I think it depends on the context you use SJW to describe a person. People who continuously take action to overcome real discrimination, inequality and injustice do excellent work. For example, Amnesty International do some excellent work to help overcome issues in social justice through fighting for Human Rights. Similarly, without activists and good social thinking, many services would be inadequately able to serve people that may need it the most. For example, ramps & elevators for those that need wheelchairs/mobility issues. Overall, whether something is good should entirely be based on their actions. Right now in my country, the Fitness for Work thing is a great example of why social justice activism is needed, as our Mental Health Assessment for fitness for work is terrible and likely causing harm to those with mental illness.

I personally believe there is an issue in debate, especially in America. It seems like people are simply unwilling to listen to opposition, but this can expand to hundreds of topics outside of Feminism, and it's something that's echoed throughout human history. From Flat Earth, to modern 'sensitivity' towards topics such as racism, misogyny, misandry and more. Whilst there are some people with extreme left wing ideologies and opinions of how society should be structured, I believe the best approach is discussion. Unfortunately, people with extremist ideologies are usually disinterested in the type of discussion that's usually needed to fix these issues. Whether it be extreme social justice activation, extremist religious views, etc.

I never run into an SJW and was nice about it or wasn't extreme.

So if we take the extreme out of SJWs are they still SJW? I personally say no. I personally never met an SJW in my entire life who wasn't extreme. Only those who claimed they were SJWs. But I say they are slightly  misunderstood because you would be surprised how many non-SJW who claim they do have the same moral compass of a Right-wing person.

It's difficult when people identify as one and don't describe what separates the extreme from the norm.the extreme is the norm at least to the mass population who is aware of the term and mainstream media. Mainstream media either supports SJW thinking to the point of extremity or disaproves for its extremities. I had never seen a middle ground that other people already dont fall into and still easily identify as one.

Worst I don't even see a single select group of SJWs upset with how mainstream SJWs portray themselves. At least feminist will call out another feminist for being too extreme and truly feel passionate about how mainstream third wave feminism has destroyed their image.

So I would like to know what an SJW and an extreme SJW? If it does exist?

It also bothers me when people use the word bigots.The word means "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." And although right-wing or just general people may highly disapprove ideology of an SJW, it can apply to anyone including SJWs.


Just to be clear that SJW are very different fro. Activist although fall in the same area. AN Activist may fight for a white male because he's losing his home due to illegal/shady practices by the bank or goverment. A N Activist may fight for less fishing in Antarctica to preserve the eco system. AN SJW won't fight for those things...at least not as an SJW.

I think you missed the part where there is one right in front of you now. I'm the person who will call someone out for being too extreme, and yes, I was including SJW extremists in with "bigots and idiots" who also have the right to freedom of speech.

No offense. But I'm looking at someone who calls themselves an SJW. Whether you are one has not been determined to be a fact. And I'll get back to this in a moment because this implies that you know what an SJW is just by identifying as one.

I'd also like to point out that there are probably countries that you haven't seen or been to, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. That in and of itself would render your "I haven't seen them therefore they aren't real to me" argument kinda...moot?

Because you only see SJWonly as an ideology but it has become a movement just like feminism. That's why you hear so many negative reactions when SJWs

That fallacy doesn't apply. I'm saying that I never seen an SJW who isn't extreme because by definition of what people use SJW for is extremity. Those who claim they  are SJW are usually either extreme or not an SJW. And I'll get back to this in a moment.

It's also not exactly the place of someone from the outside to define a group. SJW is an umbrella term, and a lot of things fit into it. I'm not sure why that's so hard to wrap your head around. Like, wow, the difference between an SJW and an extreme SJW is that the extremist is extreme? Fancy that. Besides, isn't it the case that just about everybody loves to set up a strawman in the media? Especially these days, the loudest and most ridiculous of a group tend to get the most coverage because they're the most "interesting" [or profitable]. It happens all the time with feminism, too. Most people I know don't even identify with feminism because of the negative connotation.

Because it is a defined group of People for specific ideology and methods? Maybe not organized but it's collective ideology that has no middle ground. The fact that you recognize people don't identify as feminist is because of negative connotations means you know that feminist isn't an umbrella term. It's identifying as a specific group of people. The negative connotations are now part of the identity. It doesn't matter what the textbook definition is or used to be.

