The term “social justice warrior” only recently existed in the 20th century to describe individuals who “promote socially progressive views” that includes a variety of issues such as feminism, multiculturalism, etc.
Well, okay. It sounds rather progressive indeed. What else does it include?
Individuals who identify themselves with this title are also involved in issues covering political correctness and identity politics. With these “progressive” ideals, does this even surprise you? Just a tiny bit?
Well, it really should not. Most of the left’s got this erogenous fetish for slapping various labels on themselves, for two reasons: they want some sort of validation with their own beliefs that oh-so-coincidentally matches with, for example, SJW criteria, as well as have something seemingly applaudable to approach someone with. Because the very first thing you want to say to someone you meet is that you’re a social justice warrior, and watch for their reaction. Or the same person can put it on their dating profile and watch the babes roll in. (Spoiler alert: they won’t.)
As the term “Republican in Name Only”, also known as RINO, is self-explanatory, so is the term “social justice warrior”. Both have the idea that they’re accomplishing some sort of outstanding feat, when in reality, they haven’t done anything too great. In fact, they haven’t done anything at all. They only tend to focus on hand-picked “issues” that suits their needs.
“But Kelly, a social justice warrior doesn’t call themselves that for nothing!”
They can call themselves that all they like. Hell, they might as well tattoo it somewhere on their body for all I care. Just as in-the-phase feminists usually tattoo the symbol for Venus on places where everyone can clearly see, someone who identifies as a SJW can also do the same. But actions speak louder than words. Picking particular issues to focus on, and insisting on your “mission” doesn’t make you a so-called “justice” warrior.
It only makes you a manipulative, dangerous person.
Let’s not ignore the fact that numerous double standards as well as general problems of the SJW logic have been pointed out by those who simply aren’t buying into this nonsense. Because social justice covers many issues, I’ll be listing a few of the problems/double standards regarding some of these categories, if you don’t mind.
First up, in feminism: specifically looking at “body positivity” often pushed by the movement: “body confidence advocate” Jennifer Lawrence mocked Christian Bale during the filming of “American Hustle”, in a scene where they were kissing each other. To be more exact:
“He’s Fatman, not Batman!” she commented, speaking of his chubby size.
Ouch! So, by my understanding, a man has to keep up to the body standards set by these women, but if it were the other way around, it’d be outrageously sexist and misogynistic? Keep in mind that this comment comes from the same woman who claims that it should be illegal to call someone fat on TV. Pointing out this hypocrisy only launches you upwards on their leftist “hit list”. It’s nothing new. Next!
Then there are the identity politics, and how terribly “racist” white people apparently are. To make matters significantly worse, according to SJW logic, a white person cannot experience racism. Except for the precious and delicate Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King, white people who identify as a black. Who’da thunk that?
Apparently, everyone but white people are perpetual victims of oppression, whether it be systematic, internalized, or institutionalized – in their minds, at least. Such erroneous and baseless claims only continue to divide and sever us when it comes to race relations. These people spend much time claiming that reverse racism does not exist, and they’d probably be right:
Because reverse racism is, quite simply, just racism. It bares its fangs against everyone. Yes, everyone including white people.
But not all people buy into this victim complex pushed by this “progressive” ideology. Here’s just one of many examples- just coming from a user on Reddit. The fact is, a black person who defies progressive regression are often shunned and viciously attacked- even by their own. They become targets. If they support a political figure other than the ones only allowed in SJW criteria, the cut only deepens for them. Just look at Quaterrius Manuel. He’s a young Trump supporter. He has much hatred against him. He has even been called derogatory slurs. But, he keeps a big smile on his face, despite everything that he has gone through.
What exactly does that tell you?
And I can vouch to this personally, as I have debated with supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement with the help of other black people who do not want any association with the movement. They don’t want what this movement is trying to feed them. They are thinking for themselves. That is a very good thing. But that is also very frowned upon by the left, evidently.
Now, the last topic is something we really need to have a talk about. The most important issue regarding the SJW movement seems to be “political correctness”. It is the sugar-coated term to describe the promotion of “inoffensive” forms of expression, which is really just used to stroke and massage the diaphanous, sensitive skins some people have. But besides living in this annoyingly and incessantly whiny, cry-baby generation that’s already offended by everything and everyone before they even wake up in the morning, political correctness is the toxic and problematic barrier that keeps these babies from reaching this reality:
You can’t craft and shape the meaning of the word “offensive” to fit snug into your own mold. Not everything you dislike ends with the often-used “-phobic” or “-ist”. Being offended on the behalf of the minorities and sexes you claim to care so much about does not advance them in any way, shape or form. You just present them as weak people who constantly need a spokesperson, and you are ignoring their voices for your own benefit. Most likely, they are doing just fine and would rather you leave them be. And lastly, claiming that the First Amendment “doesn’t mean people should use free speech to be offensive or rude”- also known as an “asshole”- is an outdated argument that makes it look like you have tried every so-so “argument” in the book. The freedom to be offensive is explicitly defended, whether you like it not. You’ll never like it anyway, but I thought you should know.
Whether it be in text, voice, or even art- we all have the inalienable right to express ourselves as we please. The social justice mobs really despise this, though. They hate it very much. Often, representation deemed “offensive” is suppressed by those who can’t handle anything worse than a picture of a paper cut. Or maybe someone on the operating table. Remember what happened to Mike Diana?
I leave these people with a few words: please know that half of the time, the people you have called “offensive and rude”- the “assholes”- aren’t even so: perhaps they’re just fed up with your incoherent nonsense, and just want you to cry some more.
Which might not be such a bad thing, really.
You can find Kelly on Twitter, @kb_marie. You can also email her at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any question, comments, etc.