Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan is coming under attack by supporters for Donald Trump for saying that the latter’s comments that US district judge Gonzalo Curiel overseeing the case of Trump University could not be objective because of his Mexican heritage (even though he was born in Indiana) was an example of textbook racism.
“Politically correct ‘Social Justice Warrior,’ and complete MORON Paul Ryan is busy once again helping his good friends Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama by attacking his own parties [sic] frontrunner,” wrote Amy Moreno at TruthFeed.com.
“Thanks to Paul Ryan’s incorrect and hysterical statements referring to Trump as a RACIST, over an issue Ryan clearly does not understand, Obama’s White House is now taking his word as ‘gospel’ and referring to Trump a ‘racist.’” Moreno fumed.
The critics have trotted out the familiar all-purpose charge that Ryan was trying to be ‘politically correct’ but also pinned the label of ‘social justice warrior’ on him. The use of this phrase as a pejorative is familiar in atheist circles and is used against those atheists (like me) who think that there is more to atheism than simply not believing in god and fighting against religious and other superstitions, and that issues of social justice are also important to work on.
According to this urban dictionary, the term is used to denigrate those who use it for the purposes of political correctness.
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will “get SJ points” and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are “correct” in their social circle.
This seems a little tortured to me and far too dependent on speculative assertions of motive. It is also somewhat redundant since it seems so close to the already overused ‘politically correct’ charge. I can understand how people can differ on how to achieve social justice but I am puzzled by implication that it is something negative. How can one be against justice, social or otherwise? Or is it the concept of ‘warrior’ that is the problem?
One thing that has surprised me about the Trump-Curiel controversy has been the number of big-name Republican politicians and media figures who say that they are outraged that Trump brought the judge’s heritage into it and have even threatened a convention revolt and a sort of coup to deny Trump the nomination. I don’t expect anything to come of it and that these people will eat their words and rally behind him eventually but this is still surprising since Republicans have long been using people’s (including judges’) ethnicity and background against them. Why is this the bridge too far for them?
Seth Meyers gives a good background to on Trump’s university, what the judge did, and the reactions to Trump’s attacks on judge