What is a Social Justice Warrior?

[FakeNews]

Social justice warriors believe in an extreme left-wing ideology that combines feminism, progressivism, and political correctness into a totalitarian system that attempts to censor speech and promote fringe lifestyles while actively discriminating against men, particularly white men. They are the internet activist arm of Western progressivism that acts as a vigilante group to ensure compliance and homogeny of far left thought.

The true definition of SJW is up for debate, but most generally it has become a catch-all term that describes feminists and liberals who actively try to solve the perceived social injustices of modern society by organizing in online communities to disseminate propaganda, censor speech, and punish individuals by getting them terminated from their employment. They have also been successful at positioning themselves in the upper echelons of universities, media organizations, and tech companies.

Using a “privilege” hierarchy, SJW’s calculate the worth of a human being based on perceived injustices or wrongs that group has suffered since the time of ancestral man, using selective and narrow interpretations of history. SJW’s elevate groups that they believe have received the least amount of “privilege” in the past, and then use internet activism in the form of mobs and community purges to target those who are determined to have greater amounts of privilege. The idea of privilege is so essential to SJW ideology that a common debate tactic they use is to say “check your privilege,” which roughly translates to, “you must immediately halt or change your speech because your ancestors may or may not have done bad things to women or minority races.”

For example, if a notable white American male makes a joke about a lesbian black woman who practices Islam, SJW’s will coordinate using a combination of blogs, Youtube, and social networking to dox him (publish his personal information, including where he works). They will then pressure the man’s company by flooding it with calls and messages with the goal to remove his source of income while engaging in a mass reporting campaign to get his online accounts suspended.

Their ultimate goal is to silence all speech that they don’t like and which they find offensive while also punishing the speech offender by removing his source of income. As they grow in power, the acceptable range of speech that would trigger an SJW witch hunt is becoming more narrow, and those who are high up on the privilege hierarchy (white men) have to speak through a careful filter if they don’t want to be subject to an SJW attack.

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

 

[BotanyBoy]

Damn close, except for it's use of the term Liberal.

There isn't anything liberal about social justice.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

"totalitarian system" = FAKE NEWS. Your Alt is aptly named.

 

[BotanyBoy]

"totalitarian system" = FAKE NEWS. Your Alt is aptly named.

Awwww someone doesn't like reality.


LOL

 

[FGB]

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

Oh, you mean about half the assholes on this board...Well,Yeah!

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I will tell you what a social justice warrior is, assholes. It’s an individual who believes in civil rights for everyone. It’s someone who has been inspired by the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equally.” It’s someone who believes that having the right to American Freedom doesn’t apply to just them and they are willing to fight and die for equality for all.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I will tell you what a social justice warrior is, assholes. It’s an individual who believes in civil rights for everyone. It’s someone who has been inspired by the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equally.” It’s someone who believes that having the right to American Freedom doesn’t apply to just them and they are willing to fight and die for equality for all.

Okay, I'm not trying to be snippy here. I am asking you this question sincerely.

Does your definition of a social warrior's commitment to freedom for "all" include those who do NOT believe in freedom for all? Is a social warrior committed to fight and die for someone's right to be an ignorant racist?

This is a philosophical contradiction I frankly struggle with and I don't see too many people defending -- the right for a segment of our fellow citizens to cling to a subculture of "stupidity" (be it "liberal" or "conservative") that we honestly feel to be counterproductive, if not DE-structive, of our social fabric.

What say you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I will tell you what a social justice warrior is, assholes. It’s an individual who believes in civil rights for everyone.

LOL...bullshit.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/berkeley-today-FB.jpg

It’s someone who believes that having the right to American Freedom doesn’t apply to just them and they are willing to fight and die for equality for all.

Except the right to disagree or be white male cis scum!!

 

[OldJourno]

LOL...bullshit.

http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/berkeley-today-FB.jpg



Except the right to disagree or be white male cis scum!!

Don't get social justice warriors mixed up with the anti-freedom fascists (antifrfa).
Unless they're the same.

 

[Que]

That's what I thought.

As Trotskey observed, "..some pigs are more equal than others."

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Okay, I'm not trying to be snippy here. I am asking you this question sincerely.

