It is NOT some “conservative” political tilt — I like sushi

Considering I typically read about it on online comments here in my state and city newspaper as well as online forums from "conservative thinkers." So I take it those who hold conservative views who use this term aren't motivated by politics themselves?

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. — I like sushi

Um........

President Donald Trump’s administration is working on yet another anti-LGBTQ policy, the New York Times reported over the weekend.


"According to Erica Green, Katie Benner, and Robert Pear at the Times, Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering an interpretation of Title IX, the federal civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in federally funded schools, that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with.” (This would defy the scientific and medical evidence embraced by major organizations like the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association.)

HHS is the primary agency working on the draft proposal, but other agencies, including the departments of Education, Justice, and Labor, are expected to adopt it as well should the administration move forward with the change. It’s not clear when that will be, although the Times reported that HHS “is preparing to formally present the new definition to the Justice Department before the end of the year.”

The proposal would effectively erase protections for trans people, who identify with a gender different from the one assigned to them at birth, from federal civil rights laws — ensuring that the laws do not prohibit discrimination against trans people in any setting, including the workplace, housing, schools, and health care........

For much of the past couple of years, the administration has been mired in court battles over its attempts to ban transgender people from the military after the Obama administration lifted the original ban. And different parts of the Trump administration have already taken steps to prevent federal civil rights protections from applying to trans and gay people."

Source:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/22/18007978/trump-administration-lgbtq-transgender-discrimination-civil-rights

Thanks for this explanation you actually explained it very good BC. I agree with you.

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. — I like sushi

According to Wikipedia, "gay" in the context of which you are speaking...



Cartoon from Punch magazine in 1857 illustrating the use of "gay" as a colloquial euphemism for being a prostitute.[8] One woman says to the other (who looks glum), "How long have you been gay?" The poster on the wall is for La Traviata, an opera about a courtesan.

So, it was a euphemism for "whore"; just like "courtesan" is a nicer term than prostitute, whore, kept woman, and so on. Gay guys had nothing to do with it.

The straight arrow Box Tops called them "Sweet Cream Ladies".

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. — Terrapin Station

I have my doubts about people not acting on their beliefs. My theory is that a person can have an idea that they don't act on, but that beliefs are related to action in a reciprocal relationship. Executing a belief contributes to the strength of beliefs that require execution. In other words, if one believes in mercy, one has to demonstrate it. Is it possible to really believe in mercy on the one hand and enthusiastically work as a guard at Auschwitz? I don't think so. If the guard arrived at Auschwitz believing in mercy, he won't believe it for long. A belief in the existential threat to Germany posed by Jews will trump his belief in Mercy as long as he works there. After the war he will probably revert to a belief in mercy and forget about Jewish threats to Germany (well, partly because they mostly don't exist any more).

I've never believed in tithing to the church, because actually giving 10% of my income was always too painful. 3 or 4%, OK, but 10% -- OUCH!!! I've been on church boards, and as such thought tithing was a great idea. Great for the budget. I never did it, however. It was a good idea, not a belief. In order to believe in tithing, I would have to actually tithe. Behavior and belief go together, and belief is not necessarily the prima mobile.

The attempt to get Nicholas Christakis canned as a professor at Yale is a good example, too. — Terrapin Station

That demonstrates the difficulty with the term SJW. I think most people would agree that the treatment of the Christakises was terrible, and if the term SJW were only applied to people that conducted the sort of personal vendetta that we saw against the Christakises then it might be a useful term.

The trouble is that the term is used in a pejorative way by people on the hard right to describe anybody that campaigns for social justice. They are deliberately equivocating the term in order to bundle constructive, compassionate, reasonable progressives together with extremists that shout down or even physically attack anybody that disagrees with their view.

Given that confusion, it's best not to use the term about others. If one wants to criticise de-platformers or violent antifas then criticise them by name, rather than calling them SJWs.

I don't agree that encouraging employers to fire somebody is necessarily bad though. The cases where I have seen this done is where the person in question has publicly made violent threats against women or racial minorities, or encouraged such violence, on a platform where they identified themselves as working for that employer. I think it entirely appropriate that an employer would sack somebody in that case. They are bringing the employer into disrepute. If the threats had been made privately, or in a context when there was no reasonably prominent connection to the employer, that would be different. It would still be revolting behaviour, but not sackable.

In general to anyone saying the term SJW is a term used as a weapon by the hard right to smear any kind of progressive or anyone invested in social justice:

What is your explanation for when non-hard right people make the same criticisms of SJW’s?
What do you say about lefties or hard lefties that agree there is a problem with the SJW “movement”?

When progressives use the term pejoratively, they are thinking of extremists that favour violence or seek to de-platform even relatively moderate buffoons like Jordan Peterson. When hard right figures use the term, they are generally referring to anybody that campaigns for social justice.

