Hey, Veeky Forums, I'm curious: what writers and thinkers have informed the modern social justice movement...

>mfw someone writes this on the 'intellectual' board of 4chinz

>there was an ancient social justice movement?
Yes, they were catholic nazis and radical distributists.

not even kidding DFW

Nah, man. Its pretty real. I go to UMass Amherst, I witnessed Trigglypuff in the flesh, and I interact with social justice warriors every day.

You could still say "it's a handful of kids," but so was the New Left and they still looked up to Chomsky and C. Wright Mills.

That's true. I read an article recently which argued that SJWs have taken a lot of Marx's ideas and substituted class with race/gender/etc.

It absolutely is I think. "Social justice warrior" started as a laudatory term before it started getting appropriated by their "critics."

Foucault is the patron saint of social justice

Foucault was the one who first got big doing this with Marx, as well as Nietzsche, though he mostly just uses Nietzsche's historical methodology (and criticism of other historical approaches).

Interesting, I think you're onto something with Foucault. Never really bothered to read him, but I'm going to.

"SJW" is a derogatory term, but the term "social justice" is used in a serious manner by many of the young progressives I know. In fact, my university has used it to describe the mission of a small department.

>In fact, my university has used it to describe the mission of a small department.

Me too. My university has it listed as one of the primary goals of education here, which drew criticism from Fox News.

Why are people still bringing up gamergate like it means anything?

Marx, Chomsky, Rawls, Butler, Nussbaum, Wollstonecraft, Beauvoir, etc
Not that the vast majority of SJW's have read anything by any of these writers, but their ideas and those like them have had the greatest influence on the movement.

because /pol/ and KIA and donald trump exist

Marx was a lot more sensible than any SJW, he probably would have been appalled by their rejection of Western civilization.

FUCK YOU.

Martha Nussbaum? Rawls? Wollstonecraft? What the fuck is your problem? Why are you trying to smear the names of these good and decent people by associating them with...Butler? You know the handful of people who actually are SJW's fucking hate people like Nussbaum and Rawls, right? And they don't like Chomsky.

When has Donald Trump ever made a videogame?

>Donald Trump
>having anything to do with gamergate
Honestly you should start tying a noose for yourself right now.

The vocabulary mostly comes from blogs and diversity consultants. American Liberals managed to turn all social problems into marketable transformative experiences for the comfortable middle classes. It's no longer about material change but about achieving personal redemption by acknowledging one's privilege. there's some indirect influence from Marx, Foucault, Fanon and Butler via women's studies department but it's definitely secondary.

Foucault was the one who decoupled identity from class, in fact one of his biggest issues with Marxism was that he saw that non-class related social identifications were neglected by it. He was discriminated against in the French communist party for being, well, a gigantic faggot. He was also pissed off over Stalin's fabrication of the Doctor's plot and saw all of the same shit happening in the USSR that marxists hated Germany for in the 40s'. Basically he enters the philosophical world as a deeply disillusioned Marxist who considered his later introduction to Nietzsche a watershed moment in his life.

Madness and Civilization uses Nietzsche's genealogy methods to look at social difference in the case of madness and perception of it over time in Europe. Though like Nietzsche's work many historians take issue with the finer points the work is essentially written to show how power relations work, how madness was not always a pathology but how in the 19th century it becomes more than pathology, people who express themselves in inappropriate ways (mostly by fucking other dudes) get lumped in with the insane.

Foucault was a negative, pessimistic thinker even more than Nietzsche was which makes it all the more ironic that progressive SJWs are inspired by him. He doesn't even really allow for the existence of justice in his philosophy, it's all pure power.

Insightful.

I think they like Chomsky man. The SJWs who have expanded their area of interest to world politics like Chomsky because he gives them ample reasons to hate America.

This.

SJWs, if they read anything, read so-called "continental philosophers" (aka, flimflam artists) like Foucault and Butler.

oh sorry man lol

Chomsky is too logical for the SJW mind. He represents a phallocentric hegemony of "Reason" and "Logic" over incoherent feels.

triggered

All right calm down lad

I'm so glad they still hate america desu.

>He represents a phallocentric hegemony of "Reason" and "Logic" over incoherent feels.

Are you sure you're not thinking of somebody else?

