Although it's a little sad that in this case an AC is setting the standard that so many of the pseudonym users ought to be aspiring to.
Saying "I don't like people who are enthusiastic about rape threats" doesn't sound paranoid. However if a bunch of people started going on about the "RTEs" and questioning what the RTEs were responsible for and if the RTEs had submitted this slashdot article, etc. Well, that would sound both stupid and a little paranoid.
I have heard people complain about the War on Drugs many times (and i often agree with those criticisms.) However i can't ever recall anyone complaining about the "WoD". Certainly not for the first reference to the name in any case. In contrast i've seen "SJW" used dozens or scores of times, but can't recall "Social Justice Warrior" being used at all except on the rare occasion to explain what SJW actually stands for. (Notably in your explanation above you just assumed everyone already knew what SJW stood for when you explained the derivation.)
So to get back to the original comment that prompted the question in this thread, why is it:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and SJWs."
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and social justice warriors."?
or to use your own definition, why not just:
"Who are possibly outnumbered by professional victims and militant misandric idiots."?
To me, #1 sounds stupid, #2 sounds a little hokey but okay, and #3 sounds perfectly reasonable (given the viewpoint of the person supposedly saying it.) I would certainly have gone with "militant misandric idiots" myself but would be boggled by the idea if anyone suggested abbreviating it to "MMI".
(I was originally going to suggest "militant misandric assholes" as an alternative, but then realized that if you tried to abbreviate that everyone would think you were talking about martial arts. Although perhaps choosing a term that can't be acronym-ized without confusion would be a good way to help prevent that from happening.)
The "or all" part is because it's possible that the set of people that are, in general, included in the group "professional victims" is actually a subset of the group "SJWs". If that were the case my original question would still be correct, however since i don't know if that is the case or not the rewording is justified. Carry on.
#1: I never said that i've seen anyone on
#2: You specifically left out the bit immediately following the part you quoted, in which i clarified that i was not accusing anyone here "(and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW")".
#3: The part where you say that you do not take conversations on slashdot seriously (or at least that's my interpretation of your statement) and post here "only for fun": http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
So nice job troll, thanks for playing?
It's interesting that so far there have been over a half-dozen replies in this thread and there's been a lot of dodging the question (sometimes with insults thrown in, free of charge) but no actual attempt to explain why "SJW" seemed like a good idea at the time.
As for your knee, it sounds like you hurt it. I can say that in just six words because in this case i can say the first thing that comes to mind without sounding like i'm trying to insult you outright.
Even though i do mentally categorize everyone who thinks rape and death threats are cool into the same group (and just to be clear, as far as i know that is not the exact same group as the people who like to use the term "SJW") i don't feel the need to give them a name any more specific than "misogynist assholes." I don't understand the appeal of coming up with some fancy name with a three letter acronym and bandying it about all over the place. Honestly i'd think that anyone who felt compelled to do so would sound... well, a little crazy. So what's the appeal? (I'd think the people who keep going on about "MRA"s are crazy, except i had the impression the "MRA"s gave that name/acronym to themselves, which again, i don't understand the appeal.)
It sounds like the kind of thing my old paranoid-schizophrenic girlfriend would do when talking about "them", but i presume you are not mentally ill, so there must be some other reason for it. Is it some kind of bonding thing between people who feel threatened by others? Or do you believe that by creating the appearance of some kind of organized opposition that you will sway "neutral" parties toward your side? It just sounds dumb to me, but maybe i'm not the intended audience?
When the topic first came up on Slashdot a number of people seemed to think offering such incentives was a bad idea. Maybe the California legislature agreed with that reasoning, but if they've made any statements about why they did what they did i haven't heard about it.
Wait, a dowser is less effective than bears, at the minimum? What kind of low bar do bears set? Where does one go to hire a bear to find water and how do they go about it?
As someone else put it, Putin is aspiring to be a Dune character. Or more prosaically, he's learned a lot from watching US corporations and the US government manipulate the news cycle. Do something that will outrage the public, wait for the new furor, pull back a little, wait for the news to move on to some other subject, and try again.
Why yes, i do like to fuck women! And seeing as how i'm not into rape (for personal and ethical reasons as well as legal ones) i've found the best way to get women to want to fuck me in return is to treat them like respectable human beings. As such i listen to what they have to say, generally believe them unless i have some specific reason not to, and am appalled when other people choose not to treat them like respectable human beings.
(And just for the record, i certainly believe i would treat women in the same manner even if i didn't want to fuck them, but it's always nice when the practical aligns with the moral.)