So do you think this is what Google is doing?
I want to have a spirited genuine conversation about this, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around arguments like this - isn't your comment doing exactly as you have described, dividing and labelling people?
As for why I'm okay with the difference, consider putting someone in prison because they broke a law (something they can control) vs. because their parents broke a law (something they couldn't control). The latter is, in my mind, worse in every possible fashion. Even when applied to a law I disagree with, I find the latter option far worse than the former.
It's very ironic you say this when dawhizkid's comment using the term SJW was flagged and it spawned a thread of people taking offense and this whole thread has been removed now. :-)
To be clear: are you saying that you think that "SJWs" advocate for this?
It's not an opinion, it's true by definition†. SJWs are characterized by their propensity to group people according to their immutable characteristics (specifically race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc) and their specific†† treatments for each group (what each group is allowed to do, how negatively their group is to be portrayed, whether a group is allowed to be defined by its best members, whether a group is to be defined by its worst members, etc).
I suspect SJWs would object to the term "hierarchy"--instead they would say they are fighting white supremacy or other hierarchies; however, when you press them, it becomes clear that they are merely advocating for a different racial hierarchy (e.g., "you can't be racist against $RACE people").
†Obviously there is no formal definition; that doesn't mean that there is no definition
†† To be clear, I don't mean to say that SJW-ism is the only identity ideology, but rather it is a particular one which varies from the others by its specific ranking of identities and the affordances it makes for each ranking.
Obviously the answer is that nobody can be racist towards anybody and be pure to a positive read of the sjw cause, but humans gonna human.
I will say that from a utile standpoint white vs black racism is far more harmful than black vs white, in the reality of 2019, so outside the rhetorical realm of debate of pure morals. Therefore I'm not sure even the existence of "reverse racism" (terrible term but the most universally understood to describe my meaning) SJWs does not indicate an sjw desire to create hierarchy.
The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow. I believe he offers the full text for free on his website.
It's not a question of "fairness"; it's a question of whether or not the ideology is a racial ideology, and the quoted slogan (in context) is considerable evidence that it is. Because (lawyering aside), the slogan is a pronouncement it morally permissible to treat members of one race worse than members of other races.
> The best description of an ideal sjw future I believe was captured and described in Walkaway, by Cory doctorow
Thank you for the recommendation; will check it out.
It's true that someone can advocate a thing ineffectively, or miss some finer point, or claim to be about justice but advocating something else. But one must consider their intentions. Likely they are good, and your alleged conflict with them is a misunderstanding. So don't take it as a personal attack and you'll likely be fine. If you feel they are excluding you, very likely they are not intending to do so. You can try to ask them politely if you have any doubt.
[Full disclosure: I am a left-wing person and likely you would call me an SJW.]
A lot of people who engage in SJW behavior are indeed good at heart. A lot I would argue are also being used by bad actors. That doesn’t make the bad behaviors okay or free from criticism. It’s a scary world where that becomes mainstream.
If you object, let it be known, ask for clarification. Perhaps the person you object to will open their mind to your concern too. Assuming "SJW" and ending it there is to keep the misunderstanding going.
While I would likely be more aligned politically with you than not, I also understand that there are many on the left that bring an aggression and intolerance to the policing of ideas and discussion that seems of little benefit to the world.
It seems to me we need more advocacy for self-reflection and less for people's individual belief systems.
Perhaps. But I didn't say that, and I'm not arguing that point. I read your point as a direct consequence of what I've written, actually.
But if I may argue that point for a bit, for the sake of argument, a lot of the "SJW" stuff that riles people up is to say that a protected class or minority should be allowed to exist, and people do react to that with what amounts to "your existence is offensive to me". Which is one reason I immediately jump into: why is the SJW offensive to people? Is it that the anti-SJW has some kind of hangup? Often, yes.
Just let them be. And they will let you be too. I know this is an unpopular opinion on HN and so I'm losing karma over it. OK.
I think this is the point of contention. I don't think the type of person I'm describing will 'let you be' if you make an argument that falls outside their worldview. And the tone of the resulting debate is more often than not fairly toxic. The result is just more division.
