Game of Thrones - mostly

[BjornP]

No. The original definition of SJW was as a sarcastic label on people who fought for abdurd things only they thought were SJ issues. Like trying to police all uses of the word "black" because they believe it refers to black people. Or that there is something sexist in correcting a woman. The current SJWs do fit your description, in the hypocrisy departement, but that sort of hypocrisy is absurdly common among any of current exyreme political and religious movements, left and right.

Well put. If everything is SJW, then nothing is.

Social Justice Warrior, isn't not only sarcastic, many actual SJWs call themselves that, and they don't mean it in a sarcastic way. The term is neutral, one group uses it as sarcastic remark, one group uses it in a totally serious manner wearing it as a badge of honor.

Not everything is SJW, just fighting for social justice, whether one fights about silly causes or not, derp.

I did some googling and found that the term was originally considered a positive term. I thought it originated in the 2010's, but I was obviously wrong about that. First time I ever heard the term was on the DCF, and exclusively as a negative term. The positive connotation is apparantly older than the more recent, negative connotation. However, I suspect it was the modern, popular definition - the one with a negative connotation, DrY was using when describing Dany.

Of course, when everyone who ever wanted to improve social justice meets the definition of SJW, then practically everyone who ever fought for other people's rights or the rights of their own community (generally fighting for more than just yourself) were/are SJW's. Thomas Jefferson was a SJW, and since Trump's claiming to work for the good of all Americans, he's a SJW, too. The way we mostly use the "SJW" moniker, or have been for several years here, does not fit the "anyone who fought for social justice" description. Even if that definition is more similiar to the older definition.

[Kath]

GRRM is no friend of SJWs. They have been calling him out for years. "Where are the black people?" "Why so much violence against women?"

To suggest he's SJW is ridiculous.

You obviously know less than zero about his history in corrupting the Hugo awards.

No. Not a thing. I read an interview he did and he was asked why his stories were only about white people. He said, "Because I'm white. If black people want to read stories about black people than black authors should have no problem selling them books."

That seems opposite SJW to me. That's a big FU to SJWs.

[Kath]

Of course, when everyone who ever wanted to improve social justice meets the definition of SJW, then practically everyone who ever fought for other people's rights or the rights of their own community (generally fighting for more than just yourself) were/are SJW's. Thomas Jefferson was a SJW, and since Trump's claiming to work for the good of all Americans, he's a SJW, too. The way we mostly use the "SJW" moniker, or have been for several years here, does not fit the "anyone who fought for social justice" description. Even if that definition is more similiar to the older definition.

It literally makes anyone with an opinion on how society should run, an SJW. Everyone fights for their version of Utopia. The extreme right say it's good for society to keep marriage as one man/one woman. That's full on SJW, in this new definition I've been learning about from Dr Y and Capps.

[DrYouth]

I'll refine the term as to how I'm using it for Bjorn and others... they seem "triggered" by my use of it.

I use SJW to get at the spirit of fighting for social justice on behalf of a perceived oppressed group of whom one is not a part and of whom the warrior often understands little or nothing. In fact the SJW is usually a member of the perceived oppressing group... The other aspect of the SJW when they are part of the perceived oppressed group... is that the oppression they are railing against is subtle or implied bias or historical oppression while the individual is experiencing relatively little apparent hardship and the "oppression" is far from obvious.

Advocating for oppressed groups is of course not a negative characteristic... it can be admirable... but motives for this characteristic can range in sincerity and shadow motives are often at play... the help offered is often infantilizing and effectively disempowering... where the "champion" expects the recognition and credit for what is achieved and the group helped is perceived as helpless and incapable of helping themselves. The other is that "victim" status is often cherished and clung to, despite lack of obvious victimization.

[DBTrek]

Only Kath and GRRM pretend that SJWs don’t exist or can’t be defined in 2019. We all know who the SJWs are.

[Kath]

Only Kath and GRRM pretend that SJWs don’t exist or can’t be defined in 2019. We all know who the SJWs are.

No. I get it, as it has existed as a pejorative since the early 10's. I'd never heard the term before until a thread showed up on DCF.

That's not when Martin wrote the books. If Martin were full on SJW, there'd be more black people in positions of power in GoT and all the sexual violence would be against men, by women. There'd be way more gay people and way more castrated straight men.

Showing one seemingly good woman (at the beginning of the story,) slowly turn into a hypocritical & ruthless killer, starting at the end of book 1, is not SJW. If he was SJW, Dany would be a white male.

[BjornP]

I'll refine the term as to how I'm using it for Bjorn and others... they seem "triggered" by my use of it.

