What separates activism from SJW-ism?

[Manah]

Some people are going to think that any kind of social justice is being an SJW, but for those of you who don't, where do you draw the line?

A lot of people around here say they tend to lean left, but a lot of posts that start supporting a more leftist view tend to get a lot of negative ratings (as if that meant anything, but whatever) and people haranguing them.

Personally, I think the biggest point is when it starts to become about oppressing people who disagree. Just trying to silence people never works out for anyone.

 

[AnOminous]

It's the activism part.

 

[WeaponsGradeAutism]

It's the activism part.

To elaborate further. A lot of SJW folks are slacktivists. They choose to sit on Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook to do their campaign.

As far as the forum going right, maybe. Maybe not. And I'm an outsider looking in on American politics. Even if I'm here working.

As I said elsewhere, people here maybe take the Lewis Black stance to politics. Whichever side offends more wins.

 

[IwegalBadnik]

Some people are going to think that any kind of social justice is being an SJW, but for those of you who don't, where do you draw the line?

I know it when I see it.

This sort of thing is simply too complex to be given a rote answer. There are far too many variables involved--including the observer's subjective holdings. I can say that when I make an assessment, I can give you my own views. That is only possible on a case by case basis though. I cannot give you a codified list of the qualifications that set apart activists and SJWs.

A lot of people around here say they tend to lean left, but a lot of posts that start supporting a more leftist view tend to get a lot of negative ratings (as if that meant anything, but whatever) and people haranguing them.

I don't think there is much of that going on myself. I am actually intrigued by many of the statements about the Left that I see around here, even if I sometimes think them wrong. I am generally quite liberal, but I don't see people being hounded for having beliefs like my own here. So long as you're not overzealous and make a decent case, Kiwis seem to generally be able to respect one another's holdings, regardless of their own beliefs.

There is quite a lot of jeering and derision directed towards SJWs, feminazis and the regressives but that's most of what I see about. Most of the groups you see threads started on frequently (such as these three) are not what I would really call "lean[ing] left"--I tend to think of them as the "loony left," if they're to be considered part of the left at all. This is a person opinion and others' will undoubtedly differ, but that's my take.

Personally, I think the biggest point is when it starts to become about oppressing people who disagree. Just trying to silence people never works out for anyone.

I would agree that's one of the bigger sources of attractions for the derision those groups get. There are others, but that's a big one. Hypocrisy is another one that's noted and huge; it is perhaps an even bigger albatross for these groups.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike the SJWs and their den of jackals.

 

[AnOminous]

To elaborate further. A lot of SJW folks are slacktivists. They choose to sit on Tumblr, Twitter and Facebook to do their campaign.

Right.

And when they do join actual activist organizations, they focus more on purging them of wrongthink than actually doing anything. Soon they drive out anyone who does actual work and drives away donors, and you end up with a danger hair circle jerk that does literally nothing.

An example of an actual activist/lobbying organization that achieves tangible results would be Lambda Legal or the Human Rights Campaign. Working together, they got rid of essentially the entire legal basis for bans on gay marriage at the Supreme Court level, massively changing the playing field.

Both of these organizations are considered "problematic" by SJWs for a variety of reasons including not focusing exclusively on troon shit. SJWs were actually mad about gay marriage, even though it benefited trans people too (essentially any two consenting unrelated adults can now get married at least in theory) solely because it wasn't 100% totally about troons.

 

[IwegalBadnik]

Right.

And when they do join actual activist organizations, they focus more on purging them of wrongthink than actually doing anything. Soon they drive out anyone who does actual work and drives away donors, and you end up with a danger hair circle jerk that does literally nothing.

An example of an actual activist/lobbying organization that achieves tangible results would be Lambda Legal or the Human Rights Campaign. Working together, they got rid of essentially the entire legal basis for bans on gay marriage at the Supreme Court level, massively changing the playing field.

Both of these organizations are considered "problematic" by SJWs for a variety of reasons including not focusing exclusively on troon shit. SJWs were actually mad about gay marriage, even though it benefited trans people too (essentially any two consenting unrelated adults can now get married at least in theory) solely because it wasn't 100% totally about troons.

