1st, the phrase is redundant. All justice is social. Justice is nothing mo’ than comparing how 1 person is treated to ‘nother & seeing that they’re equal. E’en if one believes in meritorious justice rather than equalitarian, one believes that greater rewards are balanced by greater liability in the form o’ greater effort. Balance ‘tween people is an inherent part o’ justice; that’s why justice is represented by scales. A scale by itself has no relation to justice ’cause a person cannot injustice oneself, ’cause people have control o’er themselves; it’s only how people treat others wherein justice becomes an issue.
Anyway, the people who criticize “SJWs” always try to present themselves as cool nihilists who care only ’bout humor, only to get just as bitchy when their own petty issues are stomped on. Thus we see rich ditzes whine ’bout how they shouldn’t have to care ’bout boring oppression gainst minorities, but then ne’er shut the fuck up ’bout the pettier suppression o’ their ability to waste every airspace with their insipid bullshit. Their logic is clear: I shouldn’t have to care ’bout anyone else, but everyone else should care ’bout me. Utter inconsistency. If such so-called nihilists don’t care ’bout injustice, then they must be consistent & accept injustice gainst themselves.
Thus we have the stupidity o’ GamerGate, a movement dedicated to making money whining ’bout some random women making money whining ’bout sexism in gaming, all for their noble fight gainst people who soil media ’bout 1st-world playthings by nobly fighting gainst things. It’s the same “centrist” shlock that infects regular political media: they criticize anything they disagree with as “biased,” since they have no actually rational arguments gainst it, ignoring that to define a certain viewpoint as “biased,” & a different (theirs) as “the middle” is to be biased ’bout what is the “middle.”
Economists do the same: they define heathens who dare to have independent thought on the proper distribution o’ wealth from their invisible hand god as “social justice” folk, as opposed to level-headed economists who then bitch & moan ’bout their imaginary model economies being tampered with or the injustice rich people go through by being “stolen” from (that this definition o’ “theft” & “true ownership” is just as arbitrary, & ultimately backed by government law, is ignored, ‘course, since economists replace authentic analysis with ideological regurgitation). ‘Gain, if economists want to be cool, emotionless scientists, then they have to be accepting o’ all “injustice.” People who sneer @ those who whine ’bout the innumerably corrupt & unjust actions o’ the rich & corporations, but then get in a hissy fit when workers form unions, regulate, or redistribute wealth are simply bumbling hypocrites who should be laughed @ themselves.
‘Course, the greatest paradox is that anyone who rails gainst “social justice warriors,” by railing so fiercely, is already a social justice warrior. The only difference is that they’re just shittier versions. So if I have to choose ‘tween supporting social justice warriors, I’d rather support those who fight for social issues that actually matter rather than petty garbage that has to twist words round to hide the fact that it’s petty garbage. It’s just like “political correctness” or “intellectualist”: it’s a way for people with rationally useless philosophical views to attack rationally useful views not by actually deconstructing them logically, but, ironically, by sarcastically calling them rational. “O, so you’re the ‘warriors’ who put effort into making society fair—i.e. logically consistent. Phhh, why don’t you go back to your college for smart people, smarty sweats.” It’s like the passive-aggressive people who call themselves “conservatives” & say, “O, well I guess I’m dumb then,” whenever “liberals”—people who are bad ’cause they disagree with their views, thus creating a self-fulfilling ideology—are mean ‘nough to point out how illogical—i.e. dumb—their views are. & nothing’s mo’ unjust in this world than people with dumb views having their dumb views called dumb.
& if they do support justice, but just don’t think that feminists, or whatever group they hate, supports is justice, then they shouldn’t use the term “social justice warrior.” So either way, they’re stupid. ¿If they truly think their definition for justice is better, why don’t they ‘splain it ‘stead o’ relying on meaningless epithets as useful as “poopy-head”?
& for the record, I’m not a “Social Justice Warrior”: I’m a Social Justice Black Wizard, ’cause I chose Black Mage (way to be reverse-racist in giving the black mages the badass offensive magic, Square) & totally gave Bahamut his rat tail.
