(A guest post by Alexandra Erin, quoted from her comment on another person’s blog. Thanks to Alexandra for her permission, and visit her blog Blue Author Is About To Write.)
Joshua, I appreciate both where this post is coming from and where it may lead, but may I suggest a slightly more radical move?
Rather than figuring out where the dividing line between SJWs and others are, why don’t you stop dividing the world into SJWs and others? I’m not saying not to judge people’s actions, and not to speak up when you see someone who seems to have an axe to grind or whatever, but the thing is, “SJW” is mostly an externally applied label. Oh, sure, there are people on Twitter and Tumblr who now take it as an ironic badge of honor, but the label started off as a pejorative. I’m not saying you consciously use it this way personally, but for a lot of people, once they’ve applied the label to someone, they stop trying to understand where they’re coming from and even paying attention to what they’re saying. It’s like labeling a sentiment “Political Correctness” — the main effect is that it lets you write someone off.
If I tell you that trans rights are important to me, I’m telling you a thing about myself. If you care enough to, you can listen to what I’m saying or ask me questions or just try to imagine the world as I see it. Empathy is possible.
As soon as you decide I’m an “SJW”, though, you can no longer try to understand my perspective because I no longer have my own perspective in your head. I’m one of those wacky “SJWs”. I think whatever SJWs think. One time someone you called an SJW said all men should be strangled at birth, so I must think that. Some people who are SJWs don’t believe anything but are just trolling for attention or PC Cred Points or revenge on society. Once I’m labeled an SJW, that’s me, too.
And the thing is, an incredibly large and diverse amount of people and belief and attitudes all get swept up together as “SJWs” and then treated as a monolith. I’ve seen people on Tumblr talk about us supposed “SJWs” as a group that includes vegans, radical feminists, and trans women like myself. I’m not vegan, and most vegan extremists who know who I am hate me. Radical feminists actively work to subvert trans rights, and so we have no love lost for them. But I can go to any number of posts on a Puppy blog like Brad Torgersen’s, and know that I will find someone stating with perfect confidence that radical feminism informs the tenets of everything I do and believe, because Ess Jay Double You.
And once I am established as an SJW… well, believing is seeing.
Imagine that you saw me talking about how I think that racism and sexism are endemic to the fabric of society and as no human being is perfect, no human being has perfect self-awareness, we are all susceptible to its influences, in the same way we’re all susceptible to advertising and other ubiquitous messages. It doesn’t control our minds, but it influences us, and we’re ill-equipped to see it, particularly as the human mind rebels from the thought that it is not a completely independent entity.
Now, you can disagree with that! But I think you could also probably recognize that it’s a reasonable point of view. If you did disagree, I imagine it would be at the premise level: that racism and sexism are endemic in society. But even in that case, I’d hope that you’d recognize that the line of thinking makes sense for someone starting from those premises, and then we’d have something we could talk about.
But if you decide—or you’ve been told already—that I one of those Social Justice Warriors, we probably won’t get there. Because you see me talking about racism and sexism as ubiquitous social forces and oh, boy, there goes one of those SJWs again, saying everybody and everything is racist and sexist. I just accused you of being racist and sexist just for being born! Are you gonna stand for that? No you’re not!
You might see another “SJW” talking about racism in terms of outcomes rather than individual personal intentions and decide the same thing. And please understand, when I say “decide”, I don’t mean to imply that you sit here going, “Well, you’re saying this thing, and I could argue with it, but instead I’m going to call you an SJW and just ignore it.”
The decision is to see people as “SJWs” or not. Everything else follows from that. The purpose of the label is to rope people together and then write them off. That’s all it does.
I have seen people who were just blogging about their lives—their own personal struggles—on their personal blogs get discovered by people who have an axe to grind against “SJWs”, and because they said something that is not politically correct by the anti-SJW crowd’s standards, they get labeled an SJW and hounded to heck and back. “YOU CALL YOURSELF AN ACTIVIST, BUT YOU’RE REALLY JUST A SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR!” the hounds say, but the person never called themselves an activist.
And yeah, I said politically correct. I don’t know how it became codified that political correctness only exists on the left. There are people waiting to pounce on anyone who spouts the “wrong ideas” on every side of every political spectrum, and the attitude that this is just a leftist thing means they have more free rein on the right.Nobody’s guarding against “political correctness” from that side, because it’s only used to refer to the infiltration of knee-jerk leftist versions of sensitivity.
Anyway, my point is that dividing the world between “SJWs” and “everyone else” is not how you get to the world you’re describing as your goal. On the internet, calling someone an “SJW” is tantamount to declaring open season on them and then writing off anything they might have to say as being noise.
I know you probably feel like that’s what “SJWs” do when they label someone as racist or whatever. I’m not going to argue the point, mostly because in my experience it’s the people who just zealously look for any ripe target to attack in situations where we’re talking about racism or sexism are also the ones who inevitably have an epiphany down the line where they realize that’s not really justice and then become the most zealous crusaders against “SJWs”. Most people on the other side from you don’t actually “ride out under a banner of Social Justice”, as I’ve so often seen it described… and those that do, it’s the act of riding out under a banner that’s important to them. It’s the twin rush of getting to go after someone viciously while simultaneously feeling like they’re the hero. The cause doesn’t matter, only that they have one. And because the cause doesn’t matter, there’s about the same number of people on any side of an argument.
Although I should also point out that the “sides” aren’t as clear cut as all that, either. Again, the label of “SJW” tends to minimize differences and paint people as a monolith. You guys have formed camps and ran campaigns. You’re organized. You can describe everybody who disagrees with your premises, goals, or tactics as “anti puppy”, but there is no Anti-Puppies. Pretending there is distorts your view of everything.
I mean, we’ve had David Gerrold insisting that everybody must be welcomed warmly and treated honorably at the Hugo awards ceremony and Connie Willis backing out of presenting because she doesn’t feel she can do that. That’s two individuals both expressing an individual view. But if you insist on seeing them not as individuals but as facets of an Anti-Puppy faction, then Gerrold’s words seem hollow, and can only be read as sarcasm or a veiled threat. And so many Puppies did exactly that. But objectively: if he wasn’t serious about what he had said, why would Connie Willis have backed out?
When people in either Puppy camps bother to spell out who they think is in the clique that they imagine congrols the Hugos, some of the big names they put out there don’t even get along. I’m not going to name examples because it’s not my place to air dirty laundry or speak for other people about who they do or don’t like, but honestly, a lot of it’s been very public. A lot of the people assumed to be super influential really aren’t. It’s all the view from outside, seeing connections where there aren’t any, extrapolating things to explain away results that the viewer can’t otherwise make sense of.
There’s this really weird bit of cognitive dissonance that goes on where people look at everyone to the left of them (I don’t know where you’d say your politics lie, so I won’t say you’re on the right, though I imagine you’re to the right of me) and see us both as marching in lockstep with one another and constantly turning on each other. This happens when one insists on seeing a monolith where none exists.
Over in another culture skirmish, I’ve tried to explain to people in Gamergate that some people really like video games but have different tastes and priorities, and we would just like to be able to read reviews that speak to our needs, and so it’s distressing to see them label such reviews as “unethical” and try to hound them out of existence. This conversation never goes anywhere because the answer is always something like, “Oh, yeah? If you like video games, why did you censor Grand Theft Auto V in Australia?”
I’m not in Australia, of course. I have a feeling that many of the moral guardians who signed the petition to get GTAV pulled from the shelves of Target would also protest any game that represented my ~*lifestyle*~, as they would call it.
Yet because of the magical transformative value of the label SJW, I am responsible for the actions of those moral guardians, and no further conversation is possible.
This is also how so many Puppies ended up demonizing Mary Robinette Kowal for a post where she basically endorsed the loftier versions of the Puppies’ stated goals (open the gates, widen the conversation, let everyone in) and then ran a fundraising effort to randomly distribute voting memberships to any interested takers, regardless of their tastes and political views. If you see her as a member of the Anti-Puppies, and you see Anti-Puppies as SJWs, and you see SJWs as two-faced extremists who will say whatever is most advantageous while doing whatever they please… then you basically have no choice but to regard the whole body of her post as honeyed sarcasm or bald-faced lies and call the random membership giveaway drive “buying votes for her side!” as so many did.
(Though in fairness, many Puppies also recognized that what she was doing was a good step towards the world they wanted.)
I know this a long comment, so I’m going to wrap it up with pretty shortly. Just two more things.
Up above, Ian says he’s seen both the Puppy slate and the “liberal recommendations”. I know he’s not saying the “liberal slate”, but just the fact that he has to phrase it that way kind of puts paid to the Puppy party line that there’s a single clique of liberals that has been acting together to control the nominations, doesn’t it? I’ve seen people on the Rabid Puppies side say that the “SJW side can’t even fix an award competently,” hence their ability to steamroller the nominations with ease. Isn’t the more likely answer that it was never fixed to begin with?
Maybe you’ll read this and think I’m talking nonsense. Maybe you don’t think there’s anything reasonable in the views I described as getting subsumed under the label of “SJW”. Maybe you even think that I’m one of those vicious people who rides out under a banner to feel like a hero while attacking people. I have certainly had unkind things to say about the people leading the Puppy charges.
But even if I am completely wrong about almost everything and als the worst person in the world, you would still have nothing to lose by excising the “SJW/everyone else” division from your way of looking at the world. Judge people as individuals… don’t sort them into a box and judge them against everyone else you’ve put into the box. If you see someone arguing in poor face or browbeating someone or adopting extreme rhetorical poses in an obvious bid for attention or whatever, just label what they’re doing as what it is. You don’t need the word “SJW” to call them out for that, and in fact, it makes it harder because then you’re talking about everything that everyone is doing, not what this one person is doing.
If you want to take the first step towards a kinder, gentler, more tolerant discourse, start by putting down the “SJW” label. It only exists to burn people, and you don’t want to fight fire with fire.
On the one hand, I agree that the term “SJW” has become so over-applied it’s become essentially meaningless. You can get called an SJW just for being left of centre.
On the other hand, I think when the term was used more narrowly, it had some value, because a rather insular culture of privilege policing and identity-economics existed in several communities and people needed a way to talk about it that was more specific than “those people”.
So I guess what I’m saying is, given that SJW as a term is no longer salvageable, how should we talk about the people it was originally applied to?
I’ll agree with this as soon as I can get a clear, unambiguous definition of “MRA.”
Heh. Color me amused that folks who often rely heavily on the expansion and use of labels to others (from “MRA” to “Nice Guy” to “mansplaining;” from “conservative” to “antifeminist” to “racist;” from “islamophobic” to “bigoted” to “diverse”) are, now, protesting the application of a label to them. Because it’s not faaaaaaair.
Sure: it may not be sensible. And it may not be effective. Pissing people off is rarely sensible, if you’re trying to convince them rationally to join your side.
But it is pretty damn amusing to read this plea, nonetheless.