I use SJW to get at the spirit of fighting for social justice on behalf of a perceived oppressed group of whom one is not a part and of whom the warrior often understands little or nothing. In fact the SJW is usually a member of the perceived oppressing group... The other aspect of the SJW when they are part of the perceived oppressed group... is that the oppression they are railing against is subtle or implied bias or historical oppression while the individual is experiencing relatively little apparent hardship and the "oppression" is far from obvious.

Advocating for oppressed groups is of course not a negative characteristic... it can be admirable... but motives for this characteristic can range in sincerity and shadow motives are often at play... the help offered is often infantilizing and effectively disempowering... where the "champion" expects the recognition and credit for what is achieved and the group helped is perceived as helpless and incapable of helping themselves. The other is that "victim" status is often cherished and clung to, despite lack of obvious victimization.

The problem here is that, unlike with today's SJW's who fight for members of their own societies or countries, is that all SJW's are Western, and thus that the people they claim are victims...aren't. Dany is freeing literal slaves, and other female characters are asserting their power in a society that affords women no rights or power beyond scheming or offering advice to their husbands. Comparing that to the ridiculous #MeToo BS, is like comparing getting a headache and having your arm bitten off by a komodo dragon and pretending it's "really" the same.

You are right that Dany's desire to be seen as a savior, to clean her guilty conscience, is tainted by her ignorance of the realities of the victims she tries to help. Like the slave who wanted to choose to remain a slave, because he only had skills rich slave owners wanted (can't remember if that made it to the show). Yet that, to me, is not reminiscent of the SJW definition you describe. It is more akin to foreign colonizers who, not understanding the culture they came to civilize and "help", end up sparking a civil war, a genocide, famine and a plague because they could not concieve of or understand that their own behaviors, desires and values were not universal. The "White Man's Burden" argument used to colonize/take control of Africa and parts of Asia, fits your definition of SJW because it was obviously infantilizing, it percieved the primitives as victims of their own cultures, their own values and they didn't really understand or bothered to understand the cultures they ruled over.

That oppression is subtle is obvious, btw. Would you consider serfdom "oppressive"? I bet you would, if it was forced upon you just now. But would you consider it oppressive if you lived in a society, in a world, a time, where it was not unusual? If it was considered normal that you were meant to "mind your place". Well, no need to guess... we know that people by a wide margin accepted their serfdom historically, their lower status, their slavery even. So... that part isn't wrong. The individual is a social animal. Peasant see, peasant do. Noble see, noble do. King see, king do. A man who has lived all of his life in a cave, can only see silhouetes on the wall, and an unfree man who knows no realistic alternative to his own station in life, will hope that there are people smarter than him who will rule over him.

[DBTrek]

Only Kath and GRRM pretend that SJWs don’t exist or can’t be defined in 2019. We all know who the SJWs are.

No. I get it, as it has existed as a pejorative since the early 10's. I'd never heard the term before until a thread showed up on DCF.

That's not when Martin wrote the books. If Martin were full on SJW, there'd be more black people in positions of power in GoT and all the sexual violence would be against men, by women. There'd be way more gay people and way more castrated straight men.

Showing one seemingly good woman (at the beginning of the story,) slowly turn into a hypocritical & ruthless killer, starting at the end of book 1, is not SJW. If he was SJW, Dany would be a white male.

GRRM tried the same sleight of hand reasoning while destroying the Hugo’s.

“There’s no SJW insurgence, there aren’t even any SJWs. Why .... just look at all the white people up for awards!!!”

Indeed.
All those white people, who despise white people, with political opinions impressively spanning from full on communist to hard left liberal. Not an SJW among them, obviously, because they’re whites.

[GloryofGreece]

Subverting an epic story (no hero, fantasy genre etc.) does not work. Martin hasn't finished the story and this story will ultimately not make sense according to his own framework.

Cannot construct an epic on nihilism.

Its an unfixable mess. He said the 6th book will be at least 1500 pages. hahaha. Its not finished and never will be. Let the spectacle be as it is just that. Bigger is not better.

Nonetheless it was cool to see Bronn and a few other characters. Those ministories work as a kind of mosaic of subversive short stories not an epic.

[DrYouth]

Just rewatched Ep3...

I enjoyed it a lot better the second time.

First of all the initial live stream meant it was harder to make out details... the streaming format must have compressed the data stream... too dark... much better once the show dropped.

Hastur and Bjorn helped me suspend disbelief again... remarkably helpful.

Jon's show down with the zombie dragon foreshadows his uncucking.

I'm thinking more about the duality between Bran and Arya...

It was almost like Bran summoned her... and she wields the knife that the assassin had meant to kill Bran with.

Watching Bran face down the Night King was pretty epic.

The music is just fantastic.

I am ready for Ep 4.