I am a SJW

[Curious George]

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Where have people called you a SJW? I'd be very interested to see what weird part of the forum people think that term is actually intelligent to use.

From what I understand, the term is supposed to be a similar brand of insult to calling someone "politically correct", i.e: it is this largely generic label that people tend to (mis)use and apply to almost any position that could be seen as reactionary in order to dismiss it without thought. These days, someone calling you "SJW" or "politically correct" is treated like some sort of argumentative slam-dunk. "So, you don't like the racist joke I said? Stop being so politically correct.". "So, you think computer games should feature more female protagonists? Stop being such an SJW."

It's pretty much the height of intellectual laziness. Little more than a label people use to avoid engaging in an actual debate about the issue and instead simply dismiss the other side's opinion without having to make any kind of intellectual defence.

 

[SomeRandom]

I like social justice in theory. It seems like it's a good place to stand. To fight for equality, to end discrimination and to speak for the "voiceless." All sounds very noble. On paper.
I guess it depends on how far you take that particular line of reasoning.

For example campaigning for human rights in some squalid country somewhere might make you technically an SJW. I don't know how many people in the West or anywhere else would raise a concern for this particular fight or aspect of the "cause." They'd most likely applaud such an effort.

But I think the real trouble comes with the younger, more rabid subsection. The more naive fresh faced idealistic "SJWs" who are so caught up in meting out justice to those they deem the "oppressors" that they themselves become the monster. So to speak.
I'm talking about the extremists here. The classes whining about needing a "safe space" and "trigger warnings" about literally everything and just generally spoilt brats who think the world needs to accommodate their particular sensitivities. Short of protection/prevention measures from bullying, I don't think it owes anyone that.
The people getting offended at Cards Against Humanity or lamenting about the lack of female butt coverage vs the "extreme level" of male butt coverage in video games. (No seriously, that was the latest video in the Tropes vs Women series from FemFreq. Which was riddled with inaccuracies either way. And people wonder why Anita gets flack in the gaming community. Geez.)

They use terms like "racist" and "sexist" to shut down their opponents, see Laci Green or Jonathan Macintosh. Well their supporters, rather. Even going so far as to label mixed race people of using their inherent "white privilege" to denounce their experiences as "invalid to the conversation." To women like myself they use terms like "internalized sexism" if I dare to even question their rhetoric. The "SJWs" that I have encountered both online and IRL are hypocritical racist and/or sexist ******** who use mental gymnastics to justify why bashing a man is not sexist or why excluding white people from an event doesn't make them racist. (The "Baha Mustafa incident.")
Oh and the "oppression Olympics." Good god, it seems to me almost fashionable to exclude their gay/bi brethren from social justice. But they're not homophobic, it's the disadvantaged that these people are really looking out for. Provided such disadvantaged people are not white and/or women (bonus points for non white women.)

I have many antidotes about being verbally abused by so called "SJWs" who, by the way, often wear the label proudly. Myself, a half Indian woman has been called racist, sexist, homophobic and victim blaming rape apologist. For simply espousing the view that people should be judged by the merit of their actions and pointing out the difference between the Clinical definition of a Pedophile vs the vernacular usage. I have even been called a MRA, which I am actually not that familiar with ironically enough, for trying to defend some poor guy on a forum about the supposed inherent sexism in video games.

Now such "evidence" is clearly unable to stand up to academic scrutiny. So I will not claim that this is the typical behavior of an "SJW." But I will say that it certainly has not helped my viewpoint of the average "SJW."

Now I don't know if you would engage in such behavior. I don't think you do. But that's just my experience.

Sorry for the rant by the way.

 

[Curious George]

I like social justice in theory. It seems like it's a good place to stand. To fight for equality, to end discrimination and to speak for the "voiceless." All sounds very noble. On paper.
I guess it depends on how far you take that particular line of reasoning.

For example campaigning for human rights in some squalid country somewhere might make you technically an SJW. I don't know how many people in the West or anywhere else would raise a concern for this particular fight or aspect of the "cause." They'd most likely applaud such an effort.