That is why the term is best abandoned. It means different things to different people.

Well, many terms mean different things to different people, I dont think we should abandon them.
What about people who are lefties and use the term and they do not mean extremists? The lefties who think it is not just a fringe of the SJW “movement”?

You think that is sensible response?

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

This is not true. Some people espousing homophobic tendencies is hardly representive of all conservatives. Quite a number of liberals use the term in a derogatory fashion too (note: talking “liberals” and “conservatives” as political inclinations not simply within the microcosm of the US).

I’ll just assume you meant “some” and not exclusively conservative.

So, it was a euphemism for "whore"; just like "courtesan" is a nicer term than prostitute, whore, kept woman, and so on. Gay guys had nothing to do with it. — BitterCrank

Female prostitutes were called “gay women,” and then when male prostitute came onto the scene they were called “gay men”. The term stuck for the males for some reason and became part of our language - it is also worth noting homosexual activity was not particularly shunned by society years ago and that some of a group of men on a night out would end up in bed with another young man.

I find it distasteful is people go around annoucing they are a “social justice warrior”. I wouldn’t have had a problem if the term had been used to refer to someone else, but to me it is self-aggrandizing drivel if someone says “I’m a social justice warrior”.

In my unbiased and extremely modest opinion! ;)

What about people who are lefties and use the term and they do not mean extremists? — DingoJones

What about them?

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory).

What about when they use the term “SJW” as a pejorative? If its only used that way by the hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists, how do you explain its use as a pajoritive by people who are not hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists?

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. — Isaac

That's not what I'm saying though. I'm talking about things that effectively control someone, because if they choose to do something, there's a good chance that they'll be arrested/imprisoned, or not able to make a living (at least in their preferred career, situation etc. that they've been able to make a living in), or not able to provide shelter, etc.

Basically, it's control of as significant as legal prohibitions, but not necessarily achieved by something being illegal. Non-legal social pressures can be applied so that someone's life can be affected just as significantly, just as badly, if not worse, than being imprisoned. The mere fact that were not talking about legal prohibitions and legal system actions doesn't make that morally okay.

This is not true. Some people espousing homophobic tendencies is hardly representive of all conservatives. — I like sushi

I have yet to see that and so with that, all I have is your word and that is not good enough for me considering this administration politically says otherwise.

I’ll just assume you meant “some” and not exclusively conservative. — I like sushi

Or perhaps I meant most if not all.

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory). — Terrapin Station

Aren’t those examples of knowledge though? They are only “beliefs” specifically when that knowledge is being acted upon.
If you disagree with that, then is there any useful distinction at all between knowledge and belief in your view or is it just that knowledge can only ever be a kind of belief?

Aren’t those examples of knowledge though? — DingoJones

The standard definition of knowledge in (at least analytic) philosophy is "justified true belief." I agree with that definition. So I'd not say that there's any distinction between knowledge and belief in terms of belief. It's just that knowledge has the additional attributes of being justified and true.

Tons of beliefs simply have nothing to do with any way many people would act, other than the person reporting that they have the belief if you should ask them. For example, a belief about who was the second U.S. president, a belief about how far away the moon is from the Earth, a belief about what a plagal cadence is (re music theory). — Terrapin Station

OK, you are using the term "belief" somewhat differently than I am using it. Your examples of president, distance to the moon, or plagal cadence are what I would classify as information that I know I would have to look up to state precisely. This knowledge doesn't entail any action. What would prompt me to look up who the second president was is the BELIEF that I should display such information accurately. As it happens, I did have to look it up because I couldn't remember (John Adams). The moon is around 250,000 miles away -- close enough for philosophy. Were this an astronomy forum, I'd am pretty sure I'd believe I had to be more precise -- 238,855 miles away on average. I believe that NASA would be a lot pickier about distance than I am, but it doesn't affect what I do for a living. I haven't the faintest idea what a plagal cadence is. Something to do with the plague?

I believe I should pay my utility bills on time. This belief entails an action. I believe I should bathe regularly, so I do. We quickly get into the territory of habitual behavior (I put my keys in my right front pocket, my comb in my back right pocket, my wallet in my back left pocket...) which are not related to belief at all.

I believe that certain behaviors are meet, right, and salutary and others are just plain wrong. These beliefs have something to do with behavior--we can agree that they aren't as controlling as habits or reflexes. As I said earlier, belief and behavior are related. If one acts contrary to one's beliefs often enough, the belief will be degraded, and it will be less related to behavior than it was. The belief may even disappear.

