what constitutes a social justice warrior?

mariaalice

SJW is used the same way as Betty Windsor is used by some republican's for the queen of England or using Dinny for Denis O Brian its a way of diminishing something or someone it is both apathetic and satirists.

anncoates

Don't believe I've ever heard the term actually.

I'd class myself as more of a liberal with a strong social consistence than a hidebound right or left-wing devotee.

Admittedly, this usually places me by default within a left wing spectrum on many - but by no means all - issues but to me it's an important distinction that your views are shaped by experience and honesty rather than selectively shoehorned by ideology.

NI24

SJW is an internet term invented by mostly middle class and rich white men to hurl at mostly middle class and rich white women in order to further polarize two of the most spoiled groups of people on Earth.

Maguined

NI24 wrote: »

SJW is an internet term invented by mostly middle class and rich white men to hurl at mostly middle class and rich white women in order to further polarize two of the most spoiled groups of people on Earth.

Poor SJW's, always the victim eh? :pac:

newport2

anncoates wrote: »

Don't believe I've ever heard the term actually.

I'd class myself as more of a liberal with a strong social consistence than a hidebound right or left-wing devotee.

Admittedly, this usually places me by default within a left wing spectrum on many - but by no means all - issues but to me it's an important distinction that your views are shaped by experience and honesty rather than selectively shoehorned by ideology.

I think this is the key issue difference distinguishing between someone with genuine beliefs and who cares and an SJW - from my interpretation of what an SJW is anyway. You might both argue the same case, but I'd have more respect for the former (who I would sometimes be, depending on the issue at hand), as they are usually willing to debate and listen to views other than their own. And their opinions are their own, not adapted to fit an agenda or be in line with what's popular.

conorhal

Robsweezie wrote: »

This term is all over the forums at the moment but I haven't a 100% understanding of what it is to be one. All I know is it comes with negative connotations and seems to be a form of deregotory namecalling. Why is it such a no no to be an avid campaigner for social justice? Is it because they over do it and jump on every bandwagon? What does it mean to you?

Ever heard of pathological altruism? It tends to characterize certian posters on this forum.
Broadly pathological altruism defined as “good intentions gone awry”, but those that suffer from it have a tendency to lack the ability, or wilfully refuse to acknowledge that the 'help' their bleeding hearts want to provide can actually be doing harm in the long term.

Barbara Oakley has written on the subject:

"Empathy,is not a uniformly positive attribute. It is associated with emotional contagion; hindsight bias; motivated reasoning; caring only for those we like or who comprise our in-group (parochial altruism); jumping to conclusions; and inappropriate feelings of guilt in noncooperators who refuse to follow orders to hurt others." It also can produce bad public policy.

So from codependency to the migrant crisis in the med, altruism can have a negative impact on those it intends to help. In other words, not helping is in the long run the best (or least worst) thing you can do sometimes and wisdom is required to know the difference between empathy and pathological altruism.

Ush1

Corinthian nailed it, it could also be broadly referred to as liberal fascism.

Right or left, if your mind is closed they both sound the same.

Wibbs

Yep TC pretty much nails it for me too. Ideologue sums them up.

osarusan

On boards, it's a completely empty and meaningless term, thrown around lazily by people instead of an actual argument.

jimgoose

You need a loincloth, dreadlocks and a good line in Duckspeak. Oh and a Sceptre of Social Justice sort of thing that you can hold up in the air and go "Social Justice, Ho!". It would look somewhat like a giant double-sided dildo.

the evasion_kid

For any somewhat sane rational person looking from the outside in,it actually looks like a mental disorder,or to put it another way if SJW's every formed a political party or got someway into power....I'd be an extremely worried man.

SeanW

At it's most extreme, an SJW is fundamentally anti-democratic. They will use violence or threats of violence (if necessary, though other means are acceptable, e.g. pulling a fire alarm to disrupt a meeting, or attempts at changes to the law) to try to silence people whose views they don't like. Nigel Farage tends to get rough treatment from SJWs and often has to take refuge behind police lines when mobbed by leftist thugs..

