Social justice warrior

Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term and internet meme mostly used for an individual who promotes socially progressive, left-wing or liberal views, including feminism, civil rights, gay and transgender rights, and multiculturalism.[7] The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.[3][8]

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.[1] During the Gamergate controversy, the term was adopted by what would become the alt-right, and the negative connotations gained increased usage which would eventually overshadow its origins.[2][6][9]

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Ohlheiser was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Johnson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Heron & Belford was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Stack, Liam (August 15, 2017). "Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language". The New York Times. Retrieved September 13, 2017.
  5. ^ "Social Justice Warrior". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved August 31, 2021.
  6. ^ a b Massanari, Adrienne L.; Chess, Shira (July 4, 2018). "Attack of the 50-foot social justice warrior: the discursive construction of SJW memes as the monstrous feminine" (PDF). Feminist Media Studies. 18 (4): 525–542. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1447333. ISSN 1468-0777. S2CID 149070172 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
  7. ^ [1][2][3][4][5][6]
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ringo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Phelan, Sean (2019). "Neoliberalism, the Far Right, and the Disparaging of "Social Justice Warriors"". Communication, Culture & Critique. 12 (4): 455–475. doi:10.1093/ccc/tcz040.

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search