/32/ - Psychopolitics

>>1607

> It's inapt. SJWs don't want social justice,

Technically they do, even if their concept of justice is warped and insane.

I agree that "SJW" is a poor word to describe them, even if it is a valid category (Lately the done think is to claim that the group commonly referred to as "SJWs" doesn't exist, which I have a hard time believing). The anarchist website AttackTheSystem.com introduced me to the label "totalitarian humanism", which I think is both far more apt and less obtuse.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110610201441/http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/3rdtotal.php

>When one looks up the word 'Humanism' in an encyclopedia it states that Humanism is an ideology which focuses on the importance of every single human being. That it is an "ideology which emphasises the value of the individual human being and its ability to develop into a harmonic and culturally aware personality".

>This sounds fair enough, right? Indeed it does, but it is my firm belief that the explanation here does not match the humanism of our time.

>The so-called Humanists I have met have been putting a strong emphasis on humanity as a gigantic community rather than on the individual.

>Often one will even find alleged humanists who insist that the views, aspiritions and basic happiness of indigenous Europeans is of no importance. Instead, these Humanists say, indigenous Europeans should bow down and forget about their own wants and desires for the greater good of humanity. The greater good of Humanity usually seems to be to take no interest in Europe's cultural heritage and integrate into a grey, world-wide, uniform "globalisation" with the Coca-Cola-culture as loadstar.

SJW is also a term that's "safer" for normal liberals to criticize without sounding like a "right-wing nut", which is at least part of why the more left leaning anti-identify politics/feminism communities have latched on to it.

>>1607

1) SJWs do clamor for what they call "social justice". If I recall correctly the term "social justice warrior" was coined by social justice warriors themselves, only later being adopted as a pejorative by 4chan and Reddit.

2) SJWs are ideologically distinct from garden-variety liberals and deserve their own term. Furthermore, "liberal" is already an overloaded term that means many different things to many different people. If you really want to talk to your parents about SJWs and you don't want to define what they are, why not just call them "hippies"?

3) As you said before, it's a term primarily used on the Internet, and it works well in that capacity. That's why it's only three letters long when you write it but five syllables when you say it.

>>1611

I always pegged SJWs as antihumanists, seeing as they violently reject notions of "human nature".

to me, "SJW" is the one of the great defining "internet" ideologies, alongside anarcho-capitalistic/communistic hackers and social network/forum influenced atheism

what's important about it, is that it's been engineered for the modern globalist consumer's societal ideals. the focus on identity/social issues also has its adherents turn an otherwise blind eye to the influence of world/local politics and even go so far as to try to pass of western liberal brand censorship on most, if not all media content.

>>1620

with the effect being, regardless of whether or not they actually support globalism/USG foreign policy, they somehow end up being "useful idiots". what these people advocate, and spend so much time on promoting assists the tide of multi-national globalism. the knee-jerk reactions to "right wing" has reduced them to pavlonian dogs, anyone against open borders/immigration is a bigot, anyone who hates islam is a bigot, anyone who is concerned about the black lower classes is a bigot. Concerns with the mass importation of immigration for low wages is ignored, concerns with classism rather than racism is ignored, concerns with the moral standards of the Quran is ignored (which is almost literally at complete odds with SJW or feminism or liberalism, or etc etc), cognitive dissonance is promoted.

it's an extremely powerful ideology of control, and it tells you TO control, and to abandon anyone who's uninitiated as hopeless

>>1607

The SJW movement was originally (almost a century ago) about feeding the hungry, clothing the needy, giving shelter to the elderly and orphans. All that good stuff.

Then, at some point, the Cultural Marxists got a hold of it and this usurpation is what gradually spawned the various civil rights movements. Feminism being the flagship movement as it's entirely the Cultural Marxists own 'creation'.

>>1607

I think the term has lost its potency by being overused. The first time I heard it it was on Metafilter, by a leftist referring to leftists who are so aggressive with rightthink that they alienate everyone else.

I think the term should be reserved only for the real wackos, but sadly those seem to be increasing.

Soon there is no need for it to roll off the tongue. Internet IS the social life. Boomers die out. Everything that is visual is like a logo.Term SJW has good fundamentals. English is not my mother language but i hope you get it.

>>1620

>Internet ideologies

This idea interests me. I definitely see what you mean, seems like some serious Divide and Conquer to be honest. What would *chans, specifically /pol/ fall into?

>>1612

>SJW is also a term that's "safer" for normal liberals to criticize without sounding like a "right-wing nut"

That's true, I suppose the main reason it's caught on is that liberals saw growing numbers of extremists in their ranks and were in need of a term to differentiate themselves. SJW-ism seems well on its way to being its own distinct ideology.

>>1621

THIS

Furthermore I thing we made a major mistake by not only attaching more damaging and mainstream terms to them but by also not spreading the background of most antigamers involved

Nobody would listen to anita of they knew her scam artist past, nobody would care about zoe of they knew about how she grifted people, or fullmac being a rich neocon kid and so on.

Way lesser stories have wrecked the careers of public figures like these in the past, the difference is that in this case everyone (even us for some reason) are keeping quiet about it.

>>1607

1) Look at you, what a terrible man, criticizing a "warrior" who is fighting for "social justice". What kind of monster are you?

2) What a shame, this makes it difficult to attack their sick ideas in the real world. I guess you could start by explaining how these people fighting for social justice are so terrible. When they hear the term "Social Justice Warrior" you are already dead

3) Almost as if you aren't supposed to be speaking it out loud.

>>1620

Broadly speaking, this guy's on the right track. SJW culture is clearly a product of the internet. One thing I would add is that it's not fundamentally based around consumerism, even if (as with just about every other facet of human interaction) it's been co-opted to some degree by a consumer narrative.

Put simply, social media is inherently incapable of rational discourse [see attached book]. The narrative moves so fast there's no time to put proper arguments together. Hashtags and trending topics flare up and die within hours; it's impossible to read up on a subject and come to your own conclusion; all you can do is regurgitate whatever the screen throws at you. Add to this the fact it's social media. People on sites like Twitter, Tumblr, et al are social beings looking for acceptance, which means going with the flow [see attached video]. Nobody wants to challenge the narrative, because ultimately they don't care about the politics; they care about being "in" with a group.

So to summarize, you have a positive feedback loop moving at breakneck speed with no desire for restraint. Is it any wonder the end product is such a bizarre and twisted ideology?