Well I feel like this is complicated, because obviously you can't paint everyone who cares about Social Justice negatively, and you can't paint everyone who feels like some "SJW's" go overboard as being knuckle-dragging misogynists.
Essentially, most people care about social justice, obviously, most people agree that people deserve equal rights, only a rare sort of people actually don't believe in that.
Some accusations against some SJW's, or rather the perception about them by many people are...
There are a few issues why this is... First, like any group on the internet there isn't really a "leader", so someone can rant about Social Justice, but genuinely not be a good or "well" person, so since there really isn't a mechanism to "get membership" or to get excommunicated officially by any kind of structure, anyone can kind of hop into the discussion because it's diplomatic.
So some of these more outlandish types have a louder voice thus get more attention and legitimacy by people who wish to bring into question the entire idea of "Social Justice" on the internet or don't understand our movement. It's the same thing with these social justice warrior cringe compilation videos that go viral on social media.
The second part is that a significant portion of the social justice base is very young, so you have a lot of young passionate voices who may not have the most experience communicating in effective ways.
Part of that is also, it's a passionate topic, many people take it very seriously, so it can get very heated, when you're talking about sexism, and racism, and rights, these are obviously very serious issues that warrant attention. Some people get so heated about some of the topics that they forget that there is another human being at the end of the discussion, and forget that there is even common-ground to be had.
Both sides suffer both from the limitations of internet communication, and the limited bandwidth that a primarily text-based medium offers us, AND about the common humanity both sides have, which kind of occurs often in debates and discussions on the internet totally separate from this stuff.
And finally, some SJW's are simply trolls, as in some of them actually don't care about the stuff at all and pretend to care about the stuff just to stoke the flames and piss people off. Some of them may be people pretending to be SJW's, or they may be SJW's that say outlandish things specifically to get reactions, or simply because they think it's funny, and some people don't realize they are being facetious.
Also because an image problem is by nature limited to "image"... it's a matter of incorrect mass perception
Essentially, most people care about social justice, obviously, most people agree that people deserve equal rights, only a rare sort of people actually don't believe in that.
Some accusations against some SJW's, or rather the perception about them by many people are...
- Accusations of "slacktivism", basically hopping onto "justice bandwagons" without actually caring very deeply or being very knowledgeable about a subject. There have been questions about the "genuineness" of many of the people who rant about it online, or if they are simply doing it because it's a popular thing.
- Pathologizing their opponent, many people who don't have degrees in sociology or psychology, in the "movement" spend a lot of time playing arm-chair analyst with people they've never met on the internet, and attacking them based on what they perceive to be as psychological or mental deficiencies.
- Lacking sense of humor or taking some jokes too seriously, or the proverbial "making a mountain out of a molehille". The idea that some of the things that get brigaded against weren't really worth it, or there was no reason to get upset about it.
- Not being able to engage in constructive discussions and getting emotional or angry as opposed to being logical and arguing their points in a calm rational manner.
- The idea that many of them are just as hateful and mean as what they accuse their opponents of being, but simply reserve their bigotry for whites and men.
There are a few issues why this is... First, like any group on the internet there isn't really a "leader", so someone can rant about Social Justice, but genuinely not be a good or "well" person, so since there really isn't a mechanism to "get membership" or to get excommunicated officially by any kind of structure, anyone can kind of hop into the discussion because it's diplomatic.
So some of these more outlandish types have a louder voice thus get more attention and legitimacy by people who wish to bring into question the entire idea of "Social Justice" on the internet or don't understand our movement. It's the same thing with these social justice warrior cringe compilation videos that go viral on social media.
The second part is that a significant portion of the social justice base is very young, so you have a lot of young passionate voices who may not have the most experience communicating in effective ways.
Part of that is also, it's a passionate topic, many people take it very seriously, so it can get very heated, when you're talking about sexism, and racism, and rights, these are obviously very serious issues that warrant attention. Some people get so heated about some of the topics that they forget that there is another human being at the end of the discussion, and forget that there is even common-ground to be had.
Both sides suffer both from the limitations of internet communication, and the limited bandwidth that a primarily text-based medium offers us, AND about the common humanity both sides have, which kind of occurs often in debates and discussions on the internet totally separate from this stuff.
And finally, some SJW's are simply trolls, as in some of them actually don't care about the stuff at all and pretend to care about the stuff just to stoke the flames and piss people off. Some of them may be people pretending to be SJW's, or they may be SJW's that say outlandish things specifically to get reactions, or simply because they think it's funny, and some people don't realize they are being facetious.
Also because an image problem is by nature limited to "image"... it's a matter of incorrect mass perception
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56894117/lunch_kapernick1.0.jpg)