Does your definition of a social warrior's commitment to freedom for "all" include those who do NOT believe in freedom for all? Is a social warrior committed to fight and die for someone's right to be an ignorant racist?

This is a philosophical contradiction I frankly struggle with and I don't see too many people defending -- the right for a segment of our fellow citizens to cling to a subculture of "stupidity" (be it "liberal" or "conservative") that we honestly feel to be counterproductive, if not DE-structive, of our social fabric.

What say you?

Speaking only for myself as a social a warrior, I advocate for civil rights. To me that means social equality for everyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. As an citizen of the United States of America that specifically means the same rights of freedom of assembly and speech apply to everyone.

The right wing extremists are free in this country to speak and assemble as are left wing extremists. They can legally wear combat gear and carry weapons in states that legally allow.

I hope that that answers your question.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Don't get social justice warriors mixed up with the anti-freedom fascists (antifrfa).
Unless they're the same.

Not all SJW's are antifa....but all the antifas are justice warriors.

 

[Fala]

http://www.rooshv.com/what-is-a-social-justice-warrior-sjw

I couldn't even get through your second sentence without puking.

Please, keep your posts shorter....it makes a huge difference between a huffing, hold back kinda gag and a "full run to the kitchen PUKE in the sink" for the people here.

The GB thanks you.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Speaking only for myself as a social a warrior, I advocate for civil rights. To me that means social equality for everyone regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. As an citizen of the United States of America that specifically means the same rights of freedom of assembly and speech apply to everyone.

The right wing extremists are free in this country to speak and assemble as are left wing extremists. They can legally wear combat gear and carry weapons in states that legally allow.

I hope that that answers your question.

It does. Thank you. And if you'll permit me to extend the discussion.

If the vast majority of people in this country repudiate racism of any and all types -- if we agree that it has a cancerous affect on our social discourse, what value do we derive from protecting it via the First Amendment? Why NOT, as someone earlier suggested, legally codify "hate speech" as one of those UNprotected forms of speech as, indeed, it once was (i.e. "fighting words")?

Given the moral outrage expressed against racism generally, it simply causes me to question if, and to what degree, many of its vehement opponents have adequately justified and/or reconciled the VALUE of the scope of the First Amendment.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

It does. Thank you. And if you'll permit me to extend the discussion.

If the vast majority of people in this country repudiate racism of any and all types -- if we agree that it has a cancerous affect on our social discourse, what value do we derive from protecting it via the First Amendment? Why NOT, as someone earlier suggested, legally codify "hate speech" as one of those UNprotected forms of speech as, indeed, it once was (i.e. "fighting words")?

Given the moral outrage expressed against racism generally, it simply causes me to question if, and to what degree, many of its vehement opponents have adequately justified and/or reconciled the VALUE of the scope of the First Amendment.

I'm sure that you understand that the first amendment doesn't just guarantee the rights of racists to assemble and speak.

The rules apply to everyone or they don't apply, right?

 

[Fala]

I FINALLY learned what a SJW is. Thank you..

idiots.

 

[EternalFantasies]

I FINALLY learned what a SJW is. Thank you..

idiots.

Kind of alt lefts

 

[Fala]

I will tell you what a social justice warrior is, assholes. It’s an individual who believes in civil rights for everyone. It’s someone who has been inspired by the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equally.” It’s someone who believes that having the right to American Freedom doesn’t apply to just them and they are willing to fight and die for equality for all.

I adore you. You had this coming, yano.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm sure that you understand that the first amendment doesn't just guarantee the rights of racists to assemble and speak.

The rules apply to everyone or they don't apply, right?

Not exactly. We make exceptions and place restrictions on various freedoms and behaviors that manifest themselves as dangerous. I just am curious why those who so clearly see the "poison" of racism are so conspicuously silent about the need to EITHER restrain its expression as speech OR defend its value as a protected expression.

I mean, there is an awful lot of lip service as to the "evil" that this represents that we fairly DEMAND and DEFINE the President's moral authority as to the timely condemnation of a specific expression that is unarguably protected by the Constitution.

There seems something hypocritical about that to me.

The FDA doesn't allow lethal poison in our food supply. If racism is comparable to that poison, as the hue and cry would seem to suggest, then perhaps government censorship is called for.

