Dangerous because that new definition is then used to justify something like “you cannot be racist against white people”. — DingoJones

I don't understand how a definition is used to justify anything (other than a statement about the correct use of a word). If 'racism' were to mean prejudice plus power, then it would be entirely correct (in many circumstances) to say “you cannot be racist against white people”. The thing that people are when they're prejudiced against white people would simply be something else. Still not seeing the danger.

Once you establish that new definition, you can go after anyone, “white people” can be swapped out for any designated enemy, which is a classic and very dangerous tool of facists. — DingoJones

But surely you can "go after" anyone with or without a word. If some group said "we are opposed to prejudice with power, and they named that circumstance 'bob'. How would a restriction on a particular word hold them back?

Its also dangerous because it doesnt really make any sense. Its not rational. — DingoJones

Word meanings don't have a rational sense. There's no rational reason why 'dog' means dog and not cat.

... because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection. — Terrapin Station

Would you care to provide ANY evidence that beliefs have NO effect on behavior? Are the mind and body completely separate and independent of each other? Is that what you are saying? Please correct me if I’m wrong. But if that is the message, it is taking things to a whole other level... and going contrary to “conventional wisdom”, which would hold that the mind to a large degree controls or directs the body, autonomic body processes aside.

Another general point about using racism as a reason for firing someone etc, is that the label is very often misapplied by SJW types. What you wear for halloween or rap lyrics you choose to say out loud cannmake you a racist. Here is Canada, a manager was fired for using the word “nigger” in reference to something people should NOT use in a workplace. An SJW was present at the meeting, reported to his SJW social circle and the outrage machine demanded the “racist” be fired, which the company weakly did.

I have a problem with the desire to control in that way and the fact that it can work. Hence why I'll criticize it, why I'm not on board with it, etc. — Terrapin Station

I get it,but I'm still not sure where your lines are, it all sounds a bit psychological. If you say, on a public forum that something is wrong with SJW's, people will inevitably feel slightly less inclined to be one, maybe less inclined to employ one (who wants to employ someone who's 'wrong'?). So your words have indirectly resulted in an SJW having their choices restricted by virtue of your influence on their potential employer. But presumably this is OK for you because you did not 'desire' to have the SJW unable to find work, it was merely an unforseen consequence of your speech.

Contrasting ly, if some SJW's say a lot of opinions at an employer who then fires the employee concerned, I understand you have no desire to restrict their actual ability to say those things, but you've expressed a dislike for them on account of the fact that their words were intended to restrict someone's choices (by getting them fired) whereas your words in the above example only incidentally restricted someone's choices (by influencing a potential employer).

As I say, I get it, but the distinction between intentionally using words to restrict someone's choices and incidentally restricting someone's choice by use of words seems a very subtle one.

Again, I fully understand you wouldn't intend to enforce any of this, I'm exploring your likes/dislikes only.

What you wear for halloween or rap lyrics you choose to say out loud cannmake you a racist. Here is Canada, a manager was fired for using the word “nigger” in reference to something people should NOT use in a workplace. An SJW was present at the meeting, reported to his SJW social circle and the outrage machine demanded the “racist” be fired, which the company weakly did. — DingoJones

But what had any of this got to do with the meaning of racism. If the people in question were fired for wearing inappropriate costumes, or using inappropriate language, without being called racist, but being called some other term instead, how does that make any difference?

Yep. The extremists get the headlines, naturally. There is some psychological effect happening, like when a child starts fires to get attention from parents. We are a world of lost, sad, angry children... armed to the teeth.
— 0 thru 9

Im not sure its fringe, if that's what you mean by extremist. The movement and idealogy inevitably become “extreme”, for example the idea that words are violence — DingoJones

Ok. Sorry if it was vague what I was responding to. This:

Antifa is also a good example. Dressing in masks, enforcng through violence their own ideology.
The humanities have been taken over by the same types of people, training kids to hate under the guise of social justice. — DingoJones

I took this to be an example of extreme beliefs and actions. The “cutting edge” as it were, for better or worse. I would say that words do NOT literally equal violence. However, words can be (or seem or appear) violent or be thought of as inciting violence.

Now its perfectly justifiable to physically harm people who say things you do not like. You are just meeting violence with violence after all. Worse, you are immoral if you DONT. — DingoJones

I am not sure how you mean these statements. It is unclear whether you are agreeing with them, or referring to others that believe in them? Clarification would be welcome.