BUT Feminist have a better chance saying "were an umbrella term" because they actually segregate to different groups. Not all feminist agree with eachother and there are Feminist who will fight for what they believe against the other feminist. It is clear that there is "good" feminists and "bad feminists". Whether or not people agree with me which ones are the good ones.

SJW however has none of that distinction. When you hear about SJWS its usually with the negative connotations. And for the record mainstrewm media is a compliment. Non mainstream news definitely dont like  SJWs either are much more vocal and will call them out far more often and frequently.

There is no specific segregation to clearly identify which is good or which is bad. But you never hear about someone who actively considers themselves an SJW. And to be fair I give the same treatment to feminist. Feminist is a movement behind an ideology. SJW is a movement aswell.

SJW isn't used as an umbrella term. It could be But its not. People know exactly what type of person they are referring to when they use it. The same for feminist and feminist still has a lot of leeway.

But, I suppose to give you an example, an extreme SJW is the person who will get aggressive because somebody "misgendered" somebody, whereas in my case, I'm more concerned about the person being legally recognized as the gender they identify as and that they have a place to pee, so I'd only step in if it actually boiled over into harassment, and even then I would try to avoid fueling the fire and simply saying something more along the lines of "Look, you two probably aren't going to agree. Why not just walk away, then?"

I'm concerned with people having a place to use the bathroom. It's a civil rights issue. Unless you are talking about people dissatisfied with where they go over where they want to. And that is tricky grey area. Because that also involves how people identify as...and that's another area that could be extreme because people can treat gender identity like shoes.Trans go through bigger hoops to identify the gender they do. And for reasons. Not all good but not all bad either.

But all of this doesn't point to SJW. There is a group specific to fighting for LGBTQ rights and don't identify as an SJW. And that's most likely because of negative connotations aswell.

For the record though, if the white male is dealing with a corrupt bank, that still could classify as an SJW issue, as could environmental protection.

It's a social issue...not a SJW issue. You're trying very hard to separate what it's used for what the basic definition it's trying to be. But not all movements are good even if good intentions. And an SJW is treated as a single specific group of people who attempt to make a movement of what they believe.


I'm sorry but SJW at least in the modern day isn't a regular umbrella term everyone can say they identify as or not. SJW speaks through actions. Extreme ones. There is no SJW without extremity. You're not one if you're not extreme. Maybe look into why SHE has had a bad light. Because I do believe you don't hit the surface with what it is.

I see that you've settled yourself into your idea and will hear nothing to the contrary of what you believe. You see SJW as adhering to a strict set of codes of action that have no differentiation from one person to another within the group, whereas I see it as what the acronym actually stands for: social justice warrior.

No when I say SJW I say Social Justice warrior. What you are actually trying to argue over is the ideology behind it. In that case SJWisn't universally accepted by it's textbook definition more by the negative connotations. And that has to do with why it's even being used today.

If you do your research on the word Social Justice Warrior from its conception to its resurgence you'll be happy to find that "social justice warrior" was never a popular term, it's conception is still relatively argued but some say 90s or 80s. Not that old. Nut no the word became mainstream and officially added into Oxford dictionary due to significant usage by Society.

Social activism isn't always hated. SJW however is just an extreme side to it. The word became popular due to that. What you're trying to do is defend the textbook definition behind the slur and ignore why it's. Slur in the first place and where it stands in society.

I fight with my votes and by actually trying to educate myself on political, cultural, and community effects of different groups, be it on the grounds of gender, sexuality, class, "race", ethnicity, and/or etc.

So do any other person who doesn't identify as a SJW. I dare say some who identify as an anti-SJW do this religiously.

I will only add "just because something has a bad light or bad reputation doesn't have to automatically mean that everything about it and within it is automatically as bad as that light or reputation." or, "generalizing a whole based on some of its parts doesn't always work," and hop on out of this discussion for a while. I've contributed all that I can for now.

Or call yourself a Social Activist and not an SJW and suddenly the seam tics problem is solved and you still have the same ideology. In fact you make this whole discussion much easier if you do. .