I believe I should pay my utility bills on time. This belief entails an action. I believe I should bathe regularly, so I do. We quickly get into the territory of habitual behavior (I put my keys in my right front pocket, my comb in my back right pocket, my wallet in my back left pocket...) which are not related to belief at all. — Bitter Crank

Even for normatives, many people believe they should clean their house, declutter, etc., but they do not. Many people believe they should lose weight and eat better, but they do not. Many people believe that they should make a lifestyle change--a different job or career, a different area to live, a different family situation, etc.--but they do not.

I'm of course not saying that no one acts on beliefs. But at least as often people do not.

I expected more sense than that.

That seems to be exactly what we're both talking about. Someone {the SJW} says X {"sack the racist!"} , it influences person y {the employer} to take action z {sack the 'racist'} which restricts the person's choice. I'm not seeing how this is different from the quotes below.

What's wrong with it is that SJWs typically want to control what other people can choose to do. — Terrapin Station

For example, pressuring employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc. — Terrapin Station

Which is solely due to the social pressure that people would put on the hospital, which is what I have a problem with. — Terrapin Station

So presuming that is what you're talking about, I'm enquiring as to where and on what justification you draw your line.

Someone {a racist} says X {"black people are all thieves"} , it influences person y {the employer} to take action z {not employ black people} which restricts the person's choice. - presumably this is something you also disapprove of?

But then...

Someone {an unsensitive person} says X {"black people are (insert insensitive joke here) "} , it influences person y {several employers} to take action z {take their black employees less seriously when it comes to promotion, because they are seen by his entire sub-culture as the butt of jokes} which restricts the person's choice. Seems like exactly the sort of behaviour SJW's campaign against which you'd prefer they left alone.

I'm basically confused between your hard-line position on free speech (which seems predicated on the fact that speech acts alone do not cause harm) and your opposition to the SJW's in these cases who (despite their nefarious objectives) were, afterall, only performing speech acts, and were therefore harmless.

Surely if we want a world of free speech on the basis of speech alone being harmless, then the blame in these situations lies 100% with the employers who allowed themselves to be affected, and the SJW's (who merely verbally expressed their preference that the employee in question be sacked) are totally blameless?

The etymology of phrases and terms is interesting, but once they become popular they mean what they mean. — I like sushi

The point is that what it means varies depending on who is using it and to what end. For some it is a term of derision, but as such it fails to distinguish between a legitimate concern for social justice and misguided efforts to promote social justice. That failure is in some cases deliberate, an attempt to shift focus from the problem of social justice, to dismiss the problem in toto, as if there things are fine as they are and that those who attempt to make changes in the name of justice are only causing harm.

You may distinguish between social justice and a social justice warrior but others will call anyone who is concerned with or raises issues of social justice a social justice warrior.

Some do, some don’t. Doesn’t change anything much.

If someone comes to me calling themselves an “eco-warrior” or some such gibberish I won’t pay much attention to them. That term was also used as a term of derision. It is youth taking up some quest, just part of growing up.

If someone is called a SJW in a viscious manner then why complain? Just take it as a compliment if it means something good to you. I most certainly wouldn’t make a habit of using it as a self-given title though - that’s just plain arrogance.

I'm basically confused between your hard-line position on free speech (which seems predicated on the fact that speech acts alone do not cause harm) and your opposition to the SJW's in these cases who (despite their nefarious objectives) were, afterall, only performing speech acts, and were therefore harmless. — Isaac

First, I just want to make sure that you understand that I'm not saying that the speech acts of SJWs are harmful in any way. I feel like that's not clear, and I hate having to repeat the same thing over and over.

Some do, some don’t. Doesn’t change anything much. — I like sushi

How they use it changes what they mean when they use it.

First, I just want to make sure that you understand that I'm not saying that the speech acts of SJWs are harmful in any way. I feel like that's not clear, and I hate having to repeat the same thing over and over. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, I had tried to make that clear to start with. You don't want to prevent them from speaking and you don't think their speech is harmful. But you do think it's 'wrong'. I'm trying to understand why, basically.

I expected more sense than that. — I like sushi

Um, ok

What I could never understand which I've brought up earlier, is that how is speaking out against someone who makes a racist comment on social media and who works at a public facility that services the public wronged if they lose their job (or get in serious trouble)? Taking the New Zealand shooter as an example he clearly made inflammatory comments on social media (I believe in a discussion forum), and his actions later on came into fruition. How are the words of someone who holds racist views not considered inflammatory comparable to the New Zealand shooter?

Sure there is no guarantee that one will contribute to the other but if we're talking about likelihood to commit a crime and one who is exhibiting poor impulse control, it would seem likely someone is more prone to commit a violent act. That being such the case how is reprimanding such a person wrong?

The "control" you object to is to prevent the unjust from violating the just rights of others.