The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

I get it.
But still.
WTF?

[Jacob]

If so that's not how I've seen it used.
Where I've seen it used is in the context of people expressing indefensible opinions like women shouldn't have been allowed the vote, or X race is genetically inferior (bell curve) or "Mexicans are rapists."  And rather than defend the substance of such views, which they can't, they attack the *style* of the people who attack them.  It is a rhetorical mode that seeks to elevate obnoxious assholery into a kind of cool.

Yup. It's not neutral descriptor - it's a rhetorical device to dismiss people who indicate a lack of agreement with any given form of bigotry.

[Jacob]

I get it.
But still.
WTF?

WTF indeed.

Also, please crop your quotes

[Valmy]

I don't get it. 

[Admiral Yi]

If so that's not how I've seen it used.
Where I've seen it used is in the context of people expressing indefensible opinions like women shouldn't have been allowed the vote, or X race is genetically inferior (bell curve) or "Mexicans are rapists."  And rather than defend the substance of such views, which they can't, they attack the *style* of the people who attack them.  It is a rhetorical mode that seeks to elevate obnoxious assholery into a kind of cool.

Virtually any term used to describe human behavior can be misappropriated.  That doesn't mean the descriptor as originally used lacks validity.

[garbon]

If so that's not how I've seen it used.
Where I've seen it used is in the context of people expressing indefensible opinions like women shouldn't have been allowed the vote, or X race is genetically inferior (bell curve) or "Mexicans are rapists."  And rather than defend the substance of such views, which they can't, they attack the *style* of the people who attack them.  It is a rhetorical mode that seeks to elevate obnoxious assholery into a kind of cool.

Virtually any term used to describe human behavior can be misappropriated.  That doesn't mean the descriptor as originally used lacks validity.

Well wiki notes it was actually a positive term in the 90s. Only fairly recently has it been twisted around to be a negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

[Jacob]

Virtually any term used to describe human behavior can be misappropriated.  That doesn't mean the descriptor as originally used lacks validity.

I don't believe there was an "original usage" that predates the use Minsky describes.

[The Minsky Moment]

If so that's not how I've seen it used.
Where I've seen it used is in the context of people expressing indefensible opinions like women shouldn't have been allowed the vote, or X race is genetically inferior (bell curve) or "Mexicans are rapists."  And rather than defend the substance of such views, which they can't, they attack the *style* of the people who attack them.  It is a rhetorical mode that seeks to elevate obnoxious assholery into a kind of cool.

Virtually any term used to describe human behavior can be misappropriated.  That doesn't mean the descriptor as originally used lacks validity.

We already had a descriptor for the phenomenon you raised.  Political correctness.  Perfectly usable term understandable by all.  And it has the considerable virtue of being a descriptor of conduct or argument.  As opposed to "SJW" which is inherently personal and ad hominem.

[Jacob]

I don't get it. 

Do you want to be walked through it?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't believe there was an "original usage" that predates the use Minsky describes.

Waaaaay back during the early Paradox forum days someone posted a link to a list of online personality types.  Social Justice Warrior was one of them.

If you want to reserve SJW for the types of behavior you and Joan are describing, then what would you like us to call people who do things like that list of acceptable white behavior, or that black woman in the video posted a while back who was berating a white student for culturally misappropriating dreadlocks?

[Admiral Yi]

We already had a descriptor for the phenomenon you raised.  Political correctness.  Perfectly usable term understandable by all.  And it has the considerable virtue of being a descriptor of conduct or argument.  As opposed to "SJW" which is inherently personal and ad hominem.

You'll have to convince Jacob on this one.   

[Jacob]

Waaaaay back during the early Paradox forum days someone posted a link to a list of online personality types.  Social Justice Warrior was one of them.

If you want to reserve SJW for the types of behavior you and Joan are describing, then what would you like us to call people who do things like that list of acceptable white behavior, or that black woman in the video posted a while back who was berating a white student for culturally misappropriating dreadlocks?

I dunno. Do we have to call them something?

I suppose annoyingly zealous could work.

[Jacob]

We already had a descriptor for the phenomenon you raised.  Political correctness.  Perfectly usable term understandable by all.  And it has the considerable virtue of being a descriptor of conduct or argument.  As opposed to "SJW" which is inherently personal and ad hominem.

You'll have to convince Jacob on this one.   

[derspiess]

Well wiki notes it was actually a positive term in the 90s. Only fairly recently has it been twisted around to be a negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

The usage of "warrior" was a silly exaggeration in the first place, and now it's turned into a negative?  Cool.

[Valmy]

I don't get it. 

Do you want to be walked through it?

Maybe. Body pillow and overweight guy with a fedora. Is this ironic? A genuine love of overweight fedora types? A specific culture reference to a specific character I don't get? Something else?