snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 26 August 2016, 12:45 AM
Aimee Evilpixie's Avatar
Aimee Evilpixie Aimee Evilpixie is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 12,810
Hello Kitty

The point of asking for a trigger warning in an academic space is so that students who may be triggered can prepare themselves for it and go into it knowing that the discussion is going to happen.

The point of tagging for triggers in online spaces is so that people, during their leisure time, when they are on the internet for fun, can avoid things that would make their leisure time into a traumatic experience.

They have entirely different purposes.

Also most safe spaces on campuses are student run, so claiming there will be no safe spaces is ridiculous unless they're planning on preventing students from running clubs and social events.

And, for the record, 1/3rd of rape victims develop PTSD as a result of their attack, and approximately 683,000 American women are raped per year. Excuse me for thinking something that affects hundreds of thousands of women should be treated with care and concern and compassion instead of being mocked for being something that "SJW crybabies" find important.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 26 August 2016, 12:46 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,786
Roll eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coughdrops View Post
The reason why I'm so against SJWs misusing the idea [...]
You're still using this lamergate diss, apparently completely unironically. For someone who's supposedly no SJW, you sure do whinge and moan a lot about minor social issues - especially ones that don't even seem to concern you.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 26 August 2016, 01:18 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,589
Mouse

Yeah, I never quite got how SJW was supposed to be an insult and no one has ever successfully explained why. We all just wind up going in circles.

Idiot: I am so sick of SJW bullshit!

Me: Why? What's an SJW?

Idiot: SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior!

Me: Okay, what's wrong with being a Social Justice Warrior?

Idiot: Social Justice Warriors spend a lot of time speaking out and opposing racism and sexism!

Me: But aren't racism and sexism, bad things? So wouldn't it be a good thing to be opposed to them and by extension, be a SJW?

Afterwards, we get plenty of examples of GIFT. Things learned thanks to the Internet: the best way to prove that sexism doesn't exist and totally isn't a problem is via over-the-top displays of sexism. Because threating critics with rape and death threats, simply for disagreeing with you, is totally the hallmark of an intelligent, mature debate.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 26 August 2016, 01:33 AM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

An alum who was student body president for two years at the University of Chicago has a different perspective on this than the administration.




Have a look at this whole thread. It's fascinating.

ETA: Also, the administration itself explicitly promises safe spaces!

Quote:
Following the orientation, participants receive a Safe Space decal to display in their work or living space, and will have the opportunity to be listed on the LGBTQ Student Life website as an ally to the LGBTQ community. By displaying the Safe Space decal, allies are able to identify themselves as welcoming, safe, educated trained, and aware people, and pledge to promote a safe and affirming space for LGBTQ people by offering an atmosphere of respect, fairness, and trust. Allies will also be provided with programs and additional educational opportunities that will further their development as allies.
There are "safe spaces" all over the University of Chicago. On purpose.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 26 August 2016, 01:37 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
Incidentally, my definition of a 'safe space' is either a) an environment that promises no harassment or no tolerance for harassment....
Shouldn't that be ALL schools and workplaces?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 26 August 2016, 01:48 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,138
Default

I used to follow the blog of a professor from the University of Chicago, but stopped because he started freaking out about safe spaces and unironically using the term "illiberal left" on people who wanted to talk about LGBT topics.

Oh, and for someone who whined about free speech so much, he was pretty quick to ban any commentator who disagreed with him.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 26 August 2016, 03:47 AM
Cervus's Avatar
Cervus Cervus is offline
 
Join Date: 21 October 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 21,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
Yeah, I never quite got how SJW was supposed to be an insult and no one has ever successfully explained why. We all just wind up going in circles.

Idiot: I am so sick of SJW bullshit!

Me: Why? What's an SJW?

Idiot: SJW stands for Social Justice Warrior!

Me: Okay, what's wrong with being a Social Justice Warrior?

Idiot: Social Justice Warriors spend a lot of time speaking out and opposing racism and sexism!

Me: But aren't racism and sexism, bad things? So wouldn't it be a good thing to be opposed to them and by extension, be a SJW?
My experience with the term Social Justice Warrior is that it was specifically coined to refer to fringe extremists. Basically, social justice warriors are to human rights what PETA is to animal rights.

Well-meaning people should be considered social justice advocates. But a social justice warrior is militant and obnoxious, someone who takes it upon themselves to get offended on behalf of others, when clearly no offense was intended. A social justice warrior does not seek to educate you about why you might be wrong. Instead, a frequent response is a dismissive "It's not my job to educate you."

