You've spent just as much time on this thread, I think, defending even the definition of "SJWs" as you have pursuing the original intent of discussing whatever problems they may be causing. I think that establishes something.
Not really defending, as far as I remember, no-one claimed the definition was wrong, some people just asked what the definition could be.
The term "Social Justice Warrior" seems to seek to diagnose, or categorise, something that is, in fact, far simpler than a shadowy cabal of tumblr-using liberals out to silence all free speech. There are extremists in every movement and in every conceivable ideology on Earth. On the internet that gets magnified as people lose their inhibitions over a keyboard and can dip their toes into cruder rhetoric or behaviour they usually wouldn't engage in in real-life. This applies to everyone, of every possible political standpoint - you agreed that it was horrible that SJWs almost drove a girl who drew a picture to kill herself. That's hardly a trait unique to SJWs. That happens every single day on the internet, with no single group as the perpetrator.
Did I say it was something only SJWs do? They should still be held as accountable for it as everyone else. As for there being extremists everywhere and internet giving the possibility of being horrible to other people with far fewer repercussions than you would get in real life: yes, this is true and I don't think anyone in this thread claimed otherwise. Not quite sure what it has to do with anything since SJWs have shown themselves to be rather vitriolic off the internet as well (and yes, they are not the only people who are like that off the internet, but again, this discussion is about SJWs, not every horrible person on the planet...).
The problem here is you're singling out ONE group of ridiculous extremists based solely on their political views - hence, "Social Justice Warrior." As somebody else earlier in this thread pointed out, the term SJW was never intended to be used as you now use it, as if, far from being pejorative, it is actually the clinical definition of a political movement. It's not - it was very much intended to be pejorative. That's not to suggest these people who you refer to as SJWs - a friend of mine calls them "Tumblr people" - aren't extreme and ridiculous and that they don't do damage. Of course they do. No different to any other extreme movement on the internet. The problem is that in singling out and acting as if this one section of a far larger internet population, "SJWs," are actually a cohesive unit, it looks to everyone else - both people on this thread, and people elsewhere - that you're specifically targetting liberals. If not, they may ask, why not rage against conservative voices who use the exact same destructive rhetoric and tactics? There are plenty out there.
Well, a few things. First and foremost, I'm singling them out because they are the topic of these courses and this discussion so... I don't see what the problem is.
Second, not all SJWs form a single cohesive unit, but there are groupings of SJWs that clump together, and even then, their ideologies tend to be overall similar enough to be able to be defined as SJW.
Thirdly, I don't think anyone here thinks I am targeting liberals... especially since I myself am far more liberal than I am conservative.
Fourth, I have not raged in this thread once, and have stated multiple times that hate speech is used by others too, again, it has no bearing on the subject specifically pertaining to this group of hate spewing people. If I feel like making a thread about neo-nazis, bible bashers, black supremacists, white supremacists, etc, I will do so. But I came across the subject of these courses, which are labeled as social justice, so I thought I'd bring them up in particular. I have no idea why you think I believe they are the source and root of all evil, or am portraying them as such, based on this discussion.
And whether or not that's the case, it begs a few questions. If it IS the case that you're solely holding liberals to account for this kind of extremist behaviour, then, clearly it's just bias and it undermines your opinion. Everyone uses these sorts of tactics on the internet; extremists, as a whole, are the ones to denigrate. Of course, going off your previous posts I know that's not the case, you're holding SJWs to account solely because of this behaviour and not their beliefs. But, again, since every political movement or ideology uses those same tactics the question then is - why? Why SJWs? You're misusing a term that, going off previous posts, you haven't realised was always intended to be used as a pejorative, not a clinical label. Whatever source you first heard it from and rely on for information regarding SJWs, if I was you I would think critically about it and try to establish if it's really worth your time.
I can ignore this entire paragraph because, as I said before, I've not said a single thing against liberals so...
Though, as for it being usd a pejorative: they've adopted its use -themselves- meaning they now use it to define themselves as. People with this particular ideology or set of ideologies need a name or some definition, however lucid, or any discussion involving them would need to repeat the same paragraph of common, main traits just so everyone knows who in the world you're talking about. I even said in a post that it was originally a pejorative, but was adopted by them.
As for my sources, you're making some pretty big assumptions on where I get what I know and seem to think I get it from one source and one source only like some braindead mouthpiece.
Incidentally I saw you shared a video of Sargon of Akkad's at the onset of this thread. That's...maybe worth thinking about. He's hardly a font of wisdom on any subject worth holding a conversation on.
Do tell me why he's such a moron then? I disagree with his standpoint on a lot of matters, but almost never have I thought to myself that he's worthy of that description.
And that incidentally brings up the bottom line quite nicely: GamerGate, mostly the onset of all this SJW labelling nonsense for most people, is replete with examples of the OTHER side of the aisle (i.e. those who use the term "SJW") using EXACTLY the tactics you denigrate SJWs for. Voices like Sargon's, while not admittedly part of that extreme fringe, nonetheless spun-off from that movement and hold their values as their own. Which is to say, whatever sources you've chosen as your inroads to internet culture, be they solely Sargon or others besides, have led you into specifically targetting ONE group for the misdeeds of the entire internet.
I don't even know where to start here.
First and foremost, for the hundredth time, I have never stated that one group is responsible for the misdeeds of the entire Internet. Nowhere have I said that and nowhere will I ever say that. I've not even claimed they are responsible for the majority and I've never even stated that they may be a very large group of people- vocal at they are. GamerGate indeed has rotten elements as well, and I have and never will claim they do not. I've seen some of the horrible junk they spew over social media and how they harass people. But this thread is about SJWs, not GamerGate, so again, you want a discussion about ALL the ills of the internet, which is beyond the scope of this thread. I continue to be baffled by the fact that you somewhere read in this thread that anyone here believes SJWs are the root of all "misdeeds of the entire internet". Myself and no-one else said so.
One way or the other, that's the problem people are picking at the corners of throughout this thread. If you're simply a conservative who disagrees with the basic values SJWs believe in, that's one thing - but since you've actually made a point of differentiating between their beliefs and their tactics, it may be worth reconsidering how you're going about protesting this. The internet is a huge place, and SJWs are a tiny - if loud - part of it.
And because they are tiny they are not worth looking at on their own?
Regardless, stop assuming things about me and everyone in this thread, if you would. You may have seen others talk about SJWs as if they're the Anti-Christ come to claim us all, but I reiterate for a final time that no-one here has made any such claims. No matter how small they are, they are worth talking about. No matter how hard to define or label they and their ideologies are, they are worth discussing. Finally, the very intent of this post was to ask whether anyone else believed that these courses were influential enough to have a negative impact. By your logic, this discussion is not allowed to be had. Instead, I should be asking whether ALL courses ever made are influential enough to have a negative impact. After all, not a single piece of information exists that hasn't somehow been used to harm someone. By that same logic, no-one can discuss fascists either, since fascists aren't the only people who have done horrible things to others, we can only discuss them if we talk about every other, possible, negative group in current or past existence. I think that would mean these posts are going to get significantly longer...