You can actually work out, ask women out confidently without these weird schemes or favours and be capable of complex emotions all in one man. Amazing!
You really need to keep up to date with the various terms people come up with to denigrate those on the other side.
No, you really don't. It's not our job making the latest insult stick. But really, this shows where the conservatives priorities lay. Rather than figuring out how laisses faire capitalism can tackle global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation, modern computing and globalization - you know, actual dangers, not phony invented ones like white genocide and the degeneration of society - the "family values" ideology is more concerned about putting children in cages, putting misogynist frat boys in the supreme court and coming up with 101 insults to label their opponents with.
You took that seriously? Oh dear.
It's also not your job to launch into a tirade on the internet but I don't see that bothering you much.
In the UK we are suffering from overpopulation and underemployment because of immigration.
Population numbers are stable, even dropping, for British and European people. So that's something we have "cured". Perhaps you should direct your wrath at those who are still overpopulating the planet and show no sign of stopping? You know, those in Africa and some parts of Asia.
Weird, never seen a thread created by "system" before...
Anyways SJW was never meant an insult. It was used with a lack of irony by SJWs themselves.
It became an insult because it came to be associated with self righteousness, bullying and marginalization for not adhering to their strict set of rules, outlandish ideas about race and society, having a disproportionate influence in institutions and abusing that power, and a lack of humor.
All of these things are accurate and have been documented for years by popular folks on the internet, so there is no need to belabor the point.
The term became popular because the attitude it describes is easy to identify and folks don't generally have a high opinion of it and criticize it a lot.
Weird, never seen a thread created by "system" before...
All it means was that the original user might have been banned. I believe it only happens if the originator of the post thread was banned, but their content not deleted.
It became an insult because it came to be associated with self righteousness, bullying and marginalization for not adhering to their strict set of rules, outlandish ideas about race and society, having a disproportionate influence in institutions and abusing that power, and a lack of humor.
That is untrue. According to wikipedia, the term become popular as an insult during gamer gate. Now, you may belittle wikipedia as a source of information as much as you like, but I'd still hold it in higher esteem than some random internet user, no offense.
Now, don't get me wrong. The stereotypical SJW people do exist and yes, they may be overzealous, unrealistic, hypocritical, lack humor and / or be unhinged - indeed, such people also annoy me, which I did point out a couple of posts back - that said, you do not need to be a genius to recognize that the term is overused. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognize that the exact same kind of people exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
Weird, never seen a thread created by "system" before...
All it means was that the original user might have been banned. I believe it only happens if the originator of the post thread was banned, but their content not deleted.
This occurs every time a moderator or administrator splits a thread, I think. Kind of an automatic process in Vanilla forums. Saw a good dozen of them over the years.
The only words used more than the term "SJW" in YouTube comment sections on practically ANY video about ANY subject are "the" and "and". It's gone beyond self-parody at this point.
You'll see it in videos about politics. You'll see it in videos about games. You'll see it in videos about sports. You'll see it on cute cat videos. You'll see it in the video of her wedding your sister uploaded last week. It's all-encompassing.
Weird, never seen a thread created by "system" before...
All it means was that the original user might have been banned. I believe it only happens if the originator of the post thread was banned, but their content not deleted.
This occurs every time a moderator or administrator splits a thread, I think. Kind of an automatic process in Vanilla forums. Saw a good dozen of them over the years.
Yup. Usually the creator of the thread is "System" because the thread used to be off-topic comments on another thread. This thread is an offshoot of the David Gaider interview thread here. @JuliusBorisov moved it over to keep the other thread on-topic.
It became an insult because it came to be associated with self righteousness, bullying and marginalization for not adhering to their strict set of rules, outlandish ideas about race and society, having a disproportionate influence in institutions and abusing that power, and a lack of humor.
That is untrue. According to wikipedia, the term become popular as an insult during gamer gate. Now, you may belittle wikipedia as a source of information as much as you like, but I'd still hold it in higher esteem than some random internet user, no offense.
Now, don't get me wrong. The stereotypical SJW people do exist and yes, they may be overzealous, unrealistic, hypocritical, lack humor and / or be unhinged - indeed, such people also annoy me, which I did point out a couple of posts back - that said, you do not need to be a genius to recognize that the term is overused. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognize that the exact same kind of people exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
So now you get to decide what my intent was?
Who gave you this power, did the Queen die? I think we should be told.