A lot of SJWs (and others, to be fair) focus themselves on doing far too much far too quickly. Successful strategies in the directions these guys want to move in require a great deal of time and especially finesse. These people deal with neither of these things, and so they invite a reactionary response to their efforts.

Politicians who understand the math involved in their elections will not stick their necks out to appease fractions of a percentage of their potential voters at the expense of double digit numbers at the polls; to get things done for such minorities, those minorities need to come to terms with the fact that these sort of moves take a great deal of time to succeed. You cannot expect them to come to fruition overnight. In addition, keeping things subtle is not a bad idea either.

A great deal of time elapsed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. A time frame of potentially decades is what people dealing with these sorts of matters need to come to terms with--because it's realistic. Revolutionary change rarely occurs, absent some dramatic catalyzing event.

 

[Wallace]

A lot of SJWs (and others, to be fair) focus themselves on doing far too much far too quickly. Successful strategies in the directions these guys want to move in require a great deal of time and especially finesse. These people deal with neither of these things, and so they invite a reactionary response to their efforts.

And when they do join actual activist organizations, they focus more on purging them of wrongthink than actually doing anything. Soon they drive out anyone who does actual work and drives away donors, and you end up with a danger hair circle jerk that does literally nothing.

IMO, these are two of the major warning signs, with the third being that their slacktivism is fundamentally self-serving. It's more than just misguided, it's done in a way that is more designed to draw attention to themselves rather than advance the cause. The dishonesty of their arguments shines through in these cases very clearly.

 

[escapegoat]

I think it starts getting SJWy when it's obviously serving more as an identity, a lifestyle, than a useful activity with an actual purpose. See also: anyone who never seems to state any clear, concrete goals, because it's more about being in a movement, than it is about achieving anything in particular.

 

[pozilei]

I can only agree with what the other posters have said, but I'll add my two cents. A lot of the SJW 'activism' is inherently negative, they'll never seriously talk about how they can make the underfunded school better by volunteering to give free tutoring to kids or starting clubs to keep the kids off the streets. They don't donate tampons and tooth brushes to women's domestic violence shelters. They'll just wait and react if something bad happens so they can complain about it on twitter

A lot of people around here say they tend to lean left, but a lot of posts that start supporting a more leftist view tend to get a lot of negative ratings (as if that meant anything, but whatever) and people haranguing them.

idk, I've sperged about my leftists leanings before (about being a feminist, about being pro-choice, about being okay with trans women in bathrooms etc.) and I've never really had any problems.

 

[Positron]

Activists help. Their mindset is pragmatic, and they have a plan and a vision: to build a better world, somebody have to do the building. That's why much of activism is focused on education and on meeting the basic needs of the disenfranchised.

SJWs either shit themselves or actively seek to do harm (the "smash the whatever" mindset), because their motivation is emotional, based on an often-misplaced sense of anger and resentment. Hence they categorically refuse to offer anything ("this is not my job to educate"), ignore how people operate ("cultural appropriation!!!!"), use totalitarian rhetorics ("all men should shut up"; "you're all nazis for not voting my pet candidate") and don't have a concrete plan about how to bring about their dream utopia.

 

[AnOminous]

A great deal of time elapsed between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. A time frame of potentially decades is what people dealing with these sorts of matters need to come to terms with--because it's realistic. Revolutionary change rarely occurs, absent some dramatic catalyzing event.

Groups like the HRC deserve a lot of credit. In little more than a decade, the position on same-sex marriage went from overwhelmingly either opposed or apathetic to nearly overwhelmingly either actively in support of it or at least moderately in support of it, and many of those previously against it who remained against it went from actually doing stuff against it to deciding it wasn't a hill they wanted to die on.

This was accompanied by state after state outright legalizing it, and ultimately, the Supreme Court (okay Anthony Kennedy) changing his mind and going for it.

 

[Henry Bemis]

One side does good; the other wants to be seen doing good. A struggle since time immemorial.

But if we're focusing on the current crop, one side has a nose for policies, initiatives, and other such political elbow greases, while the other side is only interested in the "fun stuff," i.e. examining activism via popular culture. (Hence, a sizable number of subjects here.)

