Bleg: Characteristics of SJWs

All,

thanks for the feedback on the Intro rough draft. After some thought, I’ve decided that the best way to organize the material is by discussing the characteristics of SJWs, and how those are derived from “Marxism.” For instance, I’m using the SJW’s characteristic belief in the “social construction” of “truth” as a way to talk about Dialectical Materialism.

To that end, I’d like y’all to help me come up with the definitive list of SJW characteristics. I mean the universal ones. For instance, 99% of SJWs are butt ugly, but “ugliness” isn’t universal the way “belief in the social construction of ‘truth'” is universal, because almost all Hollywood types are SJWs and lots of them are quite attractive.

Thanks!

Loading Likes...

22 thoughts on “Bleg: Characteristics of SJWs

  1. AvatarMBlanc46

    One way to understand them is with Paul Ricoeur’s idea of the “hermeneutics of suspicion”, which Ricoeur used to analyze Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. Nothing is at it seems. Everything is a con. Race is a con run by wicked whites on noble People of Color. Class is a con run by evil capitalists on the oppressed workers. Sex is a con run by nasty, brutal men on pure, innocent woman. Of course, they never turn their analysis on themselves and the con they’re running.

  2. SeverianSeverian Post author

    “Complete lack of self-reflection” is definitely one. As I mentioned somewhere below, the fact that Erich Fromm, a professional psychotherapist, couldn’t see that he was projecting when he wrote Escape from Freedom should be enough to discredit the entire field of psychotherapy permanently…

    …but alas, it wasn’t, because they’re all Marxists and, well, you know.

  3. AvatarDeaconBlues

    Following MBlanc46’s lead, I noticed recently that SJWs never take anything at face value. Everything must be “interpreted” through a “lense”, say of intersectionality to show racism, sexism, flavourofthemonth-ism.

    Also, they simply cannot imagine that their warped view of human relations did not apply for all time. Example, on a recent podcast about Canadian history, host states indian braves were refused when trying to enlist for World War I. Clear Racism! Then, goes onto read a letter from the indian chiefs saying basically “we’re sovereign nations, so before accepting our men for service, you’ll need our permission”. Right there was a possible explanation for refusing their enlistment. Instead, the host is completely baffled by the letter, in light of the “clear racism” that must have been the cause for refusing enlistment.

    1. SeverianSeverian Post author

      Ahistoricism – that’s a good one.

      The really funny thing is, one of the first things you’re warned against in grad school is “historicism” — applying your standards and values to the past. Of course, that’s pretty much the ONLY thing professional historians do these days — find some item of the Current Year’s catechism, then catalog all the ways The Past didn’t live up to it.

      (one of my favorite examples was in a book about Wilhelmine Germany, in which the authoress found herself amazed that the German educational system of the 1870s — the best in the world at the time — made no provision for granting women professional degrees. Here’s a woman whose area of professional expertise is the 2nd Reich, and…. yeah).

    2. AvatarPickle Rick

      If the King’s recruiters had eagerly accepted every native volunteer, and sent them into the meat grinder of the Western Front, your podcaster would then simply have accused them of the racisms by using the natives as cannon fodder.

      Here in the United States, we see this in the wailing of SJWs of the 1940s (Elenor Roosevelt foremost among them) that negroes were mostly banned from combat units in WWII because of the racisms, and then, when integrated into combat units in Vietnam, the SJWs then screamed that their precious blacks were disproportionately stuck in grunt infantry units.

      They simply don’t care that they contradict themselves. They’ve already decided that we are to blame, and guilty of whatever they decide.

    3. Avatarganderson

      Without looking it up I’d bet a few loonies, and perhaps some twonies . (Sp?) that there were non dot Indians in the Canadian Army during WW I.

      1. AvatarPickle Rick

        Of course there were. Especially if you count métis. I think (and DB can correct me) the issue was not enlisting natives as individuals, but forming full units of natives in their own ethnic/regional regiment, much like the various Scots regiments of Canadians, both Highland and Lowland, and the French Canadians. The British Army of the Great War organized their units regionally and ethnically. Creating an all native unit of men from different nations would have been extraordinarily complex, as a Catholic Mohawk from Kahnawake outside Montreal is entirely different than a Blackfoot from Saskatchewan.