It became an insult because it came to be associated with self righteousness, bullying and marginalization for not adhering to their strict set of rules, outlandish ideas about race and society, having a disproportionate influence in institutions and abusing that power, and a lack of humor.
That is untrue. According to wikipedia, the term become popular as an insult during gamer gate. Now, you may belittle wikipedia as a source of information as much as you like, but I'd still hold it in higher esteem than some random internet user, no offense.
Now, don't get me wrong. The stereotypical SJW people do exist and yes, they may be overzealous, unrealistic, hypocritical, lack humor and / or be unhinged - indeed, such people also annoy me, which I did point out a couple of posts back - that said, you do not need to be a genius to recognize that the term is overused. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognize that the exact same kind of people exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
I don't think you read the Wikipedia article correctly, it basically confirms what I say and links to a source that does the same thing.
"The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.[1][2] "
According to the article, "Social Justice Warrior," when spelled out in its entirety rather than shortened to SJW, was a neutral word during the 1990s--and it was very rare, only showing up in a few scattered places. But again, ever since 2011, "SJW" has been primarily a pejorative term, and it's plastered all across the Internet.
Even in this very thread, by @WarChiefZeke and @DrakeICN (the latter of which doesn't even like the term), the term has been used in a negative sense.
2011 is a lot more accurate of a time frame for when SJW began being used in the way we understand it, rather than the origin of Gamergate. The rise of the term had a lot more to do with the overall shift towards rigidly enforced progressivism, particularly in academics but by no means restricted to such, than any particular single event.
I don't think you read the Wikipedia article correctly, it basically confirms what I say and links to a source that does the same thing.
No, it does not. You were claiming* it is the bullish behavior of SJW:s that created the negative connotation. Be that as it may, the label was and is used pejoratively against any and all with dissenting political views as compared to conservatism, regardless of their behavior. Thus, it is a case of false extrapolation, where the stereotypical behavior of a small group of SJW:s comes to denote all labeled as such.
While, again, there are - as, again, I have noted - SJW:s that indeed are hysterical, most SJW:s are not. The negative connotation of SJW is a concerted effort to create a dismissive term, useful for avoiding any real debate by pointing to the thus created disqualifier (you cannot reason with someone who is hysterical) as well as serving as a rallying cry to likeminded (look, there is the enemy). Towards this end, the supposed negative qualities of SJW:s are inflated.
*At least, that is how I read your claim. If understood you incorrectly, then please explain how.
I don't think you read the Wikipedia article correctly, it basically confirms what I say and links to a source that does the same thing.
No, it does not. You were claiming* it is the bullish behavior of SJW:s that created the negative connotation. Be that as it may, the label was and is used pejoratively against any and all with dissenting political views as compared to conservatism, regardless of their behavior. Thus, it is a case of false extrapolation, where the stereotypical behavior of a small group of SJW:s comes to denote all labeled as such.
While, again, there are - as, again, I have noted - SJW:s that indeed are hysterical, most SJW:s are not. The negative connotation of SJW is a concerted effort to create a dismissive term, useful for avoiding any real debate by pointing to the thus created disqualifier (you cannot reason with someone who is hysterical) as well as serving as a rallying cry to likeminded (look, there is the enemy). Towards this end, the supposed negative qualities of SJW:s are inflated.
*At least, that is how I read your claim. If understood you incorrectly, then please explain how.
Well, yeah, I was claiming SJW's got the stereotype they did due to their own behavior, but that this wasn't where the term originated. I'm sure what you said, to be honest, that contradicted that. I believe said the term arose with the rise of Gamergate, but that's simply untrue because I can go back to the Urban Dictionary and find Social Justice Warrior entries from 2011 that are the same definition of the SJW's we use today.
Whether or not it is a stereotype that reflects on the majority or not is not for me to say, but it accurately reflects a certain subculture for certain.
Not that the precise origins of the term matter as much as their ideology or impact on society, both of which I would say are undesirable.
SJW is not an unified set of ideas.
Social Justice (at least what we are describing here) is a unified set of ideas, that all revolve around the concept of intersectionality; feminism, racial grievance movements, and others who claim to be oppressed all fit into this framework.
"global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation" are just as real dangers as "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Uh no, they are really not, seeing how the first half is factual and the latter half are just fantasies. It is like saying the theory of evolution is equally valid to the Easter bunny.
Global warming and its results will take hundreds of years to manifest, it's nothing we can't handle. Overpopulation is a bad meme because of the inverse correlation between income and fertility. And so far through history technological progress created more jobs than it destroyed, so who's to say automation will be any different.
