Serious Are social justice warriors (SJWs) ruining society?

[aurora]

Certainly, when one considers the spate of unexpected events that have befallen the world, such as the election of donald trump, brexit, and the rise of white nationalist movements, there is a question that needs to be asked. Unlike what the progressive liberalisation of the world of around us suggests, it seems that society is rejecting the doctrine of 'social justice warriors' and embracing ideology that some would call repugnant, others just what we need. Considering this obvious dichotomy, it's clear that there are two ways of looking at social justice warrior ideology, modus operandi, and ultimate aim. Kindness to all people, regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc., seems to be what the majority of mild to moderate social justice advocates believe. Sadly, it cannot be denied that, as with any ideology, there are extreme social justice warriors that dismiss all but their insular view of the world, a group that has grown of late.

Four years ago, in a move beneficial to the advancement of what you could call "moderate social justice", barack obama was re-elected to a second term as president of the united states. Overall, in that timespace, events such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage by the supreme court, obama's advocation for lesser sanctions on illegal immigrants and support for transgender rights, and the continued protection of abortion rights have, arguably, assisted in the strive for equality and the lessening of discrimination. Regrettably, it can also be argued that, in the last four years, as the presidential election got closer and the country got more divided, "extreme" social justice warriors became more and more vocal.

The thing is that, to be perfectly honest, there never was this rabid group of people screaming from the hilltops every time something they disagreed with happened say, a decade ago. Resilience among the youth of today has arguably been reduced as a consequence of this as social justice warriors try and shelter them from everything minutely emotionally distressing, such as losing a football game. Undoubtedly, some things are too emotionally distressing for children, so social justice initiatives such as more holistic educational strategies and a departure from punitive, rather than rehabilitative, punishments are positive steps. Most of the time, however, it's difficult to dispute that social justice warriors can sometimes be well off the mark, both in the nurturing of our youth and in other societal operations, such as a fervid desire for an immediate imposition of communism as the world's economic regime. Please, tell me if you think that social justice warriors are ruining society, whether it be to a greater extent, lesser extent or no extent at all.

 

[vonFiedler]

The thing is that, to be perfectly honest, there never was this rabid group of people screaming from the hilltops every time something they disagreed with happened say, a decade ago.

A decade ago you were 8. I wasn't. This, whatever you think "this" is, has not changed. "Political correctness" was a huge craze back in the 90s and 2000s, and frankly as much as many people don't know the difference, I find the aims of social justice to be much more bearable.

Frankly, the biggest differences is that now the alt-right whines just as loudly and often. Only part of their shtick is that they don't like safe spaces and offense culture, so there's the hypocrisy angle too.


It's worth noting that nobody ever called themselves a social justice warrior, but some people actually call themselves men's rights activists.

 

[Aladyyn]

No, they're making social media much more entertaining

 

[CaptKirby]

The process that sent SJW behavior spiraling out of control is that on the one hand you have the constant need for an agenda/opinion, the "right one", to be respected and agreed with etc... Then you have SJWs reacting to EVERY single thing that gets any amount of attention, hype, spirals out of control, often overreacting, often emotionally reacting to FAKE news and pure speculation/hysteria. Mix in basic trolling, different life experiences and worries/concerns, and naturally issues of total non-concern and also a ridiculous amount of actual concern are going to constantly turn into intractable, messy, unhelpful fights.

Basically, facebook + a 24/7 news cycle ruins any chance for these to be rational, considered, naturally evolving discussions where the stories that are the most concerning and greatest tragedies actually slowly gain more and more momentum and become a nationwide discussion (and never mind the effect globalism plays in all this SMH...it is all just a mess I mean getting 330 million people to agree is bad enough, good luck with 7.X billion).

Also, if Trump is the fucking answer, then sadly there is no good way to handle it. Trump's response to SJW shit was not dignified, stately, graceful, helpful, etc... his response was goddamn yelling, insulting, taking issue with anything thrown his way, and belittling everything he can. He ran this election like he participated in WWE, does business (sheer gambling), and how he ran the Apprentice (being an "entertaining" asshole). His response is baseline trolling, flaming, and memeing. While all that terrible behavior is good fun in our personal lives (I am way closer to Trump in behavior than an SJW style saint, even if I am an incredible libtard) or when you are not invested in an issue, it is absolutely not a good way to determine how to deal with serious issues being a "pain in the ass" or annyoance to deal with. It just explodes the issue into basically a fart noise and keeps the cycle of emotional overreaction as messy as possible.