The best method of quickly determining if someone is an SJW is to apply two tests:

1. Are they leftists? Feminists? Extreme multiculturalists? Race baiters? Extreme environmentalists?
2. AND. Do they reject the Enlightenment/Voltaire principle of

   Voltaire wrote:

   I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

If someone passes both tests, they are an SJW.

the evasion_kid

SeanW wrote: »

At it's most extreme, an SJW is fundamentally anti-democratic. They will use violence or threats of violence (if necessary, though other means are acceptable, e.g. pulling a fire alarm to disrupt a meeting, or attempts at changes to the law) to try to silence people whose views they don't like. Nigel Farage tends to get rough treatment from SJWs and often has to take refuge behind police lines when mobbed by leftist thugs..

The best method of quickly determining if someone is an SJW is to apply two tests:

1. Are they leftists? Feminists? Extreme multiculturalists? Race baiters? Extreme environmentalists?
2. AND. Do they reject the Enlightenment/Voltaire principle of

If someone passes both tests, they are an SJW.

I only just recently came into their cross hairs, scrolling through Facebook one morning I seen an article that I happen to know quite a lot about,there was a bit of misinformation in the heading of it so I posted a simple one sentence FACT(a simple Google would have shown this) didn't even look at the other comments and went off to work...little did I know of the tidal wave of vitriol that was building from the other side of the atlantic,when I got home I was in shock how deluded this people can get,it was like a big oppression party and I was ruining it with FACTS,I decided to check out the lead sjw's page but I already knew what I was going to find....and there it was looking back at me....."the shirt"

To cut a long story short her last comment was literally if you post again you're getting blocked(what is it with them and censorship?) So I knew my last comment was going to have to be good..."look don't let a few facts get in the way of your faux outrage"

DELETED and BLOCKED :pac:

orubiru

For me, an SJW is someone who creates the impression that they REALLY care about a particular issue in order to get "views", "likes" or "clicks".

Rather than focusing on important issues, they prefer to focus on "fashionable" issues. In order to get views, likes or clicks.

An SJW will normally spend most of their time pointing out how screwed up our society is whilst benefiting greatly from being part of that society. They will not offer solutions. They are offering "entertainment". In exchange for views, likes or clicks.

The SJW will be more than happy to tell you how easy your life actually is and will invite you to "check your damn privilege".

The ultimate goal of the individual SJW is to antagonize a group of people to the point where members of that group will use the anonymity of the internet to throw some abuse back. At this point the SJW can attain "victim" status and now they can turn views, likes or clicks into money, money, money.

These people are really just entertainers. They create content that will get people talking in order to generate revenue. They are not concerned with fixing actual social injustice and they have very little impact on society. They are just people looking for an audience. If they have to cause a bit of controversy to get that audience? No problem. It's the oldest trick in the book.

For example, I love to read the "Everyday Feminism" website to laugh at their utterly delusional nonsense. It's entertainment. If people were talking to you like this in real life you'd just laugh at them.

Of course, this opens a market for "anti-SJW" people to exploit. Making their own content to get views, likes and clicks. They will also try to turn this in to money money money.

Meanwhile, children continue to starve etc. The "starving kids in Africa" etc markets are already saturated with people trying to do actual work using actual skills and wealth that they have acquired.

SJWs are simply operating in areas where they can turn themselves, not the cause, into the center of attention.

mariaalice

Does anyone thing there might sometime be some mental health issues involved with those who hold extreme views. I have withdrawn from debate because I have has an hysterical reaction when I asked for proof of what someone was saying.

Eugene Norman

mariaalice wrote: »

A so the real power is always hidden Foucault, Chomsky etc. were right is there not a slight edge of a conspiracy theory in that. What agenda does 'power' have.

I presume to stay powerful. My point is that the American left is whiny and narcistic, whining about the lack of privilege of certain protected groups, meanwhile ignoring its own hegemony and imperial invasions of the world, a project largely signed off by all members of congress and the executive and supported by the mass of Americans. Including the oppressed American POCs and wimmins.

K4t

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

orubiru

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think it's an internet thing. I spent a lot of time overseas and have a large group of people on Facebook from North America. These are the main ones for posting Social Justice Warrior content.

Probably this kind of thing is also seen more often by university students.

It's quite a big thing on youtube with lots of videos and response videos being made about Social Justice Issues.

newport2

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think plenty of terms already exist for the extreme on the opposite end of things from SJW, eg racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

IMO, all these terms - including SJW - are bandied about far to easily. They all exist, but I think they do not apply to most people - right, centre or left oriented.