Basically it' just a bunch of hysterical fear-mongering, just like alt-right's "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Yeah no, I did not count the 2011 definition. There is a million inside insult / jokes / memes / whatever that various groups are trying to make stick - like the "male tears" nonsense (if you don't know what that means according to like five people, then you don't want to know). It isn't until they stick they are noteworthy.
Secondly, yeah, fascist describe a certain subculture of the right. Indeed, in percentage, more people that are right are fascists than there are SJW:s that are hysterical. So, by your own logic, it's fine to go ahead and call everyone on the right a fascist?
"global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation" are just as real dangers as "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Uh no, they are really not, seeing how the first half is factual and the latter half are just fantasies. It is like saying the theory of evolution is equally valid to the Easter bunny.
Global warming and its results will take hundreds of years to manifest, it's nothing we can't handle. Overpopulation is a bad meme because of the inverse correlation between income and fertility. And so far through history technological progress created more jobs than it destroyed, so who's to say automation will be any different.
Basically it' just a bunch of hysterical fear-mongering, just like alt-right's "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Ah, the tried and true tactic of looking away, putting your hands over your ears and going LALALALA. It worked so well in the past, so why not; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZG9SHqS6Zk
Population numbers are stable, even dropping, for British and European people. So that's something we have "cured". Perhaps you should direct your wrath at those who are still overpopulating the planet and show no sign of stopping? You know, those in Africa and some parts of Asia.
Actually, population might still be rising but the rate is decreasing and will continue to do so if the most troubled countries are allowed to remain stable.
I'd recommend listening/reading/watching old TED talks books and such from Hans Rosling. He has a great way to use actual facts, and not random thoughts blurted our on forums, and statistics to show that the bleak future so many believe in, is false.
I find your comment quite distasteful and it seems you know very little of history since all the reasons for why those countries you state are to blame for overpopulating the planet can be found there. And many of those, the so called western countries are to be blamed for, so standing here afterwards and pointing fingers is plain ignorant.
You may find my comments distasteful but at least they were on topic and a direct response to another poster.
All you have done is provide a link to some website.
I did not claim that the countries listed were responsible for over populating the planet historically, merely pointing out that they are the problem now.
But have to ask, why do you find comments pointing out that the continenent of Africa, for instance, is heading for a population of a billion fast and that's causing problems, distasteful? The land can't and won't support them and there is no employment.
Perhaps you should direct your wrath at those who are still overpopulating the planet and show no sign of stopping? You know, those in Africa and some parts of Asia.
To be fair, "We should direct our wrath against Africans for having too many children" is the kind of sentiment that could easily be seen as distasteful.
Ok, folks. This thread started in another topic (about a BG interview). And now it's about people in Africa.
We (in the moderation team) have been talking a lot about this thread. I feel it was important for users to discuss the term as the BG interview thread showed.
If you are willing to continue discussing politics, nations, world problems, etc, please do that in the appropriate Politics topic.
If you are willing to discuss the topic from this thread, please do that without sarcasm and semantic arguments, as that is against the Site rules.
The chance of a discussion about this term not devolving into contentious areas regarding race or gender is about as likely as Andre the Giant getting drunk off one beer. This is the current front-runner for the thread most likely to be closed
The chance of a discussion about this term not devolving into contentious areas regarding race or gender is about as likely as Andre the Giant getting drunk off one beer. This is the current front-runner for the thread most likely to be closed
To be fair, no amount of beer could possibly get Andre the Giant drunk. Because he's dead.
@InKal "SJW" has been used as an insult for years now by the alt-right to demean people on the left. Google SJW or look at Youtube and see how many instances there are of SJW being used as an insult.
Except there are other groups besides the alright that use it.
Perhaps you should direct your wrath at those who are still overpopulating the planet and show no sign of stopping? You know, those in Africa and some parts of Asia.
To be fair, "We should direct our wrath against Africans for having too many children" is the kind of sentiment that could easily be seen as distasteful.
Read it in context with the post I was answering.
Where as usual, Europeans/the West/Republicans/Conservatives were being blamed for all the the ills of the world. Completely OT.
And if a poster displays anger at some, why not all those who are contributing to what, as they said is,
" you know, actual dangers, not phony invented ones" ?
Personally I think "wrath" as practised by the left both in this country and the US, from what I can see, would be better to be left out of all political discourse. Not a fan of the latest directive from Clinton to abandon civility.