 

[Adeleine]

I don't think they're relevant enough to "ruin" society, just one of those obnoxious yet inevitable side effects of a more interconnected and often anonymous society, which lets these pre-existing personalities conduct and express themselves in such a manner.

 

[EV]

I may have given xJownage the ct "even pendulums swing both ways" as an inside gay joke, but it's actually a lot more apropos wrt politics over the last ~16 years.

It seems like every other cycle the pendulum swings farther left or right. SJWs are an overreaction to the Bush years that swung hard left. The results of this latest election are the reaction to that. What comes next, the super SJW or, ideally, a more stable common ground as the pendulum finally begins to slow?

 

[Bughouse]

The infamously gradualist and disappointing to the left Obama often repeats the famous MLK quote 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'

He's right that it does take a long time and happens gradually, but it only does so because of loud agitators on the edge. Gradualism only happens as a negotiation between the edges. You pick a strong position and negotiate from there.

Civil rights happen because of agitators. Period. There would be no gay rights movement without Stonewall, for example. Passionate people are loud and loud people are annoying.

There will always be a loud segment of the population that wants no changes or in fact to reverse the past few decades of changes. These are usually older people, which makes a great deal of sense, not because old people are stupid or racist or sexist or whatever, but because its the society they are used to. There needs to be a countervailing force for change.

And yes that's going to sound whiny to a large segment of people. But that's just how it is and how it needs to be. And remember that same group of people who are annoyed sound just as bad to the agitators in return.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I've always found it ironic that there's actually people in the world who believe the way to end racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice is identity politics, which explicitly makes race, sex, and other attributes relevant when they should not be. It's the kind of cognitive dissonence that forces you to sit down and question whether they're completely insane, or you are.

I haven't ruled out both.

 

[BenTheDemon]

I originally posted a joke about an old Smogon meme, but vonFiedler seems to not appreciate memes.

So in all seriousness, I would say that SJWs are, as a whole, very bad for both society and the public perception of Progressivism.
I happen to have had a personal experience to perfectly explain what I mean.
I don't remember what the argument was about, but I was talking politics with an SJW once and she eventually ran out of logical ammo so started resorting to, "Well, you're a white, male, heterosexual. You can't really comprehend others' struggles."
And I immediately let her know that I was not heterosexual. She then treated my words as if they held value now. And there lies my biggest issue with SJWs. It's basically just another form of bigotry, but to a more specific class. They essentially group people into tiers of privilege based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The things they claim to want to be blind to.
Though it is true that historically, the most powerful class of people have been white, Christian, heterosexual men, having all these qualities simultaneously makes them a minority. And discarding their ideas is just another form of bigotry.
The thing people need to know is that we're all minorities somehow and to attempt to make lives better for all people.

That being said, I do agree with many things SJWs stand for. I believe that transgendered people should be treated as their preferred gender, though I don't agree with this idea of infinite genders. I could write an entire paper about this issue alone, but to shorten my stance, I'll just state that scientifically, some people are born with genitals that do not correspond to the brain's ratio of testosterone to estrogen which causes "masculine" and "feminine" traits. So to ignore this is ignorant, as there's science behind transgenderism.

I also happen to agree with the "Black Lives Matter" movement of the SJWs, but I find that the bigger issue is how unaccountable our police are held, and that we overlook poverty, which is far more related to crime than race. I believe that police should be held more accountable than they are now in this country and that cops should be required more education and to wear body cams.

I have more to say on all these issues, but I don't feel like typing them all out. Perhaps I'll add more later.

 

[Eo Ut Mortus]

Certainly, when one considers the spate of unexpected events that have befallen the world, such as the election of donald trump, brexit, and the rise of white nationalist movements, there is a question that needs to be asked. Unlike what the progressive liberalisation of the world of around us suggests, it seems that society is rejecting the doctrine of 'social justice warriors' and embracing ideology that some would call repugnant, others just what we need. Considering this obvious dichotomy, it's clear that there are two ways of looking at social justice warrior ideology, modus operandi, and ultimate aim. Kindness to all people, regardless of their race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc., seems to be what the majority of mild to moderate social justice advocates believe. Sadly, it cannot be denied that, as with any ideology, there are extreme social justice warriors that dismiss all but their insular view of the world, a group that has grown of late.