And while the arts are political to a degree - what gets made and with whom, as well as what doesn't, et cetera, is certainly always worthy of scrutiny - there still exists the fine line between heated political engagement as a arts critic and making a lot of sound and fury about nothing.

 

[AnOminous]

One side does good; the other wants to be seen doing good. A struggle since time immemorial.

The Bible has some things to say about this.

"Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward." Matthew 6:2.

Even fucking Jesus hated virtue-signaling.

 

[Feline Darkmage]

There's a reason the first usages of SJW as a pejorative label happened in very left-leaning spaces to denote people who were extremists, self-serving, or both (and many more negative traits)

 

[JimmyHill'sBlarms]

Activist: "We need more PoC in movies. Let's start a petition to get *PoC actor* to be in a movie."

SJW: WHY ARE YOU NOT BLACK?! REEEEEEEEEE! WHITE-WASHING RACIST!

One actually TRIES to do something productive, while the other just sits on their ass and screams about other people not doing something.

 

[Ti-99/4A]

Activist: "We need more PoC in movies. Let's start a petition to get *PoC actor* to be in a movie."

SJW: WHY ARE YOU NOT BLACK?! REEEEEEEEEE! WHITE-WASHING RACIST!

One actually TRIES to do something productive, while the other just sits on their ass and screams about other people not doing something.

PoC actor gets cast in a production.
SJW: WHY AREN'T THEY AN OBESE TRANSGENDER MUSLIM IN A WHEELCHAIR TOO?? REEEE!

 

[Secret Asshole]

It is actually pretty simple, really. SJWs appeal to authority to make change. They bitch and whine to AMC, write letters to them, try to get people fired.

Lets say the issue is a trans Dr. Who, like the dumb cunt Anita was recently bitching about. Anita follows the SJW mindset, she blames the BBC, appeals to them to change it and make a Dr. Who that is trans because there aren't enough trans in sci-fi. An activist would fund and promote projects that has trans characters in sci-fi. There is no appeal to authority, it is basically creating what you want. For example, they could get enough money together to hire a screenwriter to make a spec script for a TV show or movie. OR they can support a trans filmaker through promotion and funding. Point is, they don't sit on their ass and cry and yell at someone else to do it.

SJWs have no capacity to create. They only bitch, whine and moan. You see this a lot. Same with PoCs in movies. SJWs bitch to the studios, activists fund, promote and engage in productions with PoCs already in them. Activists try to fix the problem themselves, SJWs try to make someone to fix it for them.

The reason why we see so many more SJWs than activists is that being an activist is a lot of work. An SJW can twitter bomb a movie studio or send out poorly worded emails and badly written blog posts rather easily. They want someone else to do the work for them. Which is why they'll never get the change they want because they aren't doing it themselves. SJWs are also actively harmful to the causes they promote, because they create a lot of friction between everyone and everything.

Activists are generally only annoying to people in authority, because they genuinely challenge the status quo. They don't demand more PoC in game of thrones, they find a way to make their own. And if its better, it challenges HBO. SJWs just make a mess for everyone involved, fans and creators.

In conclusion, SJWs are spoiled, spiteful little shits who are basically children throwing temper tantrums trying to get mommy and daddy to give them what they want. Activists go out and get what they want like adults.

 

[magikarp]

I pretty much echo what others have said, but I feel like another issue with SJW-types is that they're so, so desperate for a cause to rally behind that they'll even fabricate issues that aren't really there. Or at least, exacerbate rather minor or trivial issues. A lot of these young people seem to be looking for the next big issue, they wanna fight the power, problem is a lot of those big battles have already been handled by real activists before them.

Or something like that I don't know. This seems to be the case State-side at any rate.

 

[Wallace]

I pretty much echo what others have said, but I feel like another issue with SJW-types is that they're so, so desperate for a cause to rally behind that they'll even fabricate issues that aren't really there. Or at least, exacerbate rather minor or trivial issues. A lot of these young people seem to be looking for the next big issue, they wanna fight the power, problem is a lot of those big battles have already been handled by real activists before them.

Or something like that I don't know. This seems to be the case State-side at any rate.

Maybe something like this? Moral Outrage is Self-Serving

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.

 

[magikarp]

That's exactly what I'm trying to say, yeah. It feels less genuine and more like they want to put themselves up above others.