"Social Justice Warrior" is an insult deployed (almost) exclusively by the right wing and other enemies of the left. I will not acceed to the use of enemy language, however naively you may be applying it. "SJW" is used so as to avoid and de-legitimate terms such as antiracist, antifascist, feminist, leftist, socialist, etc., which are things that actual people who do actual things and generally have legitimate causes actually call themselves. "SJW" is an imaginary character, like the tens of thousands of Caravan Mexicans coming to rape and pillage Duluth.
Like the use of "red" and "blue," it is an attempt to turn politics into psychology, or essence (to "essentialize"). Political views are not considered in terms of premises, interests, arguments and proposals, but as secondary functions of an ascribed identity, of a fashion or subculture, of an emotional state, or of some inner characteristic that can then be mocked, or treated like a psychological syndrome, or seen as a temporary insanity of the young. Of course, political views can be any or all of the above, but essentialization narrows them down to the latter set.
I'm having none of this. There is nothing "civil" about your use of this term. Not after I have told you this already several times. So no more excuses. It says you want to be my enemy. So in turn, I will not be lectured by you on how to be "civil."
Let's say you were a Democrat, Heaven Swan (for the argument), and I started exclusively calling you a Fuckocrat, or a Dumbocrat (the latter is an actual thing you will see). Let's say I posted smarmy videos by a Dunning-Kruger victim who thinks he is smarter than you and wants to explain why Everyone Hates Dumbocrats, or How Dumbocrats Can Become More Likable to Normal People. That is all you are doing in your adoption of this term and your posting of this video.
Now it may be that at some time, some original idiot or several idiots did in fact coin the term as a positive self-description (thus proving they were idiots, at least in terms of understanding what appeals to others and what does not). It may be, but it doesn't matter now, as "SJW" is found almost exclusively on the right (or that part of the right who present as "center") as an attack term, deployed against many different kinds of ideas and people who never call themselves "SJWs." SJW is what Jordan Peterson wants to call his enemies. Those few who might be suckered into describing themselves this way are Stockholm Syndrome sufferers. Kind of like people who want to be victims in other contexts might call themselves "Truthers" or "Conspiracy Theorists."
In short, I will not be instructed by you or by insulting new age "let's all get along" videos on how to approach people.
If I think a fight is warranted, I will fight.
If I am offended -- such as by Jerky's non-sequitur suggestion that I want to see the death of several billion people -- then I almost certainly have a fucking good reason to be offended, and don't want to hear platitudes about how there is never a good reason to be offended from some fucking couldn't-be-whiter Ron Howard clone on Youtube. Dig?
If I am angry, then I probably have a fucking good reason to be angry.
If I think some motherfucker is dishonest, I will say so, rather than play along as if we're all in kindergarden. I may not want to play in your playground.
There is plenty of war in this world and it would hardly be in the spirit of the Yellow Vests to pretend otherwise. They understand their own context as a class war. They are not looking to join refined society and be judged as nice. They are not trying to be liked by every last person in the universe, which is impossible and undesirable. They are looking to fight -- meaning to fight back -- to organize, and to win.
Certainly you, HS, do not expect to apply this kind of fake pretense of naivete in regard to say, Macron, or the ruling class. You would never think Macron just doesn't understand, and needs to be treated with greater civility and given a bit of context until he does. If he pretended to understand (as he did with his golden palace speech), you would mistrust him. You would think it was a move, insincere.
So, to be clear: I have not insulted Jerky. I have kicked his fucking ass after he started a fight with me. Too bad for him.
While you have not realized it, you have probably insulted Jerky a lot worse than I did.
To wit:
Heaven Swan wrote:Jerky may be sincere but lacking in context and information, just like ten or twenty other people you may know. Refuting him, but in a respectful manner may not only win him over, but may help others too.
This is laughably contrary to the self-image that Jerky openly projects, which is that he is a lot smarter than you, or else that he cites authorities or data that are a lot smarter than you.
Jerky did not wander in here yesterday. He may be wrong as fuck, but the last thing he would ever consider himself to be is "lacking in context and information," certainly when compared to you. Sorry, that's how it is.
If it were actually possible to persuade him of a point of view with which he currently differs, one would have to present mounds of flawlessly superior context and information. And then he'd still find some insanely minor point to misinterpret so as to claim you got everything wrong, and maybe accuse you of being Russian or anti-Western or pro-plague, after which he'd be completely unaffected by anything you said. Because he's not here to be affected. He's here to be right. He's here to win.
I'm here for various reasons, including learning and reading and especially testing out my own views in writing, and maybe even changing my mind (as I have about a lot of things regarding say, finance). I'm here for the small but intimate audience. I'm here to divert myself instead of doing more useful things. Sometimes I'm here to do stunt insults, if I feel it's warranted or fun enough. But if I'm going to get into a fight on a principle I believe in, then I am here to win. Not "by any means," which is to say I don't want to deploy sophistry. But when someone else does do that, "civility" ain't got nothing to do with it.
Sure, it's nice to be nice, but "civility" too often is synonymous either with a) surface bullshit of zero intrinsic truth-value or b) a means by which lightweight fakers, losing an argument or having nothing to say, try to play a trump card, claiming that oh gosh, someone talked out of turn or said something mean, and so try to divert by making an issue out of that. One can try to minimize the opportunities for dishonest people to do that by not being unnecessarily impolite. But if they really want to play that card, they always will. They will always find a way to claim some manner of "civility" has been violated. So I tend not to give a fuck.
Now, who here would like to re-devote this fucking thread to the fucking Yellow Jackets uprising in fucking France? Any new developments? Anyone know how to translate 50 types of "fuck" into idiomatic French?
.