...im not talking about the word itself, im talking about how the word is used as part of the rationale for behaviour. If you want to be racist against white people without being called a racist then you just redefine racism to not include racism against white people. They can then say “im not being racist, its not about skin color its about prejudice and power and white people have all the power so no racism happening.” But of course racism is precisely about skin color.
Its just like when it was ok to enslve black people but not white people in early US history, it was because they made the term “people”/“person”to not include black people. They were seen as something less than people, and therefore fair game for enslavement.

I am not sure how you mean these statements. It is unclear whether you are agreeing with them, or referring to others that believe in them? Clarification would be welcome. — 0 thru 9

Sorry, yes, i meant that in reference to what other people believe, the way they justify their behaviour.

Sorry, yes, i meant that in reference to what other people believe, the way they justify their behaviour. — DingoJones

Good, thanks for the clarification!

But I notice that for some, especially conservative thinkers, SJW seems to be considered something bad — Anaxagoras

This is analogous to what has occurred with 'political correctness'. For some it is a reaction to the excesses that occur in the name of justice, but the term has become another tool in the rhetorical war of conservatives. The problem is that particulars get lost under the banner. It is possible to condemn particular actions carried out in the name of social justice within condemning the pursuit of social justice.

One question that must be addressed is whether the criticism of social justice is based on opposition to progressivism. The real target for many conservatives is progressivism, the fear of changes to the political and social order.

The question of control appears to be one sided only because one side is pushing for change. But make no mistake about it, all sides are struggling to be in control, whether it is to change or maintain the status quo.

yes, SJW's get a bad rap because they tend to come from an emotional standpoint than of a rational or logical one. I'm fine with SJW if it's defending people that have been treated unfairly. But most of what they are defending is trivial stuff and making a hot fuss over spilled milk. Any decent human being is a SJW. Some people just like to wine about everything.

That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection. — Terrapin Station

Really? Do you have research evidence or is this your opinion, because I have evidence.

Weren’t you aware that the term was created as a negative term? The term was coined to be derogatory NOT complimentary. — I like sushi

No I wasn't. I don't indulge in conservative talk unless it becomes widely brought to the attention of people and I just happen to be listening to it.

For some it is a reaction to the excesses that occur in the name of justice, but the term has become another tool in the rhetorical war of conservatives. — Fooloso4

I see.

One question that must be addressed is whether the criticism of social justice is based on opposition to progressivism. — Fooloso4

To me, I think this is it. I think conservatives use this as a difference of opinion against progressivism.

But make no mistake about it, all sides are struggling to be in control, whether it is to change or maintain the status quo. — Fooloso4

I agree.

Would you care to provide ANY evidence that beliefs have NO effect on behavior? — 0 thru 9

Right. I'm waiting for his answer to that as well and to see if he can provide proof of that.

But most of what they are defending is trivial stuff and making a hot fuss over spilled milk. — Bright7

Depends on what you think is trivial. For conservatives, a gay man should not serve in the military same with transsexuals. If we are to go based on the constitution, it is unfair to withhold someone from pursuing a passion they have. To me that is big and not trivial.

I think the term "SJW" is an ad hominem attack propagated by assholes like Joe Rogan against people that are perhaps more prone to being emotive regarding their beliefs.

I guarantee you, if the views of "SJW's" were delivered in a calmer manner by arrogant men then they'd not get half the flack. It's not much to do with the topics at hand. It's oppressive.

Let’s be clear. The term was cooked up by people with placards declaring themselves “warriors”. People saw the funny side of this; for obvious reasons. It quickly become a derogatory term because it is, and was, assocaited with people virtue signaling.

It is NOT some “conservative” political tilt. It is just sensible folk saying things can go too far. It is NOT a term used to undermine political causes that look to help those in need and/or those who suffer prejudice.

Proof? When you have publicly left leaning figures openly mock the more extreme end of these virtue signaling types (mostly adolescents).

For conservatives, a gay man should not serve in the military same with transsexuals. — Anaxagoras

This is not true. It may be how you chose to view anyone with some conservative values though. Thinking it and saying it doesn’t make it a reality though.

...im not talking about the word itself, im talking about how the word is used as part of the rationale for behaviour. — DingoJones

A word can't provide rationale for behaviour, it's just a word. The thing a word means can provide rationale for behaviour, so if people think that it is very important to combat 'prejudice with power' but not at all important to combat mere prejudice, then that is what they will do. What term they use to describe each behaviour is neither here nor there.

