What's the opposite of a SJW?
- Thread starter VondeVon
- Start date
I don't know that the word you're looking for is opposite. It doesn't necessarily mean "in opposition to." Opposite is the reverse of something, which in this case would be someone who IS racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted. It sounds like you're looking for what would be the opposite of an advocate, which the thesaurus tells me is adversary, but I dunno, that sounds bit strong to me.
For something as specific as this, I don't think there can be a good general term for it. Just refer to them as "SJW demonizers" and I think most people will get the meaning.
For something as specific as this, I don't think there can be a good general term for it. Just refer to them as "SJW demonizers" and I think most people will get the meaning.
"Reactionaries"? If you mean someone that is opposed to what is usually called social progress. Mind you, they are the sort that actually call people SJWs, few have adopted the label.VondeVon said:
Also, if someone is actively demonising people trying to fight it (solely because they are trying to fight it) it's hard to see how they aren't actively promoting oppression.
I wouldn't think of it that way. In your eyes that may be what it looks like, but to them they're likely only trying to stave off naive idealism and unnecessary change. I know it's a cliche, but change scares people. If you have it good now and someone else comes along saying shit needs to change, what does that mean for you? What if you don't have it as good after shit changes? Who are these dickheads to say you should make sacrifices for people you don't even know? It's not that people aren't sympathetic or empathetic, either, but ask yourself how much you'd be willing to do for someone you'll NEVER meet. Even the basest effort is a challenge for most people in that scenario.thaluikhain said:
Oh, that's certainly true, something more or less everyone struggles with.Kolby Jack said:
However, that's not to say they still aren't actively promoting oppression by trying to keep things the way they are, or to go back to some real or imagined previous state.
Okay, I should say this up-front: I don't want to insult the people I think you're referring to, but I find a lot of their opinions to be kind of far out, or out in left field. That...may not be the right term. So with that in mind, uhhhhh..."SJW hunters"? I don't know, I personally think they're a little paranoid or, in some extreme cases, not dissimilar to conspiracy theorists. As for what they might call themselves, I've no idea, but judging from what they say I think some of them might go with the term "anti-progressives" (though that would only apply to the ones who frequently find themselves at odds with people they refer to as being "progressives").
It's difficult, because I don't think there's a sufficient, agreed-on definition of "SJW". I don't really think the pejorative's going to make it far enough to merit one, and any definition put to paper is bound to be widely argued over.
It's difficult, because I don't think there's a sufficient, agreed-on definition of "SJW". I don't really think the pejorative's going to make it far enough to merit one, and any definition put to paper is bound to be widely argued over.
I've heard "Status Quo Warrior" bandied about in various places, but it relies on the classical definition of "SJW" instead of the more modern definition.
The definition of SJW I normally use is people who use progressive/social justice issues to bully, harrass and intimidate people. Like those people who were harassing that Steven Universe fan artist into a suicide attempt a few weeks ago.
Well it all depends on your definition of SJW.
Also in opposition and opposite are very different contextually.
With those caveat's out of the way, how it generally is used is to reference far left extremism, it is important to consider the fact that there is simply no direct or specific term for those who oppose it, similar to how there is no direct term for those who oppose the extremists on the right.
Also in opposition and opposite are very different contextually.
With those caveat's out of the way, how it generally is used is to reference far left extremism, it is important to consider the fact that there is simply no direct or specific term for those who oppose it, similar to how there is no direct term for those who oppose the extremists on the right.
If I need a way to refer to a group of reactionairies in a way that expresses contempt I find that 'person who uses the word 'SJW' unironically' does the job. The word 'reactionairy' also works. Typically referring to people that way doesn't do anybody any good though. I don't think we need more empty insulting buzzwords to add to 'SJW'.
SJW is already a poorly defined term, I would hate to add more dumb terms to the fire. Mostly I just consider them a different flavor of easily offended warrior of a slightly different stripe. Oh sure, they'll come up with all sorts of special reasoning for why their offended reactions are justified, but when I look at them, all I see are the same thin skinned reactionaries, just with a slightly different target than the people they whine about.
There's different language involved, one side avoiding using the language of the other, the anti-SJW side usually doing a boatload of linguistic gymnastics to avoid words like problematic and offended, even though a lot of people on the outside can easily see that offended is exactly what they are.
It's just people trying to bully others who disagree with them and paint them in hyperbolic language as an enemy that must be fought, one side wrapping itself in the flag of morality and tolerance, the other under the banner of free speech, neither side really caring about those issues, just using them as a justification for calling out people that offend them in some way.
By that of course, I mean people blinded by ideology that just can't stop, calling out shitty people on one side or the other doesn't make you automatically their polar opposite. there are many people on this site on both sides of the argument that I would consider to be outside the center, but not falling into either the, "SJW" category, or their reactionary opposites. I don't want to come off like I'm advocating total apathy, there are real points to discuss, both about social issues, and freedom of expression, just that some people need to lay off the kool-aid.
There's different language involved, one side avoiding using the language of the other, the anti-SJW side usually doing a boatload of linguistic gymnastics to avoid words like problematic and offended, even though a lot of people on the outside can easily see that offended is exactly what they are.
It's just people trying to bully others who disagree with them and paint them in hyperbolic language as an enemy that must be fought, one side wrapping itself in the flag of morality and tolerance, the other under the banner of free speech, neither side really caring about those issues, just using them as a justification for calling out people that offend them in some way.
By that of course, I mean people blinded by ideology that just can't stop, calling out shitty people on one side or the other doesn't make you automatically their polar opposite. there are many people on this site on both sides of the argument that I would consider to be outside the center, but not falling into either the, "SJW" category, or their reactionary opposites. I don't want to come off like I'm advocating total apathy, there are real points to discuss, both about social issues, and freedom of expression, just that some people need to lay off the kool-aid.