Social Justice in SF&F

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I see we've made the predictable journey from "lazy" to "haters."

Assuming people are either is a problem in my book.

And I wasn't talking to you -- I was talking to someone who actually did say "[...] it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", [...]"

Oh, sorry, "mindless haters." Wouldn't want to misquote you. You might accuse me of cherry-picking or something.-)

No need to be snide.

And I am willing to be generous -- you are talented enough to twist my arguments without resorting to cherry-picking at all.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Assuming people are either is a problem in my book.

And I wasn't talking to you -- I was talking to someone who actually did say "[...] it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", [...]"

And when you were quoting me, who wrote "it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", I was naming certain individuals or groups who in my opinion were using these labels as such, which is the reason why I find the use of the labels problematic, not that I believe that all people who use them are automatically using them in that way.

In general, I think that when someone uses a label to identify a group, people read into it based on whether the label was created by the group that self-identifies with it, or a group that is opposed to it. I think it's very easy to be written off as a mindless hater, if you use a label that was created by the group opposed to something and you are critical of the group. Obviously, with SJW, you have a problem because there's not really a self-identified group with its own term for itself.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Assuming people are either is a problem in my book.

And I wasn't talking to you -- I was talking to someone who actually did say "[...] it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", [...]"

We still made the predictable journey from (my original) "lazy" to "mindless haters."

[darryl]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

And when you were quoting me, who wrote "it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", I was naming certain individuals or groups who in my opinion were using these labels as such, which is the reason why I find the use of the labels problematic, not that I believe that all people who use them are automatically using them in that way.

In general, I think that when someone uses a label to identify a group, people read into it based on whether the label was created by the group that self-identifies with it, or a group that is opposed to it. I think it's very easy to be written off as a mindless hater, if you use a label that was created by the group opposed to something and you are critical of the group. Obviously, with SJW, you have a problem because there's not really a self-identified group with its own term for itself.

Impresseive exercise in mental gymnastics. It seems that you are flaying about seeking some rationale to justify your conclusion. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but this attempt hasn't got you there. Not even close. In the end you have seized upon a totally irrelevant distinction, being whether the group itself invented the label!

Sorry. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

And when you were quoting me, who wrote "it's just code words for "somebody you ought to hate", I was naming certain individuals or groups who in my opinion were using these labels as such, which is the reason why I find the use of the labels problematic, not that I believe that all people who use them are automatically using them in that way.

In general, I think that when someone uses a label to identify a group, people read into it based on whether the label was created by the group that self-identifies with it, or a group that is opposed to it. I think it's very easy to be written off as a mindless hater, if you use a label that was created by the group opposed to something and you are critical of the group. Obviously, with SJW, you have a problem because there's not really a self-identified group with its own term for itself.

I agree with darryl.

Not really sure why people would read into me for using the label based on who invented the label.
It's basically a sneaky justification for generalizing anyone who uses a label that is "in no way just a neutral term", to quote another poster.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

We still made the predictable journey from (my original) "lazy" to "mindless haters."

"Your original", huh?

Well, if you wish to be so arrogant as to presume everything I say revolves around you, and that any conversation must of necessity be a pale reflection of your words, then I guess the two of us are finished. I won't bother to respond further to you.

Maybe then I can finally say something that isn't a journey from what you said first.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

"Your original", huh?

Well, if you wish to be so arrogant as to presume everything I say revolves around you

This is just insulting. I'm surprised.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by darryl

Impresseive exercise in mental gymnastics. It seems that you are flaying about seeking some rationale to justify your conclusion. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings but this attempt hasn't got you there. Not even close. In the end you have seized upon a totally irrelevant distinction, being whether the group itself invented the label!

