Many people believe they should lose weight and eat better, but they do not. — Terrapin Station

You cite a good example of belief and behavior. People have to actually eat differently to have effective beliefs about diet and/or weight loss. Actually eating a lower calorie meal strengthens belief.

Believing one should quit smoking without so much as smoking 1 less cigarette a day is not an effective belief. It's idle. IF they stop smoking for a day, the whole project will have more reality.

Safer sex programs rest on the idea that guys will actually put the condom on and discover that pleasure still happens. Efficacious belief can not happen in the absence of behavior.

You might object that bringing behavior up is either more hocus pocus or it is only relevant to after-the-fact behavior change, which could always be the case, of course.

Williams James pointed out the relationship between behavior and beliefs, emotions, and so forth. ACTING reinforces or undermines belief, depending on whether it is consonant. If we wish to overcome a fearful belief ("There are monsters in the dark cellar") we have to actually go into the dark cellar with a light and discover that there are no monsters there. Turn the light off while we are in the cellar to learn that monsters do not suddenly pounce on us when the light is off. Eventually go into the dark cellar without a light.

By so behaving, we can strengthen our belief in a monster-free cellar. By avoiding the cellar at all costs, we confirm our belief that ghastly creatures are lurking down there.

It is possible to believe in free speech and at the same time believe that speech has consequences. If we want to have zero limits on speech, it seems to me we have to accept that a certain amount of collateral damage may occur as a result of all that free speech.

I think that is exactly right, collateral damage is a consequence of free speech. The degree and nature of that damage should be measured against the damage NOT having free speech results in. Free speech for the win, imo.

But you do think it's 'wrong'. I'm trying to understand why, basically. — Isaac

I have a problem with people wanting to control others to that extent, where they're in favor of them losing their jobs, etc.

Free speech should have speech consequences, in my opinion.

how do you explain [the]... use [of SJW] as a pajoritive by people who are not hard right or progressives who are talking about extremists? — DingoJones

In my experience it is not used pejoratively outside those two contexts. If you think otherwise, supply some examples and we can discuss them.

Free speech should have speech consequences, in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

Really?

Yes . . . not sure why that's surprising?

In terms of the people of the centre making the same criticism, they are banding together with the hard right to avoid criticism and rejection of hard right beliefs.

The "SJWs" are calling people to have specific respect and value for various minority groups, such that we recognise their mistreatment doesn't just invove thinking they should be subject to genocide. Any belief that the minority is somehow lesser or doesn't belong is a problem. These positions are found not just in the extreme genocidal wings of politcal movements, but in the mainstream right, center right, centre and even certain left politcs.

Worse these sentiments (e.g. "immigrants don't belong" ) are a festering ground for the genocidal extremes. (e.g. why must group die? "Well, they don't belong here. This is our country.)"

"SJWs" criticise the "non-extremist" parties because mistreatment extends beyond just wanting a group to be slaughtered. And the veiwpoint these other mistreatments are okay, that it is fine to devalue those groups, are bricks which build a bridge to genocide.

In my experience it is not used pejoratively outside those two contexts. If you think otherwise, supply some examples and we can discuss them. — andrewk

Well, Im not hard right or a progressive talking about extremism and Im saying it.

Well, Im not hard right or a progressive talking about extremism and Im saying it. — DingoJones

There's no discussion possible from a cryptic statement like that.

You need to identify an individual about whom you are saying it, the activities of that individual that cause you to say it, whether you mean it as pejorative, praise or something else, and your reason for saying it with that intent.

Strawmanned me right out of the gate, perhaps you didnt mean to. I didnt ask about people in the “centre”, here is what I said:

“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”?”

A good portion of your response was a description of the most charitable view of SJW activism. Uneccassary, I understand that already. As Ive said, i do not think SJW activism resembles what you describe (what its supposed to be) but rather has been co-opted by authoritarians under the guise of something benign like you describe.
Anyway, I would still be interested in your answer to my actual question.

I do not understand why that is cryptic to you.
I am not hard right, nor a progressive talking about extremists. You said those were the only people using it as a pejorative. I asked for an explanation for the people that are not of those two types who are saying it. You asked for an example, I offered myself. I am not of those two types, but I am using it as a pejorative because I think the SJW “movement” is toxic. Obviously, I recognise that not everyone calling themself an SJW is a toxic person or part of the problem, just in case your tempted to hurl “not all!” my way.

My answer was directed directly at the question.

The most prominent accusation of "authoritarianism" ("You are not letting people think what they want" ) is the exact point of "SJW" argument regarding discrimination against various groups.

Since our thoughts about people, our understanding and expectations of them, define what actions are appropriate towards them, there are in fact many thoughts we ought not have about people. We have ethical reason to think certain things about people and speak about them in certain ways.

There was no strawman."SJW"s pull up non-extremists because they ignore this ethical responsibility for how we think about others. The non-extremists refuse to acknowledge there are thoughts about other we ought not have.

You are asking me to explain to you why you use a term a certain way.

Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

No, that is not what I am asking.
You said there are only two types of people who use “SJW” as a pejorative, the fact that I am not of those two types and I use it as a pejorative directly refutes your claim. Please explain that.

Ok whatever you say. I don't get you with these one lined sentences. If you don't like the answer so be it but I cannot do more beyond something like what you're saying.

You said there are only two types of people who use “SJW” as a pejorative — DingoJones

If we trace this exchange back to near its root, say here, we see that:

1. I said the main pejorative use of SJW is by hard right figures
2. You said 'what about when progressives use it' and I responded that when they use it, they are referring to extremists.

More generally, anybody might use the term pejoratively when referring to extremists.