People on both sides of any argument who can't make a reasoned point tend to resort to hurling insults - be it it SJW or right wing neo-conservative capitalist etc

Eugene Norman

newport2 wrote: »

I think plenty of terms already exist for the extreme on the opposite end of things from SJW, eg racist, bigot, sexist, etc.

IMO, all these terms - including SJW - are bandied about far to easily. They all exist, but I think they do not apply to most people - right, centre or left oriented.

People on both sides of any argument who can't make a reasoned point tend to resort to hurling insults - be it it SJW or right wing neo-conservative capitalist etc

The latter is a description not necessarily an insult. In general people will accept conservative, capitalist and neo-conservative if that is that they are.

PopePalpatine

K4t wrote: »

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

I think they call themselves "redpillers".

Oh, and I think there's this bunch of Anders Breivik-idolising basement dwellers called the "dark enlightenment" too.

VinLieger

Theres a great example in AH right now in the Iggy Azalea thread, that's a fantastic example of SJW making a mountain out of a molehill

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057443731

jank

jank wrote: »

Usually rejects reason, logic and evidence to pursue their idealogical driven view of the world.

Which reason? Whose logic?

Does reason permit war? Does evidence permit the drowning of migrants in the Andaman and Mediterranean seas? Is gender reassignment justifiable?

To claim that these questions can be answered using rationality alone is a schoolboy's error. Because, before you've even started, you've set-out with a particular understanding of rationality, one which can be and ought to be distinterested. The existence of 'objective rationality' is itself disputed, and its application (if it exists) is partisan: after all, it is completely devoid of context.

This is a fundamental problem in advancing the myth that reason and logic must be advanced at the expense of ideology. Which is why that idea never got off the ground.

After all, homophobic, Presbyterian fideists seem ignorant and irrational to the readership of the Guardian. Meanshile, the former view the Guardian as another pre-rational parish newsletter written for a congregation of idiots.

There are rationalities for every ideology, and even within ideologies. Some of them are absurd. But to claim you can separate the two is also nonsense.

newport2

Eugene Norman wrote: »

The latter is a description not necessarily an insult. In general people will accept conservative, capitalist and neo-conservative if that is that they are.

You're right of course, but it's intended as an insult.

Cuban Pete

K4t wrote: »

The only place I've come across the term is here on boards strangely enough; after hours specifically.

Is there such a thing as social injustice warriors? Or do we still simply unfairly label them as conservatives?

It's a big thing on Reddit, which if past threads are any indication of, an increasing number of people are using.

Funnily enough it's the terminally smug and self-righteous that mostly bandy the term about without the slightest hint of irony (like "PC brigade") as you can see from the names using it on this thread.

topper75

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

People are free to hold opinions - thoughts cannot be policed. People are not free to express every opinion they wish to (incitement to violence).

The above makes no sense and I read it four times.

Violence? Incitement? Against unborn babies by 'pro-choice' SJWs?

SJW types get excited about the right to life of some kid rapist on a U.S. death row wing. Something about 'right to life not extinguishable'. LOL. This doesn't apply strangely to the right to bear arms. Or indeed to anything they don't like. The subjective is sold to you as the objective. Then they like to laugh at religious people as 'brainwashed' (they may be, but you know - pot...kettle).
Don't raise these points though because that is just an 'ad hominem attack'. Yeah they like to fix the rules of debate too.

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

So I take it you have no problem with the state dictating every little level of ones life? Great, you would love North Korea then.

You have quite the talent for completely ignoring what people have wrote in favour of mindless waffle. SJW

Superfluous
Jank
Waffle

Junkyard Tom

topper75 wrote: »

The above makes no sense and I read it four times.

Violence? Incitement? Against unborn babies by 'pro-choice' SJWs?

SJW types get excited about the right to life of some kid rapist on a U.S. death row wing. Something about 'right to life not extinguishable'. LOL. This doesn't apply strangely to the right to bear arms. Or indeed to anything they don't like. The subjective is sold to you as the objective. Then they like to laugh at religious people as 'brainwashed' (they may be, but you know - pot...kettle).
Don't raise these points though because that is just an 'ad hominem attack'. Yeah they like to fix the rules of debate too.