But I think the real trouble comes with the younger, more rabid subsection. The more naive fresh faced idealistic "SJWs" who are so caught up in meting out justice to those they deem the "oppressors" that they themselves become the monster. So to speak.
I'm talking about the extremists here. The classes whining about needing a "safe space" and "trigger warnings" about literally everything and just generally spoilt brats who think the world needs to accommodate their particular sensitivities. Short of protection/prevention measures from bullying, I don't think it owes anyone that.
The people getting offended at Cards Against Humanity or lamenting about the lack of female butt coverage vs the "extreme level" of male butt coverage in video games. (No seriously, that was the latest video in the Tropes vs Women series from FemFreq. Which was riddled with inaccuracies either way. And people wonder why Anita gets flack in the gaming community. Geez.)

They use terms like "racist" and "sexist" to shut down their opponents, see Laci Green or Jonathan Macintosh. Well their supporters, rather. Even going so far as to label mixed race people of using their inherent "white privilege" to denounce their experiences as "invalid to the conversation." To women like myself they use terms like "internalized sexism" if I dare to even question their rhetoric. The "SJWs" that I have encountered both online and IRL are hypocritical racist and/or sexist ******** who use mental gymnastics to justify why bashing a man is not sexist or why excluding white people from an event doesn't make them racist. (The "Baha Mustafa incident.")
Oh and the "oppression Olympics." Good god, it seems to me almost fashionable to exclude their gay/bi brethren from social justice. But they're not homophobic, it's the disadvantaged that these people are really looking out for. Provided such disadvantaged people are not white and/or men (bonus points for non white women.)

I have many antidotes about being verbally abused by so called "SJWs" who, by the way, often wear the label proudly. Myself, a half Indian woman has been called racist, sexist, homophobic and victim blaming rape apologist. For simply espousing the view that people should be judged by the merit of their actions and pointing out the difference between the Clinical definition of a Pedophile vs the vernacular usage. I have even been called a MRA, which I am actually not that familiar with ironically enough, for trying to defend some poor guy on a forum about the supposed inherent sexism in video games.

Now such "evidence" is clearly unable to stand up to academic scrutiny. So I will not claim that this is the typical behavior of an "SJW." But I will say that it certainly has not helped my viewpoint of the average "SJW."

Now I don't know if you would engage in such behavior. I don't think you do. But that's just my experience.

Sorry for the rant by the way.

Feel free to rant. Read my posts, judge for yourself. Just don't forget about this SJW next time you want to talk say SJWs are this or that. Consider, however, that people who feel one way about a topic are not always the one's that feel another way about a different topic. It seems to me that either your definition of the extreme SJW, either is anyone who espouses one of many different beliefs on many different subjects or is a hypothetical person that espouses all or most of these views and doesn't actually exist.

The interest group is a phenomenal thing. We have interest groups in the U.S. for just about everything under the sun. These groups band together and push for one particular interest. Now many of these interest groups might have some P.R. issues because their approach can turn people off. But, otoh, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and what you are talking about is rhetoric that is not uncommon to any interest group, even those that do not concern social justice. Look at gun rights, look at the republican debates, look at the people who denounce SJWs. It apparently is in style to bash groups. This particular bashing however makes me curious. What are people actually bashing. I support justice, do the people who attack others not support social justice?

Let's look at video games. Seems pretty simple, either the images support exploitation and sexism, or they don't. Make an argument either way. If a person thinks they do, or if a person thinks they don't, why not have the actual argument? Man bashing not sexist? Would love to hear that argument. I have even addressed such pointing out the difference between coping humor, feminist satire, and plain old man bashing. You see, I do not think the world is as cut and dry as people would often like it. There are plenty of nuanced differences and distinguishing features. So, why not have the conversation? The actual conversation? Is the answer, because some SJWs on one particular issue were slinging mud first?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I like social justice in theory. It seems like it's a good place to stand. To fight for equality, to end discrimination and to speak for the "voiceless." All sounds very noble. On paper.
I guess it depends on how far you take that particular line of reasoning.

For example campaigning for human rights in some squalid country somewhere might make you technically an SJW. I don't know how many people in the West or anywhere else would raise a concern for this particular fight or aspect of the "cause." They'd most likely applaud such an effort.

