The term Social Justice Warriors (SJWs for short) has become prevalent on the internet in the past few years. People taking to Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook and others use these platforms to vehemently advocate for social justice. Just what this term means in western society, however, is not well-defined; and often includes LGBTQ rights, racial issues, opportunity privilege, feminism and environmentalism. Whilst these issues certainly exist, the way in which SJWs propagate their agenda has made the term pejorative and brought forth a bitter resentment of speaking about these issues for fear of being shut down. This article will explore why SJWs suck so much.
The term “triggered” appears every now and then in a Facebook feed, YouTube comment section, and even in casual conversation. Being “triggered”, in SJW terms, refers to a spoken or acted transgression which causes distress. The problem with using this term is that it is actual medical lingo used to identify critical events in psychopathology. In other words, health professionals identify a trigger as a distressing stimuli that can have severe consequences. A trigger can bring back a traumatic event for a PTSD sufferer, it can cause a recovering drug addict to relapse, and it can push a person with clinical depression to self-harm or even commit suicide. A vegan using the term “triggered” when seeing a Chicken McNuggets advert is really more of a mild inconvenience than a life-altering cataclysm – but that’s not what they would have people believe, and it not only diminishes the impact of the word, but is disrespectful to people who actually suffer. The Mighty posted a great article discussing the misuse of “triggered”, read it here.
Anyone who has paid attention to the controversial debates sparked by Jordan Peterson (the infamous University of Toronto professor who opposes “political correctness”) has come across the term “safe space”. Safe spaces refer to the culture that is seen on modern university campuses, where unpopular opinions are stifled for the sake of preventing offence. Whilst this phenomenon is not quantifiable, and has legitimate reasons to exist, many university students will understand that they exist. In the case of mental health illnesses and the increasing prevalence of anxiety in universities, safe spaces seek to offer a refuge… to those who are offended by ideas that oppose their own. Make no mistake, there are positives to this cause, such as the war against rape culture, a disgraceful truth especially in booze-fulled and male-dominated environments. But how likely are people who went through their formative years in a bubble supposed to deal with real-life conflicting views? Once this type of censorship mentality seeps into the workplace, it seems as though the expectation is to bend society around the easily offended, rather than to teach them the skills to brush-off such minor inconveniences.
The stereotypical image of an SJW is this: a twenty-something, doc-martin wearing flabby white female complete with tattoos, dyed hair and a septum piercing. Sure, this is an oversimplification to the effect of a common portrayal – hence the term “stereotypical” – but it bears an element of truth. Almost every widely-publicized opinion verging on SJW crusade is from a white, middle-class person with a college education. Being offended because of any opinion that deviates from theirs is almost endearing, until it becomes apparent that they don’t know anything about what social injustice actually looks like. Take, for instance, clitoral circumcision in Africa, blatant disregard for human rights in the UAE, and the imprisonment of homosexuals in more countries that ought to be allowed. Suddenly, offence at not being recognized as a “gender-devoid foxtrot demiqueer” seems totally insignificant as a basic human right. Ultimately, SJWs have built a layer of abstraction on the assumption that Western Society has transcended these issues. The truth is that the West has not, and even today being a black person, a young Muslim or pretty much any immigrant in the USA often begets a lesser quality of life. These are real issues that affect large groups of people, not because of how they choose to identify, but because of how they are seen in society by the same class of people fighting for their cause.
Ghostbusters. Ocean’s 8. Lord of the Flies. There will only be more all-women film remakes of classic stories. What’s the problem with women being represented in films? Absolutely none, except when it’s a remake of a classic movie done in the name of progressivism. While SJWs tend to laud such “forward thinking”, it’s a disgrace to both good filmmaking and women. Take Ghostbusters, for instance: Liam Hemsworth’s gender role-reversal of the eye-candy secretary was lapped up like açai berry and kale at a yoga retreat. Simply flipping roles and slapping sub-par actors, however, is neither progressive nor a promotion of social justice. This common argument touted by SJWs is a faulty logic, based on the premise that disliking such arrogant opportunism is in itself sexist. The truth is, there have always been strong female roles in Hollywood, and the best ones are original characters that aren’t confined to pre-existing conceptions of their male counterparts. Ripley from Alien is the perfect example of this – the sole survivor of a murderous space hunting party: she isn’t reduced to a hyper-aggressive male transplanted onto a woman. And yet, SJWs are ruining the narrative integrity of films by forcing irrelevant characters to compete for screen time in the pursuit of studios demonstrating their accepting nature. Just ask the new Lando Calrissian in the upcoming Star Wars film.
For the sake of clarity, let’s define the difference between sex and gender. Sex is the physiological representation of a pair of chromosomes, it is biologically hard-wired and with some extreme exceptions, defines the outwards appearance of an individual. Gender, however, is a constructed set of ideals and values that though socialisation are most often divided between the two sexes. Whilst a case can be made for the latter having effects on social interactions, the Western world is pretty tolerant of a crossover between gender traits. The problem with SJWs is that they don’t understand the difference between basic biology and social construct, and have a flagrant tendency to bind the two. An often used phrase is “they don’t identify with the gender they were assigned at birth”. To be clear, nobody is assigned a sex (or gender). Through a process of genetic cake-baking, an embryo develops either XX or XY chromosomes, and that’s it. Sex is not something that is handed-out willy-nilly like high-school pop quizzes, it is a random occurrence during the formation of a human being.
A child was born in Alberta, Canada to a transgender couple. Lacking basic knowledge of biology, they decided it was a violation of human rights for the child’s birth certificate to have the sex listed. The province issued a health card with “U” (undefined) under the sex section. To be clear, this is a government-issued and legally binding piece of identification. Writing that a child has no defined sex is not only completely erroneous, but is as absurd as a brown-eyed person having “blue” under eye colour. It is objectively false and sets a dangerous precedent for legal systems bending to the will of the few. The child’s mother/father/thing said said “a visual inspection at birth can’t accurately determine what sex or gender that person will have or identify with for the rest of their life”. Whilst this may be true for gender, it is categorically and demonstrably false for sex. In fact, a visual inspection can and does accurately determine the sex of millions of babies born every single day.
In order to force their point of view on others, SJWs sometimes take a ruthless approach. Here is a quote from a Huffington Post article on how to “correctly” use pronouns: “When you hear someone use the wrong pronouns for a mutual friend correct them. Sadly, sometimes the only way to get people to respect non-binary pronouns is if they feel socially shamed into doing so.” The danger of using brute tactics to force conformity is that people don’t tend to change internal thoughts if told to do so. Rather than promoting incentives to adapt to a progression in society, SJWs shield themselves from healthy debate, critical thought or opposing views. Once this has taken effect in the media, university campuses and the workplace, what is left to control? As it turns out, thoughts, behaviours, and actions. And while many would argue for the sanctity of individual identity, SJWs believe in the collective imposition based on the few.