You know I've read what you've wrote there a few times and here's how it looks. Imagine if you had three flat-pack pieces of furniture in their respective boxes. Now picture opening all three boxes and putting the contents in a pile in the middle of a room. Then you proceed to burn the instructions. Well your post is like that pile of flat pack furniture and I'll be damned if I'm going to try to piece it together.

end of the road

Robsweezie wrote: »

This term is all over the forums at the moment but I haven't a 100% understanding of what it is to be one. All I know is it comes with negative connotations and seems to be a form of deregotory namecalling. Why is it such a no no to be an avid campaigner for social justice? Is it because they over do it and jump on every bandwagon? What does it mean to you?

it means nothing. its just a term to try silence those who stand up against genuine issues such as discrimination and racism. just like pc brigade and other such nonsense

The Corinthian

end of the road wrote: »

it means nothing. its just a term to try silence those who stand up against genuine issues such as discrimination and racism. just like pc brigade and other such nonsense

So there's nothing behind it? Just a random insult meant to demean the reasonable and blameless victim it's targeted against?

I don't want to point out the obvious, but such terms rarely catch on if they're based on nothing. Sure, they can then be abused and misused to tar and silence others, but their power generally comes from the fact that they do describe something.

Unless things are black and white as you suggest, of course.

blatantrereg

Hysterical types who have no insight into the causes they think they champion and actually undermine them by distracting from rational arguments in their favour. They're usually more about their own image than anything else

VinLieger

The Corinthian wrote: »

So there's nothing behind it? Just a random insult meant to demean the reasonable and blameless victim it's targeted against?

I don't want to point out the obvious, but such terms rarely catch on if they're based on nothing. Sure, they can then be abused and misused to tar and silence others, but their power generally comes from the fact that they do describe something.

Unless things are black and white as you suggest, of course.

I'm pretty sure EOR is actually colourblind, there aren't even shades of grey in his world

Samaris

At base - a Social Justice Warrior is someone who argues (generally on the internet) for a particular ideology.

It was always a rather sarcastic accolade, but it generally nowadays is used as an insult for anyone that the name-caller believes is rather full of hot air and is more inclined to talk a lot on the internet rather than go out and do something about whatever it is they are declaring themselves to be strongly pro. It is almost always used against people who are pro-something, rather than anti-something.

Generally it is applied to those with a more left-wing ideology, and is particularly prevalent as an insult in conversations about (X group's) rights, hence "social justice". It generally implies that the person doing the arguing isn't part of whatever group they are talking about, but is rather white-knighting or taking up a sword to defend people that they may not even particularly understand or identify with.

snotboogie

It's a pejorative label to describe people who value identity over content.
For example, a mainstream journalist covering a corporate launch would grade it based on the products being released, the upgrades to services, maybe the quality of presentation from the speakers. A SJW blogger would be focused on the gender, race and sexuality of the people presenting. They would grade based on how many women, POC and LGBT were presenting and hence in positions of power in the corporation.

Clandestine

Being a complete loser

I've never known an SJW who wasn't one in real life.

tritium

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Just did a bit of googling and there is no reputable definition for SJW. 'SJW' is a catch-all pejorative that attempts to 'poison the well' when it comes to discussions of certain issues. 'If you disagree with me you're one of those horrible SJW's who want to kill freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooooooom't.

Who would have thought - its the right wing version of left wing putdowns like misogynist and racist....:)

I'm being a little facetious of course. All three terms have a valid meaning, however all are more commonly used to stifle debate than to correctly identify someone

Interesting how each side has learned from the others tactics over the years though....

kowloon

I've seen it used as a term for people whose campaigning is limited to their blog and/or facebook and involves little to no actual effort, much like a specialised version of the lesser spotted keyboard warrior. The kind of people who piggyback on a cause to feed their own self-importance. They were out in force for the Kony thing a couple of years ago. But now I've seen it used to describe almost anyone to the point of being meaningless. It got thrown about quite a bit during the referendum. I doubt this thread will clear anything up for the OP.

K4t

kowloon wrote: »

But now I've seen it used to describe almost anyone to the point of being meaningless. It got thrown about quite a bit during the referendum. I doubt this thread will clear anything up for the OP.

As did I, only on boards of course - which leads me to believe that whatever meaning it did once hold, has been butchered and bandied about so much that it has made the term redundant on boards.

Samaris

K4t wrote: »

As did I, only on boards of course - which leads me to believe that whatever meaning it did once hold, has been butchered and bandied about so much that it has made the term redundant on boards.