@UnderstandMouseMagic: I'm not saying I found it distasteful (I barely noticed it). But you asked why it would seem distasteful, so I answered the question.
The chance of a discussion about this term not devolving into contentious areas regarding race or gender is about as likely as Andre the Giant getting drunk off one beer. This is the current front-runner for the thread most likely to be closed
Of course it will. The term SJW is a label you glue on people who gets triggered by racism and sexism etc - which is something that SHOULD trigger all decent folks. How are you supposed to debate the meaning of a term, without debating the meaning of said term?
Now, many SJW:s are oversensitive and / or have an unproportional reaction to said provocation or even worse become preachy and overbearing. Nobody likes have their every sentence scrutinized for potential bigotry, especially when even jokes, clumsiness and misunderstandings can cause all hell to brake lose*. And of course, the would be inquisitors themselves would probably not pass their own tests**, making them hypocrites to boot. Not to forgot that there are plenty of ways to be a bastard while staying tolerant.
That said, the term is mainly used to deflect from legitimate criticism by rather than taking the debate attempting to undermine your opponent.
The correct term now is NPC! Lmao, and im now banned!
I am probably wrong, but I still dare say that I don't think it will last. SJW is descriptive in a sarcastic way and contain a kernel of truth. NPC is not - it is literally the Incels / MGTOW / PUA / whatever that don't get to play. SJW:s are NORPs and NORPs are notorious for their ability to get a job, get laid and get a circle of friends. In fact, the very point of counterculture is to demean and belittle the powers to be, taking pride in going your own way even if you fail because of it. It is an admission you do not belong to the system,.. and then you go around and accuse the people that belong to the system for not belonging to the system. Makes zero sense.
Honestly, the term isn't much different from "libtard" in terms of how it's used. Libtard is only marginally less unambiguous in its negative connotations than SJW.
Replace every instance of the word "SJW" in this thread with "libtard" and it wouldn't look that much different. Most of it would probably still make sense.
Comments
You took that seriously?
Oh dear.
It's also not your job to launch into a tirade on the internet but I don't see that bothering you much.
In the UK we are suffering from overpopulation and underemployment because of immigration.
Population numbers are stable, even dropping, for British and European people. So that's something we have "cured". Perhaps you should direct your wrath at those who are still overpopulating the planet and show no sign of stopping?
You know, those in Africa and some parts of Asia.
Anyways SJW was never meant an insult. It was used with a lack of irony by SJWs themselves.
It became an insult because it came to be associated with self righteousness, bullying and marginalization for not adhering to their strict set of rules, outlandish ideas about race and society, having a disproportionate influence in institutions and abusing that power, and a lack of humor.
All of these things are accurate and have been documented for years by popular folks on the internet, so there is no need to belabor the point.
The term became popular because the attitude it describes is easy to identify and folks don't generally have a high opinion of it and criticize it a lot.
Now, don't get me wrong. The stereotypical SJW people do exist and yes, they may be overzealous, unrealistic, hypocritical, lack humor and / or be unhinged - indeed, such people also annoy me, which I did point out a couple of posts back - that said, you do not need to be a genius to recognize that the term is overused. Nor do you need to be a genius to recognize that the exact same kind of people exists on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
You'll see it in videos about politics. You'll see it in videos about games. You'll see it in videos about sports. You'll see it on cute cat videos. You'll see it in the video of her wedding your sister uploaded last week. It's all-encompassing.
So now you get to decide what my intent was?
Who gave you this power, did the Queen die? I think we should be told.
Have to ask, what's it like being so omnipotent?
I don't think you read the Wikipedia article correctly, it basically confirms what I say and links to a source that does the same thing.
"The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.[1][2] "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8f7e71c11bdf
Not that the precise origins of the term matter as much as their ideology or impact on society, both of which I would say are undesirable.
Even in this very thread, by @WarChiefZeke and @DrakeICN (the latter of which doesn't even like the term), the term has been used in a negative sense.
While, again, there are - as, again, I have noted - SJW:s that indeed are hysterical, most SJW:s are not. The negative connotation of SJW is a concerted effort to create a dismissive term, useful for avoiding any real debate by pointing to the thus created disqualifier (you cannot reason with someone who is hysterical) as well as serving as a rallying cry to likeminded (look, there is the enemy). Towards this end, the supposed negative qualities of SJW:s are inflated.