But I think the real trouble comes with the younger, more rabid subsection. The more naive fresh faced idealistic "SJWs" who are so caught up in meting out justice to those they deem the "oppressors" that they themselves become the monster. So to speak.
I'm talking about the extremists here. The classes whining about needing a "safe space" and "trigger warnings" about literally everything and just generally spoilt brats who think the world needs to accommodate their particular sensitivities. Short of protection/prevention measures from bullying, I don't think it owes anyone that.
The people getting offended at Cards Against Humanity or lamenting about the lack of female butt coverage vs the "extreme level" of male butt coverage in video games. (No seriously, that was the latest video in the Tropes vs Women series from FemFreq. Which was riddled with inaccuracies either way. And people wonder why Anita gets flack in the gaming community. Geez.)

They use terms like "racist" and "sexist" to shut down their opponents, see Laci Green or Jonathan Macintosh. Well their supporters, rather. Even going so far as to label mixed race people of using their inherent "white privilege" to denounce their experiences as "invalid to the conversation." To women like myself they use terms like "internalized sexism" if I dare to even question their rhetoric. The "SJWs" that I have encountered both online and IRL are hypocritical racist and/or sexist ******** who use mental gymnastics to justify why bashing a man is not sexist or why excluding white people from an event doesn't make them racist. (The "Baha Mustafa incident.")
Oh and the "oppression Olympics." Good god, it seems to me almost fashionable to exclude their gay/bi brethren from social justice. But they're not homophobic, it's the disadvantaged that these people are really looking out for. Provided such disadvantaged people are not white and/or men (bonus points for non white women.)

I have many antidotes about being verbally abused by so called "SJWs" who, by the way, often wear the label proudly. Myself, a half Indian woman has been called racist, sexist, homophobic and victim blaming rape apologist. For simply espousing the view that people should be judged by the merit of their actions and pointing out the difference between the Clinical definition of a Pedophile vs the vernacular usage. I have even been called a MRA, which I am actually not that familiar with ironically enough, for trying to defend some poor guy on a forum about the supposed inherent sexism in video games.

Now such "evidence" is clearly unable to stand up to academic scrutiny. So I will not claim that this is the typical behavior of an "SJW." But I will say that it certainly has not helped my viewpoint of the average "SJW."

Now I don't know if you would engage in such behavior. I don't think you do. But that's just my experience.

Sorry for the rant by the way.

I think this brings up the relevant point that it is usually the extremes of two points of view that are the loudest voices being heard. I think there are very good arguments on both sides. There is a fair amount of taking the concept of social justice "too far"; in my opinion, one of the prime examples of this is the use of "cis gendered" or "privilege" which are, again, labels that appear to me mostly used as an easy way to dismiss the entirety of an argument without thought. The concept kind of bugs me, as it seems to imply that being born a particular way means you are no longer entitled to an informed opinion about something. I understand the point of such terms as they address the possibility of cognitive dissonance between two groups - but too often I see the terms applied in exactly the same way as "SJW" or "politically correct"; just mindlessly aimed at any opinion, no matter how informed, that dissents from that of the social justice advocate in an attempt to dismiss them.

For the sake of simplicity, I will divide this argument into left and right wings; with the left wing occupied by "SJWs" and the right wing occupied by "privilege" (please note that this has nothing to do with political left or right wings, I'm just trying to find an easier shorthand). In general, it's the extremes at both ends of the scale who are causing the problem. The far left wing see almost any ideology to the right to be derided, and vice versa for the far right wing - it's very easy to dismiss a broad spectrum of opinion when you tar them all with the same brush. But I feel there is an expansive middle-ground that is being overlooked.

