I am a SJW

[Revoltingest]

Hey freethinker -
Like "Islamophobic", the term "SJW" can be used to shut down conversation. I certainly agree that some SJ types take things too far, and become dogmatic. But many do not, and the use of the term SJW, tends to shut down conversation, and extinguish the making of important distinctions. (And, fyi, I am on twitter)

I sympathize. But we have an environment where "misogynist", "racist", "dishonest", "stupid",
"privileged", "hater", & other alienating terms are not only used, but even encouraged by staff
(proffered as honesty & righteousness). These accusing labels create a divisive climate.
But they object to the "tone police", so...when in Rome, do as the Romans.

 

[freethinker44]

Hey freethinker -

Like "Islamophobic", the term "SJW" can be used to shut down conversation. I certainly agree that some SJ types take things too far, and become dogmatic. But many do not, and the use of the term SJW, tends to shut down conversation, and extinguish the making of important distinctions. (And, fyi, I am on twitter)

Do you have any examples to give, I haven't really seen any of that to a significant degree. The intent is probably to shut down the conversation or dismiss ideas, but when the conversation or ideas are legitimate they tend to stand on their own. I've seen a lot of the time where someone using terms like SJW, islamophobic, racist, sexist, etc., to dismiss a discussion, gets shutdown instead.
If one finds that their ideas or ideas they support are frequently being shutdown or dismissed easily by some label, then maybe they need to engage in some introspective critical analysis.

 

[icehorse]

hey freethinker -

Now I'm confused. Can you summarize the ideas you posted in #79 and #82. They seem contradictory, so instead of me guessing, can you just clarify?

As for your last sentence, it seems to me that you have this backwards. Those who want to curtail conversation have found it effective to paste dishonest labels on people as a way to discredit them. It doesn't always work of course, but often it does. This situation is largely independent of the quality of labelee's arguments. Instead, it's a way for the labelers to sidestep the meaningful conversation in the first place.

 

[icehorse]

I sympathize. But we have an environment where "misogynist", "racist", "dishonest", "stupid",
"privileged", "hater", & other alienating terms are not only used, but even encouraged by staff
(proffered as honesty & righteousness). These accusing labels create a divisive climate.
But they object to the "tone police", so...when in Rome, do as the Romans.

While I largely like your political platform, I don't like this list. It seems to conflate some legit categories of bad behaviors with some less than legit. I don't think it's powerful to put "misogynist" and "stupid" in the same list.

 

[freethinker44]

hey freethinker -

Now I'm confused. Can you summarize the ideas you posted in #79 and #82. They seem contradictory, so instead of me guessing, can you just clarify?

Is it because I said SJWs are frequent in the one post and then in the next I said I haven't seen the term "SJW" used to shutdown arguments?
They don't contradict, I was saying SJWs are all over the place, and I haven't seen a lot of conversations with important distinctions/ideas shut down by calling someone an SJW. The key term there is "important distinctions/ideas". SJWs get shutdown all the time by being called out as SJWs, just like racists, sexists, and whatever else. Because what they're saying is vapid enough to be easily dismissed by a label describing it. People with some actual substance to what they're saying aren't easily shutdown by a label. So it's the shutting down of important ideas by dismissive labels that I haven't seen much of. Shutting down of SJWs, yes, all the time.

As for your last sentence, it seems to me that you have this backwards. Those who want to curtail conversation have found it effective to paste dishonest labels on people as a way to discredit them. It doesn't always work of course, but often it does. This situation is largely independent of the quality of labelee's arguments. Instead, it's a way for the labelers to sidestep the meaningful conversation in the first place.

The last sentence isn't a separate idea. I was going to defend it by itself, but I realized what I was going to say was just going to be a repeat of the previous sentences in that post. So it kind of needs to be taken in context.
But there is a bit of truth to it on its own though. I mean, if a label in and of itself is sufficient to discredit an argument then maybe there wasn't a lot substance to the argument. At best it means the argument needs work, at worst it means it's probably just wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

While I largely like your political platform, I don't like this list. It seems to conflate some legit categories of bad behaviors with some less than legit. I don't think it's powerful to put "misogynist" and "stupid" in the same list.

Just as with "SJW", all are used legitimately at times, & illegitimately at other times.
The terms are identical in that particular sense & in their polarizing effect.
To recognize this is not conflation..
I see them used in error regularly by posters who are overly sanctimonious & certain of their own low opinion of fellow posters.
Does certainty justify turning a discussion of issues into something personal & negative?
Those who wield such accusations & labels towards their fellows here should ask themselves.....
- Is my intent to convey information useful to discussion or the other poster?
- Will it have that effect.....or will it offend & polarize?
- Will I accept critical labels applied to me too?

 

[icehorse]

My guess is that we don't actually disagree here... SJW is a label that is sometimes used to describe a person. In my experience, the labeler is almost always being lazy at best, dishonest often. It is often used as a term of derision (as suggested in the OP). There are certainly some SJWs who become dogmatic - those individuals ought to be challenged. There are many SJWs who are doing valid work. So I guess, like most labels, SJW is not precise enough. And in my experience, the person who labels another as a SJW is seldom behaving well.

 

[icehorse]

Just as with "SJW", all are used legitimately at times, & illegitimately at other times.
The terms are identical in that particular sense & in their polarizing effect.
To recognize this is not conflation..
I see them used in error regularly by posters who are overly sanctimonious & certain of their own low opinion of fellow posters.
Does certainty justify turning a discussion of issues into something personal & negative?
Those who wield such accusations & labels towards their fellows here should ask themselves.....
- Is my intent to convey information useful to discussion or the other poster?
- Will it have that effect.....or will it offend & polarize?
- Will I accept critical labels applied to me too?