Four years ago, in a move beneficial to the advancement of what you could call "moderate social justice", barack obama was re-elected to a second term as president of the united states. Overall, in that timespace, events such as the legalisation of same-sex marriage by the supreme court, obama's advocation for lesser sanctions on illegal immigrants and support for transgender rights, and the continued protection of abortion rights have, arguably, assisted in the strive for equality and the lessening of discrimination. Regrettably, it can also be argued that, in the last four years, as the presidential election got closer and the country got more divided, "extreme" social justice warriors became more and more vocal.

The thing is that, to be perfectly honest, there never was this rabid group of people screaming from the hilltops every time something they disagreed with happened say, a decade ago. Resilience among the youth of today has arguably been reduced as a consequence of this as social justice warriors try and shelter them from everything minutely emotionally distressing, such as losing a football game. Undoubtedly, some things are too emotionally distressing for children, so social justice initiatives such as more holistic educational strategies and a departure from punitive, rather than rehabilitative, punishments are positive steps. Most of the time, however, it's difficult to dispute that social justice warriors can sometimes be well off the mark, both in the nurturing of our youth and in other societal operations, such as a fervid desire for an immediate imposition of communism as the world's economic regime. Please, tell me if you think that social justice warriors are ruining society, whether it be to a greater extent, lesser extent or no extent at all.

In the first part of your post, you claim SJWs "dismiss all but their insular view of the world" and "scream from the hilltops every time something they disagreed with happened say, a decade ago." This is a critique on rhetoric.

In the second part of your post, you claim SJWs want to "shelter [children] from everything minutely emotionally distressing" and exhibit "a fervid desire for an immediate imposition of communism as the world's economic regime." This is a critique on ideology.

So, which of these are we being asked to evaluate? Is it both? Are the rhetoric and ideology somehow fine when separate but problematic when put together? Should I not care about civil communists and militant fundamentalists? You are conflating ideology and rhetoric, and it doesn't make any sense.

It's fine if you want to critique a particular movement, but you could still be more specific. "Are SJWs ruining society?" What about them? Is it the the leftist ideology? The inflammatory rhetoric? The armchair activism? The culture of guilt and shame? The stifling of free speech? Make an actual argument instead of posing vague descriptions and what basically amounts to "SJWs: Discuss." Disclaimer: I'm not making these arguments.

Anyway, here's an opinion: I don't know if SJWs are ruining society, but they're sure ruining my day. What I hate is when they try to pass themselves off as moderates, touting themselves as beacons of reason compared to the more radical left and right. But they're SJWs, plain and simple, just as inflammatory and unyielding in their views as the radicals they criticize. And they're pussifying society, you know, complaining about how certain words hurt their feelings. They're self-righteous and annoying and perceive themselves as complex and thoughtful just because they reduce competing ideologies to caricatures.

 

[Ash Borer]

Lets define SJWs as radical left wingers, I think we can mostly agree with this, right? There is an issue with extremist leftism, in that its primary goal of the ideology is equal outcome. We do not have an equal outcome society, and the reason ascribed to this is that those at the top are perpetrators, oppressors, and those at the bottom are victims. When someone is a perpetrator of oppression they are morally reprehensible. They are bad people. When you look at society through this lens of unequal outcome means conscious, malevolent oppression (the word patriarchy seethes with this implication) you have hatred for those that are better off. Because white people ran the show on earth during the colonial days, and therefore their countries are pretty much all better off, and they themselves are, the ideology of extremist leftism inevitably comes to the conclusion that white people are bad. This is the distilled essence of the ideology of the social justice warrior.

Are they ruining society? Well, no, because they are neither a majority or totally empowered. However, I do think that they want to destroy society. Firstly, the phrase "smash the patriarchy" is basically completely indistinguishable from "smash western society", as pretty much every facet of our culture is at least rooted in what the feminists would call patriarchy.

Besides that phrase, I think their ideology does breed want for destruction. I very recently came to understand this reading a book entitled "A day in the life of Ivan Denisovictch" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Imagine you are a slave in a soviet labour camp, and you are hungry all the time, they barely feed you. It comes time to eat and in the eating quarters some porridge is being dolled out. You are entitled to your bowl, but of course the dominance hierarchy of the gangs in the camp and corruption of the cook taking stuff for himself and giving out bowls as favour might leave you with nothing. Imagine being left with nothing, the injustice of being denied food you are entitled to while being worked to the bone in the freezing cold. The rage I was filled with just imagining this, I knew I would have wanted to just destroy everything. Start beating anyone, because they were all guilty of being participants in this injustice, to do nothing more than destroy and feel vindicated because my victims deserved it.