It's like the whole Gamergate kerfuffle. It just made me sad on so many levels. One one side we had people arguing for journalistic integrity, but a minority of that group were using the debate merely as a justification for the abuse they hurled at various, usually female, gaming journalists. As a result, the other side reacted by calling the abusers to task, which made the Gamergate movement look like a bunch of misogynistic, abusive fratboys. In respnse, the Gamergate movement accused the other side of "distracting" from the issue of journalistic integrity - without ever actually addressing the issue of the abuse that was going on. Consequently, almost any attempt to decry or bring attention to the abuse became tarred with the brush of being "anti-journalistic ethics" and complicit in corrupting the issue. What was the end result of this whole thing? Zero attention was brought to the corruption issues within gaming journalism, and all the attention was on the abuse that tarnished the whole movement which stubbornly refused to even acknowledge it. As is almost always the case, the loudest and most outraged voices were the only ones heard over the whole thing, and in the future it will be looked upon as a moment the gaming community collectively exposed and became apologists for horrible misogynistic abuse. It just felt like massive missed opportunity to me for a dialogue to actually start up about the genuine issues affecting game journalism, and address the issue of inclusivity in both gaming journalism and games in general. It's such a sad, crappy event that I'm even considering writing a play about it.

Outside of gaming, there seems to be an extremely strong, reactionary movement on YouTube. People whose videos I have in the past respected such as thunderf00t, Sargonofakaad and the Amazing Atheist (yeah, I sometimes find his videos entertaining, I admit it) now seem to put out exclusively anti-feminist videos filled with emotive rhetoric and simplification. In the internet community it is no longer a meaningful discussion between two perspectives, but a gigantic frenzy of invective between two sides who are each convinced of their own absolute moral superiority. I can't remember any examples of a relevant, hot-button topic being so completely co-opted by voices determined to simply shout the other side down.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think this brings up the relevant point that it is usually the extremes of two points of view that are the loudest voices being heard. I think there are very good arguments on both sides. There is a fair amount of taking the concept of social justice "too far"; in my opinion, one of the prime examples of this is the use of "cis gendered" or "privilege" which are, again, labels that appear to me mostly used as an easy way to dismiss the entirety of an argument without thought. The concept kind of bugs me, as it seems to imply that being born a particular way means you are no longer entitled to an informed opinion about something. I understand the point of such terms as they address the possibility of cognitive dissonance between two groups - but too often I see the terms applied in exactly the same way as "SJW" or "politically correct"; just mindlessly aimed at any opinion, no matter how informed, that dissents from that of the social justice advocate in an attempt to dismiss them.

For the sake of simplicity, I will divide this argument into left and right wings; with the left wing occupied by "SJWs" and the right wing occupied by "privilege" (please note that this has nothing to do with political left or right wings, I'm just trying to find an easier shorthand). In general, it's the extremes at both ends of the scale who are causing the problem. The far left wing see almost any ideology to the right to be derided, and vice versa for the far right wing - it's very easy to dismiss a broad spectrum of opinion when you tar them all with the same brush. But I feel there is an expansive middle-ground that is being overlooked.

It's like the whole Gamergate kerfuffle. It just made me sad on so many levels. One one side we had people arguing for journalistic integrity, but a minority of that group were using the debate merely as a justification for the abuse they hurled at various, usually female, gaming journalists. As a result, the other side reacted by calling the abusers to task, which made the Gamergate movement look like a bunch of misogynistic, abusive fratboys. In respnse, the Gamergate movement accused the other side of "distracting" from the issue of journalistic integrity - without ever actually addressing the issue of the abuse that was going on. Consequently, almost any attempt to decry or bring attention to the abuse became tarred with the brush of being "anti-journalistic ethics" and complicit in corrupting the issue. What was the end result of this whole thing? Zero attention was brought to the corruption issues within gaming journalism, and all the attention was on the abuse that tarnished the whole movement which stubbornly refused to even acknowledge it. As is almost always the case, the loudest and most outraged voices were the only ones heard over the whole thing, and in the future it will be looked upon as a moment the gaming community collectively exposed and became apologists for horrible misogynistic abuse. It just felt like massive missed opportunity to me for a dialogue to actually start up about the genuine issues affecting game journalism, and address the issue of inclusivity in both gaming journalism and games in general. It's such a sad, crappy event that I'm even considering writing a play about it.

Outside of gaming, there seems to be an extremely strong, reactionary movement on YouTube. People whose videos I have in the past respected such as thunderf00t, Sargonofakaad and the Amazing Atheist (yeah, I sometimes find his videos entertaining, I admit it) now seem to put out exclusively anti-feminist videos filled with emotive rhetoric and simplification. In the internet community it is no longer a meaningful discussion between two perspectives, but a gigantic frenzy of invective between two sides who are each convinced of their own absolute moral superiority. I can't remember any examples of a relevant, hot-button topic being so completely co-opted by voices determined to simply shout the other side down.