People misuse words all the time, so it would not surprise me if you are misusing a word. I don't know whether you are hard right or not, it would be unwise for me to decide based solely on your protestations, since people on the hard right generally reject the label.

if you use SJW pejoratively against moderate progressives then I expect you are either hard right - despite your denials, or applying it to people who you think are extreme but are not, or you are misusing the term. Since you have given us no example of this alleged use, we cannot pick between those possibilities.

You would do better to pick an example of a non-hard-right public figure, whose political stance is well-known, using 'SJW' pejoratively about non-extremists. That would at least provide the basis for some sort of discussion.

Why would I speak for someone else, when I can speak for myself? Im not interested in debating about who is and who isnt hard right when I have a perfectly good example of someone I KNOW isnt hard right. Me. I am not hard right, or any kind of right. I am not conservative, or republican or alt-right. Progressive may or may not describe me depending on how you use the term but when I use the term “SJW” I am not refering to extremists, I intend it to describe the movements primary actors, not a fringe. (Although, there are fringe and extreme actors as well). So I am not one of these two people you say use the word.
Ok, so I see an answer in your response there I think. Your explanation for the example I gave (me) is that im actually hard right but do not realise it or I do not know what “SJW” means? Is that right?

You may know what it means but still be misusing it. Until you give an example of your using it, with the details I requested above, it's all guesswork.

Well, I understand its a terribly unsatisfying response but I have already described my use of the term and my thoughts on the SJW “movement”. I believe all your requested details are at least implicitly found therein.
Ok, so one explanation is that im essentially delusional about where I stand on the political spectrum. Not much I can do to defend myself on that charge since if that were true everything I would say to that end can be dismissed as delusion or product of that delusion. Agree to disagree, I do not think I am mistaken about being hard right or a progressive refering to extremists.
So with your second explanation, that I do not know what the term means...do you think Im using the term to describe an extreme? You said “or the people to whom you apply the term are not extreme”. I do not think “SJW” describes an extreme. I think it describes the primary actors of the SJW “movement” and my criticisms are directed there. I feel like Ive made that clear, but maybe you havent read my other posts in this thread? Have you been following along or did you just pick up on that one post I made and started there?

I think it describes the primary actors of the SJW “movement” and my criticisms are directed there — DingoJones

That doesn't identify anybody. Name some names and explain why you refer to them as SJW. Until you do that all your posts are just nebulae.

Im talking about people who refer to themselves as SJW’s in general. I'm talking about the SJW “movement”. You are beginning to tire me out here, have you read what ive said on this thread prior to our exchange?

What are the "extreme" positions of those in the "SJW" movement you are referring to?

We can then relate these to the "moderates" andrewk is talking about and yourself, to tell who means what, where that sits in the political context and how it relates to usage of "SJW."

Perspective:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLbQy6kCP4s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sMbntisLmZI

What are the "extreme" positions of those in the "SJW" movement you are referring to? — TheWillowOfDarkness

Somethings not getting accross here, I feel like ive been saying Im not talking about SJW extremists. I feel like ive been pretty clear on that point.
Do you mean by “extreme”, the parts of the SJW movement that I disagree with?
I think the SJW ideology is dangerous and misguided. The saying “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” was never so salient, but in addition there is a real insidious part to it, which is being taught in academia.
Again, Ive made my points on my criticisms already.
What I was wondering is why, if criticising SJW types is a tool or game of the hard right, people who are not hard right do it? This would seem to indicate that it is not just a tool or game of the hard right. Dare I suggest that it might even be the case that there is such a thing as fair criticism of SJW types? Indeed I do.

Im talking about people who refer to themselves as SJW’s in general. — DingoJones

That might be the problem then., because I think that category of people is almost empty. As I understand it, the OP is about people that use SJW as a term of derision, not about people who voluntarily apply it to themselves.

As I understand the history of the term, it was used mostly by people self-identifying as SJWs up to about 2011, but then it swung completely around and now is used mostly as a sneer by hard right people, against progressives who would not describe themselves as SJWs, or as a criticism by anybody of somebody that is seen as too trenchant.

This reversal has been so marked that these days if somebody describes themselves as a SJW, they are being facetious, in the same way as they might describe themselves as a 'bleeding-heart lefty'.

I know lots of lefties but I don't know anybody that non-facetiously describes themself as a SJW, so I think the question of what to think of somebody that self-identifies as a SJW is a non-issue.

I understand andrewk to be saying "moderate progressives" are making some sensible arguments about society, people and their relationships.

He is then saying that "SJW" has become a term of ridicule amongst the hard right for these "moderate progressives" and their sensible policy, a way denigrating them as being ridiculous and extreme.

The question being, are you using "SJW" in the fashion the hard right does? Are you saying these "moderate progressives" have this dangerous "SJW ideology?"

*Edit*

I already understanding you are not talking about just extremists. My earlier posts were partly directed at this, that you had in mind anyone who would make certain points regrading our how we ought to think about others.

That's why lots of people will criticise you like the hard right; you share their rejection that certain beliefs about minorities ought to be abandoned.

Ah, ok. I think you are right, talking past each other a bit there.
Also, I disagree the catagory is empty.

The question being, are you using "SJW" in the fashion the hard right does? Are you saying these "moderate progressives" have this dangerous "SJW ideology?" — TheWillowOfDarkness

Here we go. I do not think those two things are the same. The hard right does use the term as you say, I agree. I am not using it that way, but indeed I do think there are folks who would self identify as moderate progressives that have a dangerous SJW idealogy. This is what I was getting at. I can level that criticism without the ulterior motives of the hard right.