Anyway:
Sure. I’ll instantly stop using the term SJW, provided that the people formerly referred to as SJWs instantly stop using the terms I don’t like.
Deal?
Well to be fair, it’s not “folks” protesting, but an individual person, and you’ve not established that she relies on the expansion and use of labels.
You’re correct of course that MRAs etc., are often labeled and borgified in much the same way as Alexandra Erin complains about. But instead of pointing the tu quoque finger at her, I’d rather find common cause, and hope that she will try to be the change, just as I do.
Ah, Dworkin’s fallacy: the idea that an unorganised class of people are capable of acting in concert. But I think you know this.
For myself, I have never called anyone a SJW. I haven’t (yet) banned it on my blog. Perhaps I should, on the grounds that it’s pejoritive. I do agree with Tamme, though that it would be useful to have a non-pejoritive term refering to the subset of those who purport to advocate for Social Justice in the rather odious manner that I think we all recognise.
GW wrote “Heh. Color me amused that folks who often rely heavily on the expansion and use of labels to others (from “MRA” to “Nice Guy” to “mansplaining;” from “conservative” to “antifeminist” to “racist;” from “islamophobic” to “bigoted” to “diverse”) are, now, protesting the application of a label to them. Because it’s not faaaaaaair.”
I considered writing something very much like this, but did not, because
1. This is one person, not “folks,” and
2. To the extent that she is implicitly speaking for a group of “folks,” those “folks” would be non puppy worldcon community members. And they do, in fact, have a really solid moral high ground. Moral high grounds in large group conflicts are rarely spotless, but it’s not hard to look at this conflict and figure out who is, or is not, the jerk.
G&W:
1) I don’t find your tone of condescending amusement and disdain, especially when applied to a new guest-poster, to be in keeping with the stated goals of the “Alas” goals for discussion. Consider this a moderation warning.
2) The email associated with your name on “Alas” doesn’t work (I suspect because it’s an outdated email?). Please update it. Thanks.
SJW, MRA, RINO, Uncle Tom – all pejoratives used to signal that the author believes the subject is outside their in-group without really saying anything at all about why the subject is wrong on any particular issue. It’s not as much an ad homenem as it is a way to define the limits of the tribe.
As Daran says, nobody has the leadership authority to be accountable for what everyone ever called by their pejorative descriptor has ever said. That’s why feminists/MRAs can talk about the other as a monolith and then whip out the “not all ____” card as needed. And why wouldn’t they? Whatever any particular “SJW” thinks about this or that matters less to the person who uses the term than the signal it sends that “I’m one of you, they’re not, their opinion is meaningless to you.”
So instead of trying to divine what the term says about what it describes, think about what it says about the person using it and who they are signaling to.
Me, I don’t use the term SJW. Not because I agree with the bad actions and worse logic of many people who are described by others as SJWs, but because the use of the acronym would identify me as a member of a tribe I don’t want to be in.
Daran:
Have you ever called people an MRA? I suspect you have (arguably, you did in the comment I just quoted). Would you consider banning the term on your blog?
The term “men’s rights advocate” was, afaik, made up by me back in Usenet days. (I can’t prove this; the Usenet archives are incomplete). I was arguing with folks I referred to as anti-feminist, but they objected to the term “anti-feminist,” so I suggested “men’s rights advocate” as a respectful alternative. As far as I can tell, most MRAs do not see the term as an insult (and I did not intend it as an insult), and it now a label that MRAs commonly apply to themselves.
The term SJW, on the other hand, was originally intended as mockery, and although some lefties now use the SJW tag as a sort of “I will make your mockery into a badge of honor” response, in my estimation many or most don’t accept it for themselves.
LTL FTC: I’d say that “MRA” is more a counterpart to “feminist,” in that although these terms are sometimes used derisively, they both have primary meanings that are not derisive, and that are accepted and used by MRAs/feminists themselves. So classifying “MRA” as the same as “SJW” is inaccurate.
You yourself seem to agree with me that “MRA” as a counterpart to “feminist,” since your comment uses the phrase “feminists/MRAs.”
I think “SJW” is a counterpart to “Wingnut,” a term that I don’t use, for the reasons explained in Alexandra’s post.
The term MRA didn’t originate as an insult, but it’s still applied by lazy thinkers who try to label and dismiss everyone who disagrees with their views on gender politics… or even questions them. And they clearly do intend it as a derogatory term equivalent to ‘misogynist.’ Basically, they’re trying to turn it into a dirty word and sloppily apply it to anyone they dislike, in order to avoid addressing their arguments rationally. Which is the sort of behavior that the original article complains about.
Ampersand:
While it is true that MRA is used by a small group of people as a self-descriptor, its practical use is usually to insult the subject, dismiss their argument or impugn a bad motive. Maybe it’s just where I hang out online, but the use of MRA is 10% self-identification and 90% pejorative towards someone who has not announced that’s how they identify. Someone with more time than me should do a count in a substantial sample. I won’t envy them, that’s for sure.
SJW does have the ironic reclaimers, but similarly it’s probably 5% self-ID and 95% pejorative. In the end, most of the time I see either acronym, it’s just as an insult or shut-down.
Maybe I don’t explore the Fox News comment section, but I don’t see “feminist” as an insult in the same way.
Just the opposite. Witness the whole “the radical notion that women are people so why wouldn’t you be feminist … but I can rhetorically take away your card for infractions X, Y or Z”-type logic. Most people want to be considered feminists by the broad definition, and at least a few feminists are very interested in policing the borders from the inside. Thus, MRA gets turned from a small band of a******* to a catchall for “anyone who disagrees with feminist me.”
Isn’t this inevitable, however? The terms “democrat,” “republican,” “Christian,” “feminist,” “atheist,” “secular,” “pro-choice,” “pro-life” etc etc etc are all used in this way, on occasion.
It’s not reasonable to ask that people cease using terms that are ever used in a dismissive, lazy or thoughtless manner, because that would make ordinary conversation about political matters next to impossible. In contrast, asking people to not use terms that are primarily used as insults, and not applied by people to themselves (unless they’re being ironic), is more reasonable and achievable.
So, that category would probably include “MRA” and “Nice Guy,” and certainly “Nice Guy(TM);” “mansplaining” and “misogynistic;” “racist,” “islamophobic,” (and other ___phobic words;) “bigoted” and “dehumanizing;” and certainly “hate speech” and “harassing,” to say nothing of “rape apologist” or “rapist.”
That’s a short list, off the top of my head. It isn’t complete by any means.
I think you would probably agree that the usual response is “well, folks use those words because they are convenient; and because they’re true; and because they are, in our opinion, an accurate way to convey what we mean. If you don’t want to be called a racist mansplainer, or if it hurts your fee-fees, then don’t be one.”
But to adopt a tone which you might better appreciate: I’m not sure how you can classify “SJW” as an especially problematic term. At heart it indicates someone who is interested in what the speaker things of as “social justice.”And who, often enough, is arguing–warring, if you will–on behalf of some social justice agenda.
Do you think it belongs in the same category as the list above?
g&w,
Almost none of your examples meet the criteria: “terms that are primarily used as insults, and not applied by people to themselves (unless they’re being ironic).”
Mansplaining and Nice Guy(TM) meet those criteria. The rest don’t.
I think we can both agree that the “not applied by people to themselves” classification is satisfied….?
The ones in my list are almost always perceived as insults, both by the recipient and any third party listeners. And since this perception is widely known it seems reasonable to impute that intent to the speaker, in many (though not necessarily all) cases.
I don’t know if I’d assert that those uses are all “primary.” But then again I don’t really think that’s the right distinction. Would “SJW” be perfectly OK if it kept the same use as it does now, but people who didn’t like SJWs started using the term more, making the current use “not primary?” I don’t see how that would change things.
“I don’t know if I’d assert that those uses are all “primary.””
Well, you obviously did just assert it, so maybe you mean that you realize you were probably wrong to assert it?
You quoted the criteria and then listed things you claimed met the criteria. Now you say that the things you listed may or may not have met the criteria. If you object to the criteria, maybe you should have started with that.
I don’t agree. Lots of people talk about their own internalized racism, for example.
Furthermore, terms like “racist” and “homophobic” and “sexist” (etc) have many major, commonplace uses other than “you are a _____,” as you must know. E.g., “you think that movie was a bit racist?,” “I think the word chairman is sexist, so I say chair or chairperson instead” “it’s homophobic not to have legal gay marriage,” and so on and on and on. These words have real meaning and content other than being derogatory, and those meanings are commonly used. Words like SJWs and Wingnuts, in contrast, are almost always used against people and are virtually always used in a derogatory way.
Since there are a large number of people who are unreasonable on this topic and twist all uses of words like “racist” into personal insults, regardless of what the word actually meant in context, the result of a “no word should ever be used if people perceive it as an insult” rule is that no word for racism would be acceptable to use. (There are plenty of people who take references to “prejudice,” “bigotry,” and “racial bias” as insults, for example.) This would be a great idea if our goal is to perpetuate white supremacy and racism as much as possible by making it almost impossible to criticize; but as that is not our goal, I don’t think it’s a great idea.
(And ditto for words like “misogyny” and “homophobia,” of course.)
Intent isn’t magic. But in this circumstance, it’s at least relevant. I will absolutely try and meet you halfway on this issue, by trying to discuss the ideas rather than addressing the speaker (i.e., “that argument seems homophobic to me, because..” rather than “you’re a homophobe”). But I am not willing to drop all words that mean “bigotry against [marginalized group],” which seems to what you’re advocating for here, at least if we take your argument to its logical conclusion.
(And of course I’ll continue avoiding terms that have almost no content other than being derogatory words for a particular disliked group of people, like “wingnut.” Which I think is all this post is really asking for.)
Well exactly. I did in the comment you quoted.
No. MRA is not necessarily pejorative, and it’s accepted by (some of) the people it’s applied to.
I don’t know how it was originally intended. Know your meme, as usual has some interesting historical information. It certainly parses as pejoritive: the word “warrior” implies someone with an overinflated sense of self-importance. But such types do exist within the SJ movement, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the term turned out to have been originally self-applied, or subsequently embraced by some activists, in much the same way that you wouldn’t be surprised at a (non-violent) Christian group called themselves “crusaders”, or an “army“.
We do allow guests on FC to use any term used self-referentially by they people they refer to, even if the use would otherwise be objectionable. The reason for the so-far-non-ban on SJW is a combination of my lack-of-knowlege about whether this is so, the lack of an alternative non-pejoritive way to refer to the obnoxiously self-important types, and inertia.
My impression from when the term first started showing up – and maybe I’m wrong – is that it was derived from “keyboard warrior.”
There is no non-pejorative way to call someone self-important. Nor does the usage of SJW seem to be limited to people who are self-important; in the usage the original post was objecting to, for example, it was fairly clearly being used as a blanket term for folks who take the Worldcon side of the Worldcon vs Puppies dispute, and I assume you wouldn’t say that all people who disagree with the puppies are being self-important.