This!!!! So much this!! You just summed up my gripes far more eloquently than I could have done!
Though I suppose to be fair to Thundy I don't entirely blame the guy after his little war with the the Atheism Plus moment which banned him from that Skeptic Website a couple years back (which is why he started doing his anti feminist scthick in the first place.) That actually was pretty ****ty of them. Oh and that recent "war" with YouTube feminists. I mean that was below the belt even for YouTube standards. Not sure what kicked off The Amazing Atheist or Sargon on their anti feminist bent though. I guess Sargon was a part of GamerGate, maybe that's why. I agree with you. That movement had so much potential for actual debate but ended up being a movement filled with so much fail!!
Even so I don't know if GG was a total loss. I mean as much of an arrogant ******* as Milo Yiannopoulous is, I find his discussions rather interesting (though I disagree with him on many points.) And I like that he is clearly not afraid to question outspoken radfems. Something I haven't seen moderate Feminist do very much, or at least very publicly. (Sidenote, of his debates I have seen the mediator always seems like an ******* clearly biased towards the side of the RadFems in said debates. Weird.) He does seem to have a small band of Journos who seem like they want to bring attention to the lack of integrity in the gaming media. Though I freely admit that they could also just be using it as a way to bolster their career by being the "alternatives."

I want to find middle ground, but it's like the internet is like a giant warzone and you have to pick a side. I am trying to find a way to weigh up both arguments but it's like all I ever hear are the SJW extremists yelling at me for being an evil sexist/racist and the anti side yelling at me for buying into the "Feminist propaganda."
You want me to have a civil discussion @Curious George? I ask, how am I to do that when I'm constantly having to dodge the bullets (pardon the hyperbole) aimed at me from both sides?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

My gripe with you is all the trouble you cause for the man in the yellow hat!

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to own the term, "social justice warrior",
but consider the Urban Dictionary definitions. Here is the first.....

A 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. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

The above definition just doesn't fit you.
You're too reasonable & mirthful an advocate to embody the pejorative aspects of the term.
But still.....just as I embrace being "ignorant", I understand your adopting this label.

 

[Quetzal]

My gripe with you is all the trouble you cause for the man in the yellow hat!

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt to own the term, "social justice warrior",
but consider the Urban Dictionary definitions. Here is the first.....

A 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. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

The above definition just doesn't fit you.
You're too reasonable & mirthful an advocate to embody the pejorative aspects of the term.
But still.....just as I embrace being "ignorant", I understand your adopting this label.

So if I understand ya correctly... when you use the term SJW you are referring to folks who make a fuss for the sake of making a fuss without any real gains made? In that case, I agree they are quite annoying sometimes.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder if the phrase "social justice warrior" was coined by someone who doesn't think it's a great idea to have a moral conscience?

 

[4consideration]

I wonder if the phrase "social justice warrior" was coined by someone who doesn't think it's a great idea to have a moral conscience?

I would be very surprised if that was the case.

I think the term is negative, not because it is relative to "social justice," but because of the "warrior" part.

(I also don't think the OP comes across at all in that way.)

I think it's more like the difference between a person that actually practices their own religious beliefs in their own life, and quietly and respectfully discusses those beliefs with others and one that goes out as a "warrior for God" seeing evil everywhere, condemning everyone that disagrees with them, and making damn sure other people know they are part of that evil unless they agree!

 

[Flankerl]

Why can't non-gamers and casuals leave my games alone?

It's your fault that I can't play DoA Xtreme 3. Just because you hate fun you obviously have to ruin it for everyone else too.

 

[Sunstone]

I would be very surprised if that was the case.

I think the term is negative, not because it is relative to "social justice," but because of the "warrior" part.

(I also don't think the OP comes across at all in that way.)

I think it's more like the difference between a person that actually practices their own religious beliefs in their own life, and quietly and respectfully discusses those beliefs with others and one that goes out as a "warrior for God" seeing evil everywhere, condemning everyone that disagrees with them, and making damn sure other people know they are part of that evil unless they agree!