Quote from: Lumaria on July 21, 2017, 03:22:40 am

What you're trying to do is defend the textbook definition behind the slur and ignore why it's. Slur in the first place and where it stands in society.

I kind of have to do this on a daily basis as a literal practicing pagan, witch, and a genderqueer person dealing with destigmatizing those labels. Guess it's become habit for just about everything I take on.

Or like everyone else...social rights activist not SJW.

EDIT: I think this where your argument falls apart. You are aware of what it is but you don't acknowledge it. And that's why we don't move forward because you're trying to preach by trying to change where the word comes from. You only quote what you want to quote.

Aren't you literally doing the exact same thing by strawmanning all SJWs as the extremists?

You identify as an SJW and  had started using the word after it became popular in media (where it began). Even though you are fully aware it became an official dictionary entry came out because of the negative implications. You don't acknowledge it when you are talking to people but you choose to preach by the ideology behind it which really makes it no different from ANY person on this planet that isn't legitimately rscist/sexist/classist

You are also aware there is a more accurate term with none of the negative implications such as"Social Rights Activist" but only because you identify as an SJW you consider irrational for anyone who associates SJW with the same negative connotations it began. And use your logic without understanding theirs.

You saying I'm strawmanning that all SJWs are extreme. And although I am saying that, I'm really saying SJWs are being exactly what the intentions of the word is being used. And your one and only argument is that you identify as one. But other than that what you explained is you attempt to correct people in such a trivial way. You won't gain traction this way.

You don't attempt to make a positive verbal change against the negative connotations. You only still stick with what you believe an SJW is and not acknowledge what others are saying.

This is why I don't identify SJW simply behind the ideology. Because if I did. Then No one and everyone is an SJW at the same time. There's no good SJW  vs bad ones like you try to bring up. You just want to feel comfortable calling yourself one.


So yes I think all SJW are extreme because I DEFINE them their extremity. That's where your brain stops doing the math. If you're extreme, and have real social issues to tackle that effect everyone in an unbias way then I don't see you as an SJW. I see you as just a Social Rights Activist.

So here's the real question. Why won't you call.yourself a Social Rights Activist.

Also I fail to see what your comment has to do with anything I said. Pagan, witch, and queer are becoming reclaimed words, and especially with queer

SJW isn't in the same playing field as Pagans Witches and Queer. Because those as insults are used by specific people. They still use them exactly by their meaning when they choose to use them as insults. But they are words that never changed their meaning when used positively or negatively. "Hi person who is Woccan!" vs "Get away from me you person who practices Wicca" the term isn't misused, there's no alternate word to ise. I will say this Witch has become a nickname of a conniving or evil woman but I know actual Wiccans who call themselves Witches and on occasion used Witch as a slur.

SJW however is a made up term, a nickname, a slur. In other words it's a group of words given meaning by Society. Its possible to change society views that word but until then you habe no leg to stand on other than point at a dictionary and that doesn't work.

I'm Going to go on a tangent but only to prove a point. Why is Negro offensive over N*gger to black people of its just the same thing? Both literally mean the word "black" one in spanish/portuguese and the other in Latin. The Black community has become more tolerant of it and accepted it in their own personal vocabulary. They use it the same way as bro or dude. And Even non black people have started using it more recently. A whole group of kids who were strictly Latino walk down the streets using that word.

Would you get away with calling a Black Professor in Academia a Negro or N*gger strictly by what iteans?

SJW is like that word. Textbook definition won't outweigh historical use. And you have to acknowledge it. If SJWare defined by how aggresive and extreme they are to society, then change society view on them don't lecture society. That's what Feminist actually do.

you could use the same "slur" argument all you'd like and still hit a brick wall because, you know, it's actually a term being used in the LGBT community. (It even made its way into the longer acronyms.)

How does LGBTQ community using SJW destroy my argument in anyway? Is it still not a slur associated with extremist. AND no. I'm not the only one. I'm not even the minority in this and I'm using it exactly as it was intended to be used when it's resurgence.

So before giving me flak about how I view SJW actually make a real change to society until how you view SJW is what SJW means.