Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I thought SJW meant a combination of 2 and 4? I'd call #1 activists, not SJWs.

SJW means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It's not so much a specific thing as a generic pejorative, these days. It's not spent much time since it was coined being anything else, really.

Though, to that latest post, I don't think I'd agree that the term's overused. It's more that some very vocal and persistent people are trying to paint the term as muddied, for their own purposes (generally to deny it exists, for varying reasons). I don't see it misused very often, particularly in anything widely seen or read. I see it called misused significantly more, heh.

... also I have no idea how you picked up the W in SJW meaning worker, heh. Conflation with social workers, which is something very, very different?

I think I might've misinterpreted you here a bit, sorry. I blame English being my second language I interpreted your meaning as that labeling is still necessary in order to tell right from wrong (and again, please forgive me if I am putting words into your mouth here).
If so, I was referring to labeling of other people, specifically for the purpose of othering, which is most often harmful. Being able to identify unwanted stuff is important and a good thing, dismissing people as "the other" is not.

Not so much othering as identifying people as actually doing bad things, what's generally referred to as being bad people. One of the biggest fights civil rights has had (still has) over the years was (is) getting people to actually call racism, racism and racists, racists -- same with feminism et al and misogyny. Instead of just the way things are, the way god intended, etc., so forth, so on. Not just an opinion but a discrete set of stuff that's being done. It is, to a degree, othering, though.

And while it is often harmful, it also serves a pretty important purpose. It's incredibly hard to recognize and change behavior if you don't see it unusual, if you're not being set apart from your peers when it enact them. It's as much needed as it is to be watched carefully.

[wierd]

Peaceful protests did not work against Putin, or Erdogan, or in Tiananmen Square, they did not save the Jews from Hitler, and they will not work against anyone else who does not care about or is willing to crush them* (unless someone else comes along and applies force, or the peaceful protesters stop being peaceful (Syria)).

* "Conan, what is best in life?"

It did win India its independence.

[Neonivek]

One reason why I try not to use SJW (now that the word is meaningless)...

Is because well... Suffragettes were the SJWs of the time.

[smjjames]

I thought SJW meant a combination of 2 and 4? I'd call #1 activists, not SJWs.

SJW means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It's not so much a specific thing as a generic pejorative, these days. It's not spent much time since it was coined being anything else, really.

Though, to that latest post, I don't think I'd agree that the term's overused. It's more that some very vocal and persistent people are trying to paint the term as muddied, for their own purposes (generally to deny it exists, for varying reasons). I don't see it misused very often, particularly in anything widely seen or read. I see it called misused significantly more, heh.

... also I have no idea how you picked up the W in SJW meaning worker, heh. Conflation with social workers, which is something very, very different?

I have no idea where I got the W meaning worker either. Might have been from someone elses interpretation of it, or permutation even. Probably not surprising since it really doesn't have a single meaning. I've come to associate it mainly with trolls or angry people who refuse to have a meaningful discussion or something. I never use the term myself however.

Peaceful protests did not work against Putin, or Erdogan, or in Tiananmen Square, they did not save the Jews from Hitler, and they will not work against anyone else who does not care about or is willing to crush them* (unless someone else comes along and applies force, or the peaceful protesters stop being peaceful (Syria)).

* "Conan, what is best in life?"

It did win India its independence.

What about in places where there are people who care and/or aren't willing to mercilessly crush them?

[wierd]

Not all.

The temperance movement were, (ignoring real research in favor of a false narrative) but actual suffragettes just said "my brain is not in my crotch, and I can handle voting." Essentially.

That quickly turns into a no true Scotsman, I know, but not all suffragettes were "off the pedestals! Smoke, belch, and wear men's pants! Be as offensive as possible!" Either. If anything, they made it harder for the former. Not easier.

[Frumple]

What about in places where there are people who care and/or aren't willing to mercilessly crush them?

Talking can work, then, often enough. Can be a lot slower without the actual power behind it, but eh.

... also the indian independence movement(s) involved a fair amount of violence. There were non-violent groups and it did a lot, but they weren't alone. _{it also took nearly two centuries bloody hell I didn't remember they were at it so long}

[smjjames]

John Bolton, one of Trumps Secretary of State rumored candidates, says Iran needs regieme change .