This is the conclusion of the idea that the society we live in is so excruciatingly racist, sexist, and whatever -ist you might come up with. That everyone is guilty, immoral, and destroying the system that benefits them is the right thing to do.

Now, this paints a rather awful picture, where are the SJWs firebombing the racist sexist institutions? There arent enough that are this extreme, I think is the answer to this. Sure there are some, but there are plenty of all kinds of extremists, theyre innocuous in small numbers.

However, what would be a problem is a march towards more and more extreme leftism (or right wing for that matter, extreme anything is a cancer but this thread is about leftists). Moderate leftism is about modest reforms to the system, trying to fix the issues of relative poverty through welfare and social programs, and all that. Extreme leftism seeks to dismantle the entire culture, society, and system. I don't care if there is injustice and oppression and all that in our society. Destroying it is not the correct way to go about it, it has brought us much much more than any other society in history. Even those living in the lower class in the USA are better educated, and better off that working class in say 18th century england that barely had rights, possessions or education at all.


So to answer the question, are SJWs ruining society? I think the answer is that if the number of extreme leftist ideologues grows at a very fast rate, then yes that would ruin society, but I don't think they're going to be allowed to do that. How are they going to not be allowed? Simple, moderate leftists need to stop being apologists and mouthpieces for radical leftists. Radical of any ideology is bad, bad, bad.

 

[termi]

Privileged white men are so fucking hostile towards those who dare to question their beliefs these days. Every time a feminist legitimately questions patriarchal power structures and every time a black lives matter activist points out the disproportionate police brutality committed against black people, white men collectively lose their shit. Perhaps there are a few people out there who are truly "bad sjw's", but for the most part, privileged fuckboys seem to dismiss any vaguely feminist/pro-black/etc voice without even considering their argument, or where these people are really coming from. Even if their rhetoric might not be fully sound, these people's critiques need to be heard and understood, because they are pointing out fundamental flaws in the dominating power structures of modern society, and pretending these issues do not exist and those who point them out are "irrational" or "too emotional" reeks of privilege.

I think it's terribly ironic that the internet's pretending sjw's are actually some sort of big threat to freedom of speech, when the only ones who are really being censored are exactly those very activists who strive for equal rights for all. Seriously, it might be hard for privileged idiots to do some basic self-reflection, but you have to be truly clueless if you're blind to the irony of fighting a group of people who are "trying to censor you", even though it's exactly those people who are being suppressed by the media and taken for a joke.

Also, it's about time that we learn to understand the fundamental roles that black/gay/female/muslim/etc identity plays in determining who you are as a person. Not in the sense that being born black makes you innately different from others (a lot of anti-sjw's like to point out that focusing on identity politics "makes race, sex, and other attributes relevant when they should not be", in the words of a certain someone who posted in this thread), but in the sense that because you were born as an oppressed minority, you have internalized that oppression for all these years and you end up carrying that burden with you throughout your whole life.

Sorry to trigger those of you who have been living in this comfortable bubble of privilege, where you never had to struggle with the oppression minorities feel on a daily basis, or those lucky few of you who made it to the top despite being an oppressed minority, but you're gonna have to get with the times. Just because you never had to personally deal with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and whatnot doesn't mean that these are non-issues, it's just that you were lucky enough to sidestep these problems. Whatever you may say about black lives matter or radical feminists, deep down you're really just mad at them because you know that, after all, they have a point, and it scares you.

 

[Soul Fly]

Lets define SJWs as radical left wingers, I think we can mostly agree with this, right?

No. We can't because they are different things. I've seen some other posters buy into this equivalence too...