That sounds like the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term. It seems likely to me that some people mean that definition when they use the term SJW, but I've never personally seen it used that way. When I myself have seen it, it's been used in a simpler way: To cast doubt on someone's moral and ethical beliefs. So the term seems to have more than one meaning.

 

[4consideration]

That sounds like the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term. It seems likely to me that some people mean that definition when they use the term SJW, but I've never personally seen it used that way. When I myself have seen it, it's been used in a simpler way: To cast doubt on someone's moral and ethical beliefs. So the term seems to have more than one meaning.

OK. Having more than one meaning is entirely possible.

It seems to me I've usually seen it used in the way I described, or with someone insinuating the person is acting that way, even if my observation of the person's behavior would not justify using such a term. I'll keep an eye out for the use of the term in the way you describe.

 

[SomeRandom]

Why can't non-gamers and casuals leave my games alone?

It's your fault that I can't play DoA Xtreme 3. Just because you hate fun you obviously have to ruin it for everyone else too.

Oh man I remember the "great DoA Xtreme 3 debate."
One side was like the game is evil because bewbs. The other side was like Lolz, they's Japanese. That's just what they do.
There were riots in the street! Peace treaties were torn to pieces! The Rules of War were breached multiple times! It was madness I tells you. Madness!!!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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.

Same here. I've been called that when I say there is an element of sexism that is present. And that nobody likes feminists and therefore nobody likes me and I deserve to be insulted.

Truly. It's playground politics. Of course, one expects adults to grow up and out of playground politics, but I digress...

It's laughable, pathetic, and a lazy cop-out. Once that tactic is used, my respect for whom I'd been having a discussion with drops to zero. I'm tempted to employ the "Slow Clap" at that point.

But whatever makes them feel good about themselves and helps them sleep at night. Cue Anita Sarkeesian being brought up as asking for it. She's this generations Gloria Steinem as target practice for people who love to **** on feminists (guess what, folks, feminists have ALWAYS been **** on).

Oh, what beautiful souls these people have. I think it's adorably pathetic.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Feel free to rant. Read my posts, judge for yourself. Just don't forget about this SJW next time you want to talk say SJWs are this or that. Consider, however, that people who feel one way about a topic are not always the one's that feel another way about a different topic. It seems to me that either your definition of the extreme SJW, either is anyone who espouses one of many different beliefs on many different subjects or is a hypothetical person that espouses all or most of these views and doesn't actually exist.

The interest group is a phenomenal thing. We have interest groups in the U.S. for just about everything under the sun. These groups band together and push for one particular interest. Now many of these interest groups might have some P.R. issues because their approach can turn people off. But, otoh, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and what you are talking about is rhetoric that is not uncommon to any interest group, even those that do not concern social justice. Look at gun rights, look at the republican debates, look at the people who denounce SJWs. It apparently is in style to bash groups. This particular bashing however makes me curious. What are people actually bashing. I support justice, do the people who attack others not support social justice?

Let's look at video games. Seems pretty simple, either the images support exploitation and sexism, or they don't. Make an argument either way. If a person thinks they do, or if a person thinks they don't, why not have the actual argument? Man bashing not sexist? Would love to hear that argument. I have even addressed such pointing out the difference between coping humor, feminist satire, and plain old man bashing. You see, I do not think the world is as cut and dry as people would often like it. There are plenty of nuanced differences and distinguishing features. So, why not have the conversation? The actual conversation? Is the answer, because some SJWs on one particular issue were slinging mud first?

Some people erroneously equate all feminist critique with slinging mud, man-bashing, and above all, nothing but angry *****y noises.

So, they think they go on the defensive. It's quite the mental gymnastics to think that calling something sexist is insulting, but there you go. "That's sexist," is met from these folks with "oh yeah? Well, you're ugly and stupid."

Like I said, childish.

 

[Orbit]

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 have no idea what this term means...
Suddenly Jehovah's Witness?
Strawberry Jam With toast?
Southern Jehovah's Witness?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I wonder if the phrase "social justice warrior" was coined by someone who doesn't think it's a great idea to have a moral conscience?