I strive to debate ideas, not people. So I'd say it's well within bounds to argue that a given claim is "misogynistic" or "racist". But it would seldom be in bounds (or useful), to declare a claim to be "stupid".

 

[Revoltingest]

.....if a label in and of itself is sufficient to discredit an argument then maybe there wasn't a lot substance to the argument.

I don't see labels ever having that effect.
How many times do we see a poster tagging someone else with a derogatory label?
Is the argument actually discredited?
No....only the one doing the labeling feels victorious.
The labeled one typically thinks the other guy is being a jerk.

If one has an argument to make, then just make the argument.
Labels add nothing when thrown at each other.

I like labels which are useful in categorizing things.
Take me for example.....I'm an "atheist".
Many might see it as negative, but this is not a universal view.
And it's objectively accurate in the eyes of the labeler & the recipient.
But I'm also called a "misogyinist", which is never positive or even neutral (& it's wrong).
While this can be objective, it seldom is...typically being an insult, or at best, an error.
So you can call me an "atheist", "capitalist", & "engineer"....but not a "racist", "right wing propagandist", or "hater".

 

[Revoltingest]

My guess is that we don't actually disagree here... .

Borrrring!

.....SJW is a label that is sometimes used to describe a person. In my experience, the labeler is almost always being lazy at best, dishonest often.

How is this any different from any other label?
Instead of making one label inherently more or less cromulent than others,
application should be judged based upon the merit of the specific use.
Otherwise, you know what will happen.....
Everyone will only recognize labels they themselves use against others as legitimate.
Anything used against them will be bogus.
People will imagine they've won an argument simply because their win is intrinsic to the language.

It is often used as a term of derision (as suggested in the OP). There are certainly some SJWs who become dogmatic - those individuals ought to be challenged. There are many SJWs who are doing valid work. So I guess, like most labels, SJW is not precise enough. And in my experience, the person who labels another as a SJW is seldom behaving well.

The definition of "SJW" is indeed derisive, as are so many others which SJWs are wont to use against their perceived foes.
One reaps what one sows.

 

[Revoltingest]

I strive to debate ideas, not people. So I'd say it's well within bounds to argue that a given claim is "misogynistic" or "racist". But it would seldom be in bounds (or useful), to declare a claim to be "stupid".

Well, we can't go by your example.....you're just too virtuous.
But I see a lot of bogus claims using those labels.
It so often boils down to....."If you disagree with me, your post is _______ (insert label here)!".

 

[icehorse]

Well, we can't go by your example.....you're just too virtuous.

You forgot to say "handsome"!

Again, I suspect we agree but you currently use 5 words under your avatar: ignorant, atheist, capitalist, engineer, and libertarian. Each of those is a label, and for my money they are all fairly neutral. (Although one of my clients occasionally "accuses" me of being "an engineer" )

 

[Revoltingest]

You forgot to say "handsome"!

I didn't want to appear to be coming on to you.
This is a family friendly forum.

Again, I suspect we agree but you currently use 5 words under your avatar: ignorant, atheist, capitalist, engineer, and libertarian. Each of those is a label, and for my money they are all fairly neutral. (Although one of my clients occasionally "accuses" me of being "an engineer" )

Neurotypicals do have difficulty with engineers.

 

[freethinker44]

Neurotypicals do have difficulty with engineers.

Also, anyone that has to use anything they create.

 

[Revoltingest]

Also, anyone that has to use anything they create.

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.

 

[Curious George]

Borrrring!

How is this any different from any other label?
Instead of making one label inherently more or less cromulent than others,
application should be judged based upon the merit of the specific use.
Otherwise, you know what will happen.....
Everyone will only recognize labels they themselves use against others as legitimate.
Anything used against them will be bogus.
People will imagine they've won an argument simply because their win is intrinsic to the language.

The definition of "SJW" is indeed derisive, as are so many others which SJWs are wont to use against their perceived foes.
One reaps what one sows.

Yet some labels are specific while others more nebulous. It is with the latter, a category in which SJW seems to find itself, that a problem arises. The term is used to imply that someone is nitpicking over an inconsequential matter under the pretense of social justice. The concept tries to turn social justice into a four letter word. This should not be the case. Social justice is not bad. Being an advocate for social justice is not bad. Yet the term attempts to paint it in a negative light.

The term is reminiscent of "obscene"-- that word that is defined when we see it and not before. To some a social justice warrior is one talking about a glass ceiling, to others it's debating the confederate flag, to others it's advocating for gay marriage, for others it's talking about the treatment of women in video the gaming world, and to others it's some other topic. Shouldn't there be a word for worrying over what others find compelling? Just about any one of us can be labeled a SJW that makes the term meaningless.

 

[Curious George]

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.

Hide inside as a young child?

 

[freethinker44]

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.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet some labels are specific while others more nebulous. It is with the latter, a category in which SJW seems to find itself, that a problem arises. The term is used to imply that someone is nitpicking over an inconsequential matter under the pretense of social justice. The concept tries to turn social justice into a four letter word. This should not be the case. Social justice is not bad. Being an advocate for social justice is not bad. Yet the term attempts to paint it in a negative light.

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

The term is reminiscent of "obscene"-- that word that is defined when we see it and not before. To some a social justice warrior is one talking about a glass ceiling, to others it's debating the confederate flag, to others it's advocating for gay marriage, for others it's talking about the treatment of women in video the gaming world, and to others it's some other topic. Shouldn't there be a word for worrying over what others find compelling? Just about any one of us can be labeled a SJW that makes the term meaningless.

"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.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hide inside as a young child?

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