They have completely different modalities, and conceptual categories. One is a cultural movement for inter-sectional equality, the other is a socio-economic platform with class politics at its heart. To equate the two suggests a very poor competency in either leftist politics or social progressiveness. The only point of contact between the two (arguably that too) is an advocacy of active state intervention, but again the need and areas of intervention are different, albeit with certain overlap - affirmative action may be one (with different criteria for said action).
For illustration - you can be a capitalist, but still think microaggressions are legitimate, or that insiduous racism/sexism is detrimental to certain social group's ability to participate in the free market. So even with a capitalist outlook you can technically be "SJW"

-

In a more general response to the thread, I have problems with the coinage of the term "SJW" itself, because it has it's genesis in communities using it as a derogatory term for anyone advocating social progressivism or campaigning against structural racism/sexism/classism. As opposed to having any positive theoretical value of its own. What is the alternative paradigm? What does the non-"SJW" world look like (assuming you aren't an ignoramus who thinks the world is a perfectly peachy place now)...

No one seems to quite know. but everyone's willing to fling that term quite readily.

It's not very much different from other forms of name calling, like "slut" for instance. It has a loaded value judgment with disturbing implications. I don't think anyone can refute the fact that the term has been bandied around to smear educated, polite people who make very convincing arguments as it is for tumblrkin putting up #hatemales. It seems like a very easy alternative to engagement, in the same vein "cuck" is thrown around.

Of course, I am more than happy to concede there are excesses. The Hugh Mungus debacle would be a good example of something that I am very willing to declare as problematic and patronising, but that seems to be the exception rather than the norm; or say an issue like campuses being declared Safe Spaces, would draw sharp critique from me despite otherwise professing to progressive politics, and there is definitely scope for debate and grey areas. Some vague notion of partisan equivalence (or "camps") is irrelevant here imo.

However, and more ominously "SJW" is paraded about to to conveniently discount progressive politics in a blanket manner. For me it's a manifestation of the tyranny of the majority, where the majority cannot stand being told that their behaviour might negatively impact other social groups. The point is if we can come to a humanist consensus that no one shall be discriminated on the basis of factors like race/gender/income (not so sure given the recent election results); then certain things aren't a matter of opinion and you should be ready to get called out on behaviour and beliefs that damange that ethos. Otherwise you're being a hypocrite.

 

[Divine Retribution]

Just because you never had to personally deal with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and whatnot doesn't mean that these are non-issues, it's just that you were lucky enough to sidestep these problems. Whatever you may say about black lives matter or radical feminists, deep down you're really just mad at them because you know that, after all, they have a point, and it scares you.

Where have I heard this argument before?

Oh right, it's just like how apparently deep down inside I know God exists, I'm just denying him because I want to sin, right?

Also, nobody has ever denied the existence of sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. But when you want to claim that society as a whole, or a certain race as a whole, is sexist, racist, and transphobic, that's the sort of claim that requires some evidence. If you've got any (you've provided none in your little tirade here, I notice) I'd be more than happy to see it. You might even change my mind.

Although I should also say I do agree with some "SJW" points to an extent. For example, while I don't think all cops are racist, there are undoubtedly certain major police departments that are extremely racist. This is demonstrable.

Again, if you have any evidence to support a global patriarchy that makes all straight white men hate all women, racial minorities, and LGBT people, I would be very interested in seeing it.

Also, I'd just like to say I don't like the term SJW. I prefer to call them what they are; neo-Marxists.

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

My answer to the question posed here is "yes", but not for reasons typically brought up by other libertarians, the alt-right, or really any other group vocally critical of SJWs. My reason is this: SJWs are antithetical to social progress.

Vox: "Research says there are ways to reduce racial bias. Calling people racist isn't one of them."

I don't want to write a whole essay on this article, but if you don't want to click, here's the tl;dr: A "frank, brief [non-confrontational] conversation" is a far better tactic of reducing bigotry than calling people bigots. This is exactly what SJWs are not doing. I don't need to browse Tumblr very long to find like 50 posts where some SJW spews some bullshit about x issue and says that anyone with even the slightest disagreement is a bigot. And, honestly, does anybody even think this works? If you just straight-up call someone a bigot, all it does is make them listen to you less, and I've personally experienced this - as I've said in other threads, my mom is pretty damn racist. However, every time I call her out on it, it doesn't make her any less racist. For a better demonstration of how calling people bigots rather than actually trying to talk things out with them is counterproductive, do you think the left straight-up calling anyone who supported Donald Trump during the 2016 election things like racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, and xenophobic stopped them from supporting Donald Trump? This isn't to say that the left didn't have a rational basis for applying these labels to the Trump campaign (because they did), but calling his supporters bigots certainly didn't stop them from supporting him.