I had assumed that by “pejorative” we meant gratuitously so. There’s no non-pejorative way to call someone a rapist, but that isn’t a reason to forclose talking about rapists.
I don’t have a dog in that fight.
Puns aside, I have only the vaguest idea what the controversy is about. I’m also subscribe to the unfashionable view that ignorance disqualifies me from having an opinion on something, so please don’t mind if I demur.
Ampersand:
It’s probably partially that, but it also seems like the mirror of the term Culture Warrior, which itself I suspect came from the concept of the Culture War. For one thing I don’t think “Social Justice Warrior” is limited to people or actions on the internet.
This bit is starting to get at the sort of behaviour I tend to see being able to be criticised by the term “SJW”. I would tend to use the term against people who have labelled and determined others to be their enemy, to see those they are criticising as an non-human monolith.
I would define SJW as someone who pursues social justice goals, identifies people as the enemy and considers harming that enemy as key to achieving their goals. I think the students protesting against CHS are a good example of SJWs. I think it’d be useful to have a term to distinguish those who behave with combative or destructive tribalism from those who behave in more constructive ways. Perhaps it’d be better to have a politically (left/right) neutral term for it.
I’ve been called an MRA for arguing that the reasons that condoms are often free is not the patriarchy prioritizing the comfort of white men . The person was calling me an MRA as an insult. I also disagree that “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are commonly used as insults, the insulting form tends to be “pro-death” and “anti-choice”. I think the correct comparison is not democrat or republican but “communist” there are absolutely self defined communist, but if I’m having a discussion about tax policy and somebody calls me a communist, it’s not an honest misidentification and there is little chance of productive discourse.
I suspect the odds of having a genuine dialogue with somebody after they call you a racist or a sexist (rather than saying, I think X idea is racist or sexist, or Y behavior is racist or sexist) is roughly analogous to the odds that you have a good conversation with somebody after calling them a Social justice warrior. Both of which are probably somewhat higher than the odds of having a good conversation with somebody after calling them a bigot.
You can get much success saying that an idea is sexist or racist, but if you call a person in particular sexist or racist you are very rarely trying to have a discourse with them.
One reason I’m not super comfortable with the general argument is I haven’t seen TERF ever used a neutral, rather than negative descriptor but am not convinced it’s an unethical or useless term.
I also disagree that “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are commonly used as insults, the insulting form tends to be “pro-death” and “anti-choice”.
Ampersand didn’t say that these were commonly used as insults, only that they sometimes are. That there are even more insulting terms doesn’t falsify his claim. By-the-way, “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” are both accurate descriptions of the relative positions. Pro-choice people want pregnant people to have the legal and practical ability to choose to have an abortion, or not. Most are not “pro-abortion”, believing that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Anti-choice people do not want pregnant people to have this choice. To call such people “pro-life” is to take one side of a contentious issue. Putting a pregnant person’s health, and even her life, at risk by denying her appropriate medical help for the sake of a small ball of cells seems to me to be a profoundly anti-life position.
Well true, but I don’t think it really matters whether or not you really are a communist, for “communist” to be used as an insult. By the US usage of the word, I probably am a “liberal”, but I can still tell when it’s being used as an insult.
I’ve also been thinking about “TERF”, which I’ve never been entirely comfortable with, but which I haven’t banned on my blog, precisely because it is useful and neutral on its face. I don’t think the fact that it’s always a negative descriptor is dispositive. “Rapist” is always a negative decription but that shouldn’t forclose any discussion about rapists.
I’d certainly be willing to switch to any term prefered by, um, TERFs, provided it was neutral, i.e., didn’t beg the very question at issue. For example, I would reject “pro-real-women”.
i’m fine with the term tumblr asshole, people who use shallow understandings of progressive ideas shield themselves when they get into fights, i find this video explains a bunch of things well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m-e4PgiVfM
I dislike tumblr. When there is perfectly functional easy to use blogging software like WordPress, I do not understand the appeal of deliberatly crippled systems such as twitter, with its arbitrary character limit or tumblr with its inability to have any discussion other than “like” and “reblog” from another tumbr.
That said, I found the video you linked to rather dismal, and gave up watching about a quarter the way through.
Dismal is one word – transphobic and ableist might be a few others. In fact, the linked video is why I’m deeply suspicious of the folks who say “Sure, let’s abandon ‘SJW’, but don’t we need some term for the kind of identity-worshipping assholes who hang out on Tumblr?”
Because when you watch the video, several of the examples of ‘identity-worshipping assholes’ are things like “men with vaginas” and “people with anxiety disorders.” OH HO HO HO HO! People dealing with serious life-issues that we don’t have to deal with are so fucking funny! OH HO HO HO HO!
And hey, look, I dated an otherkin, and it was a deeply silly experience, and I still laugh about it, but if the price of it not being socially acceptable to laugh at trans folk is that it’s also not socially acceptable to laugh at otherkin, count me in. I think that’s the social bargain Tumblr has made.
—Myca
@Myca: You didn’t call me out by name, but you’re basically responding to exactly what I said, so I will respond.
That video does not represent my views on “SJWs”. I’m thinking more of the group of people who believe that telling people to kill themselves is fine.
Those people are major assholes.
Whoever made that video was also a major asshole.
I’m not trying to make a federal case of it or anything, but surely there’s some better argument you could have linked to, to support your case, than that video.
gin-and-whiskey, I’ve been thinking about your first comment.
Heh. Color me amused that folks who often rely heavily on the expansion and use of labels to others (from “MRA” to “Nice Guy” to “mansplaining;” from “conservative” to “antifeminist” to “racist;” from “islamophobic” to “bigoted” to “diverse”) are, now, protesting the application of a label to them. Because it’s not faaaaaaair.
Sure: it may not be sensible. And it may not be effective. Pissing people off is rarely sensible, if you’re trying to convince them rationally to join your side.
But it is pretty damn amusing to read this plea, nonetheless.
Anyway:
Sure. I’ll instantly stop using the term SJW, provided that the people formerly referred to as SJWs instantly stop using the terms I don’t like.
Deal?
It seems like in this comment you’re basically saying that you will stop lumping people together as soon as the people you’ve lumped in with Alexandra Erin stop lumping people together. (As Daran pointed out, based on behavior of “folks”, not Alexandra Erin herself as far as we know.)
You seem to think that not lumping people together is a good thing, as well as a more accurate way of describing people’s actual positions.
Have you considered not lumping people together because it is both more accurate and the right thing to do, rather than based on whether you can extract concessions from the other side?
Wouldn’t it have been better to write, “I think you have made a good point, and I have noticed that it applies to many on the “SJW” side as well. I will try to keep what you said in mind, but I think you have an obligation to keep in mind how it applies to your opponents, e.g. “MRAs”, as well.” Instead of saying, “Well, I think that is the morally and factually correct course, but I’m not gonna do it until everyone who is vaguely within your ‘tribe’ does it first!”
It sounds like, applying your criteria to your side, gin-and-whiskey cannot complain about being lumped in with other people vaguely on his side unless and until ALL the other people vaguely on his side, not just gin-and-whiskey himself, stop lumping “SJWs” together. And furthermore, that ALL the people vaguely on his side must stop the lumping behavior before ANY of the people vaguely on the other side can be expected to stop the lumping behavior. This precludes the possibility that a few of the more thoughtful ones on each side will start the trend; no, even the ones who recognize that it’s the right thing to do, should not actually do it until ALL of their opponents do it first.
Tamme didn’t link to that video, it was ianmorris.
It seems I wasn’t clear, let me rephrase.
I think that there is a group of people who use social justice principles for essentially negative ends. Ianmorris agreed and used that video to demonstrate the point.
While Ian and I seem to agree that there is a group using social justice principles for negative ends, we would disagree on the specifics, since that video (presumably) represents his views, but it doesn’t represent mine.
Whoops, my bad. I’m sorry, Tamme. (And thanks, Daran.)
They might. I didn’t register any, perhaps because I didn’t watch for long enough, or because what I did watch put my brain into safe mode.
I don’t want a term to refer to Social Justice assholes. I want one to refer to a constellation of assholish behaviours commonly practiced by some Social Justice Advocates.
A key word in that is “some”. I’m a Social Justice Activist myself, by which I refer not to my keyboard-warrioring here or on my blog, but to my real-world activities which have delivered tangible benefits to real-world people, and of which I am damn proud. A disparaging term for SJAs generally would be self referential. What I want is a non-derogatory term for What Those SJAs Over There Are Doing(TM), which in my opinion, is actually harmful to the ends of Social Justice.
As I said, I want to target people’s behaviour, not their specific SJ goals, (so long as they are legitimate SJ goals, of course).
I can’t see a principled difference between the two. If it’s absolutely real for the person involved, then mockery is harmful. Don’t do it. If it’s a game, then so long as it isn’t done in mockery of those to whom it’s real, then it’s harmless fun.
First, I wouldn’t call them a “group”, in so far as that word implies a level of delineation and internal cohesion that I don’t think exists.
Secondly I don’t concern myself about what people’s “ends” are, in so far as we’re talking about their intentions. I think generally most people think they are good people who believe that their goals are good ones, and who don’t think they’re doing any harm. Nor are my mind-reading skills sufficiently well-developed to be able to recognise the exceptions. So generally I just assume good intentions.
Rather I take the view that intentions don’t matter. It’s what you’re doing that matters, and the effect that it has.
I don’t want a label that says “bad person” for me to pin on those I don’t like. What I want is a term I can use to refer to bad behaviour, prevelent within the Social Justice Movement, in the hope that, by problematising it, we can make it less socially acceptible in the movement, and thereby, less prevalent.
I’ve come to feel that intentions do matter, but they are not everything, and they shouldn’t be an excuse or justification for bad effects.
Ampersand:
Making a satirical video about common behaviours makes someone a major asshole?
No desipis, that is not a description of their actions which describes the way in which they are a major asshole. Maybe it was one of the other features of their actions that people have already described here that drew that description?
Katherine Cross has written very well about this general problem.
* Words, Words, Words: On Toxicity and Abuse in Online Activism – Nuclear Unicorn
* Beyond Niceness: Further Thoughts on Rage – Nuclear Unicorn
* Words for cutting: Why we need to stop abusing “the tone argument”
I read those posts and I agree with most of what she wrote, and also see the connnections with what I see as “bad behavour”, but she also engages in some of the bad behavour I want to problematise:
This isn’t problematical:
There’s nothing objectionable here. (I’m not interested in quibbling about her use of the word bigot). I quote it because I too have an icebox. But while hers are “some finished, others not”, mine are some unfinished, others thought about but never started. And the reason I post so little isn’t fear of social consequence, it’s that I lack the spoons to finish, or even start some of them.
So at this point I started to think of her as enjoying some gender privilege over me: specifically that her gender-related injuries, which I don’t doubt were severe, have left her with more spoons than mine left me.
Her Aboot page doesn’t say a lot about her, but there is this:
There’s no way I could now, nor ever in the past, have been able to pursue a PhD, even though it was something I wanted to do. This isn’t because I lacked the smarts.
