• soumerd_retardataire
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yet, correct me if i’m wrong, but in my memories ~90% of the redditors used “social justice warrior” as a.n insult/criticism(, against someone who’s acting excessively nice in defense of someone when there’s no need, like the expression “white knight” for those men on the Internet excessively defending other women, underlining that “social justice” deals with psychological “injuries” and not real injustices, the correct term should have been “societal justice” though since it never dealt with socio-economic matters), while nowadays only conservatives use “woke” as an insult towards other people, sometimes with a larger focus than the previous SJW, targeting everyone believing that some things ought to change in order to make a better world(, while conservatives generally don’t think that such things should improve/change[1]).
      Well, i.d.k., not that it matters but would you agree with this impression that “social justice warrior” was used all over the political spectrum ~ten years ago ?

      [1] : Far-right political parties want some things to change b.t.w.(, as well as parties unaligned with left//right such as separatists, ~ecologists, ~democrat{for a direct democracy with referendums}, ~royalists, ~theocrats, …).
      If conservatives are only defined with their unwillingness to change the current direction, then centrists are the real conservatives. Center-left and center-right bourgeois political parties were elected everywhere in the west(&‘most of the world’) for the last decades(, and had disappointed a hundred years ago in Germany leaving only two alternatives).
      We(sterners) saw a lot of societal changes in the last 70 years though(, not so sure for socio-economic changes however, once the productivity increase and its expected consequences for the workers are taken into account).
      If people don’t vote(, in the primaries in the u.s.,) for “extremist” parties that’s because we’ll vote for whom we’re being told to vote, and won’t stop trusting our (billionaires-owned )medias as long as we’re personally satisfied with the current situation.
      The problem is that our consent isn’t real/informed/enlightened, and we don’t use our collective intelligence, so we may collectively ‘agree with falsehoods’/‘make mistakes’, and it doesn’t feel like our republics represent the will of their population.
      If our government represented the will of the people then they wouldn’t hesitate before putting any important decision through a referendum, and having 3-4 of them every year(, emerging from the population instead of the government,) wouldn’t make our “representatives” afraid(, and if we’re realising our mistakes afterwards then there’s usually nothing that another referendum can’t fix).
      Beyond direct/real democracy, we’ll still say that it’s our duty to “democratize” the rest of the world, otherwise dictatorships would bloom everywhere and freedom would die, chinese people are happy but we(sterners) have to save them and paint a dystopia instead of rejoicing and teaching mandarin in american schools as a second language.