When I speak out against SJWs, I'm not speaking out against activism. You probably know me as an activist myself, but for the sake of not bringing up the subject matter for the billionth time, I will avoid discussing what the activism is about (I'm sure most people here already know anyway). Early on, I personally did resort to using some of these counterproductive, SJW tactics; while I never went as far as using words like "bigot", I was very quick to jump to using words like "idiot" and "moron" while also describing the issue I was speaking out against in an extremely unnuanced manner, likening it to murder and sexual assault. Pretty soon, I realized something: This shit doesn't work. When you put down the very people you're supposed to be bringing over to your side, they're not exactly going to become sympathetic to your cause. A quote from Martin Luther King is very appropriate here: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." Hate and division will never advance social progress; that requires compassion and understanding. If you want to bring people to your side, you have to understand why they think the way they do, and work to change that while being as non-confrontational as possible. And, again: This is not what SJWs are doing. They don't make any effort to understand why their opponents think the way they do; all they do is resort to inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling.

 

[Codraroll]

Personally, I think that using the term "SJW" in serious discussion is a sign you've already lost the debate. It's a strawman, labelling your opponent as a constructed image, and taking the debate from there. It's akin to saying "You vote right, so you're a Nazi, so you MUST think that gassing Jews is a good thing", or "You vote left, you must be a communist and feel no shame for YOUR history of Gulags".

Chances are, if you feel your society* is ruined by "SJWs", it wasn't worth keeping anyway. "Oh no, I can't use slurs to demean women, minorities or homosexuals in public any more. I'm oppressed! I'm the real victim!". Or another variant: "I want to be an alpha male, a relentless macho man who thinks and says whatever I want without regard for the consequences, but the girls won't let me!"

Of course there are examples of people taking it too far. Those whose definition of harassment extends to "disagreeing with me" or "looking at me". Those who refuse to tell their kids about genders, or who claim offense by absolutely everything and follow it up by reporting it to the police. Those people are idiots. But they are very, very rare, and using them as a benchmark for what an "SJW" is, and then labelling everybody who disagree with you as an "SJW", is sinking to the same level of moronism. You might as well wrap up the entire political spectrum right of yourself and call them "Nazis", and judge them all accordingly without accounting for nuances. Or the same on the left, just call them "Stalinists" instead.

Stupid term. Stupid people who use it.

*see post below

 

[Ash Borer]

Chances are, if you feel your society is ruined by "SJWs", it wasn't worth keeping anyway. "Oh no, I can't use slurs to demean women, minorities or homosexuals in public any more. I'm oppressed! I'm the real victim!". Or another variant: "I want to be an alpha male, a relentless macho man who thinks and says whatever I want without regard for the consequences, but the girls won't let me!"

This is a fatal mistake. You think that such minor injustice is reason to demolish the entire society? Do you not see all the order, wealth, freedom and safety the society we live in brings us? Show some gratitude for all the good around you before you believe that "it isn't worth keeping".

 

[Codraroll]

This is a fatal mistake. You think that such minor injustice is reason to demolish the entire society? Do you not see all the order, wealth, freedom and safety the society we live in brings us? Show some gratitude for all the good around you before you believe that "it isn't worth keeping".

Fatal mistake, but probably just in the wording. I should have used the word "lifestyle" instead. Or "world view". Someone who feels society is ruined forever!!! by the existence of the people they label "SJW", should really just suck it up. I'm not in favour of bowing to the idiots who take it too far, but promoting the idea of equality is harmless enough that nobody should feel their life is falling apart because of "SJWs". Calling people out for misoginy or inequality is not "ruining society", and if somebody feel it is... they should learn to live with it. They're free to have an opposite opinion, and that is a thing we really shouldn't change.

 

[Ash Borer]

Fatal mistake, but probably just in the wording. I should have used the word "lifestyle" instead. Or "world view". Someone who feels society is ruined forever!!! by the existence of the people they label "SJW", should really just suck it up. I'm not in favour of bowing to the idiots who take it too far, but promoting the idea of equality is harmless enough that nobody should feel their life is falling apart because of "SJWs". Calling people out for misoginy or inequality is not "ruining society", and if somebody feel it is... they should learn to live with it. They're free to have an opposite opinion, and that is a thing we really shouldn't change.

right. That's a lot more reasonable. Also, I think it's a bit hypocritical that you say that the term "SJW" is a straw-man, but then you reduce social conservatism to silly statements like "I want to be an alpha male, a relentless macho man who thinks and says whatever I want without regard for the consequences, but the girls won't let me!", which is a straw man in its own right

 

[GotR]

I don't like the fact that the OP is specifically about SJWs. Sure, the extreme left is loud and obnoxious and generally damages any discussion that will help society move forward by zoning out anything they disagree with, but so does the extreme right. Extremes in general are just poor for progress, and for coming to actually useful resolutions.

