Comics Creators

Diversity in Modern Society


It’s used far more broadly than that but I can see that interpretation. I don’t know Holiday in Cambodia but I know Day Tripper and Common People which I’m assuming is the same principle.

Regardless, there are far more people worthy of derision and scorn.


This is pretty much where I stand… I do play “devil’s advocate” a lot, because I really do think it’s important to be nuanced and to consider as many sides and details as possible… but I guess other people just like their things in black and white…


A few week ago, I attended a leadership symposium and the police chief of Little Rock, Arkansas, who was a black man, said the following:

“Diversity and racism are both choices.”


More can be done to make amends for the bad parts of Western history. I think the abuses pretty much come with the concept of the empire. The Egyptians had slaves, the Babylonians, the Achaemenids, the Chinese, the Arab caliphates, the Ottomans, although the regime in the Americas was probably the harshest. The colonial era also saw genocide on a massive scale.

On the second point I disagree, I think there is oppression all over the world, most of the time by the majority against some minority. In Sudan the Arabs oppress the blacks. In China the Han Chinese oppress the Tibetans and the Uyghurs. In Saudi Arabia the Sunni oppress the Shia. In Myanmar the Rohingya and the Shan are oppressed. Etc etc


I always figured the SJW mockers weren’t mocking the SJ part (I think most people agree with it, just to varying degrees), it was all about the keyboard Warrior who posts online and thinks they’re making a difference when they could have a far bigger impact if they actually did something that involved getting off their ass with a group or in their community.

I make fun of outrage culture because people seem to thrive on making tweets or posting Facebook links about stuff that happens somewhere in the world rather than actually bother to help a local charity for example. Like the Charlie Hebdo thing where people put the French flag as their Facebook photo as if that meant anything. It’s another version of thoughts and prayers. I don’t think retweets make the world a better place.


The people who mock what they see as “social justice warriors” aren’t mocking them because they aren’t doing enough to advance causes of social justice. Look at who it’s coming from or the context of any of it.


I think one of the biggest dangers in the world is deluding ourselves into certainty.


As with most things, depends on the context.

I’m involved with two fairly big pieces of work outwith my basic remit, one on shiftwork and its consequences, one on improving healthcare for LGBT+ people, and both have had a significant use of social media to leverage both amplification and connection. I’ve been genuinely amazed at how useful Twitter has been in helping to get things done.

I agree with you that a retweet by itself can be a fairly empty on an individual’s part, but even an empty retweet can sometimes be built on by others. But yes, it has to be linked somehow with meaningful change in the ‘real’ world.


That’s a fair point; suppression of majorities and the mechanisms of othering aren’t something hardwired into white males, but into all of us; it’s just that most of us here live in a societies in which white means majority.


A lot of the time you just like to smash things, though. For example, you complain about Robert’s post, which went to quite a length to explain his view, and without pointing to what exactly you disagree with, dismissed his whole post and his opinions as “virtue signalling” - a term I have never heard before but which works exactly like SJW: It claims that none of what the other is saying is worth anything at all because he is only doing it to claim a pretend moral superiority, and thus attacks not only the other’s view but also his person, making any further debate impossible. Same logic with White Knight.


There’s no reason to assume that they’re not doing both. Knowing that “liking” a post or retweeting something literally takes a split second, and can be carried out while commuting, waiting in line, or while on the toilet, it’s not a rational cause for indictment.


Well I could’ve gone line by line and repeat “that’s just an assumption” each time… 'cause that’s what his whole post was about… assumptions.

But hey, let me just do it real quick:

“Yes, I think broadly you can measure a lot about a person by who they think deserves scorn—in this case people who are in favor of equal rights, equality, fair treatment, the notion that people shouldn’t be treated differently based on factors they can’t control, and an overall baseline degree of respect for others.”

He’s assuming anyone who uses the term thinks people in favor blah blah deserve scorn… assumption based on absolutely nothing*.

“But even if one agrees with all of that, as you say Christian, using the phrase “SJW” means you’re getting news and information from places that use that term regularly, meaning you’re getting the whole platform with an open mind to it.”