It was coined to dismiss what people bring up regarding sexism, racism, or forms of bigotry that is considered inconsequential. Therefore, because they are a "SJW", they ruin people's fun and deserve to be given grief. Why, according to them crying racism is not only in bad taste but is just as racist as racism itself and deserves the hostility in return.

The logic for justifying not only the dismissal of social justice for marginalized people is crappy, but so is the "well they started it" justification for doxxing and trolling internet boards.

 

[SomeRandom]

Some people erroneously equate all feminist critique with slinging mud, man-bashing, and above all, nothing but angry *****y noises.

So, they think they go on the defensive. It's quite the mental gymnastics to think that calling something sexist is insulting, but there you go. "That's sexist," is met from these folks with "oh yeah? Well, you're ugly and stupid."

Like I said, childish.

You mean Like when people who espouse equality post things like #killallwhitemen #cismaletears and when people respond and say, well isn't that a sexist post and/or joke? And then said equality fighter then responds with "nuh uh. Sexism is power + privilege, you woman hating demon?" Or when people disliked the newest Ghostbusters trailer due to poor humor they are called sexists for "saying" that women can't be funny?

And I think therein lies the real miscommunication going on. On one side you have the Feminists and Social Justice Warriors (generally speaking) filtering everything through a lens of systematic Patriarchy or an abusive power structure disadvantaging some folks. So they interpret certain actions, jokes, comments or even reactions through that and come to the conclusion that the person saying/doing those things has to be a racist/sexist/homophobic. On the other, sure you have bigots saying bigoted things. But you also have some random people genuinely questioning stories or reacting by their own personal taste or making an off color joke because they happen to find it funny. And suddenly they're an evil woman hating racist piece of human excrement who deserves to be shunned from normal decent society.
For every ******* I have seen get a sound telling off for legitimate reasons, I have witnessed 20 innocents become collateral damage. Talk about "cyber violence."

What you say is true. People are on the defensive. But that's not because every one of them is secretly a KKK member/sympathizer or a woman hating piece of ****. (I;m sure there's a few of them in there.) But it's largely down to current PR. Loudest voices have a tendency to affect public relations, believe it or not. The stereotype of the homophobic Christian will obviously not apply to all Christians. But it exists for a reason. In the age of social media, young ladies and men will hear the most about feminism and by extension Social Justice Warriors from the loudest voices on the social media platform they frequent. So if you're interested in wasting some time in between classes and work by watching silly videos on YouTube, your prominent voices are Marinashutup, Laci Green of MTV and Anita Sarkeesian who seem to see sexism and racism literally everywhere. Or the likes of Laughing Witch, Steve Shives, Potato and a Jenny McDermo, who I sincerely hope is a troll. All of whom are.... well they're kind of sociopaths really. (Except Shives. I'm actually kind of worried about that bloke.) Which is a shame, to be sure, because they don't tend to paint the best picture of Social Justice or Feminism or well........ basic human decency.
But C'est la vie and all that I guess.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

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 hate the BS that SJWs claim about so-called "white privilege."

First of all, black privilege is a real thing. Ever heard of affirmative action regarding employment, scholarships, college selection/placement, etc.? Or the fact that black people can be openly racist about any group and nobody says a word? Or how a black person can blame his failings and shortcomings and poverty on "white privilege"? Or how, when a black man is successful, he won't be accused of "using his privilege" to get ahead in life? Or how, whenever a black person gets arrested--or treated in any way that he perceives as "racist"--he can pull out his race card and nobody questions it? Or how, whenever a white person tries to call out a black person on such BS, the black person can pull out the "you're just blinded by white privilege" card? So on and so on and so on.

The typical SJW will claim that white privilege is still alive and well, as if 2016 is no different than 1950s Alabama with its segregated schools and whites-only signs and Jim Crow laws. They will claim that whites have all the power in our society, even though (a) blacks have significant representation in all branches of the government and (b) the amount of black representation in positions of power is nearly comparable to the percentage of the population that's black. (This is no different than going to Japan and lamenting that all positions of power in Japanese society are held by ethnically Japanese people.)

Are you one of these nitwits who claims that white privilege is still a thing in 2016? I hope to Zeus not.