Basically, I don't think SJWs are ruining society - I think people who can't admit they're not always correct are bad for society, and SJWs just happen to fit into that category.

Edit: Also, 'ruining society' seems like a gross overstatement. Nuclear war would 'ruin society'; loud, obnoxious groups of people with extreme views are an annoyance that have always existed, aren't going anywhere, and haven't led to the end of days itself yet.

 

[omgocd]

SJWs don't even exist outside the internet. It's the people who base their political views on social media phenomena ("memes") who are ruining society IMO.

 

[Zentrius]

Also, nobody has ever denied the existence of sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. But when you want to claim that society as a whole, or a certain race as a whole, is sexist, racist, and transphobic, that's the sort of claim that requires some evidence. If you've got any (you've provided none in your little tirade here, I notice) I'd be more than happy to see it. You might even change my mind.

kind of ironic that you say this, considering how the majority of the white male (shockingly enough!) population nowadays read a tumblr post made by a most likely 14 year old femenist extremist who proclaims that all men must die and collectively lose their shit and therefore create this horrifingly stupid idea that all feminists want manhood to be exterminated. yet when a reasonable person who considers themselves to be a feminist says that "being a feminist is just trying to find equalityl!" they all instantly go "you basically want me dead". its the same deal with the black lives matter movement.

if you are going to say that there are people who think every single member of the white male straight population is racist, sexist, homophobic, tranpshobic and all of the above then by all means go ahead, but please dont pretend as if this doesn't happen the other way around as well.

 

[Divine Retribution]

kind of ironic that you say this, considering how the majority of the white male (shockingly enough!) population nowadays read a tumblr post made by a most likely 14 year old femenist extremist who proclaims that all men must die and collectively lose their shit and therefore create this horrifingly stupid idea that all feminists want manhood to be exterminated. yet when a reasonable person who considers themselves to be a feminist says that "being a feminist is just trying to find equalityl!" they all instantly go "you basically want me dead". its the same deal with the black lives matter movement.

if you are going to say that there are people who think every single member of the white male straight population is racist, sexist, homophobic, tranpshobic and all of the above then by all means go ahead, but please dont pretend as if this doesn't happen the other way around as well.

Where the fuck did you get the idea that I think feminists want to exterminate men from my post? Besides, my issue isn't with feminists or even feminism as a concept, especially seeing as how the definition of "feminism" seems to vary depending on who you ask. For example, am I a feminist if I support equal rights for women, but don't believe in a global patriarchy that oppresses all women because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for one? If the definition of feminist is "someone who believes in equal rights for women" full stop, then yes, but many people tell would tell me otherwise.

And if your claim isn't that society is divided into two classes, the universally privileged straight white men and the universally disadvantaged minority groups, and that the entirety of the first class is oppressing the entirety of the second class, then congratulations, you're not a neo-Marxist and my issues aren't with you.

 

[Rowan]

Where the fuck did you get the idea that I think feminists want to exterminate men from my post? Besides, my issue isn't with feminists or even feminism as a concept, especially seeing as how the definition of "feminism" seems to vary depending on who you ask. For example, am I a feminist if I support equal rights for women, but don't believe in a global patriarchy that oppresses all women because I haven't seen sufficient evidence for one? If the definition of feminist is "someone who believes in equal rights for women" full stop, then yes, but many people tell would tell me otherwise.

And if your claim isn't that society is divided into two classes, the universally privileged straight white men and the universally disadvantaged minority groups, and that the entirety of the first class is oppressing the entirety of the second class, then congratulations, you're not a neo-Marxist and my issues aren't with you.

I don't think anyone claimed that the entirety of the straight white male population is racist/sexist/homophobic. I think we're all intelligent enough in this thread to realise that blanket claims like this are not very useful. No-one is saying that there is a clear divide between straight white male and 'other'. You're just reducing other people's arguments to mere essentialism.

