My apologies. People who are not politically active (eg: casual Facebook browsers) will never, ever come across the term "SJW". They may have seen it a few times. If they're college-aged maybe they have a friend in college who describes themselves as a "SJW" in a positive light. 1-2 interactions with SJW's using "SJW" as a positive term is enough for them to see the term in a positive/neutral way, as opposed to the way heavy internet users who scour Twitter for hours a day and are active in the #Gamergate hashtag will see the term "SJW".
If you browse Github, HackerNews, /r/TumblrInAction, or Twitter frequently then your chances of running into the term "SJW" increases as does your chances of seeing it used in mostly a negative way.
To then assume that everyone "knows" the term is a negative one when it's sphere of influence is a few small niches of the internet is being dishonest. Especially when that person denies said accusation.
>My political engagement has been entirely contrary to the war-profiteering, plundering, pro-corporate elites that run the world, but by all means you keep going after those evil college kids and feminists!
Why not both? Dangerous elites are only as dangerous as the public allows them to be. How many singular elites can kill thousands or millions of people without people to do the killing for them?
History has a historically thin line between "these people are bad" and "these people are bad and we should round them up and kill them". When people actively use the rhetoric of the latter, I listen and grow concerned...
To then assume that everyone "knows" the term is a negative one when it's sphere of influence is a few small niches of the internet is being dishonest.
Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.
I have very little faith that sickbeard didn't know full well that he was employing a dog whistle when he dropped "SJW" into the thread.
>The reclamation of the term has spread to people who have never had it used upon them, and as a result, it is seen by many social justice advocates as a legitimate and accepted label for people who promote social justice. This has, in many circles (for example, Tumblr), heavily mitigated its pejoration, and consequently, heavily increased its positive usage by SJWs themselves
Okay, actually this is boring. You don't care and have already convinced yourself - abandoning the principle of charity. So we'll leave it at this I guess.
Riiiight. So because the n-word and the f-word have been reclaimed by their communities, I shouldn't assume that folks not in those communities aren't still using the term in a derogatory fashion?
Please.
Go back and read the original post. SJW was not being used with a positive connotation in context, and to suggest otherwise is just being willfully stubborn simply to make a point.
Are you really comparing "nigger" to "SJW"? One started off as derogatory and still is except within it's own community. The other started off as positive and became derogatory only within a few, niche communities. A more apples to apples comparison would be "Tea Partier". It became a political slur to call someone a "Tea Partier". Do you not think people use "Tea Partier" without the negative connotation when referring to someone in the Tea Party?
A Google search for `site:news.ycombinator.com sickbeard + SJW` only results in this comment thread. It was their first usage of the word on this site. Which means they have no historical basis to judge how they used the word. They even gave you the description: "To me it it means you believe in something and you're going to stand up for it."
I did not read it with a negative connotation, otherwise I would not have responded to you.
> History has a historically thin line between "these people are bad" and "these people are bad and we should round them up and kill them". When people actively use the rhetoric of the latter, I listen and grow concerned...
This makes sense. Sorry for being overly confrontational in my last post. I do agree that the language and tactics used by the far-left (which I'm very much a part of) can be silly or even slimy at times. I certainly took issue with the language that liberals used to describe conservatives in this most recent election.
Overall though, knowing quite a few people from college who are stereotypical SJWs, they are mostly harmless. A lot of them really do have a rough past, and aren't the privileged "special snowflakes" that the alt-right makes them out to be. Many people like the idea of a trigger warning, for example, because they really did experience something deeply traumatic, but you'll never discover that about them by hurling insults. And also many of these people tend to be socially awkward, and when I see people lashing out online about "tumblrinas" or whatever, it just feels like a continuation of the bullying that these people probably faced in childhood.
My apologies. People who are not politically active (eg: casual Facebook browsers) will never, ever come across the term "SJW". They may have seen it a few times. If they're college-aged maybe they have a friend in college who describes themselves as a "SJW" in a positive light. 1-2 interactions with SJW's using "SJW" as a positive term is enough for them to see the term in a positive/neutral way, as opposed to the way heavy internet users who scour Twitter for hours a day and are active in the #Gamergate hashtag will see the term "SJW".
If you browse Github, HackerNews, /r/TumblrInAction, or Twitter frequently then your chances of running into the term "SJW" increases as does your chances of seeing it used in mostly a negative way.
To then assume that everyone "knows" the term is a negative one when it's sphere of influence is a few small niches of the internet is being dishonest. Especially when that person denies said accusation.
>My political engagement has been entirely contrary to the war-profiteering, plundering, pro-corporate elites that run the world, but by all means you keep going after those evil college kids and feminists!
Why not both? Dangerous elites are only as dangerous as the public allows them to be. How many singular elites can kill thousands or millions of people without people to do the killing for them?
History has a historically thin line between "these people are bad" and "these people are bad and we should round them up and kill them". When people actively use the rhetoric of the latter, I listen and grow concerned...