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

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

Hmmm... even if one were sympathetic to a statement like that, it is a bit too large to chew all at once. Care to perhaps elaborate or break it down (thus preventing mental indigestion)?

Hmmm... even if one were sympathetic to a statement like that, it is a bit too large to chew all at once. Care to perhaps elaborate or break it down (thus preventing mental indigestion)? — 0 thru 9

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

Aren't they perceived in a negative light because the general population of the SJWs lack rationality and logical structure in their arguments?

Social justice has been hijacked by facist idealogues, from something well intentioned to something dark and authoritarian.
Evergreen College is a prime example if you look into what happened there with Brett Weinstein.
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.
When people say they are anti-social justice, its that stuff that they mean rather than a dislike of equal rights or combating sexual harassment and the like.

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

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

Ok, thank for the reply and example, though it still a bit generalized. In your example, one could imagine the words/photo being anywhere between very mildly “politically incorrect” to virulent and violent. Though i get the gist...

But anyway, one wearies of all types of “warriors” eventually. When does protective defense become an obnoxious offense? How far is too far? It is impossible to even discuss with the verbal bombs exploding Left and Right.

@DingoJones
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.

Also, SJWs have a tendency to interpret ridiculous things as racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. in my opinion.

A lot of that hinges on what I consider to be seriously errant views of what meaning is/how it works. My views on this are controversial--we've had plenty of discussions about meaning here, but nevertheless, they're my views.

one could imagine the words/photo being anywhere between very mildly “politically incorrect” to virulent and violent. — 0 thru 9

In my view it's not possible for speech to be violent.

I'm a free speech absolutist, by the way, and I don't see freedom of speech as solely a legal issue. I see it as a social issue, with the legal aspect being a subset of it.

I'm a free speech absolutist, by the way, and I don't see freedom of speech as solely a legal issue. I see it as a social issue, with the legal aspect being a subset of it. — Terrapin Station

I know I'm at risk of opening a huge can of worms here, so please treat this as an inquiry, not a retort, but...

You said that SJW's were wrong to "pressur[e] employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.". I don't know the facts of the case, but wouldn't they be applying this pressure by speech acts? And wouldn't that therefore make it absolutely fine, from the perspective of a free speech absolutist?

Antifa is also a good example. Dressing in masks, enforcng through violence their own ideology. — DingoJones

It's problematic to include antifa under the general label of SJW. Antifa is older and it's ideology is distinct from "social justice".

I wonder, what is wrong with advocating for minority and women's rights, fighting against equality, racism, sexism and the like? Why is being a social justice warrior bad? — Anaxagoras

The term " warrior " denotes more than just advocacy. And there are lots of reasons for disagreement from lots of sides. Conservatives are opposed in principle, as is the alt-right. The criticisms from moderates is anywhere from dogmatism to focusing on the wrong issues.

I think it goes way beyond the firing of people in the manner you describe, or a university setting.
For example l, According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous.
Often people will object on the basis that its just “fringe” SJW’s, to which I respond with reference to the BBC’s “Big Questions” show...specifically the episode titled “Is it possible to be racist against white people?”. That that is even a serious question should be alarming for everyone.

You said that SJW's were wrong to "pressur[e] employers so that folks wind up canned because of something they said, photographs they posted, etc.". I don't know the facts of the case, but wouldn't they be applying this pressure by speech acts? And wouldn't that therefore make it absolutely fine, from the perspective of a free speech absolutist? — Isaac

"What's wrong with it" = "What I don't like about it"

I have no interest in, and I'd be against, anyone wanting any SJW to be in legal trouble, to be canned from a job, to be "deplatformed," etc. for advocating that someone be arrested, lose their job, etc. because of something they say.

That doesn't mean that I have to like what they're saying, what they're advocating, or that I have to refrain from speaking out against it, or refrain from trying to persuade people not to do it. Just like they don't have to like what someone like Roseanne Barr was saying, they don't have to refrain from speaking out against it, they don't have to refrain from trying to influence, etc.

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

Well if I am a CEO of a hospital and my fellow employee is outted as a racist, I wouldn't want that person working at my hospital especially since I service the public at large.

According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous. — DingoJones

Yeah, I think that stuff is just as stupid as the stuff that they're railing against.

Aren't they perceived in a negative light because the general population of the SJWs lack rationality and logical structure in their arguments? — Sara

No.

Well if I am a CEO of a hospital and my fellow employee is outted as a racist, I wouldn't want that person working at my hospital especially since I service the public at large. — Anaxagoras

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

The CEO wouldn't care less if it wouldn't affect business. And if it would positively affect business, they'd push all of their employees to say racist things.

The social pressure is the cause of the employee getting canned. And that's effectively wanting to control what people can choose to do, what they can choose to say.

A lot of that hinges on what I consider to be seriously errant views of what meaning is/how it works — Terrapin Station

hmmm

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

No. Because a person that hates someone for their skin pigmentation is a liability and cannot be trusted to give equal treatment to others in a hospital setting. Also, they are more likely to act out their hatred. So yes from a business standpoint racists, sexists, and the like are financial liabilities but liabilities nonetheless.