Then there’s this:
Waaaaaaaaaaaay more spoons than I have.
Of course I don’t begrudge her, her relative abundance of spoons. Here’s where what she writes becomes problematic:
I don’t blame her for fearing a troll attack, and if she were to confine herself to describing, and even condemning their behaviour, I’d be right alongside her.
But she oversteps the mark when she purports to describe their mental states. Perhaps they’re angry because she has purloined their birthright, which is the birthright of any person to describe their own mental states. This is the reason I’m angry at her. Perhaps they’re angry because she claimed that the effect of gender was to make their life-road smooth when this contradicted their own lived experience, which is the reason I’m angry at you, and many of the others here. Perhaps they’re angry for some other reason.
You’ll only find out why they’re angry if they tell you, and you listen. I realise that calling someone a “cunt”, while a very good way of letting them know you’re angry, is spectacularly uninformative as to why. But I can also report that after a decade of not calling people “cunts” and trying to explain in clear English why I’m angry, to the extent that I have the spoons to do so, the number of people willing to listen has been negligable.
I don’t think the issue here is that the label (SJW) people are being gathered under is a derogatory one; the problem is that it’s often not applicable.
There is a major problem in online discourse where people will label you, and then begin arguing with the label instead of you.
Here’s something related: I vividly remember an exchange on a message board I had about 15 years ago, where I made a post entitled “Cars should be abolished!” and then went on to say that, while many people in rural areas require their own personal transportation, it’s highly irresponsible to create so many cities where you need your own personal vehicle when public transit can do the job.
I got more than one response going, “Um, excuse me, but rural people need their own personal vehicles and can’t rely on public transit.”
I was just like… did you not see where I said exactly that in almost the exact same words you did?
Apparently people just stopped reading after the post title and decided to argue with what they assumed I was saying, rather than checking what I was actually saying.
Labeling does the same thing; you decide somebody is a “feminist” or a “republican” and all of a sudden you don’t have to listen to what they say or think; you already know exactly what a feminist thinks, and you’ve got just the arguments to show why feminism is wrong.
And it doesn’t matter if the person agrees with half of what you say and has written extensive critiques of that one feminist writer you hate; that person is a feminist, so they’re the enemy and you have to bring everything you have to bear against them. You don’t need to listen to them because they’re the enemy and anyway, you already know how those people think.
It doesn’t matter whether the label is self-applied or applied from outside, or whether it’s pejorative or not; what matters is whether you’re only arguing with the label, or whether you’re arguing with the person underneath.
And I will say that in my experience the internet left is as much into this label and dismiss behavior as the internet right is.
@Christopher: This is a pretty common bit of doublethink. “It’s OK for me to label others, it’s not OK for others to label me”. When confronted, there’s usually a long explanation as to why the labeling the person does doesn’t count as labeling.
Some of it may just be bad faith, but I think a lot of it is the basic tendency to see diversity in groups we are part of, and homogeneity in groups we are not part of.
The distinction between whether some people self-identify with a term or don’t doesn’t seem very meaningful. Lots of people strongly self-identify with the term “communist” throughout the world. That doesn’t mean “communist” in the context of a mainstream US political discussion isn’t an empty pejorative.
The important distinction is how strongly it’s intended as a pejorative, not anything else.
It seems like if you want to have a “kinder, gentler, more tolerant discourse”, you should start by not applying labels to people that they don’t agree with, that are meant as pejoratives, or are meant to mark someone as an outsider and to sic others onto them within an insular space.
You’re not going to get much traction asking people to unilaterally disarm.
I think one could probably come up with a somewhat definable set of actions which would lead to classification as a SJW, as opposed to, say, a person who just happens to like themselves a bit of SJ.
First, of course, you have to be interested in SJ, which tends to include, in my experience;
-A tendency to focus on outcomes (as opposed to processes or inputs.) Not “equal treatment,” but “equal results.”
-A tendency to focus on subjective analysis over objective analysis.
-Focus on active redistribution of benefits, from one group to another.
-A frequent claim that passivity on issues is improper, i.e. that “actively fighting ___” is required, also known as the “with us or against us” line.
[this is far from all of it, of course.]
To be a SJW, there are also a bunch of somewhat common traits–you don’t need to have them all, but some include
-Veeeeery heavy attention to group membership. In the minds of proponents, probably a necessary step since you can’t selectively help groups without identifying them.
-Denial of general trends, resulting in a privileged population. (someone who thinks that “___ are better at ___” but who doesn’t agree that ___ are worse at anything. Or, someone who thinks that “___ opinions should be primary about ____” but can’t list issues where the reverse is true.)
-A bit of switching around of different approaches and claims to get the best outcome. Which is perhaps expected if the goal is focused on outcome over process and especially if it is based on subjectivity, but which can, at times, be problematic.
-Frequently, demands that base assertions are “101” and that they can’t/shouldn’t therefore be challenged.
-Extremely high attention to minutia of language, often coupled with a demand for adoption of their preferred language; often coupled with very specific definitions.
-Relatively broad definitions of terms such as ____ist, etc.
-Some conflation of the speaker and the message (everyone does this, of course, not just SJWs. It’s a trait but not a distinguishing one.) Visible in promotional statements which start with “I’m a ____ and…”
-Frequent claims that challenges are themselves problematic, a/k/a the “saying something isn’t ____ist is usually ___ist” experience;
It’s sort of about the level of combat:
Not all people who support SJ are activists.
Not all activists who support SJ do so in more combative ways.
Those who do, are SJWs.
Does it really seem that strange? I mean, look around here on this blog. You have people like Grace, RJN, and Mandolin (all of whom are extremely interested in SJ but who would be unlikely to be called SJWs) and then you have folks like Charles, Ben, and Myca (who appear to be equally interested in SJ but much more likely to have the SJW label.) Just as you have folks like me, and some who are much less combative. There are plenty of highly-combative folks who exercise those skills in support of what they perceive to be social justice: If they aren’t SJWs, then what do you want to call them?
Can you catalog what, in your mind, exempts Grace, RJN & Mandolin from the SJW label? And then do that for the things that, in your mind, qualify Charles, Ben and Myca for the SJW label?
I’m hoping that will help me understand your definitions.
If you can do it without being outright insulting, that would be nice, too.
I really doubt your claim that Richard, Grace and Mandolin would be unlikely to be called SJWs. Certainly, within the Puppies group, I feel positive that many people would consider Mandolin an SJW.
Honestly, the in-practice definition of “SJW” seems to be “left winger who discusses politics on social media.” Maybe with a proviso that it seems to be applied to people who talk about identity politics more than to other lefties.
Well, it seems to me that Charles, Ben and Myca argue more aggressively, i.e. are “relatively more combative folks who exercise those skills in support of what they perceive to be social justice.” As do I, for what it’s worth, though I wouldn’t be called a SJW because my views, while equally aggressive, tend more towards they center. But beyond noting that trait of argumentation, which I don’t intend as inherently offensive (especially since I am claiming to share that trait) I don’t know how to explain it easily.
Well, you did make a list up above. Maybe you could indicate which of your criteria apply to us? Citations would be helpful.
—Myca
gin-and-whiskey:
I am quite certain that all three of us would be called SJWs without a moment’s hesitation, in a venue where that was ordinary language. I’m pretty sure I have been, though I can’t right now put my finger on where. I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that Mandolin has been, and recently, during the debate around this year’s Hugos.
Grace
Myca,
They’re not making fun of people with serious issues. They’re making fun of people who collectively use their identity as people with certain issues as a justification for being judgemental assholes towards other people.
So a SJW is a person who is in favor of social justice and isn’t extremely polite at all times?
I dispute this. “-phobic” means to have an unreasoning or irrational fear of something. When used in the context of “islamophobic”, “homophobic”, et al., what it does is to claim that either the person or the concept it applies to as being based on irrational fear – on uncontrolled emotion – instead of on reason, facts, etc. It very definitely is an attempt to marginalize that person or concept and remove the concepts from being worthy of debate or consideration. I must confess that it is a very clever way of influencing public policy, but that does not make it honest or ethical.
“Fear” isn’t really what homophobic means in contemporary usage, Ron. (Also, horseflies aren’t really horses, someone might be a butthead without actually having a butt for a head, and hot dogs can be cold and made of cow.)
Homophobia means, basically, prejudice against homosexual people.
But yes, the meaning of “homophobic” does imply that homophobic views are, on some level, irrational views based on prejudice, rather than views based on logic or facts. So you’re basically right about that.
(And the utter failure of the anti-SSM movement to come up with even a single logical, persuasive argument against marriage equality suggests that their policy is, in fact, not well supported by reason-and-fact-based arguments.)
But – if I’m following your argument correctly – criticizing views by saying that they are based on anything other than “reason, facts, etc,” is “an attempt to marginalize that person or concept and remove the concepts from being worthy of debate or consideration,” and therefore not “honest or ethical.”
But there are many views that people argue should, ideally, fall outside the bounds of ideas that are taken seriously by the public or the political system. For instance, many libertarians and conservatives think raising the minimum wage is a ridiculous idea that should not even be seriously considered by policymakers. Pro-lifers want abortion to be seen as unacceptable behavior except in a few rare instances (i.e., mother’s life in danger), and in fact want abortion legally banned. Many pro-marriage equality folks, me included, want the idea of not legally recognizing same-sex marriages to become an idea that is widely considered unacceptable – while our opponents often wish we could return to considering the idea of legally recognized SSM too ridiculous to even need discussion. The idea of enslaving people has in fact been (in the US) removed from the list of ideas that reasonable people can support, and I’m sure we both consider that a good thing. Etc, etc.
If saying an opposing idea is irrational and ideally wouldn’t be taken seriously by policy-makers or the public is not “honest or ethical,” then we’d have to conclude that to strongly oppose almost ANY policy idea is not “honest or ethical.” But that seems extreme and undesirable.
I don’t think you’re following his argument correctly.
To use a current example, you might look at the assertion “right now in this point in history, islam is an unusually problematic religion. most muslims are not a problem, but the association of Islam with problematic behavior is pretty bad right now, and doesn’t seem to be improving.”
Some people would find that statement unproblematic and true.
Some people would call that statement “anti-Islamist,” suggesting that the speaker opposed a set of relatively fundamentalist beliefs and practices.
Some would call it “anti-Muslim,” suggesting that you can’t hold that belief without being opposed to to Muslims generally.
Ans some would call it “Islamophobic,” suggesting not only that it’s opposed to islam, but that the opposition is prejudiced, irrational, unjustified, and/or morally unsound.
There are surely some folks who actually believe that such a statement is actually, literally, Islamophobic. But the # of folks who use that term is probably a bit larger than that, because the term is an effective weapon.
Same thing with “rape apologist,” “rape supporter,” “rape denialist,” and the like. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of people who are actually in those categories. But the terms are routinely broken out to address people who are not actually supporting, denying, or otherwise promoting rape.