Really, it's a fairly redundant term on the internet. It's a cheap shot to win "points" in an argument, nothing more.

porsche959

Samaris wrote: »

Really, it's a fairly redundant term on the internet. It's a cheap shot to win "points" in an argument, nothing more.

To be fair, they definitely exist:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-she-is-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10244520.html


Not to dispute right wingers exaggerate the phenomenon as a means to demonise the entire left.

CaveCanem

Here's a fun exercise: read your typical RadFem, SJW blog and replace in your mind the words 'a sexist' with 'a witch', 'sexism' with 'witchcraft', 'privilege' with 'sin' and 'patriarchy' with 'satan'.

They share a very similar and defining characteristic with religious fundamentalists; they are not happy merely to raise awareness or contribute to a cause, the very fact that people out there hold a different point of view and a different set of values is intolerable to the typical SJW. They therefore have to actively seek out and eliminate anyone who challenges their worldview. That is what makes them different to your typical person with a social conscience.

Diversity of opinion and a pragmatic accommodation of different cultural and social values are an affront to their moral certainty. This is what makes them dangerous and how they hurt the causes they want to promote.
They have selected their perfect victims to defend and therefore irrationality, spitefulness, mendacity, intolerance and persecution are permissible since it's all for 'the cause'.

Samaris

CaveCanem wrote: »

Here's a fun exercise: read your typical RadFem, SJW blog and replace in your mind the words 'a sexist' with 'a witch', 'sexism' with 'witchcraft', 'privilege' with 'sin' and 'patriarchy' with 'satan'.

They share a very similar and defining characteristic with religious fundamentalists; they are not happy merely to raise awareness or contribute to a cause, the very fact that people out there hold a different point of view and a different set of values is intolerable to the typical SJW. They therefore have to actively seek out and eliminate anyone who challenges their worldview. That is what makes them different to your typical person with a social conscience.

Diversity of opinion and a pragmatic accommodation of different cultural and social values are an affront to their moral certainty. This is what makes them dangerous and how they hurt the causes they want to promote.
They have selected their perfect victims to defend and therefore irrationality, spitefulness, mendacity, intolerance and persecution are permissible since it's all for 'the cause'.

Thing is though, that's common to any radical group, whether they are radical feminists, radical Evangelicals, radical pagans, radical MRAs, radical anything. I agree with your application of SJW as you describe it above, but unfortunately, the term is used these days as a catch-all insult, -generally- towards a pro-something "progressive" agenda.

darkpagandeath

porsche959 wrote: »

To be fair, they definitely exist:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-she-is-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10244520.html


Not to dispute right wingers exaggerate the phenomenon as a means to demonise the entire left.

I'm not Right wing and I use it when needed. Generally in peoples moral outrage in stuff that has no effect on there lives and never ever will. You know the people high giving each other on how more outraged they are.

SEPT 23 1989

Somebody with too much time on their hands

SeanW

end of the road wrote: »

it means nothing. its just a term to try silence those who stand up against genuine issues such as discrimination and racism. just like pc brigade and other such nonsense

There's nothing wrong with being against discrimination, indeed, it's admirable.

The problem is that SJWs tend either to be in favour of discrimination, so long as it's the right kind of discrimination, and they also tend to be keen on surpressing views they don't like. I'm not sure why the term "redpill" was used earlier as there as SJWs have a wide variety of interests, like the thugs that do everything possible to disrupt UKIP meetings and Nigel Farage's speeches/conferences. Like these thugs, who succeeded in preventing Nigel Farage from giving a conference in Scotland not long ago, and proceeded to celebrate that they had silenced him and made him flee under police escort.

In a healthy democracy, where people believe in Enlightenment values, this is not something to celebrate. Quite the opposite in fact.

Hans Bricks

Whatever it is, it seems to be sending a few resident sanctimonious whinos and downright bores into a frenzy of they're favorite adjectives and self definitions of just "not being *u***" apparently. It's a fairly casual, catch all term I imagine. You know like "racist, bigot, *u**, fascist, '...phobe' etc. It must be doing something right.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

Poor SJW's, always the victim eh? :pac:

I notice you can't deny what I said. Typically weak argument. And typical of the supporters in these threads. Oh, btw, I've used the term SJW as an insult, so I'm hardly a victim of it.

What I can't wrap my head around are the ones who decry SJWs on the grounds of "labels". The most labeling people in here are the ones against SJWs. The hypocrisy of it is mind blowing.

newport2

SeanW wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with being against discrimination, indeed, it's admirable.