I'm not 'triggered', I am just sick of people who know nothing and think that is okay. it is fucking disgusting how intellectually lazy you all are.

Sorry I didn't mean you. I agree with you; thanks for your reply.

>Foucault was a negative, pessimistic thinker even more than Nietzsche was

I'm sold. Gonna check it out as soon as I finish Capital. What should I read by him?

C U L T U R A L
M
A
R
X
I
S
M

I've seen bordieu in their reading lists, which is how you know they're bullshitting.

>He doesn't even really allow for the existence of justice in his philosophy, it's all pure power.
I think this makes more sense in a SJW context than you may think.
I see as the main characteristic of identity politics a shift from Truth to power as the core of politics. the Marxist left, for contrast, is based on an historical truth, and its goal is to apply it. The SJW movement instead has no such thing, its all about groups of disempowered people and how to give them power. Just notice how a man discussing sexism with a woman is automatically wrong even if he's saying something most feminists agree upon: the important thing is not the idea, but the use of it to empower a specific demographic.
An example I found recently was feminists celebrating that a group of women on a bus lynched an alledged abuser, or how they throw pressumption of innonence under the bus for rape accusations. Of course its not legal, moral, or just. But none of these things is the focus. The focus is how that specific group of people is coming together and empowering themselves. Its pure power, there is no commitment to truth whatsoever
In that chomsky vs foucault debate there was a time that foucault argued that revolution should happen not because its just or moral or for the greater good, but just because the lower classes want power and it is like it is. This mindset is the essence of the SJW movement, in my opinion

>[Foucault] doesn't even really allow for the existence of justice in his philosophy, it's all pure power.

This has confused me for awhile now. How is Foucault (or Nietzsche himself, for that matter) so beloved by the American pomo left? You'd have to ignore vast swathes of his thought in order to turn him into an SJW.

It's like they picked up the deconstructive tools but never noticed the general nihilism underlying them. Nietzsche and Foucault are good at destroying things, but they're aren't very good at building them, particularly if you're interested in some totally conventional notion of "justice."

I see your point, but if there is only power, why do the SJW's cry for justice? And if there is only power, isn't it just as just for the strong to hold down the oppressed as it would be for the oppressed to upset the strong (Thrasymachus)?

I think SJW's really do believe in the rightness, goodness, and justice of their behavior. They just haven't thought through it, or really thought about their favorite authors.

Solid analysis. You must be finishing your freshman year, right? Keep up the goodwork! Let me know if you have any questions about your grade.

B-/B

Despite the name, SJWs have no interest in "justice" - or any other enlightenment ideal. Underneath it all, they are nihilists screaming nonsense into the void.

wish i cud slit ur throat tbqh

That's fine, but the thing that galls me is that they don't realize they are.

I'm gonna just say B-, then.

Not the guy you're replying to but I think for them ("SJWs") an inequality of power equates to an inequality in justice. The powerful seem to enjoy more freedoms than the peoples with relatively less power.

I think despite the calls for revolution, SJWs prefer to operate within the legality of the system they have inherited (free speech, protest, civil suites) rather than approach from the angle of violent revolution.

I wouldn't call him a philosopher though

>It's like they picked up the deconstructive tools but never noticed the general nihilism underlying them. Nietzsche and Foucault are good at destroying things, but they're aren't very good at building them.
>Despite the name, SJWs have no interest in "justice" - or any other enlightenment ideal. Underneath it all, they are nihilists screaming nonsense into the void.

These are some great observations. The way I see it, the social justice movement is actively trying to destroy the liberalism advanced by thinkers like Locke, the Levellers, Jefferson, etc without proposing an alternative. A key example is "free speech," which they reject as disproportionately favoring people with privilege. SJWs aren't trying to achieve "justice," they are noticing the contradictions present in liberalism and blindly trying to destroy it.

This is why SJWism is promoted by elite institutions - the media elites, universities, corporate America, etc. It's a tool used by elites to divide and conquer the left via an infinite series of fractally divisive wedge issues. The plutocrats continue to amass power as the dumb proles tear each other apart over identity politics.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I buy into this interpretation. Seems very Marxist/conspiracy-y. I agree that it divides people and ultimately does nothing about the wealth/power divide, but I don't think it is a conscious tool used by the "ruling class" or "illuminati" or what have you.