There is one very important distinction—though this is not the only one—between the label SJW and terms like homophobic, sexist, racist, etc., which is that the latter are adjectives that can be applied to ideas, or specific behaviors, as well as people in general. SJW, as far as I know, and in every instance I have seen, is a term applied to people in general (by which I mean the whole person. We have gone round and round before on this blog about what it means—or whether it is even possible—to call an idea or a specific behavior, say, racist without accusing the person in question of being a conscious, malicious, proactive racist. I am less interested in opening up that whole discussion again than I am in pointing out that this difference also at least implies—to my mind—another difference: terms like racist are motivated by a desire to make visible and undo an oppressive ideology. I do not know what the term SJW is motivated by other than to hide an attempt to discredit that agenda behind a nominal critique of behaviors that, in fact, exist on both the left and the right and that can be critiqued without recourse to this kind of totalizing label.
(Now, just to be clear: in saying this, I do not mean to imply that someone like G&W uses SJW to discredit a progressive agenda, or that his motives in using it are by definition dishonest. I am more addressing my experience of the term’s origins and its use not just in highlighting the style of certain kinds of progressive arguments, but in making that style, and therefore the people who profess that style, the subject of debate—with the inevitable result that the substantive issues in the argument remain unaddressed.)
Sorry for the double posting, but I also wanted to comment on this statement, which G&W wrote as an example of a statement that someone might characterize as Islamophobic in order label the person who made it as prejudiced, irrational, unjustified, and/or morally unsound:
There is a great deal here to unpack, actually—assumptions about history, about what precisely Islam is, about the precise roots of some of the behaviors the statement alludes to, and more. But I want, for the moment, to take it at its ahistorical face value, i.e., that right now, for whatever reason, Islam as a whole has been linked to behaviors in a way that has caused people to see the religion itself as “problematic.”
Right now, under Benjamin Netanyahu, the postures and policies of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians are motivated by ideas that, as I was brought up to understand them, have strong roots in Judaism, and the Palestinians are suffering horribly as a result. (And I am not talking here, really, about the Israeli invasions of Gaza, though those obviously count; I am thinking more specifically about what Palestinian’s daily lives are like under military occupation.) I wonder how people would understand a statement which said:
For me, that is unquestionably an antisemitic statement, and I would argue that it is rooted in an irrational understanding, and perhaps even irrational fear, of Judaism. We just don’t have a term like “Judeophobic” to describe it. I don’t understand why the statement G&W offered is any different.
I have only recently come to notice the term.
I like it, though probably for the wrong reasons.
First off, it has the ring of a Superhero team to it (think Justice League). I am not sure what superheroes would be part of that team, but I am sure they would meet the approval of feminists everywhere. (Handi-Man might not make the cut.)
Also, there is a tongue-in-cheek feel to it. (There is some radio show host who calls himself the “Happy Conservative Warrior.” The reference seems a bit self-deprecating and I associate SJW that way in my mind.)
And, there is some accuracy to it. Am I wrong in thinking that people who advocate “social justice” hold “activism” as a core part of social justice? “Warrior” would be an exaggerated term for “Activist.” (Now, this may be where my understanding of the term breaks from the textbook definition, which seems to be that an SJW does not “act” so much as “argue endlessly online about minor points, but really does not set out to accomplish anything,” or something to that effect. In that sense, I can see why SJW would be looked at as a derogatory term.)
-Jut
” in making that style, and therefore the people who profess that style, the subject of debate—with the inevitable result that the substantive issues in the argument remain unaddressed”
If you’re in a context, as we are here, where basically everybody agrees that racial discrimination is bad, it doesn’t seem counterproductive to discuss the difference between different types of anti-racist activism.
If you see somebody telling people to kill themselves in the name of anti-racist activism and your main takeaway is “Wow, it’s great to see somebody so committed to fighting racism”, you may not be able to see the wood for the trees.
Partly “SJW” has popped up because (IMO) there is a desire to “make visible and undo” problematic ideologies on the progressive side. And as you so correctly note, this sort of thing is easier to do when one has a term for it.
Why do you think folks are hiding this?
Yes. Similar behaviors certainly exist on both sides.
The progressive left has labels for their opponents who exhibit unwanted behaviors, and–to put it mildly–progressives do not hesitate to use such labels to great effect.
The right has fewer equivalent labels (not exact equivalents, just rough ones.) SJW is one of them.
Well, all sorts of things CAN be done. But it generally ISN’T done. One of the particular aspects of the progressive left–and of “SJWs” in particular–is the widespread use of labels, terms, and hyper-specific language that has a totalizing effect. Because so long as you’re “punching up” you can say whatever.
Which: is it good? No. I argue against it all the time. But those arguments do not seem to have a lot of traction. That is because we have a fundamental disagreement in that, for example, you see SJW (which you don’t like) as substantially different from all of the other terms that you presumably like and want to keep using. I don’t. It’s not clear that it would be effective to agree to retire a useful term just because there are some folks who don’t like it.
And it can’t just be that it’s too broad, right? It’s plenty descriptive. SJW describes a more compact set for sure than “feminist” (which people are happy with,) “racist” (covers a range as high as “lynching” and as low as ” to failing to proactively support the change of a neutral policy that leads to bad average results”) and other terms.
I have to admit that I’m having a hard time understanding the definition of SJW that g&w is putting forward. I understand SJW in its use as a pejorative for individuals on the left but I don’t see the differentiation of SJW vs non-SJW in commenters named by g&w nor do I see any commenter on Alas meeting the criteria that g&w set forth in that same comment.
In summarizing the criteria of an SJW, g&w wrote:
I am not an activist, afaik. To paraphrase Daran, I don’t have the spoons available for that – it’s all I can do to show up to work every day. Yet g&w labeled me as an SJW in our last interaction. g&w also wrote:
Which leads me, at this point, to believe that, contrary to his stated definition of SJW, g&w labels as SJW’s people who hold views similar to my own and are combative and rude (which I certainly am at times).
(In order to avoid going down that last rabbit hole, I will note that I am using the words that g&w wrote – and which I find somewhat in contradiction with each other – to arrive at this preliminary conclusion. It is possible that g&w’s definition of an activist is far different than mine. In that case, I would have to rescind my conclusion.)
I agree that that statement parsed to me as Judeophobic far more so than did the equivalent one about Islam. In trying to analyse why I have different subjective reactions to the two statements, the best explanation I can come up with is that the Judaism version has to me a historical resonance that the Islamic version doesn’t. Quite simply, I could imagine that precise statement (mutatis mutandis the contemporary references) appearing in an early speech by Himler.
Someone, more familiar than I am with the history of Israeli persecution of the Palestinian people might find similar resonances in statements made by Israeli ministers justifying horribly oppressive actions. However nothing in what I know about Israeli attitudes toward the Palestinians suggests to me that anyone with any significant political influence in Israel has the desire or intent to exterminate them outright, as the Nazis desired, intended, attempted and to a considerable degree succeeded in doing to the Jews.
I’m also interested in your attribution of antisemitism to the statement itself, rather than locating it in our subjective responses to the statement. Resonances aside, the statements “Right now, under Benjamin Netanyahu, the postures and policies of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians are motivated by ideas that, as I was brought up to understand them, have strong roots in Judaism” and “the association of Judaism with Israel’s problematic behavior is pretty bad right now” seem to mean the same thing, albeit that one is better articulated. Yet you attributed antisemitism to one statement, but (presumably) not to the other.
Yup. Take it as I said it. Joe looks around at a lot of Islamic terrorism in the world. He looks around at the “draw mohammed” responses. He looks at various majority-Muslim countries. He looks at the expansion of Sharia law under ISIS, or the applications under the Taliban. Not knowing as much as you do about Islamic history but (correctly) believing himself to be entitled to an opinion nonetheless, Joe thinks “Holy shit, this reminds me of reading about the Church back in the old days,” and says what’s above.
How do you interpret what Joe says? Well, that’s up to you. You can conclude that Joe is less educated, or more hostile, or that he simply was brought up with different thoughts. You can conclude that his thoughts are reasonable based on his knowledge, or excusable, or simply his own. Just as Joe’s statement says something about Joe, so does the chosen interpretation.
Not sure we agree, but moving on…
Unsurprisingly, this is the root of most folks’ disagreement vis-a-vis much of the Palestinian issues, since the cause of the problem (and the solution) are unusually complex.
But if you said:
I don’t think of it as antisemitic. It makes a statement which can be true, or not; have a basis, or not.
If it turns out you mean “jews eat babies” then you’re antisemitic. If it turns out to mean “jews, not palestinians, are mostly to blame for the failure of the peace process” then you may or may not be antisemitic depending on why you think so. If you mean “israeli orthodox messianic jews have an unfortunate tendency to foment war and conflict, and a lot of problematic parties in the Knesset find inspiration in the Torah,” then you’re not. And so on.
Unquestionably? Why would you use such a strong term as “antisemitic” to describe such a broad and possibly justified statement? Don’t you want to know what it means?
Well, perhaps not. And if you were to open by calling it “islamophobic,” perhaps you never would. Which sort of sums up the problem.
terms like racist are motivated by a desire to make visible and undo an oppressive ideology. I do not know what the term SJW is motivated by other than to hide an attempt to discredit that agenda behind a nominal critique of behaviors that, in fact, exist on both the left and the right and that can be critiqued without recourse to this kind of totalizing label.
Except that, say, racism and homophobia can also be lumped together under broader categories like “bigotry” and critiqued under that term; cruelty exists in most ideologies, why single some out as “racist” when cruelty is the real problem?
I know I’m not a frequent commenter here, but I really, really, want to re-emphasize that I think the OP is addressing something much deeper and, to me, more important than whether it’s reasonable to use the term “SJW”.
To me, there’s nothing inherently wrong with “You said, “XYZ,” and so I’m going to call you an XYZist whether you identify as one or not.”
What is inherently wrong is going “I think you sound like an XYZist. Therefore I know you believe XYZ whether or not you’ve ever actually said it.”
Gin and Whiskey: I don’t have a problem with your list of SJW traits, really, but the very real risk of a list of traits like that is that you can begin to assume that somebody who has one of those traits will inevitably possess all the rest.
I’ve seen a lot of online arguments where somebody goes “Hey, I think the depiction of female characters in this work is kind of problematic” and people go, “Ugh, another SJW crawls out of Tumblr. Look, it would be wrong to censor this person because they did something you personally don’t like, and I am tired of creeps like you labelling anybody who likes this stuff as some kind of deviant.”
It doesn’t matter that the person didn’t call for censorship and didn’t call anybody a creep; everybody knows that only SJWs use terms like “problematic”, and everybody knows that SJWs advocate censorship and hate people who enjoy problematic works.
Or, I’ve seen a lot of arguments where somebody goes “Actually, I think that you’re ignoring a lot of broader context, and the depiction of female characters is much more nuanced than you’re giving it credit for” and then people go “Ugh, another MRA crawls out of reddit. I’m tired of guys like you always demanding that people shut up and not analyze the social aspects of works of art. Instead of silencing minorities, maybe you should realize that there are pervasive problems with the depiction of women in media.”