Absolutely. And the point that some people on this thread seem to be missing is that nobody (at least that I've seen) is saying that just because you are anti-discrimination or hold some left-wing views that you should be labelled an SJW. That's a misuse of the term. Just like being opposed to certain left oriented policies does not make automatically make you a ring wing conservative ba$t%rd or suchlike.

I accept that misuse of the term is used to insult people arguing for certain causes, just like misogynist, racist, bigot, etc is used in the other direction where not necessarily merited either.

Maguined

porsche959 wrote: »

To be fair, they definitely exist:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-she-is-an-ethnic-minority-woman-10244520.html


Not to dispute right wingers exaggerate the phenomenon as a means to demonise the entire left.

If people wanted to demonise the left they would attribute any SJW stupidity they see to "the liberal left", by using a specific term to differentiate between the average left and the extremism of SJW left politics they are doing the exact opposite of what you are saying. They are removing any blame from the overal liberal left and attributing it to the specific SJW extremists.

NI24 wrote: »

I notice you can't deny what I said. Typically weak argument. And typical of the supporters in these threads. Oh, btw, I've used the term SJW as an insult, so I'm hardly a victim of it.

What I can't wrap my head around are the ones who decry SJWs on the grounds of "labels". The most labeling people in here are the ones against SJWs. The hypocrisy of it is mind blowing.

I did not make an argument I made a joke in the form of a rhetorical question. Your argument is to look at the gender and race of those involved rather than the merits of the points that are being debated which makes your "argument" completely without merit in my opinion.

It would not matter if it was a black woman calling a white male an SJW as an insult. The only thing that matters is the merit of whatever it is that they are debating/arguing.

Who is decrying SJW's on the grounds of labels? Most people decrying them are doing so because their arugments are stupid and without merit and focus on things like gender and race rather than the actual issues of "social justice".

There is a great example of the stupidity of a SJW's social justice in the below article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11658757/Children-arent-reading-enough-books-and-dads-are-to-blame.html

The article is complaining the Dads are not reading to their children enough because they prefer to play with electronic gadgets instead. Ignoring the actual article itself it is the sheer stupidity of the below comment that is highlighting the difference between a rational liberal left and an extremist SJW.

This actually seems a fairly good thing. There's many parents that are don't or unable to read to their kids, and those parents that do inadvertently give an unfair advantage to their kids that lead them to be more privileged. If we want to promote social justice, then equality in education would be a first step even when it comes to reading to our children. It can help a bit with promoting familiar bonds, but these unfair advantages may be just a bit too unreasonable for when we're sending off our children into the world.

But then I suppose a much worse option is when parents think sending their children off to some elite private school is the best option, given that there is no excuse of "familial bonding" in that case and that it purely is a case of people seeking some unfair advantage against other youth.

The vast majority of liberal left would consider reading to your children a good thing. I do not want to label the entire left as stupid so I find it helpful to differentiate between morons like this commentator suggesting it promotes an unfair advantage to read to your kids because other families might not. The best way to differentiate is to use a different label hence this commentator is a SJW moron while most liberals are rational people who would not agree with this commentators drivel. Most liberals I find are intelligent and would want to raise the standard of education of the lowest up, SJW's like this person is an idiot who would rather reduce the standards of childrens education down to the lowest levels so everyone is equally stupid, thats "social justice" by their definition.

NI24

Maguined wrote: »

I did not make an argument I made a joke in the form of a rhetorical question. Your argument is to look at the gender and race of those involved rather than the merits of the points that are being debated which makes your "argument" completely without merit in my opinion.

I made a comment about those who label people as SJWs almost exclusively being middle class and rich white men and you respond with something about victimization. Usually when a person (in this case being me) refers to a group of people (in this case SJWs) as being spoiled, it doesn't really imply victimization. But you have to be pretty stupid to suggest that it is not an internet term used against mostly middle class and rich white women by an identical group of men.

Maguined wrote: »

Who is decrying SJW's on the grounds of labels? Most people decrying them are doing so because their arugments are stupid and without merit and focus on things like gender and race rather than the actual issues of "social justice".

Pretty much everyone in here talking about being called a racist, bigot, etc. The "don't label me" types, while labeling people SJWs. (And now I never want type the word label again)