[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.