Here's an example. Several years ago, before the term SJW was a thing, I frequently clashed online with someone who I would now describe as a social justice warrior. She liked to engage in what I call the Oppression Olympics. One day I posted tips on a forum about saving money by cooking meals at home. I had said I spend one day a month cooking up big pots of beans and then storing them in the freezer so I could easily throw them into dishes or salads. She immediately found my post "problematic" and commented to list every reason why someone in a very specific situation would not be able to cook at home.

SJW: Many families don't have an entire day to spend cooking.
Me: I don't cook the entire day. I put the beans on to boil for an hour or two and stir them occasionally until they're done. Put them in the freezer and that's it.
SJW: Do you know how privileged you are to even have a free hour for cooking once a month? A single parent working three jobs can't do this. And do you know how many people living in poverty don't have access to things you take for granted, like freezers? They can't store this excess food.
Me: Then I guess this doesn't apply to that situation. This tip was for a general audience.
SJW: Of course it doesn't apply. How is someone supposed to feed a family of six on a pot of beans?
Me: Who said anything about feeding a family of six?
SJW: You're also assuming that everyone has access to a stove. A woman who's left a domestic abuse situation and is living in her car doesn't have a stove or microwave or even a hot plate.
Me: Well, yes, cooking dry beans generally requires a stove. If you don't have one, then this isn't going to work for you. Are you going to post anything helpful?
SJW: It's not my job to educate you.

This person claimed to be an advocate for oppressed minority groups, but her attitude was always so rude and confrontational that it was exasperating and did not do anything to help a cause. That's why the term SJW became a pejorative. From what I saw, SJW was never originally intended to describe everyone who speaks out against racism and sexism and poverty. But, like the term "politically correct", it got morphed into a general insult removed from its original meaning.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26 August 2016, 04:10 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,786
Default

That would be a kind of reasonable definition but that's not how it's used. It's not a new word but it's been usurped by certain factions to mean any person who advocates for the things the gamergate people don't approve of, primarily feminism and, well, being considerate human beings rather than trolls.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 26 August 2016, 05:28 AM
damian's Avatar
damian damian is offline
 
Join Date: 14 April 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,504
Default

I've never encountered a SJW. How would one of them normally respond to me saying "Shhhhhh!" when they spouted their rubbish?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 26 August 2016, 05:35 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,138
Default

That depends on whether they're a real SJW or a straw SJW.

Because there are plenty of real SJWs on this forum.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 26 August 2016, 08:28 AM
geminilee's Avatar
geminilee geminilee is offline
 
Join Date: 02 December 2005
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 11,518
Default

How is preventing gprotesting promoting free speech, exactly? That seems like the slippery slope to the "disagreement free" campuses, to me. The speaker is allowed to speak, but free speech also gives people the right to call someone out on offensive speech and to voice their disagreements.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 26 August 2016, 12:51 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
That depends on whether they're a real SJW or a straw SJW.

Because there are plenty of real SJWs on this forum.
Or, alternatively there are plenty of real SJWs and plenty of extreme SJWs such as Cervus described. She's far from the only one who often encounters people who really should compete in the Oppression Olympics. In my case though these people rarely end a discussion with "it's not my job to educate you". Quite the contrary they feel it's their job to educate me and every single person they encounter about whatever cause they've taken upon themselves to champion on that particular day. Even when most of their information is thanks to google and wikipedia and they are educating people far better informed on a given subject than they are.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 26 August 2016, 01:53 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damian View Post
Shouldn't that be ALL schools and workplaces?
Definitely.

But it's not always the case. Some campuses and workplaces have a reputation for being... let's say 'unsupportive' of certain people.

I should have also added online groups. Some 'spaces' online are more prompt at handling abuse than others. This forum could be described as a safe space because I know I could talk about a subject that seriously upsets me without being mocked or antagonised here.

Maybe that definition is just mine - I'm slightly unsure about it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 26 August 2016, 02:19 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,063
Default

Sue, but why are those people called SJWs rather than just pushy? Why does there have to be a separate term (which frankly makes the accuser sound like they don't like social justice) just to describe people who act a certain way about this particular topic?

The problem is that term has become as meaningless as 'hipster', if it even had a real purpose to begin with. Even saying 'extreme SJW' makes it sound like they're all bad but the extreme ones are just extremely bad. After all, if being an SJW is ever a good thing then being extreme in it could make a person extremely good. Even 'radical' doesn't work because radicalism isn't necessarily a bad thing, either.