Sorry. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

You're saying that when it comes to labels, context doesn't matter. That may be true when the person using the label, and the recipients don't have context (i.e., knowledge about the original of the labels, who self-identifies with the labels, whether it's used primary by one side as a form of derision, and not used at all by the group tagged with the label), but when context is well known between the user and the recipients, all of that context is going to be used. As such, if I see a comment like "SJWs always lie", knowing the context that SJW was a label primarily attached to a group by another group as a form of derision, it's generally not used by the group referred to for self-identification, I'm going to draw the conclusion that the commenter is a hater. If the comment is somewhat neutral or positive, I'd maybe draw a different conclusion, for example based on other comments from that person.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

You're saying that when it comes to labels, context doesn't matter. That may be true when the person using the label, and the recipients don't have context (i.e., knowledge about the original of the labels, who self-identifies with the labels, whether it's used primary by one side as a form of derision, and not used at all by the group tagged with the label), but when context is well known between the user and the recipients, all of that context is going to be used. As such, if I see a comment like "SJWs always lie", knowing the context that SJW was a label primarily attached to a group by another group as a form of derision, it's generally not used by the group referred to for self-identification, I'm going to draw the conclusion that the commenter is a hater. If the comment is somewhat neutral or positive, I'd maybe draw a different conclusion, for example based on other comments from that person.

Okay, further mental gymnastics.


If someone says an unqualified "SJWs always lie", then I would draw the conclusion that they are spewing random hate, based on the fact that they have not demonstrated any actual reason. What does the general use of the term matter?

Alternatively, someone might say "SJWs always lie", and use it as a lead-in to start pontificating about the why's and how's, and I will draw the conclusion that they are not spewing random hate.



Ah, wait a minute. You're still saying it's because of the negative connotations, which I suppose means you believe that a negative reaction toward someone or something is incapable of being anything other than a generalized hate label.
Do you, perhaps, believe that hating on someone or something can never, ever, ever be rational and thought-out? I assume so, since your whole justification for "maybe draw a different conclusion" is on the precondition that "the comment is somewhat neutral or positive".

[darryl]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

You're saying that when it comes to labels, context doesn't matter. That may be true when the person using the label, and the recipients don't have context (i.e., knowledge about the original of the labels, who self-identifies with the labels, whether it's used primary by one side as a form of derision, and not used at all by the group tagged with the label), but when context is well known between the user and the recipients, all of that context is going to be used. As such, if I see a comment like "SJWs always lie", knowing the context that SJW was a label primarily attached to a group by another group as a form of derision, it's generally not used by the group referred to for self-identification, I'm going to draw the conclusion that the commenter is a hater. If the comment is somewhat neutral or positive, I'd maybe draw a different conclusion, for example based on other comments from that person.

No. I am not saying that context doesn't matter. What I did say was that the element of the context that you were referring to is not relevant. I would suggest that it may be more productive to deal with posts on their merits instead of seeking to smear their authors as haters and their views not worthwhile on such a flimsy basis as their use of a label like SJW. eschwartz listed why in his previous post. Firstly, because even if the label does carry negative connotations, it does not follow that the person using it is a hater. And secondly, because even someone who hates may nevertheless have a good, rational basis for the views they express. The only cases where I feel it is justified to totally dismiss someones point of view because they are a hater is when it is very clear that their views stem only from that hate and lack any rational basis. A long bow indeed to draw from the use of a label as innocuous as SJW.

[arjaybe]

Putting aside emotional silliness like "hater," if someone has so little regard for people that they refer to them by category, why should we do them the courtesy of paying attention? Why should we give them what they won't give others?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Putting aside emotional silliness like "hater," if someone has so little regard for people that they refer to them by category, why should we do them the courtesy of paying attention? Why should we give them what they won't give others?

Because your generalized categorization of people who use labels is wrong.
And because "category" is a very vague term, and because utilizing a category does not preclude additionally having a reasoned argument.

This has already been pointed out. Several times.

Which leads to the interesting turnaround question -- why should people do you the courtesy of paying attention, when you won't give that to others?
Using my logic... well, I haven't seen a reasoned argument yet, just vague generalizations about categories.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Using my logic... well, I haven't seen a reasoned argument yet, just vague generalizations about categories.

So you're complaining about the people who are categorizing you because of the way that you are categorizing other people?

How very circular...

Shari

[Rbneader]

TL;DR of this entire thread: Click bait articles work.

Seriously - between this and the Terry Pratchett thread, I'm starting to seriously doubt the maturity of the average MR participant. Why is everyone apparently incapable of going 'Nice try, troll' and moving on?

[dickloraine]

As a little aside, in german there is even a special word for only thinking in categories: "Schubladendenken".