However, I would consider you to be pretty stupid if you can't see that people who aren't in the straight white male category have clear disadvantages and prejudices in life that they have to deal with. You have a go at Robert Alfons for not giving evidence, but most of the evidence is common knowledge. The gender pay gap, police brutality towards black people, gay people can't get married in half of western society. This is all symptomatic of a patriarchal society run by predominantly white males (some would describe this by saying society is prejudiced - I would probably say this, but by saying society is prejudiced, isn't necessarily saying that all the people within that society are prejudiced, but that the societal structures are). Now, judging from your posts, I'm guessing you support equality between all races, genders, and sexualities. But as a white male, I feel that as soon as something about white males having privilege you go on the defensive, and say 'we're not all like that'. As a straight white male myself (particularly as someone with an oversensitive nature), I am prone to that as an initial response, but you have to realise that most people aren't criticising white males as a whole, but criticising a society which is run by white males, which gives people that don't fall into that category disadvantages in life.

Now, there may be a few outsiders who do hate straight white males regardless, and yes, we should dismiss their arguments if they're just going to put all straight white males into a blanket category. However, we should try to understand why these people feel the way they do, because there's obviously a reason, which is the fact that if you're born into a certain category, you have certain advantages and privileges in life.

edit: As a side note, I feel that the portion of people who dismiss progressive arguments as SJW, have a problem with the language that many left-wing people. If feminists stopped labelling themselves as feminists and started labelling themselves as 'equalists' then there would probably would be much less uproar. Same with the black lives matter movement, you get people saying 'well all lives matter'. Which is true, but white people don't particularly need to protest institutionalised racism. But the language that we use makes a portion of white males feel threatened, which I believe has led to events such as the rise of Trump and far-right parties gaining more traction, and led to many people dismissing people who are giving solid arguments as just SJWs. This does sadden me, but I feel as the left, we cannot just dismiss these people angrily, and we have to actually engage with them and explain what we actually mean when we use the word feminist or the phrase black lives matter. I agree with Robert Alfons post, but I feel that his rhetoric is rather inflammatory and simply just preaching to the converted.

 

[Divine Retribution]

I don't think anyone claimed that the entirety of the straight white male population is racist/sexist/homophobic. I think we're all intelligent enough in this thread to realise that blanket claims like this are not very useful. No-one is saying that there is a clear divide between straight white male and 'other'. You're just reducing other people's arguments to mere essentialism.

Again, if your claim isn't a clear-cut, black-and-white, absolutist divide between the privileged "overclass" and the oppressed "underclass", then you're not the kind of person I necessarily have any issue with. I may disagree with you on individual issues, but that's different. And yes, there are quite a few people who do believe that. Maybe they're a vocal minority, but I can't be the judge of that. The more moderate progressives like yourself I have no issue with, but I do take contention with a few points you've made.

However, I would consider you to be pretty stupid if you can't see that people who aren't in the straight white male category have clear disadvantages and prejudices in life that they have to deal with. You have a go at Robert Alfons for not giving evidence, but most of the evidence is common knowledge. The gender pay gap, police brutality towards black people, gay people can't get married in half of western society.

If it's as clear as you say it is, providing evidence for it should be trivial, and yet I notice you haven't. I don't care if you consider me "pretty stupid" for rejecting unsubstantiated claims, I'd consider you pretty stupid if you didn't.

That being said I never denied that prejudice exists, but to say it's ingrained into western society and that your average straight white man is responsible for it is a claim that I feel must be substantiated.

judging from your posts, I'm guessing you support equality between all races, genders, and sexualities. But as a white male, I feel that as soon as something about white males having privilege you go on the defensive, and say 'we're not all like that'. As a straight white male myself (particularly as someone with an oversensitive nature), I am prone to that as an initial response, but you have to realise that most people aren't criticising white males as a whole, but criticising a society which is run by white males, which gives people that don't fall into that category disadvantages in life.

I'm Hispanic, not white, but I do happen to be straight and male. I don't have a problem with people criticizing society at all, I have a problem with Marxism and Marxist philosophies, because they're dangerous. However, I would say that you could perhaps be a little more tactful and not direct your criticism at "privileged white men" if they aren't explicitly the targets of your criticism, and if they are the targets of your criticism, then we're back to square one. You're creating a fallback position here where people can make sweeping generalizations about straight white men, and then when called out on it they retreat into the position of "oh, well I was just criticizing a society that is predominantly run by straight white men, not straight white men as a class". This is not productive to any sort of rational discourse.