Isn't everyone an SJW to a certain extent?

What's SJW?

 

Sexy Jesus Warlock

 

I know what those three words seperate mean, have no clue together.

 

Unless you're the type who loves micromanaging Halloween costumes, or likes to ramble about how I'm a problem because I'm white... we should get along fine.

 

Well, he is kind of a wizard, and the way he is depicted sometimes... Not my cup of tea, but I can see how some folks would tap that...

 

RawringSnake is being goofy.

It means "Social Justice Warrior".

 

:icon_mrgr

She is right.

 

Oh, makes more sense.

Question for you then;

''what is right or wrong when right or wrong is constantly changing?''

Just interested to see what you think.

 

Umm. RawringSnake? Can you answer that one? o.o'

---------- Post added 3rd Nov 2015 at 09:14 AM ----------

I suppose whatever the current state of "right or wrong" is. Even if it constantly changes, there's a freeze point/snap shot. The most we can do is make a borderline futile effort to keep up.

 

I must admit, even I don't have some goofballery prepped for that. We are getting into deep territory here Zing!

 

Zingaroo

 

Okay then, picture this alternative.

It's the beginning of time, well not the right beginning, try the era when they lived in mud huts. The women clean the house, decide they're the ''head of the house'' and are the boss. The woman write the religious texts in their favour ''man should not lie next to woman'' and so in 1302, the nuns ban heterosexuality.

So, imagine yourself in 1950s. Would you believe heterosexuality is acceptable? Then fastforward to 2015 is heterosexuality acceptable?

No intention of offending anyone, just making up a scenario to help.

 

Omg if only

 

Sex has a way of defying social norms or religious dogma. What we act on is what we internally believe to be "right", while the social programming is an outer, secondary layer.

It's unquantifiable how those two ethical systems interact in a person. Even then it's debatable if they help define an "objective" morality"...

 

Well, everyone is everything to an extent, right? As long as we assume that nothing is absolute beyond perspective and interpretation. #EndOfSeperation #Nirvana

 

I agree with all of this, but one thing that's bugging me is that I can't think of an scenario in which Equality could be "wrong."

Can we say then that striving for equality is objectively good? Or am I too narrow-minded to see the big picture here?

Now that would be one way of getting me interested in religion :rolle:

 

Equality - treating everyone on the same level
Diversity - treating people for their individual difference

Would you hire the person who;
1. met the target of 3 A's at A level, 1-1 at university and 10 years work experience. But only had basic organization skills?

or

2. did not the target as they had 2 A's at A level and 1 B, 1-2 at university, 8 years work experience. But had quality organization skills that are effective?

 

I know it's gonna sound like a cope-out, but it would honestly depend on how the interview goes and what I can make of them as a person afterwards. Humans are too complex, I would be reluctant of making a judgement on their competence based solely in a few metrics. Sure, those metrics matter, but they don' paint the whole picture. That's just me tho ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This has gotten so derailed lol my bad...

 

I don't know, but apparently I wasn't accepted into Secrets5 University of Socratical Exercises.