When I saw this, my reaction was no, just no, we need to get out of the forced regieme change business. Hell, regieme change is what GOT us the Iran we have now. We made a habit of it during the Cold War and we need to break that.

I know we've been trying to get regeime change in NK, but we've been trying to wait for it to collapse on it's own under sanctions rather than trying to support rebels as we did so often during the Cold War. Similar for Cuba (though there was an attempt or two), but Obama decided to take a different path. Though old age may be what does regieme change for Cuba.

What about in places where there are people who care and/or aren't willing to mercilessly crush them?

Talking can work, then, often enough. Can be a lot slower without the actual power behind it, but eh.

... also the indian independence movement(s) involved a fair amount of violence. There were non-violent groups and it did a lot, but they weren't alone. _{it also took nearly two centuries bloody hell I didn't remember they were at it so long}

And then Ghandi did something different, peaceful protests and disobediance rather than actively fight the British.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Almost the only stable regime changes are the ones that involve the state structure capitulating rather than being destroyed. I think we've seen plenty enough to identify that pattern.

[wierd]

Wealthy plutocrats want governments favorable to their carpetbagging.

In other news, water is wet.

[smjjames]

Even if there is a 'right way' to go about regime change, we still need to get out of the business of doing that.

Not sure of any examples of the regime capitulating with the change being stable and successful. Maybe Tunisia during the Arab Spring?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tunisia, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, East Germany, Poland, Spain, India, etc. Mexico gets half-credit due to the cartels and the dominant party still being dominant, but in a weaker stance.

Even the American Revolution follows this pattern. The established colonial governments were largely suborned by Patriots and thus maintained after the British left.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Doze:

The march toward equality is not a war. It is a movement toward enlightenment, and away from ignorance. It does not need warriors, it needs advocates.

MLK was an advocate.

Malcolm X was a warrior.

MLK brought black people and white people together, in a charismatic, empassioned, and enlightened way that eschewed hate and violence in its totality.

Malcolm X fanned flames of race hatred, and embraced anger and resentment, as reasons to fight and make war.

I want more MLKs.
I want no Malcon Xs.

I totally agree. But people paint advocates as warriors, and so actual good advocates are called "SJWs". People refer to 1s as SJWs in order to make them seem like 2s. Warrior isn't a term I'd use for myself. Mage sounds so much better.

One reason why I try not to use SJW (now that the word is meaningless)...

Is because well... Suffragettes were the SJWs of the time.

Not all.

The temperance movement were, (ignoring real research in favor of a false narrative) but actual suffragettes just said "my brain is not in my crotch, and I can handle voting." Essentially.

That quickly turns into a no true Scotsman, I know, but not all suffragettes were "off the pedestals! Smoke, belch, and wear men's pants! Be as offensive as possible!" Either. If anything, they made it harder for the former. Not easier.

Suffragettes were the SJWs of their time in the 1 sense, not the 2 or 4 sense. At least, that what I read. Goodness, Neo, you're using a very unclear term! Care to specify?

[wierd]

In all cases, the new govt represents the wishes of the governed.

Regime changes enacted to favor outside interests in opposition of the people governed, is tyranny, and universally opposed.

In other news, ice is cold.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are examples of destruction without outsider change, though. I'm discounting influencing rebels because that's universal, but we see this in Syria. The splintering started during the Arab Spring, and the inability of Assad's government to keep supporting people is what lead to the radical increase in investment for FSA, IS, and the Kurds. They were offering something like government, so the people cut off from "Syria's" support started holding them up. Russia's invasion didn't really ramp up until that had already become solidified.

Libya basically suffered the same fate thanks to Gaddafi deciding to die hard up to doing crazy shit like bombing his own capital city.

Most of the postcolonial African conflicts were also in some way started by this. Decolonization was in many cases unable to establish clear continuity for the independent nations, thus giving us things like the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

[wierd]

The stability of a new government is not 1:1 tied with the consent of the governed, no.

It is more like this:

No government established against the wills if those it governs is truly stable.

Being established according to the will of those it governs, does not guarantee success.

Compare:
you need to eat food to get nutrition from it.
Not everything you eat is good for you.