Again: It doesn’t matter that the person didn’t say there weren’t pervasive media problems and that they never called for silence from critics; everybody knows that talking about broader context is a right-wing tactic, and everybody knows that right-wingers don’t like social justice analysis and don’t believe in systemic sexism.
Once you know what box to fit people in, you can stop seeing them as individuals and stop listening to them; you already know what that box is and why it’s wrong, so why even bother listening to the people inside it?
And it really does not matter how useful or valid the box is. You will get this exact same process happening whether you’re talking about a highly subjective and problematic label like “SJW” or whether you’re talking about a completely legitimate label like “Republican”.
Jake Squid:
I take it, then, that you don’t consider blogging/commenting on SJ matters, to the extent that you do these things, to be activism. I take the same view in respect of my own, though I don’t judge other people who might want to call their online posting “activism”. I once believed I could make a meaningful difference, albeit a small one. I now no longer do, at least not a difference worth the effort. Pretty much everything I do online in the SJ field is these days motivated by the desire to scratch an itch.
That is one of several reasons I reject the MRA label. Another is that “rights” seems to be too restrictive a framing for what I talk about. “interests” would be a better word.
You may therefore refer to me as a Men’s Interests Itch-Scratcher.
While I don’t have the spoons for daily work, I am an activist in the real world, albeit not in the field of Men’s rights/interests. Just over a decade ago I co-founded what was then a community street-drumming band. (We’ve since added some brass and woodwind). Our ethos is anyone can join. No Barriers And We Mean It. No sense of rhythm? No problem, you can join our band. Learning difficulties? No problem, you can join our band. Physical disabilities? We’ll figure out how to accomodate you. Alzheimers? You can join our band. Childcare commitments? Just bring your children. We rehearse in a Children’s Centre so it’s a safe enviroment with lots of things for them to do, and other children to play with. And if the kid wants to pick up a drumstick and batter a drum, that’s cool, they can join our band. Can’t afford to pay? We provide everything needed, we’ve never charged anyone a penny to participate, and we will pick you up in our minibus from your home to get you to a rehearsal. You’re just watching us perform in the street? Pick up a spare drum and come and join us in the performance. Try to follow what we’re doing or just bang away randomly. You’re welcome.
And everyone – toddlers to pensioners – who wants to, gets to take part in performances, even the paid ones. If you don’t like that, then don’t hire us. We do about 80 gigs per year, the vast majority paying us something, even if it’s just a token sum to cover expenses. (We don’t ask any more than that from community groups, village galas etc. Corporates are a different matter), so we’re not going to miss you. Together with busking, funding we get for doing a series of workshops in a socially deprived area, and some donations, these cover all band expenses.
Do you think we can’t sound good, given that literally anyone can (and does) take part? Well, it’s true that we’re never going to win Britain’s Got Talent. But we can attract an audience to an empty square, just by starting to play. When the heavens opened at a music festival and we carried on playing, the audience stayed with us instead of running for cover. And almost everyone who hires us, ask (sometime beg) us to come back. One village gala even moved its date when it discovered that we weren’t available on the weekend it had originally planned.
There’s a word that comes up time and time again when people talk about what it’s like to be a member of our band. That word is “family”. The band is like a family. A family and anyone can join. Let me tell you about some of the members of our family.
There’s a Down Syndrome man in his late forties, who also suffers from dementia. All he could ever do was bang his drum more or less to the beat. These days it tends to be “less” more often than “more”, but he enjoys himself imensely. His mother, who still looks after him, told me that our band was the only place he’d ever been truely accepted.
There’s a young woman who turned sixteen a couple of weeks ago who has been with us since she was seven. She’s an amazing natural musician who plays drums, piano, clarinet and has just started to learn the trumpet. But it is the saxophone that she makes sing. I don’t doubt that she would have found and developed her talent any way, but that doesn’t alter the fact that it was us who discovered and nurtured it.
There’s a four-year-old girl whose genetic disorders have resulted both in abnormal physical growth and mental retardation, so she’s about the size of a six-year-old, but functions at about the level of an eighteen-month-old. She can’t talk at all and has only just started to walk, or more accurately totter, unaided. She absolutely adores me, so I tend to find myself completely monopolised whenever her mother brings her.
There’s an eighteen-year-old women with cerebral palsy who started about a year ago. Then she was shy and reserved, and really struggled with the parts. Now’s she’s improved so much and gained so much confidence that she has started to lead her section of the band.
That is what I think of as Social Justice. Enabling people to do something that they could never do otherwise, could not even concieve of the possibility of doing, and including absolutely anyone. With us, it’s creating street music. But it could be anything.
And that is why I’m proud to call myself a Social Justice Activist.
I wrote that list in only a couple of minutes without any editing, so it is far from what I would call complete, or even especially thoughtful. It’s a “blog comment level” list, is all, not “G&W’s manifesto on social interaction.”
Wow, Daran, that is all just incredibly cool.
Daran,
Thanks for describing your form of activism. I’d certainly agree with you that you are justified in calling yourself a social justice activist.
Jake Squid:
No, a SJW is a person who uses social justice as an excuse to be (extremely) impolite at various times.
RJN:
Funny, because that’s exactly the purpose I see the term SJW being put to.
Isn’t it possible that the statement is base on sound reasoning, but from a different set of underlying assumed facts about the situation? Even if you assume the supremacy of your own knowledge base, the best way to describe the opinion would be ignorant, not irrational.
Christopher:
So would saying someone is “Social Justice Warring” be a better way of putting it than saying someone is behaving like a “Social Justice Warrior”?
Is it all that different to applying a label (e.g. RJN’s “antisemitic”) to particular opinions when the reasons for for that opinion are unstated or unclear? Doesn’t applying the label in such a way also encourage people to make assumptions about the person’s thoughts and discourage listening to any argument put forward to justify the opinion?
I would be against using the term “SJW” to dismiss someone’s opinion as invalid. I do think it’s an appropriate term for criticising the manner and circumstance in which someone advocates for their opinion.
Daran:
Sounds more like you’re a Social Justice Bard. But seriously, that band sounds awesome.
That’s a great thing you’ve done, Daran. Thanks for telling us about it.
Does this mean I should disregard that comment and rely on your other comments to discern what you mean when you use the term “SJW”?
It’s hard to figure out what you’re trying to say when I don’t know which of your comments are meaningful and which are hastily written and to be thought of as supplementary and/or incomplete.
As far as I can tell, you are telling us that you find “SJW” to be descriptive of a specific thing and, therefore, valid and useful but are unable to tell us what that specific thing is. Since you are also taking a prominent role in the discussion (roughly 12% of the comments so far have been made by you), that makes it hard to know how to respond to what you have written and what questions to ask other than, “What do you mean by SJW?” And so here I am, asking what your definition of SJW is since that definition must be central to your opinion on the matter.
Since you consider me an SJW, I’m curious to know what it describes and what group you consider me to be part of.
“I can’t give you a definition, but I know it when I see it,” is a valid answer, if not conducive to a discussion of the subject.
Ampersand:
I would disagree with both these groups. Attempting to make the holding or expressing of particular ideas as ‘unacceptable’ seems to me to be a good example of the social authoritarianism that the “SJW” label is being used to identify. There’s a big difference between an idea being contrary to commonly held beliefs or values, and an idea being ‘unacceptable’ to discuss.
“Unacceptable” and “unacceptable to discuss” are not perfectly interchangeable terms.
For instance, many people still discuss slavery – novels are written with protagonists who are slaves, professors write papers about the economic aspects of slavery, historians publish books about slavery, etc etc etc. Slavery can be, and is still, discussed.
But it is not considered acceptable to seriously advocate slavery. Not that anyone will arrest Schroeder if he starts advocating slavery – but no politician or major news organization will take the idea seriously, and a lot of people will lose respect for Schroeder or write him off as a crank. Should that be avoided? How can it be avoided?
You may consider it good or bad that this happens – and I’d be curious to know what you think, in an example like slavery where our society has pretty much achieved consensus – but I think it’s inevitable that it will happen. The act of trying to change the public’s mind on a policy issue, is inseparable from the act of trying to persuade the public that other options are wrong.
Something that I spotted in one of the Nuclear Unicorn posts that Ampersand linked (emphasis mine):
It’s one thing to say that anger that results from particular things should be tolerated or even accepted. It’s another thing to say that anger is a condition or obligation for being a morally sound person. It’s the sort of logic that leads to the “reblog this or you’re a penguin hating shitlord” statements that were lampooned in that tumblr video. I don’t think it’s a positive thing to have a moral norm about emotional reactions.
Ampersand, I quoted that part of paragraph because the language (“unacceptable”) seems to be stronger than the that of the rest (“reasonable”, “seriously”, etc). I interpreted it not as an idea that would “not be accepted as plausible”, but rather as an idea that would “immoral to advocate”.
I have no problem with pursuing the end result of having most people presume that an idea is factually wrong or right, as long as its the result of the idea being sufficiently supported by positive argument and not the result of people being unaware of or unwilling to consider competing arguments. I would have a problem with people pursuing an end result where an idea is dogmatically assumed to be factually wrong or right, or where holding or expressing an idea is morally wrong.
To use your slavery example, I don’t have a problem with mainstream media not taking someone who advocates for slavery seriously or giving them air time. I also wouldn’t have a problem with others advocating for that person to be removed from positions of power where they might misuse that power by acting in line with their own views but contrary to the views of the overwhelming majority of people.
However, I would have a problem with people acting to inflict economic (e.g. organised boycott of that person’s books), social (e.g. excluding them from a club or community unrelated to the issue of slavery), or emotional (e.g. going out of your way to call them nasty things on the internet) harm as a way to express dislike of their ideas or as some form of extrajudicial punishment.
I think people are well aware of this cf.
http://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW
http://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf
SJW is great because it’s not intrinsically an insult, like feminazi or wingnut or homophobe. The only thing that actually gives SJW negative connotation is the appaling behaviour of SJWs. It’s also generic, some liberal feminists will get upset about being labelled radfems, antifeminists/MRAs, socialists/commies, etc. But the last thing a SJW will do is disavow fighting for social justice.
Pete Patriot, more explanation was needed. My initial impression when I went to those sites was that you’d linked to a couple of hate sites. I could easily have backed out before realising my error.
Everyone, they’re not hate sites. Read the Rules/How to in the right hand bar of each to see what they’re about.
I disagree. Of course I agree that the last thing a Social Justice Activist will do is disavow fighting for social justice, just as the last thing a feminist will do is disavow feminism. It’s the change from -ist to -nazi and from … Activist to … Warrior which parses as derisory. The fact that the people so labeled won’t object to the unobjectionable parts of the label doesn’t make the lable unobjectionable as a whole.
