change. So, the Harvard seal kids, or people who wanted the confederate flag removed, or any feminist, unless we assume they can want change but their primary or secondary purpose is related to reputation. This causes a problem though. How do we define whether someone is acting for reputation? And what qualifies as acting to better one's reputation? Could any speaking be qualified as such?

So as we cannot determine one's motivation, there is no requirement that the argument be shallow and vehement, we are left with the truth that it is a pejorative for people discussing social justice. But, let's be honest, it isn't just discussing it is really just liberal discussion on these issues.

The same shortcomings afflict the other labels used.
What appears to be going on is that SJWs just don't like being called that.
But they're happy to use their equally subjective labels against others.
Can't have it both ways.

 

[Curious George]

The same shortcomings afflict the other labels used.
What appears to be going on is that SJWs just don't like being called that.
But they're happy to use their equally subjective labels against others.
Can't have it both ways.

Yes, yes they...them. But who are they and them specifically? And which labels do they use that are equally subjective? It sounds to me as though you are speaking about a specific group of people who are quick to label any action as misogynistic or racist or the like- is that what you mean by sjw?

I agree that people are quick to try to lump outlying behaviors into extreme categories but didn't icehorse already address this? Yet when I look at the categories that sjw's are accused of using- racist, misogynist, etc I think these categories are more clearly defined and it is obvious when someone is twisting words to fit the category. Yet with sjw, it really seems that any liberal thought one doesn't like or find meaningful fits into the sjw box. Hence, labels like racism or misogyny useful, while words like sjw are found wanting.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, yes they...them. But who are they and them specifically? And which labels do they use that are equally subjective? It sounds to me as though you are speaking about a specific group of people who are quick to label any action as misogynistic or racist or the like- is that what you mean by sjw?

I agree that people are quick to try to lump outlying behaviors into extreme categories but didn't icehorse already address this? Yet when I look at the categories that sjw's are accused of using- racist, misogynist, etc I think these categories are more clearly defined and it is obvious when someone is twisting words to fit the category. Yet with sjw, it really seems that any liberal thought one doesn't like or find meaningful fits into the sjw box. Hence, labels like racism or misogyny useful, while words like sjw are found wanting.

No. The outspoken "SJWs" who use labels like sexist or racist aren't using clearly defined terms. Instead of the seemingly universal agreed upon definitions of racism and sexism (that is to say prejudice based solely on sex and/or race) they use the sociological definition. Power plus privilege equals racism/sexism.
Sometimes interchangeably with the more common definition.
This becomes a problem when these so called "SJWs" are called to task for seemingly racist, sexist and/or homophobic behaviour (using the more common definition.) Instead recusing themselves from such labels by conveniently bringing up the other definitions, even though it's often clear that the more common definition was being applied to their actions in the first place. (Phew! Did that make sense?)

This sexist and racist labelling also becomes a problem when used without precise definitions. For example an SJW might call another person a racist. This using the sociological definition. But in a debate will not make that immediately clear, thus invoking the more prevalent definition to incite anger towards their opponent.

No doubt the label SJW can be used to shut down opponents dishonestly. But to tell the truth, I have only ever seen it used to describe extremist behaviour. Or as a badge of honour by actual extremist SJWs. Now granted any movement would not like to be associated with extremists. So the reluctance to have such a label applied is very understandable in this context.
But when "SJWs" refuse to take responsibility for misusing definitions of specific labels dishonestly, how can they then expect to refuse one label? Except in cases where it's clearly a shutdown tactic, of course.

 

[Sapiens]

Here you go: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...leftism-spreads-to-the-university-of-arizona/

Not Jerry ... the folks he's complaining about.

 

[Curious George]

No. The outspoken "SJWs" who use labels like sexist or racist aren't using clearly defined terms. Instead of the seemingly universal agreed upon definitions of racism and sexism (that is to say prejudice based solely on sex and/or race) they use the sociological definition. Power plus privilege equals racism/sexism.
Sometimes interchangeably with the more common definition.
This becomes a problem when these so called "SJWs" are called to task for seemingly racist, sexist and/or homophobic behaviour (using the more common definition.) Instead recusing themselves from such labels by conveniently bringing up the other definitions, even though it's often clear that the more common definition was being applied to their actions in the first place. (Phew! Did that make sense?)

This sexist and racist labelling also becomes a problem when used without precise definitions. For example an SJW might call another person a racist. This using the sociological definition. But in a debate will not make that immediately clear, thus invoking the more prevalent definition to incite anger towards their opponent.

No doubt the label SJW can be used to shut down opponents dishonestly. But to tell the truth, I have only ever seen it used to describe extremist behaviour. Or as a badge of honour by actual extremist SJWs. Now granted any movement would not like to be associated with extremists. So the reluctance to have such a label applied is very understandable in this context.
But when "SJWs" refuse to take responsibility for misusing definitions of specific labels dishonestly, how can they then expect to refuse one label? Except in cases where it's clearly a shutdown tactic, of course.

Hmm, perhaps you missed my point. I am suggesting it is painfully obvious when one tries to twist the definition of racism. Sjw on the other hand was invented to be twisted.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hmm, perhaps you missed my point. I am suggesting it is painfully obvious when one tries to twist the definition of racism. Sjw on the other hand was invented to be twisted.

Twisted how exactly?

 

[SomeRandom]

Here you go: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpres...leftism-spreads-to-the-university-of-arizona/

Not Jerry ... the folks he's complaining about.

Geez! (Apart from free testing and mental health help which seem okay) I wouldn't have even dared to demand such things as a spoilt teenager in High School. My teachers would have had me in detention merely on principle alone.
Tell me these College Professors have enough balls to put these whiny brats in their proper place?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, yes they...them. But who are they and them specifically?

That's a good question.
I prefer to apply the term to people we're discussing, rather than to the posters with whom I'm conversing.
I don't recall ever addressing anyone here as an "SJW"....other than perhaps in jest & friendship.
Otherwise, it would be a conversation wrecker.

And which labels do they use that are equally subjective?

I find pretty much all of'm to be subjective in application.

It sounds to me as though you are speaking about a specific group of people who are quick to label any action as misogynistic or racist or the like- is that what you mean by sjw?

That would be one flavor of SJW.

I agree that people are quick to try to lump outlying behaviors into extreme categories but didn't icehorse already address this? Yet when I look at the categories that sjw's are accused of using- racist, misogynist, etc I think these categories are more clearly defined and it is obvious when someone is twisting words to fit the category. Yet with sjw, it really seems that any liberal thought one doesn't like or find meaningful fits into the sjw box. Hence, labels like racism or misogyny useful, while words like sjw are found wanting.

At this point, I'll state that dedicated progressives & activists who are rational & thoughtful are not SJWs.
But I might even call myself a "SJW" on some issues....cuz, you know....I can be obsessive over things that don't matter to others.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well I am not sure what all these instances are talking about: was that sh*t bottles? Who thinks it's okay to send child porn? How is a false rape allegation good for men? Who thinks it's okay to get someone fired for jokes?

All of those instances are talking about things that have actually happened. It was a urine bottle, (and it wasn't a pornographic picture; quote "here's a cute picture of my kid in her new Chewie hoodie. Hope it cheers you up!") and for the rest I think you have to be insane to say or do those things, but I'm not an SJW. By the looks of your response and despite your earlier claims, you may not be either.

Yet, all post 32 did was communicate where you draw the line, and I am not sure it did that clearly. Other people draw different lines. Can you offer a clear and concise definition upon which we could judge the uses of SJW?

I did offer a definition: those who reject logic, morality and/or other facets of human decency in their quest for what they call social justice.