According to a significant portion of SJW’s it is not possible to be racist against white people because they are taught that racism is “prejudice plus power”. This is pretty dangerous, as well as being doubly erroneous and ridiculous. — DingoJones

In what way do you think it is "dangerous". Racism is just a word, surely it can take any definition. If someone coined a new word to describe situations which involved prejudice and power, would that new word be dangerous? And how would that even work?

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. 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.

Because a person that hates someone for their skin pigmentation is a liability and cannot be trusted to give equal treatment to others in a hospital setting. Also, they are more likely to act out their hatred. — Anaxagoras

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

"What's wrong with it" = "What I don't like about it" — Terrapin Station

Yeah, I presumed as much from reading your posts elsewhere. What I was confused about is the reasoning (if any) behind that dislike. Obviously simply using words in the hope of encouraging someone to behave differently is exactly what you're doing here in publicly denouncing SJW's, so telling others what you think of them simpliciter is obviously something you find acceptable.

So is it a political thing, the reason why you don't like the things the SJW's are saying? Or is it because you don't like the possible consequences of what they're saying (that someone might lose their job). I think it's the latter, from your last response, but I just wanted to clarify.

It's problematic to include antifa under the general label of SJW. Antifa is older and it's ideology is distinct from "social justice". — Echarmion

I disagree, i think the current Antifa has the SJW idealogy at its base, and recruits from its bountiful fields.

But I notice that for some, especially conservative thinkers, SJW seems to be considered something bad, almost like a curse word. — Anaxagoras

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

So s it a political thing, the reason why you don't like the things the SJW's are saying? — Isaac

As I said, because they want to control what people can choose to do.

I have no interest in controlling what they can choose to do. They're welcome to say whatever they want to say, and I'm not going to try to CONTROL whether they can whatever. I'm not going to try to make it that their freedom is taken away, or their ability to make a living is taken away, etc., just because they said whatever they said.

Simply speaking against something isn't controlling what people can choose to do. Getting people arrested, fired, making it so they can't obtain a place to live--anything like that, effectively controls what people can choose to do.

If a company were going to fire an employee because they've advocated firing someone for being a racist, say, I'd have a problem with that. For example, if Yale were going to expel students for advocating that Christakis be fired, or if people were advocating Yale to expel those students because of that, I'd have just as much problem with it as I have with the students advocating that Christakis be fired.

As I said, I may need to look at the facts of the case in question, but to save me the time, could I just make it into a hypothetical.

If the SJW's in this case were lobbying the employer, yelling at him, telling him they're going to kill him, aren't all those things just words? Isn't the person who is actually responsible for limiting the employee's choice the employer who caved in and fired him, the subsequent employers who refuse to hire him. Assuming words are just words and have no power unless acted on, the SJW's in my hypothetical scenario wouldn't have done anything wrong, in your view? It's the employer who limited someone's choices.

In what way do you think it is "dangerous". Racism is just a word, surely it can take any definition. If someone coined a new word to describe situations which involved prejudice and power, would that new word be dangerous? And how would that even work? — Isaac

Dangerous because that new definition is then used to justify something like “you cannot be racist against white people”. 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.
Its also dangerous because it doesnt really make any sense. Its not rational.

Isn't the person who is actually responsible for limiting the employee's choice the employer who caved in and fired him, the subsequent employers who refuse to hire him. — Isaac

Yes, definitely. Again, I don't want to in any way prohibit the speech advocating that the person be fired. I don't want those people to be controlled so that they can't choose to say those things. But 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. Anaxagoras asked us what we thought was wrong with SJWism. This is what I think is wrong with it.

It's an important point that disagreeing with something, having a problem with it, doesn't have to amount to wanting to control the ability of the person to say the thing in question. That's a point that the SJWs need to learn.

I could just as well say what I think is wrong with racism, but I wouldn't wind up saying that I want to make it illegal to say racist things, or that I want people fired because they're racists, or not able to rent an apartment because they're racists, etc. That doesn't mean that I like racism, that I'm on board with it, etc. I can disagree with it and have a problem with it without wanting to control that person's ability to choose to say those things.

This carries over, by the way, to a discussion in another thread about legal prosecution. There are things that I think aren't cool to do that I nevertheless don't want to be legally prosecutable. Sometimes it seems like it's common to think the false dichotomy of "Either we want to effectively prohibit something (either legally or via social pressure) or we're endorsing it." It's important to have a society in which people are allowed to do things that you're either neutral on or that you don't like but don't want to control a la effectively prohibiting them, because there's no way to have a large society where people only do things that you like/that you approve of.

The control you speak of uses free speech as its disguise. They arent interested in expressing a view, they are interested in what they can force other people to do. They call it free speech, but its actually not. I imagine you will disagree, but I would call it an abuse of free speech, like punching someone in the face is an abuse of your freedom to swing your fist in the air.