Again, assuming* that’s what’s acutally happening and that there’s only certain places that use that term, whereas it’s pretty much everywhere on the internet these days.

“It reveals something about the seriousness with which you deal with these issues, a lack of caring, of valuing name-calling and point-scoring over empathy. There’s obviously a degree of privilege in there.”

Again, massive assumption about motives based on nothing at all*. Why is there an obvious degree of privilige there? Assumption.

“Perhaps most important (imo), as it is a phrase is virtually never used in real life, it shows that you spend too much time online, and you’re getting a worldview that is seen through the filters of Twitter, of Reddit, and a wide variety of online platforms (some more malicious than others), as opposed to actual reality.”

Do I really need to repeat it?

So basically, he’s saying that a person who uses the term SJW is scornful towards “progressive people and ideas”, misinformed (in this case meaning informed from sources he doesn’t agree with), apparently an un-caring jerk… oh and a no-lifer… did I miss anything? nope, I think I got it…

Or bascially: if you don’t agree with me, you’re a poopoo head… riiiight… so what is there to further discuss or debate again? u_u
(and that’s where the virtual signaling comes in, in case it wasn’t clear)

*I obviously mean nothing but his own opinions/biases/moral standards/etc…so “nothing” objective.


Actually no, it is based on things that have been mentioned in the thread before and since, and also by the implicit logic of the term. You did not ask for the basis of this assumption, but you dismissed it out of hand as “based on nothing”, which is an assumption in and of itself. And one that is quite dismissive to boot.

Here, you are countering one assumption (that can easily be verified; if you do a quick google search of the term and look at the places that are the first hits, it’s pretty much what Robert describes) with another that you also don’t bother to provide any basis for.

Well, it is a deduction made from the term and how it is used. It does make sense insofar as it is a form of point-scoring and name-calling instead of debate, Robert is definitely right about that. Whether you can deduct a degree of privilege from that I am not sure.

I don’t know, do you have a basis for your assumption in countering this? I definitely know that in my offline life, nobody would know the word or understand how it is used. This is not an English-speaking country, though, so this may differ. But I think it’s not a term used commonly on TV or in general discussion of people who aren’t very aware of this discourse?


A clip of comedian Hannibal Burress making a comment about Bill Cosby being a rapist was posted online. Four years later, Cosby is in prison.

Here is the clip that started it all.

You never know what will go viral and capture the public’s attention.


By privilege I just mean what’s being discussed doesn’t really affect them, or is something they don’t need to ever worry about—for example men who use the term “SJW” to describe people advocating for better representation of women in video games, or for transgender bathroom rights, or whatever. Not talking about class or wealth.

I realize “privilege” has become a bit of a weaponized word recently, and people wield it like a sword with the intent to cut. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing or not.


Yeah, at this point, “privilege” is another word I personally try to avoid because it brings so much baggage with it and tends to polarise a debate.

I do think that the example illustrates what you were expressing well, though.



We replace the term ‘privilege’ with the term ‘Rees-Mogging’ - all those in favour?


“One indication of maturity is the ability to deal with ambiguity.” - Arthur Lerner, Ph.D.

(Art was my mentor and friend. He said this often.)


As far as the dangers and perceptions of activism and its pitfalls, this is an interesting video reviewing the history of the Kony2012 story. It brings up that this is around the time that “slacktivism” entered the popular consciousness.

The fact we’re using the Internet as a primary tool for information and involvement often distorts its importance (or unimportance) in actual real-life social situations.

In the Iranian case, meanwhile, the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West. “It is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right,” Golnaz Esfandiari wrote, this past summer, in Foreign Policy. “Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.” The cadre of prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, who championed the role of social media in Iran, Esfandiari continued, misunderstood the situation. “Western journalists who couldn’t reach—or didn’t bother reaching?—people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection,” she wrote. “Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.

It reminds me of an old joke from Emo Phillips in the 80’s: “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.”

The Internet is always telling us how great the Internet is.


The internet is as dumb as the people who use it. And sometimes a lot dumber.