What happens is that strength of feeling is used as a substitute for quality of argument. Those that dissent are accused of insensitivity or worse.
Perhaps you've never had this experience but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I have had many kinds of ludicrous mistreatment or misunderstandings in life, but I try to not extrapolate them to all humanity, or even everyone expressing a political view, or even expect that they recur from the same set of characters.
I have tested this several time on HN, face to face and other places. I do this by suggesting that it should be made in to a generic law.
For example, when Muslim clothing is debated in the news someone from the "SJW" political side will eventually state that people should be free to decide what they wear. By forbidding burqa at work or public places, they say we deny that minority to exist. I bring up that I know a nudist who would very much like the freedom to decide what they wear, and who very much is denied to exist as a nudist at work and public places.
By turning what is advocated into a generic law that give everyone the same freedom, suddenly the interest from SJW drops.
This is the default view of 99.9% of people. If you want to battle the 0.1% of people who feel otherwise then fine but trying to say that is the majority position of everyone who doesn't think like you is the problem.
Similarly, using the term "exist" is uselessly hyperbolic. Communicating like this is usually not in good-faith, it's just antagonistic and unproductive.
If this were not the case, I don't think you would have bothered with such a huffy, indignant response.
> the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness
> relating to, devoted to, or characterized by friendly companionship or relations
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Edit. To further clarify, help distinguish "social justice" from "colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
I'd much prefer the "equitable companionship" interpretation.
Kind sir or madam, I and my definition of "social justice" are not your enemy. You are a stranger to me but I trust you are able to interpret the phrase just as well as I, and hope that you can trust me to do the same. So do relax.
Likely you have formed your own opinion about the term a priori that is incompatible with popular understanding, and you wish to make a point which is not relevant to my commentary.
I have given you everything you need to understand the comment. Cheers.
Edit: if you do really want me to expand, I do take it as the conjunction of two words, one implying fairness, and another implying people or society. I also recognize that many will interpret the phrase with emphasis on protected classes, or things that ought to be protected classes that may not legally be so. Fairness is a subjective term so people will disagree. My personal definition does not matter so much since this discussion is, far as I can tell, centered around people who are not me.
AFAIK the term "sjw" was defined by those that oppose it.
Alternatively, maybe „SJW“ is just a pleasantly blank canvas, pliant to change meaning to whatever is currently needed when one is unwilling to argue the actual case? With the added benefit of inverting the usual moral framework, because arguing for what’s considered „good“ now becomes the meat of the charge against the speaker.
The way you paint Google's (nominal) pro-justice stance as inherently negative suggests otherwise.
So, no. One is self-branding. The other is other-branding.
Edit: for context I don't think of the people who got the military work stopped as Social justice warriors. This may be because I tend to avoid the term. I'm still curious about this dropping of the brand thing though.
It's like "ethnic cleansing". It doesn't mean anything unless you interpret it as a metaphor.
"Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity, and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial and/or religious groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape."
I'm curious to see it used here - what about the Google engineers not wanting to do military contracts strikes you as "sjw?" Do you perhaps not use the term as it is typically employed?
And as far as insults go, it’s an incredibly lazy one. Because there is absolutely no defense against it: the mere advocacy of, for example, anti-discrimination or against AI arms trade will expose you to being called an „SJW“. It’s an insult of last resort, because actually engaging for discrimination or selling drones to child soldiers in Western Africa or whatever would make you look like a deranged crank. Therefore, you use precisely the fact that something is generally recognized as good as an argument against the speaker.
Theoretically, I guess there’s a „no-risk“ accusation included as well (see also: virtue signalling). But apparently, organizing a walk-out and risking your career (see: this article) doesn’t actually qualify as „risk“.
It’s long been said that the left/right dichotomy isn’t entirely meaningful, leading to an expansion into a 2D economic/social space. Still, left/right or progressive/conservative, or SJW/fascist tend to lead to just stereotypes that everyone projects their opinion on.