        1. SeverianSeverian Post author

          I haven’t seen it, but there must’ve been a study done about WW1’s acceleration of Britain’s homogenization, thanks to casualty rates. What happened to the city identity of, say, Nottingham (I’m just pulling a name at random) when its “Pals” battalions were wiped out almost to the man? I know that by the end of the war, an urban Londoner could find himself in a Highland regiment and think nothing of it, but at the start of the war, the “Tyneside Irish,” say, really were Irish, very distinct from the “Tyneside English.” Interesting stuff.’

          (Something similar, though smaller-scale, happened in the US Civil War. The 5th Minnesota was probably still full of Minnesotans, but the 5th Mass. or the 5th New York was probably full of guys who weren’t even Americans, much less from Braintree or Albany or wherever).

          1. Avatarganderson

            I’d have to check, but I’d guess that many of those original New Englanders were in the Minnesota regiments ; pre war MN was largely settled by Yankees (and a few Irish like my great great grandfather. The Germans and Scandies are after the war, mostly.

            And I’ll bet a regiment of Mohawks would’ve scared the shit out of the Boche.

  4. Avatarwixwaxer

    Susceptible to gaslighting like a moth to a flame.
    Ignorant of history, no matter how well ‘educated’.

    1. SeverianSeverian Post author

      They’re Fox Mulder, baby — they WANT to believe!!

      The absolute inability to learn from the past is a good one, but I don’t know if I’m going to be able to use it, because I’m still completely baffled by it. If I start smacking my own foot with a hammer, it won’t take more than four, five strokes for me to figure out that smacking my own foot with a hammer produces pain. And yet, somehow, telling yourself each smack is for “social justice” must make the pain bearable….

  5. AvatarMartinian

    1) Predilection to Kafkatrapping, Motte-and-Bailey, etc. structurally no-lose forms of pseudo-reasoning.

    Here’s the seminal article for the former: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

    2) Related to this is an extreme aversion to compromise: note the fanatic drive to avoid “participation” in anything that *could* be contaminated by WrongThink. I’ve never known an SJW or SJW-leaning person who was able to say the following: “Yeah, I will concede that [WrongThinker John Doe] has a point about X, but overall I don’t like him or his program.”

    3) A visceral desire to play judge, jury, & executioner. The verbal tic here is the insistence on “holding someone accountable” for things that aren’t even close to crimes. “We have to hold Donald Trump accountable!” What for? “We have to hold our peers and associates accountable for their acts of microagression!”

    It might be a good idea to look over collegiate/elite lingo & fads of the past few years to tease out common underlying concepts. Here’s a few more I remember in addition to “hold accountable”: Mindful, Giving Back, Experiential, Uncomfortable Learning, Data-driven, Equity (vs. Equality), Interrogate (ideas, not people…though they really do mean people), educate your peers (about some topic that you’ve deemed them ignorant of), [blank]-Positive (replace blank with deviant sexuality), Service Learning (which ironically had nothing to do with either service or learning)

    Overall the idea that they have some special mission to teach the benighted masses.

  6. AvatarNuke1776

    This is probably just a specific example of lack of self-reflection, but their completely bulletproof lack of a sense of irony and their own hypocrisy is ubiquitous. I’m thinking specifically of how, on the one hand, they accuse everyone who wears a red hat of being a Nazi. Then on the other hand they take to the streets for some “anti-fascist” demonstrations that would make a brownshirt smile. The hypocrisy is always brazen and obvious, and yet they’re light-years away from ever having any awareness of it.

