[chdaniel]

Surely SJWs are not only in the US. And let's leave what we know aside for a moment — wouldn't I be addressing a social issue and looking for justice in a hostile (warrior) way because of something that happened to me?

I give the example in the blog post about a .wordpress.com website that was made to boycott the said service. That means people are after you

I think we're losing the point here

[TheSpiceIsLife]

With all due respect...

Given that you have come here, one would assume, for the feedback, and that you self proclaim to run an experiences design agency that specialises on helping tech CEOs reduce user churn, it might pay to closely consider the feedback you're getting here rather than repeatedly dismissing it with your comment leaving aside what we know for a moment.

It seems unlikely the middle 90% of readers are going to approach everything they read with all of their existing presumptions completely suspended.

Your HN bio then goes on to state:

We believe experiences are not only the reason why users choose not to leave but also what generates word of mouth. We’re building a credo around this belief — https://chagency.co.uk/blog* (emphasis mine).

From my perspective, it hurts your credibility to appear to be acting disingenuously.

Opinion: your reference to social justice warrior is fairly well unnecessary.

[ehnto]

To put it in perspective for you, the term SJW or Social Justice Warrior is a derogatory term designed to insult it's target applicant. You are essentially using a slang term incorrectly and trying to defend it by using it's literal translation. It has no place in technical writing and makes you look at best a bit silly, and at worst, a willing participant in a silly internet subculture that has its bedrock in juvenile hate and antagonistic behavior from both sides.

I wanted to add that I otherwise really enjoyed the article and agree with the sentiment. The outgoing experience can be the difference between me recommending a service or not. It's about maintaining respect for the user, and not burning the bridge at the very last opportunity.

[empath75]

The fact that you’re talking about this instead of what you wanted to talk about should maybe be a clue that you should be more careful next time.

[crooked-v]

> wouldn't I be addressing a social issue and looking for justice in a hostile (warrior) way because of something that happened to me?

> I think we're losing the point here

The point of this thread is that in the real world, the actual use of the term "SJW" is overwhelmingly by conservatives using it to dismissively label liberals, and using the term suggests a blatant political alignment that detracts from the substance of the article.

[chdaniel]

Let's respect the guidelines and not go into politics. I didn't want to touch down on politics and I think using SJW can be non-political. I understand you don't. Discussing that would be political.

[crooked-v]

> I think using SJW can be non-political

It is, by definition, a term that's inherently a political reference.

As in, that's literally in the dictionary definition: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/social_justi...

> derogatory, informal

> A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.

[Chris2048]

The oxford definition doesn't really capture the common usage of the term:

" calling someone a social justice warrior implies that the accuser thinks the other person is an unreasonable, hostile, and self-interested internet user with a progressive agenda. " -- https://fee.org/articles/how-the-term-social-justice-warrior...

[crooked-v]

True, but I think the dictionary definition is plenty to cover 'inherently political in some manner' on its own.

[Ensorceled]

You're creating a political discussion by refusing to drop a VERY politically loaded term from your discourse and claiming you're using it non-politically.

[beart]

Isn't this entire thread evidence enough that the term is loaded and distracting from your main point?

[barbecue_sauce]

This is a weird hill to die on.