Thoughts on "Social Justice Warrior" Branding

[Nice]

I didn't think my kind were welcome here ^^; Having been branded one by a few people here, I'm contented to lurk around the SOMA thread and not venture from there.

OOOOH! Your kind!? What are you some kind of higher level internet race? Fucking racist! And you're unaware of what's going on around the rest of the forum. Instead you keep your mind occupied with the development of a game whereas the rest of us toil away in the murky depths of the development support subforum. You entitled piece of shit!

You're welcome ^^

Edit: damn so many you're/your typos

i have no idea what either of you said

[VaeVictis]

I didn't think my kind were welcome here ^^; Having been branded one by a few people here, I'm contented to lurk around the SOMA thread and not venture from there.

OOOOH! Your kind!? What are you some kind of higher level internet race? Fucking racist! And you're unaware of what's going on around the rest of the forum. Instead you keep your mind occupied with the development of a game whereas the rest of us toil away in the murky depths of the development support subforum. You entitled piece of shit!

You're welcome ^^

Edit: damn so many you're/your typos

You weren't supposed to say that until after I said something about privilege. :p

[Froge]

Branding is never helpful. It throws a label onto a person, allowing you to perceive them as a member of some outgroup. Any discussion must consider its participants as individuals with unique feelings and experiences.

Labelling, regardless of the brand, is harmful.

[Romulator]

An example: Say there are three people A, B, and C. A makes a joke about cancer. B has lost family to cancer and is offended by this joke and tells A this. A thinks that his joke was just a joke and that there was nothing wrong with it at all. C comes in and tries to explain to A in a reasonable fashion why cancer jokes can be offensive for certain people. A still firmly believes that he was not wrong in making the joke and calls C a "social justice warrior".

I'll openly argue that I am Person C. For one thing, I can't see myself getting angry about another person's mistakes, misunderstandings or just plain stupidity. I have this moral feeling on the inside which simply says that I am not Person A, so I don't need to agree with his/her actions, but rather justify what is good and/or bad about what they have said.

I like to also think that it provides me with a bit more of a 'logical' and more mature method of approaching topics which arise like this, even if I throw in a joke or two. I believe I can get my point across by appealing to a sense of maturity and stating what I know while only attacking someone directly for the most dire of attacks.

I guess also that I cannot really be a Person B unless someone purposefully jokes about Suicide. I'm glad I haven't had to deal with much else other than that topic for the past eighteen years, but I've always been one to stand up when a Person A comes along.

Feel free to change my "Posting Freak" to "Social Justice Warrior", because if someone does brand me as one, then at least I believe I am doing the right thing. I'm always open to solve conflict while creating as little conflict as possible between me and Person A. I don't like seeing a small clash of opinion turn ugly, so I'll do my bit, say a few words or paragraphs and try to work towards a resolution in as little time as possible.

Sorry if I more or less missed the whole point of the topic - the actual labelling of SJW's are sort of a new thing to me.

[i3670]

I think it should be mentioned that cancer is not a social justice topic because SJ is about "wealth, opportunities and privileges in a society". Cancer is not a part of those three areas. So if anything A is ignorantantly labelling C.

Now, was it wrong by A to tell a joke about cancer, not knowing its relationship to B? No. Was it inappropriate? Maybe, but since s/he did not know about B's position, s/he should receive a pass.

What bothers me the most is that C comes across as very self-righteous and tells A why s/he is wrong even though s/he's not.

[Kreekakon]

I think it should be mentioned that cancer is not a social justice topic because SJ is about "wealth, opportunities and privileges in a society". Cancer is not a part of those three areas. So if anything A is ignorantantly labelling C.

Now, was it wrong by A to tell a joke about cancer, not knowing its relationship to B? No. Was it inappropriate? Maybe, but since s/he did not know about B's position, s/he should receive a pass.

What bothers me the most is that C comes across as very self-righteous and tells A why s/he is wrong even though s/he's not.

I think that A was definitely not in the wrong as deserves a pass at the start when he told the joke unknowingly.

But where I think that he goes wrong is when he refuses to apologize and admit what he said may have been inappropriate. He may not have been ill-intentioned to begin with, but he did make a mistake which was unknowingly to him inappropriate.