I disagree that “homophobe” is intrinsically an insult. It’s a problematic term in so far as it labels a person, rather than labelling an idea, behavour, etc., but you can remedy that problem by calling those ideas etc., “homophobic”. It’s also problematic for a reason given by G&W above. It
(G&W was talking about “racist” but the same applies to “homophobic”.)
But it doesn’t parse as insulting for the sake of it. Wingnut, SJW, and feminazi all do. As the discussion above indicates, nobody can pin down what exactly it is that distinguishes between an SJA and an SJW, so not only does it parse as insulting, it doesn’t convey any other distinguishing meaning, which makes it useless for anything other than as an insult.
That is true.
I think you could probably list “these are some very common traits,” so long as you acknowledge that they may not always be present and may exist in different combinations.
You could probably list “these are some rare traits” but they will also, occasionally, be present.
Does that mean it’s “I know it when I see it?” Yes and no: Do you feel that way about feminist? One cannot pin down precisely what constitutes “feminist,” and lots of people continue to fight about it, yet we have a lot of people who think they’re feminist, and some who think they’re anti-feminist, and even more who would probably believe that they could assign third parties to one group or the other. The same problem applies even to terms like “racism,” which arguably can have a specific definition, but practically uses such incredibly broad terms and varying definitions so that people don’t always agree where the borders are.
I find the term useful. Let me give a specific example of why.
Let’s say that I’m interested in factual reports of statistics. So I’m trying to explain to someone that their post on “1 in 5 women are raped” and “only 2% of rape reports are false” and “98% of rape reports are true” is factually wrong.
Some people say “Oh. OK. I didn’t read the study in detail; I didn’t realize that the 1 in 5 number included both completed and attempted rape. I didn’t read the history in detail to know that the 2% number is badly sourced, or that the number is higher. And I hadn’t considered that there’s a large unknown area between “conclusively proven to be false” and “true.”
Other people say “mansplaining rape apologist.”
The second folks are SJWs. It’s a useful term.
Perhaps what would square the circle is a term that is to “social justice warrior” what “homophobic” is to “homophobe” – e.g, one that calls out the behaviour, not the person.
You could just say “bullying” or “callous” but that’s too broad – one could equally simply call somebody’s homophobic behaviour “bigoted” or “repressive” but there’s a value in identifying exactly what axis the bigotry and repression is directed along. In the same way, there’s value in distinguishing the behaviour of bullying using social justice language from other forms of bullying.
“Social justice warlike” is pretty awkward, but it’s the best I’ve got.
I’m going to group a bunch of responses in to this one comment, and then I will be gone for a couple of days, so I don’t know when I will be back to comment again:
Desipis:
You quoted me—”terms like racist are motivated by a desire to make visible and undo an oppressive ideology”—and then made this comment:
I am curious how you define the ideology the term SJW makes visible and is attempting to undo.
You also quoted me—”For me, that is unquestionably an antisemitic statement, and I would argue that it is rooted in an irrational understanding, and perhaps even irrational fear, of Judaism”—and made this comment:
You’re right. Thanks for catching that. I did not intend to use irrational to modify understanding. What I meant was misunderstanding.
G&W
Rather than go back through what you wrote and try to pull out specific quotes to respond to, I am going to try to give a real-life example from my own experience. Someone who is very close to me and who is not from this country—and since people know a little bit about me, let me just be clear that this is not my wife—was once in a pretty serious and ongoing conflict with an African-American man who was her neighbor. The conflict had nothing to do with race. One time, when my friend was telling me what was going on, she got so upset that she started calling him names. He was not there in her apartment, but he might very well have been able to hear her through the wall. She called him an animal, “stupid like a monkey” and other similar things that would absolutely register as racist in the context of racial stereotypes, canards, etc. in the US.
The thing was, though, that she had not been here nearly long enough to know that and the expressions she was using, some of which were translations from her language, did not have the same connotations in her culture. (By which I don’t mean to imply that her culture is free of racism, just that the iconography of it, if you will, is different from ours.)
Now was she willfully, purposefully, proactively being racist? Of course not. Would it have been wrong for me to call her racist for using that language? Of course.
On the other hand, were the things she said racist, in the sense that they carry “the baggage of racism”– if you’ll allow me that expression as a shorthand—no matter how much the one who speaks them might want to set that baggage aside? I would argue yes, and I would argue that my friend, once she knew about that baggage, had an ethical responsibility to take that knowledge into account. More to the point, I would argue that if she used consistently went ahead and used that language anyway, purposefully, knowing about the baggage, then it would be appropriate to call her a racist.
Similarly, someone can, in a kind of naive (as opposed to willful) ignorance, conflate the religiously motivated behaviors of specific Muslims with Islam, or the religiously motivated behaviors of specific Jews with Judaism, and I would agree that person should not be labeled Islamophobic or antisemitic, but I would also argue that the conflation itself, as an idea, is, and someone who willfully, consistently, persistently insists on that conflation, despite having been made aware of its problematic nature, would, in my estimation, then deserve those labels.
Daran
I’m not sure if anything I wrote actually responded to the question you asked me above. If it didn’t, I will try to come back and respond more fully. Right now, I need to get off line for a while, but I did want to acknowledge how wonderful your band and the work it does sounds.
I am not sure if this is just a language thing, but if not it is a great example of a type of SJ tactic which I find disturbing:
You are discussing whether it is problematic. That is not my primary interest. I mostly care about whether or not it is accurate.
G&W:
So, a quick response. Conflation–and I chose that word on purpose–is by definition never accurate. You might disagree that something I am calling conflation is indeed conflation, but if you agree that it is conflation, you are basically agreeing that two distinct things are being treated as if they were the same thing, treating the differences between them as if they were at best insignificant and, at worst, entirely irrelevant. Now, there are certainly “for the same of argument” instances where one might allow for conflation so that an argument can continue to move forward, but in those cases you are essentially saying that you are willing to overlook the inaccuracies that come with conflation in the interests of pursuing some other point. It does not mean the conflation is in itself accurate or that it wouldn’t be, in other instances, problematic.
“Problematic” is an SJW tactic? Now you’re just labeling people who speak in a manner you don’t like.
I’ve only recently heard the term “SJW” and mostly in the context of “What a stupid insult”, so I was interested in finding out what people here think an SJW is. After doing a little online research and finding that, generally, an SJW is found to be a leftist who bullies others online, I’ve got to say that I’m not aware of any SJW’s who comment regularly here. Not least because that’s against site policy. It’s interesting that nobody but Tamme even mentioned the concept of bullying in conjunction with SJW.
At this point all the evidence from this thread and the previous one we had that degenerated from talking about dogwhistles indicates that SJW is in use as an intentionally vague slur that targets those to the left of oneself on social issues. As such, it seems like it doesn’t have any value except to say, “You’re to the left of me on issue X and I don’t like you.” Kinda the left analog of “wingnut”.
RJN:
In trying to nail down a definition for “SJW”, I’ve been thinking about an analogy to Evangelical Christians. On one end of the spectrum there are those like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who might come and knock on your door, ask politely if you like to learn more about their beliefs, and if you turn them down they move on without protest. On the other end of the spectrum there are those like the Westboro Baptist Church, who go as far as picking funerals with hateful signs and yelling their messages about morality to everyone regardless of their interest.
In respect of these sorts of people there are terms like ‘bible basher’ used to indicate a dislike of those who go around attempting to impose their beliefs on others. Now, some might use that term to describe anyone who talks about their Christianity to others, no matter how meekly. Others would see the term as applying somewhere further along the spectrum. Just because there’s disagreement about where the line is drawn and exactly what conduct constitutes ‘bible bashing’ doesn’t result in the term being meaningless. Nor does it result the underlying concept not be a valid target of discussion or criticism, particularly given that the conduct of the people being identified has the potential to influence political outcomes.
Essentially, the ideology I’m defining is the “social justice” left equivalent of fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity. The ideology that sees fit to force its social justice morality down people’s throats whether they want it or not.
This leads to how I would define the term SJW, based on observations of how its used:
Now, this definition makes the use of the term highly subjective and context dependent, however I think it explains the common judgement being made by the people using the term. I provided my own perspective on where to draw the line in an earlier comment:
However, I just watched this great lecture by Jonathan Haidt about why a lot of people are against ‘social justice’. He points out that people tend to organise around sacred symbols based on their moral foundations: the right has the bible (authorty & sanctity) and the flag (authority & loyalty), while the left focuses on the marginalised groups (care/harm) such as African Americans or homosexuals. He goes on to make the point that people can become so focused on these symbols that they begin to ignore or contradict the underlying moral foundations.
I suspect that some people (probably conservatives) are using the term to label those who are so focused on the care/harm foundation that they ignore or reject the others. I suspect others (liberal progressives) are using to term to label those who have become so focused in their political views on specific topics central to the left that they behave and advocate positions disconnected from any underlying moral foundation.
On an unrelated point, I’ve noticed that SJW seems to be a term synonymous with “do-gooder“.
RJN: I don’t think “conflation” is really the appropriate term at all. It’s really predicated on an assumption that the groups aren’t the same, which is a strange initial analytic approach for a subset of an existing group. You might reasonably want to discuss the ways in which fundamentalist orthodox israeli jews are different from liberal reform us jews, but referring to them as “jews” and distinguishing them from “non jews” is not conflating the groups.
I’ll be even more specific: This is happening a conversation which begins by acknowledging that that a subgroup is being discussed; which clearly agrees that the subgroup may be different in some important ways; and which is open to further discussion. If you use words like “conflation” or “islamophobic” up front (and especially if you use them in a circular “this is islamophobic because of conflation” way,) you are trying to win the argument through definitional means and not normal, fact-specific, means.
For what it’s worth, the poles are very much not the same. Joe is maintaining that the similarity between the groups is relevant–but doing so in a way which does not preclude further discussion. Your language suggests that the mere act of discussing the groups as similar is itself a problem. And that, almost by nature, precludes further discussion.
No, not at all. I am essentially saying that I think that the group commonalities are relevant and important, and that we should not discard them merely because they may be offensive. Nor should we pretend up front that the group commonalities don’t exist, which is to say that we should not treat it as conflating. We sure as hell shouldn’t do that at the outset of the conversation.
A question for those who advocate using “SJW”: Do you also advocate using the term “wingnut”?
Also, I’m thinking of using “manbabies” from now on instead of “MRA” for any MRA (or even any critic of feminism) whose rhetoric subjectively strike me as immature, hostile, and/or whiny. Desipis, does that seem reasonable to you?
Some ideas that might express the sentiment of SJW without closing conversation off by just being an insult:
Single Issue Social Justice Advocate — to indicate someone who disfunctionally (in the view of the speaker) focuses on social justice issues to the exclusion of all else
Aggressive Social Justice Advocate — which indicates the kind of asshole behavior people say they’re unhappy with
This is an interesting conversation for me because I am actually quite upset with the violent undertones of internet conversations, including contributions from “my side.” I don’t know how to handle that and it’s making me stressed and sad when I have to interact with it. My thoughts are somewhat complicated, but they boil down to a belief that we need to draw some goddamn indelible lines about how it’s okay to treat other humans. My pessimist brain says this is going to end in more suicides before anything gets done. We really need to do something before that happens, but I’m damned if I know what.