If not -- if we may safely and appropriately ignore the infinitesimally small number of redneck kindergarten dropouts who spew their garbage and simply throw their asses in jail when they start busting heads -- then maybe this is merely a fairly straightforward law enforcement issue that the MSM and the liberal left is blowing out of proportion.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Not exactly. We make exceptions and place restrictions on various freedoms and behaviors that manifest themselves as dangerous. I just am curious why those who so clearly see the "poison" of racism are so conspicuously silent about the need to EITHER restrain its expression as speech OR defend its value as a protected expression.

I mean, there is an awful lot of lip service as to the "evil" that this represents that we fairly DEMAND and DEFINE the President's moral authority as to the timely condemnation of a specific expression that is unarguably protected by the Constitution.

There seems something hypocritical about that to me.

The FDA doesn't allow lethal poison in our food supply. If racism is comparable to that poison, as the hue and cry would seem to suggest, then perhaps government censorship is called for.

If not -- if we may safely and appropriately ignore the infinitesimally small number of redneck kindergarten dropouts who spew their garbage and simply throw their asses in jail when they start busting heads -- then maybe this is merely a fairly straightforward law enforcement issue that the MSM and the liberal left is blowing out of proportion.

Are you pondering a question of morality or legality? If we are going to talk about racism, we will first have to define the term.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Are you pondering a question of morality or legality? If we are going to talk about racism, we will first have to define the term.

I'm pondering a question of context and perspective that has both moral and legal implications and I am suggesting that the moral outrage that so many people harbor for racists is disproportionate to their presumed DEFENSE of the First Amendment that guarantees the very RIGHT to hold and freely express racist dogma.

There appears to be precious little thought to reconciling these two positions which, it would seem to me, to be almost mutually exclusive.

It is why, in my own view, the inviolability of the First Amendment and 200 years of colonial and early American history make racism a virtual certainty, the very advocacy of which is protected. Why then would we be surprised that it exists? My perspective is to view these lost souls as sad idiots worthy more of pity than contempt (albeit only slightly). But to believe that we are somehow going to change the hearts and minds of such depraved recalcitrants through sheer force of collective will and superior volume of invective is folly bordering on madness.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Damn close, except for it's use of the term Liberal.

There isn't anything liberal about social justice.

I agree. I think the proper word is Progressive (maybe Fabian).

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I'm pondering a question of context and perspective that has both moral and legal implications and I am suggesting that the moral outrage that so many people harbor for racists is disproportionate to their presumed DEFENSE of the First Amendment that guarantees the very RIGHT to hold and freely express racist dogma.

There appears to be precious little thought to reconciling these two positions which, it would seem to me, to be almost mutually exclusive.

It is why, in my own view, the inviolability of the First Amendment and 200 years of colonial and early American history make racism a virtual certainty, the very advocacy of which is protected. Why then would we be surprised that it exists? My perspective is to view these lost souls as sad idiots worthy more of pity than contempt (albeit only slightly). But to believe that we are somehow going to change the hearts and minds of such depraved recalcitrants through sheer force of collective will and superior volume of invective is folly bordering on madness.

Constitutional amendments can’t control thoughts. People have a right to their thoughts regardless of how racist, misogynist or phobic as they are. Actions can be legislated but unless we are going to turn to a Clockwork Orange solution to thoughts people will be free to think.

I expected that your question to me was based upon the assumption that any passion that I express for the actions of social warriors his conditioned by my own bias. That is a fair question. Once again, I can only speak for myself. In my mind, I reversed the social order, only regarding black and white American in 2017. If a white minority legally assembled to voice their concern of inequitable social and legal treatment, I would actively participate in the protection of their first amendment rights, just as the American Civil Liberties Union does now.

I hope that this answers your question. If not, shoot me another.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I agree. I think the proper word is Progressive (maybe Fabian).

Mmmmhmm.

Actual liberals view SJW's/D's like libertarians view neo-nazis and (R)'s.....bunch of control freak assholes.

 

[trysail]

...equality for all.

Uh, oh. We've got somebody who doesn't understand nature or evolution.

We've got a credulous believer in a utopian fantasy produced by ignorance and magical thinking.

We've got a latent Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot on our hands.


​