If you don't agree that 'prejudice with power' is a vastly more important issue than prejudice alone, then make your case, don't hide behind etymology.

If you want to be racist against white people without being called a racist then you just redefine racism to not include racism against white people. — DingoJones

Yes, but the actual thing you are being will still be either acceptable or abhorrent to the same people no matter what you call it. I I redefine murder as "gentle persuasion", no one's going to start finding murder OK, they'll just start finding some forms of "gentle persuasion" abhorrent.

Its just like when it was ok to enslve black people but not white people in early US history, it was because they made the term “people”/“person”to not include black people. — DingoJones

Do you have any clue about the history of the slave trade? I can absolutely assure you that the reason people thought it OK to enslave black people was not because they changed the meaning of the word "person". It may well have been because people were encouraged to believe that black people were actually not people, but no dictionary was responsible for slavery.

@Anaxagoras, @I like sushi,

the outrage machine — DingoJones

It's the operation of "the outrage machine" that give some advocates for a better world a bad name (trying to avoid the SJW term for a moment).

Outrage that is turned on and off with the flick of a forkéd tongue is disingenuous at best and goes down hill from there. It is a crude social control mechanism more typical of fascist groups (where disagreement is hammered down, rather than engaged in argument). It is an extremism which brooks no limit (something the right has embraced as much as the left).

People who employ the outrage machine are engaging in adolescent behavior. The knee-jerk resort to outrage is caused by (and aggravates) an inability to tolerate dissonance and ambiguity. It is most comfortable in a black and white world. Gray scale drives the SJW types and right wing nuts crazy.

SJW types will probably grow out of regular use of outrage -- just because of their own outrage fatigue [speed the day!!!]. I hope they will develop more nuanced, ambiguity tolerant, thinking -- but don't hold your breath.

That's not why, especially because there's zero evidence of the behavior/belief connection. — Terrapin Station

Wait a minute. Are you claiming that behaviors in the social realm of politics, culture, and so on are unrelated to belief? When one votes, is lever pulling (old fashioned) or circle filling on a ballot merely a behavioral tick, like foot tapping or idly scratching?

You have beliefs which seem to be related to your expression of free speech absolutism behavior. I assume your statements on absolute free speech aren't just knee-jerk typing.

I'll readily grant that I perform behaviors that are not based on belief in areas that involve little cognition, like the way I brush my teeth or tie my shoes. But when it comes to idea-expression-behavior, I don't see how the behavior can be separated from belief.

Do you have any clue about the history of the slave trade? I can absolutely assure you that the reason people thought it OK to enslave black people was not because they changed the meaning of the word "person". — Isaac

Well of course. People traded in slaves because it was a profitable, low-overhead, and sustainable business. And, important point, it began and was firmly established way before the issue of defining 'person' became an issue in the English Colonies, late 18th Century.

My guess is that classifying black slaves as less than human made it easier to exploit them in a totally dehumanizing way.

I haven't taken a course in Comparative Slavery. I'm guessing that Moslem slave traders who traded both black and white slaves didn't discount their humanity in the same way. (Partly because Moslem slavers already counted heathens as less human than Islamic believers. Same thing, only different,)

Let’s be clear. The term was cooked up by people with placards declaring themselves “warriors”. — I like sushi

This is simply not true. The history of the term shows that it has been used in different ways that range from neutral to positive to pejorative. Wiki cites the Oxford English Dictionary:

Dating back to 1824, the term social justice refers to justice on a societal level.[9] From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, social-justice warrior was used as a neutral or complimentary phrase,[1] as when a 1991 Montreal Gazette article describes union activist Michel Chartrand as a "Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior".

Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said in 2015 that "[a]ll of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person".

According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to overwhelmingly negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter. The same year, an Urban Dictionary entry for the term also appeared. The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate controversy,emerging as the favoured term of Gamergate proponents to describe their ideological opponents. In Internet and video game culture the phrase is broadly associated with the Gamergate controversy and wider culture war fallout, including the 2015 Sad Puppies campaign that affected the Hugo Awards. Usage of the term as a pejorative was popularized on websites such as Reddit,4chan, and YouTube.

Use of the term has been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".

The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism. This usage implies that a person is engaging in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise his or her personal reputation. Allegra Ringo writes for Vice that "n other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."
[citations removed]

My mistake.

Oxford dictionary used the most popular useage of the term. I don’t equate “social justice” with what “social justice warrior” means at all.

