why is attempting to defend the dumbest things and promote basically anything that involves a gender that isn't male / female not a group?
is this the understood definition of what an SJW is? i've always understood the idea basically as a socially radical person that likes to yell on the internet
regardless, i think kimon's point is that this is merely an archetype and real examples of that archetype are too rare to actually justify creating a collective of them, or rather, the apparent examples are far less intense than the archetype would suggest. i think it's more so a problem where the parameters for the group are so weirdly defined that it's kinda hard to use as a legitimate collection of individuals. it's a weird case where the group that's being described becomes loaded with all sorts of negative connotations that using it in rational discourse becomes really difficult and muddled. the problem is more so that the term "SJW" has come to be inherently dismissive and negative. it doesn't hold weight as a categorisation, it holds weight as a derogation. as a real-world example, think "communist" during the red scare. it was a label used to cause distrust and shoot down ideas rather than as a legitimate means of identification. even if some of the ideas that the communist party had were reasonable and eventually implemented, the negativity surrounding the terminology was too great to actually get people to listen. i don't think "SJW" quite stacks up to that but it's a similar case