*At least, that is how I read your claim. If understood you incorrectly, then please explain how. SJW is not an unified set of ideas.
Whether or not it is a stereotype that reflects on the majority or not is not for me to say, but it accurately reflects a certain subculture for certain.
Social Justice (at least what we are describing here) is a unified set of ideas, that all revolve around the concept of intersectionality; feminism, racial grievance movements, and others who claim to be oppressed all fit into this framework.
Basically it' just a bunch of hysterical fear-mongering, just like alt-right's "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Yeah no, I did not count the 2011 definition. There is a million inside insult / jokes / memes / whatever that various groups are trying to make stick - like the "male tears" nonsense (if you don't know what that means according to like five people, then you don't want to know). It isn't until they stick they are noteworthy.
Secondly, yeah, fascist describe a certain subculture of the right. Indeed, in percentage, more people that are right are fascists than there are SJW:s that are hysterical. So, by your own logic, it's fine to go ahead and call everyone on the right a fascist? Ah, the tried and true tactic of looking away, putting your hands over your ears and going LALALALA.
It worked so well in the past, so why not;
Also, what are you talking about hundreds of years? It is already here!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-earth-warms-the-diseases-that-may-lie-within-permafrost-become-a-bigger-worry/
Actually, population might still be rising but the rate is decreasing and will continue to do so if the most troubled countries are allowed to remain stable.
I'd recommend listening/reading/watching old TED talks books and such from Hans Rosling. He has a great way to use actual facts, and not random thoughts blurted our on forums, and statistics to show that the bleak future so many believe in, is false.
Here's just on link I googled which show a couple of his talks
https://bigthink.com/sponsored/inside-the-uns-global-health-goals-how-pfizer-is-supporting-sdg-3-good-health-and-well-being
I find your comment quite distasteful and it seems you know very little of history since all the reasons for why those countries you state are to blame for overpopulating the planet can be found there. And many of those, the so called western countries are to be blamed for, so standing here afterwards and pointing fingers is plain ignorant.
You may find my comments distasteful but at least they were on topic and a direct response to another poster.
All you have done is provide a link to some website.
I did not claim that the countries listed were responsible for over populating the planet historically, merely pointing out that they are the problem now.
But have to ask, why do you find comments pointing out that the continenent of Africa, for instance, is heading for a population of a billion fast and that's causing problems, distasteful?
The land can't and won't support them and there is no employment.
We (in the moderation team) have been talking a lot about this thread. I feel it was important for users to discuss the term as the BG interview thread showed.
If you are willing to continue discussing politics, nations, world problems, etc, please do that in the appropriate Politics topic.
If you are willing to discuss the topic from this thread, please do that without sarcasm and semantic arguments, as that is against the Site rules.
Because he's dead.
*leaves*
Yep, definitely banned.
Read it in context with the post I was answering.
Where as usual, Europeans/the West/Republicans/Conservatives were being blamed for all the the ills of the world.
Completely OT.
And if a poster displays anger at some, why not all those who are contributing to what, as they said is,
" you know, actual dangers, not phony invented ones" ?
Personally I think "wrath" as practised by the left both in this country and the US, from what I can see, would be better to be left out of all political discourse.
Not a fan of the latest directive from Clinton to abandon civility.
Now, many SJW:s are oversensitive and / or have an unproportional reaction to said provocation or even worse become preachy and overbearing. Nobody likes have their every sentence scrutinized for potential bigotry, especially when even jokes, clumsiness and misunderstandings can cause all hell to brake lose*. And of course, the would be inquisitors themselves would probably not pass their own tests**, making them hypocrites to boot. Not to forgot that there are plenty of ways to be a bastard while staying tolerant.
That said, the term is mainly used to deflect from legitimate criticism by rather than taking the debate attempting to undermine your opponent.
*It's like being married,..
** See above I am probably wrong, but I still dare say that I don't think it will last. SJW is descriptive in a sarcastic way and contain a kernel of truth. NPC is not - it is literally the Incels / MGTOW / PUA / whatever that don't get to play. SJW:s are NORPs and NORPs are notorious for their ability to get a job, get laid and get a circle of friends. In fact, the very point of counterculture is to demean and belittle the powers to be, taking pride in going your own way even if you fail because of it. It is an admission you do not belong to the system,.. and then you go around and accuse the people that belong to the system for not belonging to the system. Makes zero sense.
Replace every instance of the word "SJW" in this thread with "libtard" and it wouldn't look that much different. Most of it would probably still make sense.