It's always only 'those people' who are in the wrong and yet the nonsensical non-insult can pop up when somebody says dreaded words like 'privilege' (hisss!) or 'patriarchy' (aargh, my eyes!) or even just complains about other people being bigots.

When 'SJW' is applied to mean 'somebody who uses certain words' or even 'not a raging bigot' so often, it's really hard to accept it as a criticism.

The other problem is that the 'problem' of 'extreme SJWs' is exaggerated to absurdity. Yes, we've all met overzealous wannabe activist types. They exist. That's about as much as you can say about them. They've probably existed for as long as there have been real activist types. The worse they can do is make you want to bash your head against a brick wall. They usually grow out of it and, honestly, if being overzealous and thinking way too much about things is their main offence when they're young then they will probably grow into pretty decent human beings. At least they're trying to direct their anger at a good cause, even if they keep missing. At least they care about things, even if their concern is often misplaced. The world won't become a worse place because people care too much.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 26 August 2016, 02:22 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,690
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by geminilee View Post
How is preventing gprotesting promoting free speech, exactly? That seems like the slippery slope to the "disagreement free" campuses, to me. The speaker is allowed to speak, but free speech also gives people the right to call someone out on offensive speech and to voice their disagreements.
Depends on how the protest manifests itself. Destroying other people's signs or shouting over speakers is behavior that should be banned. You should be able to say what you wish (including countering what others say), listen to or not listen to what you wish, but you shouldn't be able to prevent others from saying what they wish or prevent others from listening to what they wish.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 26 August 2016, 02:26 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
Yes, we've all met overzealous wannabe activist types. They exist. That's about as much as you can say about them. They've probably existed for as long as there have been real activist types. The worse they can do is make you want to bash your head against a brick wall.
IMO the worst they do is to make people leery of listening to those who do speak up with passion and knowledge for good causes. People get very defensive when the topic of SJWs comes up, there's a reason for that. The overzealous wannabe activist types are not as rare as some might like to believe. Nor, IME are they limited only to the young as you seem to suggest. Yes there are other terms that can be used to describe people like this and I'm more than happy to do so. That won't change the growing perception that overzealous wannabe activists = Social Justice Warrior.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 26 August 2016, 02:55 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
IMO the worst they do is to make people leery of listening to those who do speak up with passion and knowledge for good causes.
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think almost the opposite is true. The type of people who were already leery of listening to those who speak for good causes are mostly the type of people condemning so-called SJWs.

I think the overzealous types (which I agree aren't all young, but seem to be mostly young - unless that's just the ones on the Internet) are the scapegoat. They're a convenient target for pointing the finger at why social justice is stupid or wrong.

This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but my evidence is that there was never a point when social justice was taken entirely seriously by the mainstream until 'SJWs' came along and ruined it for everybody. Advocates for social change have always been called whiny, always been called violent, always been called hypocrites, always been told they're going too far... etc.

ETA: also, what kind of person dismisses a group calling for fairness and equality because of a few bad eggs? Who says 'I was with you about the systematic inequality of the justice system but then I overheard somebody make a disparaging remark about things white people do, so now I oppose what you stand for'?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 26 August 2016, 03:09 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Depends on how the protest manifests itself. Destroying other people's signs or shouting over speakers is behavior that should be banned. You should be able to say what you wish (including countering what others say), listen to or not listen to what you wish, but you shouldn't be able to prevent others from saying what they wish or prevent others from listening to what they wish.
I was told that the students who screamed profanities into the face of the Yale professor that they disagreed with were perfectly justified in this behavior and that it was only through actions like that that real change would ever be effected.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 26 August 2016, 03:19 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

You were told by whom?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 26 August 2016, 03:50 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
You were told by whom?
I could give you her name and phone number but I won't. If you are doubting my word I am not appreciating that. At all.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SAT scores continue decline; 57 percent of incoming freshmen not ready for college snopes Social Studies 1 30 September 2013 07:37 AM
Harvard freshmen who admitted cheating on homework did nothing wrong Amigone201 Social Studies 26 22 September 2013 12:10 AM
An Egg You'd Never Expect TB Tabby Fauxtography 9 26 January 2013 11:37 PM
To college freshmen, GPS has always been there snopes Inboxer Rebellion 12 03 September 2008 03:37 PM
Gas boycott? Don't expect much impact snopes Snopes Spotting 0 10 May 2007 06:52 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.