  7. AvatarTypoist

    Two anti-West traits (which they share with many cultures):
    persons are a means, not an end
    each one is counted as different and hierarchical value

  8. AvatarPickle Rick

    Paranoias. From the Puritans, to the Jacobins, the abolitionists, First Wave Marxists, to Lenin and Stalin, the SJW is assured that secret forces are conspiring to deny the Revolution. This allows them to target and destroy anything and anyone, including their own who defy them- Trotsky got an icepick to the skull despite being the best son of a bitch Bolshevik around. The Bagel People are very good at concocting paranoid conspiracies about hidden Cat Fancies under their beds.
    The terror of “racism” (systemic or otherwise) is the modern conspiracy favored.

  9. AvatarDamian

    In essence they want complete freedom at a personal level, with zero consequences for their actions. To counter this they want a strong government to control everyone else inside the gay disco. They of course see themselves as ‘secret kings’ and the aristocrats of this new utopia (I think in the PUA community they are known as gammas). Here are a few other traits that come to mind:

    • They prefer to reject established rules-based meritocracy but would be willing to compete if there was a guarantee of success (normally by gaming the system).
    • They need larger dopamine hits than normal people so tend to be more hedonistic.
    • Their ability to conceive of a future threat is limited so they confuse our perception of a threat as hate.
    • They have a desire to rule over others believing that they are progressive leaders, taking society away from the caveman like conservatives, towards their utopia. Hence they feel they are on the right side of history.
    • Due to their belief that they are the leaders of the future world, they will be willing to cheat to get into positions of power. When they have attained this power, they prefer that we all operate in new rules-based system they themselves both avoided and created.
    • On the extreme end of the spectrum they will exhibit psychopathic traits.
    • Feel that (white) conservatives are the enemy to be destroyed, due to their stifling tradition-based societies and rejection of those who operate outside of social norms.
    • Feel enormous empathy but without the want to self-sacrifice. This is more like an uncomfortable feeling that needs to be stopped, so it will result in empathy for the oppressed but insistence that others sacrifice to help them. This makes the bad feeling go away.
    • They have a natural allegiance to ‘out-groups’ and will see the betrayal of the nation’s founders (and descendants) as a moral imperative, as they seek their new beginning.

    I think that SJW thinking is psychology driven rather than simple ideology. I’d say it’s a combination of genetics, upbringing, wider culture, a cultural cognitive narrative from media brainwashing, plastic pollution and estrogen in our water supply. This ‘gay disco’ has been allowed to continue due to govt deficit spending which delays reality from asserting itself, and tough trade-offs needed to me made.

    Anyway, my quick thruppence. Best of luck with the book.

  10. Avatarganderson

    Historical ignorance has been noted, but there is also a contempt for the past among SJWs.

    Slightly related- my mother was born in 1917, and felt for much of her life that society was making war on her- she lost a sweetheart early in World War II; (we think, but there are no relatives left on that side of the family to confirm) ; she thought Vatican II was an abomination, and the women’s movement, in her view, (mine too, I’d say) was a direct rebuke of her role as a homemaker and mother. In addition she held those old hags responsible for the fact that neither of her daughters had children- I can confirm that not having kids did spread that damage to the next generation, as both of my sisters grew up to be unhappy, unfulfilled adults. And SJWs, although not as strident as many.

    And now, in keeping with the choices of many European counties, we are going to have a childless shrew as president.

    As a result of those choices both my sisters became SJWS.

  11. Avatartexinole

    Maybe this is too general but as David Thompson often points out the complete lack of reciprocity pervades their worldview and behavior. No expectation of reciprocity, positive or negative, frees them from the chains of Fairness, Logic, Empathy (constructive not performative), and most importantly accountability and consequence.

  12. AvatarRecusant

    Extreme Manicheanism or Binary Thinking – take your pick. Everything is Black/White, Wrong/Right, Good/Evil, with no shades of grey or nuance.

    Who/Whoism.

    Solipsism that verges on narcissism and narcissism that verges on solipsism.

    Perpetual devil hunting: there must always be an enemy who is an existential threat.

    Presentism.

    That’ll do for the moment.

    1. AvatarClown World

      that’s something I can never get my head around, someone does ONE thing wrong, 20 years ago, says the wrong word or whatever, and they are now totally invalidated as a person

Comments are closed.