It is the people declaring “I’m a Social Justice Warrior” that deserve derision. The term “Gay” for homosexuals originates from women prostitutes. The etymology of phrases and terms is interesting, but once they become popular they mean what they mean.

My guess is that classifying black slaves as less than human made it easier to exploit them in a totally dehumanizing way. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think you're probably right. The point I was making is that, in the case slavery, two categories exist - those we're going to treat with dignity and those we are not. Even if we were to somehow have had the power to prevent the slave owners from restricting the application of the word "person", those two categories would still exist, and those wanting to treat slaves a certain way would still see fit to put black people into the latter of the two. I'm not denying that some names for those categories would be more powerful than others (because of the history of the word's use, for example) but ultimately it would only ever be a short term fix if the underlying social or economic motivation remained.

I mostly agree with what you said after quoting me there, although we might disagree on the prevalence of the ones giving “advocates of a better world” a bad name. Im well aware of the distinction, my sister considers herself an SJW but is an actual social worker who actually helps make the world better rather than the virtue signalling, outrage culture type. She had to go through these same courses that try and indoctrinate you to an ideology and had to deal with professors who wouldnt let her speak based on her skin colour unless she went through the proper subservient motions first. Again, id refer anyone to Evergreen College in the US for an exemple of just how long and well the termites have dined (to paraphrase A man sorely missed in these times) on our academic institutions.
Anyway, sorry to digress there. My point is that I think the SJW movement ,if we can call it that, has been co-opted by the ones giving it a bad name. They have largely succeeded in intimidating (not a word im choosing without care) the rest of the “movement” and indeed academia, media and corporate entities to tolerate if not outright support their toxic ideology. At least, in the US and (moreso) here in Canada where ive focused my attention.
You may be right about the actual numbers, its hard to tell, but I think you might be underestimating the level and scope of the control these people have as well as the control they are after. I dont want to sound to alarmist though, ive noticed a recent, rising trend of people growing weary of their game. I hope it continues.

I dont want to sound to alarmist — DingoJones

...

They have largely succeeded in intimidating (not a word im choosing without care) the rest of the “movement” and indeed academia, media and corporate entities to tolerate if not outright support their toxic ideology. — DingoJones

Are the lizardmen coming to get us too?

Wait a minute. Are you claiming that behaviors in the social realm of politics, culture, and so on are unrelated to belief? — Bitter Crank

Lots of people have lots of beliefs, desires, etc. that they never act on at all.

Really? Do you have research evidence or is this your opinion, because I have evidence. — Anaxagoras

Yes, countless instances of people having beliefs/desires/etc. that they never act on.

If you say, on a public forum that something is wrong with SJW's, people will inevitably feel slightly less inclined to be one, maybe less inclined to employ one (who wants to employ someone who's 'wrong'?). — Isaac

People aren't so easily influenceable, especially given that whatever we're talking about, there are people on every side, and everyone is right or wrong depending on the person speaking. If people were that easily influenceable, they'd either not be able to act or they'd act in every way possible.

Seriously, people say a lot of things here that seem to indicate almost no real world experience whatsoever, and what you say above is one of those things. Go offline sometimes and interact with a variety of people in the "real world."

people were that easily influenceable, they'd either not be able to act or they'd act in every way possible.

Seriously, people say a lot of things here that seem to indicate almost no real world experience whatsoever, and what you say above is one of those things. Go offline sometimes and interact with a variety of people in the "real world." — Terrapin Station

It was a hypothetical to try and understand your position, not a statement about the real world. I will attempt the same thing in abstract to see if that helps.

Someone says x, it influences person y to take action z which restricts the a person's choice. This is something you've said you dislike.

You said you disliked the actions of SJW's, even though those actions were only to speak words, because those words were intended to influence person y to take action z as above. In saying this, I presumed you to be tacitly agreeing with the notion (you now seem confusingly opposed to) that people are influenced by what others say. Otherwise, what was it about the now completely impotent speech of the SJW's of which you earlier disapproved?

I presume (maybe erroneously, in your view) that any speech is intended to have an influence on someone, otherwise what is the point of speaking, if after doing so we leave the world entirely unchanged? It is not unreasonable in a complex world to think that such changes might have the effect of limiting someone's choices. So my query was, if the only difference between the speech you disapprove of in the first case, and the speech you approve of in the second is whether the speaker intended to influence another to restrict the choices of a third party, does that not hang a little too much on the psychology of the speaker? Something which your judgement seems to depend on but which is ultimately unknowable to you?