I'm not going to say that these people don't exist, however they're more like the vocal minority & oftentimes the people mocking them are pretty much presenting them as "OMG this is what the left has become!" as if there aren't reasonable people with progressive hopes & ideals. There are plenty of older & well-thought-out people with very "social justice" ideas, & they are mocked by the same people & largely lumped in the same category. The people that mock them (let's say "the skeptic community" post-2013 or so) generally are using them as an example of why "progressive ideas are cancer" & pretty much universally get praise on Youtube, 4chan, & certain parts of Reddit. This is not healthy because at the end of the day, what you're sort of doing is just using a very silly vocal minority of (usually well-meaning, but frustrating) kids to just hand-wave progress & positive movements. & I have indeed seen Trump supporters & "alt-right" types use "SJW" to describe people that displayed care for any sort of marginalized group (kind of like using "literally Hitler" or "shitlord" or such).ABED wrote:This is a very naïve view. It's a bunch of college kids who will grab any rationale they can in order to get power. They scream and cry for teachers to be fired for daring teach views they oppose. They want to get yoga teachers thrown off campus if they aren't Indian. They are bigots of a different variety who will dismiss a person's ideas just because they are straight white males. I'm more than fine with ideas and messages in art, but it has to be integrated into the artwork. One of the worst things a piece of art could do is to stop the story in its tracks to get didactic. Buffy is a great example of integrating its message into the story and characters. That said, not all stories need to serve the same function. Toriyama is more concerned with the action and humor. He should play to his strengths.All SJW really means, in its widest scope, is someone cares deeply & passionately about something that isn't normalized enough yet.
Also, believe it or not, as right-wing (I mean doing absolutely nothing besides criticizing the left) of an (to use their word) echo chamber that Youtube specificly has become, these people are shutting down debate as well. I definitely think Anita Sarkeesian (while her talking points are basicly correct) being an outside & somehow also the sole figure of feminism in games, really did put off gamers. However, responding to that lack of communication by one's own lack of communication is...pretty much creating two separate echo chambers. & that's incredibly dangerous. I can agree with you that messages in art need to be organic (it can come off as "token" & slightly offensive on the other hand), & Buffy is a fantastic example of that; Joss Whedon actually cares about feminist issues, & that shows through & really gets his points across. It's hard to genuinely do that when all parties aren't necessarily on board with that, as they may not find it a financially safe endeavor (& that is the issue with Hollywood films). A lot of producers don't really "get" progressive ideals & films are just recently trying to play catch-up. With American comics, they've been progressive for ages, but Marvel specificly is trying to sort of ride of the movies now, so they've been getting flack for that I guess. Can't argue much as a non-fan though, personally.
Ajay wrote:Ajay
I'm not sure what else I've got to say here that I didn't up above, but while yes there's an issue with a lot of communication from activists to smaller Internet right-wing circles(Sarkeesian's outsider feminist critique being a part of that issue), the fact of the matter is that anti-SJWs are basically way many people spending far too long complaining about people actually trying to make a difference & instead of helping them out & trying to help support them make a difference. People don't simply make fun of "SJWs" in a vaccuum, either. These are generally people who also feel that progressiveness is actually *bad*, & these attitudes affect public policy as well. There's an excellent video by ContraPoints on White Nationalism where he pretty much explains where these reactionary attitudes come from. Contra also does sympathize with the idea that activists need to engage these communities more, but he spends more time actually explaining the issues rather than Sargon of Akkad-ing it & just getting upset & scoffing at the issue without actually putting it into context.Ajay wrote:I think there's a world of difference between what you're describing and what ABED is.VegettoEX wrote:<snip>
"SJW" is a bit of a silly term, really. It shouldn't really be a bad thing to be considered someone who fights for social justice, but unfortunately, there are a group of people - typically young people - who twist, warp, and exaggerate progressive ideologies to the point where they're actually regressive. They're not interested in equality and fairness whatsoever, instead they're interested in tipping the scales in the opposite direction, which doesn't actually solve a thing. There's no, "I want the best person for the job in X position", it's "Everyone should be represented because!!!" There's no, "This offends me, maybe that's okay, or maybe I should have a conversation about this", it's "Shut it down! I don't wanna hear it! Nope!!!" These people aren't fighting for fairness, freedom or rights, they're looking to create a society that cares far more about skin colour and gender than skill, and one that silences dissenting opinions because they don't want to hear it. None of that is taking the world in a better direction, and as such, "SJW" has become a pejorative due to how horrendously widespread this has become. Which is of course a shame as now you're accused of being an "SJW" if ever you want to discuss these subjects in a reasonable manner.
These types of people are doing genuine harm. Their extremity only fuels the other side of the coin, or turns reasonable folk against genuinely progressive ideas.
Also the thing is that supporting & giving up things to others (like, say, the female-only WW screening; & say affirmative action) is only a means to an end - we don't see everyone equally, so pretending that "legal equality" means that everyone's equal is pretty disingenuous. Equity means treating everyone as their[/] situation requires, equality is myopic because of the reasons above. LIberation is the ultimate end goal & hopeful removal of systemic barriers - but we can't just pretend years of conditioning just "vanish", so we validate minorities & feel like they're given a voice before we integrate them. (Basically why feminists love to advocate for headscarves even though the practice is so incredibly patriarchal & creepy from my post-Islamic standpoint)
)