5 2

Is "Social Justice" a dogmatic religion?

If so, can "Social Justice Warriors" be called "free thinkers" with a straight face?

I'm a member of the LGBT community. I favor socialism, but not in its pure form. I am a left-leaning political centrist. I voted for Hillary (though I will never do so again).

And yet, I've been called a Nazi, an Alt-Righter, and a bigot more times than I can count. These terms get thrown around anytime someone disagrees with the common narrative that "white privilege" is responsible for any success European Americans achieve, and oppression is responsible for any failure that a non-European experiences.

Many self-identified Social Justice Warriors are unwilling to consider any verifiable data that contradicts their narrative. They literally deny science and logic in favor of being "morally right" (in quotes because it is literally what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said)


Even on this site, I've seen at least half a dozen people answer questions about social justice by saying "I can't prove it to you, you have to discover it for yourself"... Which sounds suspiciously to me like a Christian mantra against atheism.

If you self-identify as a Social Justice Warrior, please share your thoughts on this phenomena.

  • If factual data, or sound logic, was presented that contradicts your social philosophy, would you change your social philosophy to meet the facts?
  • Do you believe that your social philosophy is indisputable?
  • How do you feel about your compatriots personally insulting anyone who doesn't agree with your side?

If you do NOT self-identify as an SJW, please share your thoughts in a POLITE way.

  • Are SJWs dogmatic zealots, in general?
  • As such, do SJWs have any place within an atheist/free thinking community?
  • Do SJWs cause more harm to marginalized communites than help?

For the sake of civility (which I value, even if Hillary Clinton does not) please stick to a bird's eye view and don't start fights for no reason.

Edit: In case you're unfamiliar, SJW is an acronym for "Social Justice Warriors", literally activists who feel that cis-gender straight white males have a monopoly on all power in society. SJWs actively work to promote the idea that immutable characteristics (race, sex, sexuality) should be used to select leaders instead of individual merits.

tkcoy 6 Mar 10

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It's a bit late (01:15GMT) to comment, but I'd like to follow this up with a deep explanation from a European perspective. And I'm studying politics as part of my degree.


Seriously? All SJW means is to fight for social justice, to fight for those with less power in a society. It's also incredibly easy to find facts to back up these unequal social dynamics.

@tkcoy My answer is in my first comment but I guess I you need more.

Again, there is an unequal social dynamic in our society. Our educational, economic and health outcomes are closely connected to our skin color, ancestry, sex, gender, sexual/affectional preference. This connection is unnecessary, arbitrary and destructive to those with less power. That is the 'factual data or sound logic' you're asking about and there is a mountain of this hard data and statistics, i.e. prison populations and incarceration rates are one of many examples.

'Indisputable' is not an issue. It's never an issue. Instead, as I've laid out, we have a problem of social inequality that needs to be changed. That's why I fight.

As for insults. Anyone who is for this arbitrary and destructive social injustice and is unwilling to try or even listen to the dispossessed's complaints deserve to be ridiculed and confronted.

@tkcoy I've been down this road with too many unable to understand how unequal our society is. I've laid out my own arguments, other's arguments such as Painter, Baldwin etc., given reams of data and even tried defining terms. Already in this short interaction I'm pretty sure you're on that same road I've already spent too much energy.


I have zero use for SJWs. IMO, they're no better than the extremists on the right.
They might promote different ideas, but most of the time, their tactics aren't all that much different.

If Hillary had decided to run again, I likely would have voted for her again.
Since she's said she's not running, it's a non-issue.
She was/is FAR more "civil" than a whole lot of other people.

I also don't have much use for "civility" when it comes to 45 supporters, most republicans, and most people who claim a religion or belief in any god.
I don't have a lot of use for the far-left either. I don't like extremes, in any direction.

I'm all for inclusion, I think everyone should have ALL the same rights and all the same access to everything. The Fourteenth Amendment lays that out pretty damned clearly.
I do not, however, support advancing ANYONE for any other reason than merit.

I also don't appreciate anyone trying to school me on "morals".
I don't trust anyone else's morals more than my own.
I'm also highly distrustful of anyone who claims to have better
morals than mine.
So, AOC can stuff a sock in that shit. Or anyone else for that matter.

The democrats better figure out how to promote a less extreme, more centered approach, or we're going to be stuck with 45 and his little Pence, too. At least until they're both removed. No telling how much more damage they'll inflict if they're given another term.

@tkcoy We're NEVER going to agree on everything, and I don't just mean you and I, I mean everybody.
It's a shame most disagreements tend to lapse into acrimony.
However, it's human nature to resist efforts to change one's mind.
That's definitely one reason why it's so hard to get through to believers.

That said, I don't hold any other labels but atheist and anti-theist.
I'm not a humanist, or a free-thinker.
I try to avoid "-ists" whenever I can.


Single Jewish Woman?


SJW's in my area seem to drift towards Trump, the Bundy's, and yet have ideas of how we need no real government at all. I hold to them when they are right but to believe they are totally right would mean to just ditch political thought and all voting. How would this work? It's a borderline idea of civil war and if the time is ever right for this they will fall into larger groups that believe the same thing. Government and taxes are needed just like schools and roads are needed. Healthcare for all is needed.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:307910
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.