I’m sure I’ve crossed the line into bad behavior on occasion, probably more than once. Though I do try to behave ethically, I do fuck up. (And hey, I’ve been commenting on this blog for 10 years; I’m happy to say that I think I’ve matured and changed during that time. It would be sad if I hadn’t.)
However, in general, I do think there are a lot of ethical ways to passionately pursue social justice and that these need to be respected and encouraged. So for a term to be useful for me, it would have to distinguish between those kinds of behaviors.
But SJW isn’t, as far as I can tell, a term meant for me to use. It’s supposed to include me, again as far as I can tell, based on the reactions of the puppy crowd, etc. So, I propose these terms. I don’t see myself as a single issue social justice advocate, but others might, and that label indicates what the problem is, and at least is something that can be argued and reacted to. Likewise, aggressive is a word that will change based on the speaker and their perspective, but again is at least somewhat defined. TERF is an example of a label that’s been brought up as a parallel to SJW in terms of being insulting–however, I think it’s more like my proposals; it’s a clear description of a position, which can be rebutted or otherwise argued.
For what it’s worth, I think people comparing SJW to Wingnut are probably correct. I don’t tend to like those kinds of cutesy insults personally, but I don’t broadly have a problem with people using them in internal discussions. As part of material that’s expected to be read as a convincing argument, it’s pretty ridiculous.
(Vaguely related to the use of insulting labels in argument, could people not illustrate blog posts about celebrities/politicians they disagree with by finding the photograph of them that makes them look most silly/ugly/ridiculous? For heaven’s sake. Even though the argument is visual instead of outright stated, it’s still a “dismiss this person because they look weird.” Focus on content. Argh.)
I entirely agree with Mandolin, except for one partial disagreement with her ending parenthetical. So, naturally, that’s the one bit I’ll comment on. :-)
I slightly disagree with this? I think that it’s okay to use an image to make an argument “this politician is ridiculous” or “this politician is vile” or something like that, just as it’s okay to do that with words. Politicians and (to a lesser extent) celebrities have volunteered to be criticized, including in this way. I’ve done that myself, with the images I created for this post and for this post, for example.
But like anything else, it can be well done or badly done. If the image is used in a way so that it doesn’t say anything other than “dislike this person because they look ugly in this photo,” then that’s doing it badly. If the image implicitly supports harmful stereotypes, like sexist stereotypes or like “oh those gross fat people” or whatever, then that’s doing it badly. Etc, etc.
I don’t think folks are advocating if you mean advocate in its normal sense, i.e. “people should use SJW more!” Rather, people are defending the use.
But, to answer the question posed, assuming you meant it more like “defend,” I rarely use “wingnut,” more commonly use “religinut,” and occasionally use “right wing lunatic” or the default “batshit crazy” or “fucking insane.”
Ah, you must have read the recent Feministe open thread…?
Well, as much as I might prefer that you concede to my opinion, and as much as I might be willing to trade concessions, I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about using the language that makes sense to you. To some degree, the benefits of a word like “manbabies” is a bit like the benefit of “feminazis,” insofar as the recipient can quickly decide to avoid wasting time in a chat. It clears the room of anyone who might otherwise be inclined to politely disagree.
I have some of the same feelings as Mandolin, that I have problems with the way that a fairly large subset of social justice activists conduct themselves (esp. online); I usually use “callout culture” as the shorthand for that. I feel like the way “SJW” is often used, it is meant to also imply something wrong with, at least, being passionate about social justice or talking about it online at all, if not something fundamentally wrong with the idea of social justice.
Perhaps “SJW” is a bit like “mansplain”, which originated as a useful idea but gets deployed so often that it’s become basically meaningless. (Mansplaining is such a useful idea that I’ve been trying to save it, but it may be too late. Maybe part of why I’ve bothered to try and save it is that I first encountered it before it became all used up.) If say pro-social-justice stuff online, you’re called a “SJW”. If you say feminism-critical/unorthodox stuff online (and you’re perceived as a man) you’re called a “mansplainer”.
Mandolin:
I think this finally gets closer to a working definition of SJW that says more about the subject than the speaker.
“A Social Justice Warrior operates by a set of rules, many originating from Derailing for Dummies, that add up to mean in practice that there are no standards of behavior or respect that someone interacting with a SJW can expect if they disagree with them or are below them (more privileged) on the Oppression Olympics hierarchy.”
Thus, “die cis scum” is OK, as long as you’re trans* or advocating for transfolk. “The tone argument” and “respectability politics” are basically the same thing – when interacting with someone above you on the OO scale, you have no right to expect to be spoken to with respect for your opinion, no right not to have your safety threatened and no expectation of substantive response beyond verbal abuse and mockery. They reserve the right to twist your words to suit their opinion of you and to take everything you say in the worst possible light if it serves the purpose of “punching up.”
Of course, when interacting with SJW, they expect you to be respectful, give them the benefit of the doubt, interpret their words charitably, not shout down their public speakers, etc.
After reading this thread as it has developed, “rules for thee and not for me” may be the line demarcating where SJAs end and SJWs begin.
I think “manbabies” is fucking awful. I’d agree with g&w that it has the same utility as “feminazi” of marking the person using it as a person who is not worth talking to (SJW and wingnut have the same virtue to a lesser extent).
I feel (strongly but not yet coherently) that “manbabies” plays off of poisonous ideas of masculinity in a reinforcing rather than subversive way. It suggests to me that the speaker believes (or wishes to insult the MRA by implying) that the asshole MRA is not a real man.
I agree with Mandolin and Closetpuritan that having terminology for abusive internet behaviors is valuable, but that SJW (while I do know radicals who use it is a label for toxic, abusive, self-defeating activists) is mostly a general term used by rightists and centrists to dismiss social justice advocates of all sorts.
I don’t see much difference between being unwilling to acknowledge that the 1 in 5 statistic is for a much broader class of unwanted sexual interaction than just rape or being unwilling to acknowledge that the 1 in 4 statistic includes attempted as well as completed rape and repeatedly referencing the very low rape rate in the NCVS as though it were valid even after being repeatedly shown that it is not. I don’t think we need a special term for left-wingers who are happy using inaccurate or misleading arguments that wouldn’t also apply to right-wingers who are happy using inaccurate or misleading statistics.
They reserve the right to twist your words to suit their opinion of you and to take everything you say in the worst possible light if it serves the purpose of “punching up.”
One of the more toxic and hypocritical versions of this is that it’s often NOT actually deployed against someone above you on the OO scale, it’s used by an “ally”. Like, the tone argument has a version that’s reasonable, and a version that’s not reasonable even when used by the oppressed group. But I’ve seen people use it who are arguing on behalf of the oppressed group, and I’m like, “Hold it, the entire rationale is that people can’t be expected to discuss things perfectly calmly and dispassionately when you’re talking about their rights and their life, but it’s not your rights and your life, so what’s your excuse?”
Er…I was assuming Amp’s manbabies analogy was an illustrative joke, not an actual plan? Am I wrong here? (Or am I reading all the rest of you wrong, that you were just following his lead?)
I’d also say it’s partially about the fact that what counts as calm and dispassionate is affected by how people perceive you (for a completely non-SJ example, the balance of information vs reassurance given to me by doctors before and after they ask what I do for a living). E.g. a calm, “Hey, that’s uncool and seems kind of like a racist idea,” is perceived as being much more confrontational from a black person than from a white person. (Which, again, means the tone argument doesn’t apply to allies.)
Yes, you are right, Amp obviously meant that as an illustrative joke… which I read straight for god only knows what reason. It is certainly illustrative.
The problem isn’t “using inaccurate or misleading statistics.” It’s a refusal to discuss their inaccuracy, and/or the assignment of evil motives for questioning them.
At this particular time in history with the pendulum in its current location, I think that particular thing happens more on the left than on the right.
The problem with callout culture as a negative term is that call outs can actually be useful. So, I know what you mean, but I am wary of adopting the term. I’m not sure what to term the problem I’m seeing. And I’m not sure how to cut off the bad behaviors without cutting out good or necessary ones, mostly because the premise of the tone argument is still valid even if it’s often deployed in damaging or obnoxious ways.
While it does good for people to moderate their tone sometimes, if they are trying to convince folks; and while some kinds of language should, IMO, be out of bounds (I am a very, very strict “never tell anyone to commit suicide” person); frankly, a lot of folks will perceive anything that disagrees with them or tests their comfort zones as being nastiness that should be stopped. Activists of any stripe can’t be *too* susceptible to the tone argument or else they’ll have to shut up all together. See, for an example I think will be relatively uncontroversial here, the way that an atheist stating their religious position will be viewed as hostile and doing something out of line, even in a circumstance where other folks in the room are wearing crosses and talking about church.
I’m not interested in changing my behavior so that the major puppy players won’t perceive me as an SJW. I probably couldn’t even if I tried, as long as I insist that as a QUILTBAG person I deserve equal rights and protection from discrimination. That’s ultimately why the term SJW makes me roll my eyes, I guess. A more specific term that means the same thing, or at least drills down to the actual problem that’s being complained about, would be better. But as long as puppy player folks are using it as an insult, whatever term they pick is unlikely to be one I’m gong to be largely sympathetic to.
There’s a huge problem of scale and perception in this discussion. So, say we all agree there’s a problem, in terms of escalating violent rhetoric. But people are going to draw that line in radically different places, and in some circumstances, in places that I don’t agree with and don’t respect. Even though there are generalities we can agree on, I suspect that if we started talking specifics, we’d find an inseparable gap almost immediately.
I 100% share your concern, and I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what I like and don’t like about callout culture.
In a way, callout culture isn’t anything new – it’s just part of how we police the boundaries of what’s acceptable and unacceptable in polite society. We’ve been doing that forever.
What’s different here is that, thanks to the internet, there are just so many more people offering an opinion, which means that 1) there are more angry, threatening, outliers (the pool of “people who will tell you you should die for saying something they don’t like” is always small in proportional terms, but it’s larger when you’re drawing on 2 billion people than it is when you’re drawing on 2 thousand) and 2) so many more people are able to offer criticisms that it can turn a mild criticism into an overwhelming avalanche (Hearing, “man, I could have done without the hula girl shirt,” from a couple people probably isn’t a big deal. Hearing that 1000 times is a huge deal, even if the critique level of each of those thousand is exactly the same mild criticism.
I don’t have solutions for these problems, but I think those are the two.
As far as social justice stuff specifically, I think that, as Ampersand said, identity is having a moment in our culture, and so that’s part of it – the social justice left is in a moment of cultural strength. I’m not sure that that indicates something specifically about the social justice left, though I suppose it might.
And I think Jake Squid said what needed saying about the term SJW in his comment #84. When people use it, I’ll just assume they’re in favor of injustice and respond accordingly.
—Myca