CJW:
Cyber Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for a “in the scene” individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on Cyber justice on the Internet. Calling it “Drama” they often argue in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A Cyber justice warrior, or CJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the group(s) they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular hacker, tweeter or commenter of the moment. Their goal seems to be hoping they will be "1337" in the infosec/hacker community via likes, RT’s, comments, and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
It’s evident you are dealing with a CJW when they take to their blogs to summarize/laymen the “drama thus far”. CJW’s post in various forms of “Here’s my opinion, everyone is an asshole” essays, that only speak from a one sided perspective. (In other words, The hacker they most easily relate to.) Other signs are sub tweets, passive aggressive “jokes” and tendency to join a dog-pile for a “controversy” they have not taken the time to fully research, even when the OP or the entire thread is readily available.
Cyber Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for a “in the scene” individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on Cyber justice on the Internet. Calling it “Drama” they often argue in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A Cyber justice warrior, or CJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the group(s) they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular hacker, tweeter or commenter of the moment. Their goal seems to be hoping they will be "1337" in the infosec/hacker community via likes, RT’s, comments, and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.
It’s evident you are dealing with a CJW when they take to their blogs to summarize/laymen the “drama thus far”. CJW’s post in various forms of “Here’s my opinion, everyone is an asshole” essays, that only speak from a one sided perspective. (In other words, The hacker they most easily relate to.) Other signs are sub tweets, passive aggressive “jokes” and tendency to join a dog-pile for a “controversy” they have not taken the time to fully research, even when the OP or the entire thread is readily available.
by poopsi mcgoo January 03, 2016
Nassim’s Sword of Social Justice (aka D’Sousa’s Razor)
Identified by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the Medium article: The Merchandising of Virtue" - May 27, 2017
"Kids with rich parents talk about “white privilege” at such privileged colleges as Amherst –but in one instance, one of them could not answer D’Souza’s simple and logical suggestion: ‘Why don’t you go to the registrar’s office and give your privileged spot to a minority student who was next in line?’
Hence the principle:
If your private life conflicts with your intellectual opinion, it cancels your intellectual ideas, not your private life.
and
If your private actions do not generalise then you cannot have general ideas.
This is not strictly about ethics, but information transfer. If a car salesman tries to sell you a Detroit car while driving a Honda, he is signalling that it may have a problem."
The video Taleb is referencing is:
SO SATISFYING: Dinesh D'Souza absolutely shreds SJW over "white privilege" - Young America's Foundation
Published 09 Jun 2018. Recorded at Amherst College.
If you hold an intellectual ideal, but your real world actions do not reflect or enforce this ideal. Then your actions cancel out this ideological stance. You cannot say to the words "I am a vegan" and claim the moral virtue for such an identity, but occasionally eat chicken. The act of eating the chicken cancels out any moral or ideological virtue or superiority claimed by being vegan.
Identified by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in the Medium article: The Merchandising of Virtue" - May 27, 2017
"Kids with rich parents talk about “white privilege” at such privileged colleges as Amherst –but in one instance, one of them could not answer D’Souza’s simple and logical suggestion: ‘Why don’t you go to the registrar’s office and give your privileged spot to a minority student who was next in line?’
Hence the principle:
If your private life conflicts with your intellectual opinion, it cancels your intellectual ideas, not your private life.
and
If your private actions do not generalise then you cannot have general ideas.
This is not strictly about ethics, but information transfer. If a car salesman tries to sell you a Detroit car while driving a Honda, he is signalling that it may have a problem."
The video Taleb is referencing is:
SO SATISFYING: Dinesh D'Souza absolutely shreds SJW over "white privilege" - Young America's Foundation
Published 09 Jun 2018. Recorded at Amherst College.
If you hold an intellectual ideal, but your real world actions do not reflect or enforce this ideal. Then your actions cancel out this ideological stance. You cannot say to the words "I am a vegan" and claim the moral virtue for such an identity, but occasionally eat chicken. The act of eating the chicken cancels out any moral or ideological virtue or superiority claimed by being vegan.
Student: "We have numbers that demonstrate precisely how much wealth was stolen, and that's money that in some way could be given back."
D'Sousa: "You're willing to have social justice with other people's pay, but you're not willing to pay.
So that's the problem. And that's the problem with the progressivism that marches behind social justice, while protecting its own privileges. You know, how you said, we all have to survive, really, you have to be at Amherst to survive?
You don't have to be at Amherst to survive, you have to be at Amherst to benefit.
You have to be at Amherst because you're getting opportunities at this college that many other people are not getting.
So if you say you believe in equal opportunity, you're a hypocrite because you are taking advantage of opportunities unavailable to others. But for you this hypocrisy is fully justified because you are militating on behalf of the poor. But if it's if you're against privilege - this college is privilege. So there's a glaring hypocrisy, and you will never turn your moral mirror on yourself to say, What am I doing about it?
That's my point. For you - society should act before you do - to enforce your moral code.”
____________
Person A: “I’m a vegan but I occasionally have some chicken.”
Person B: “By the logic of Nassim's Sword of Social Justice - the act of eating the chicken cancels out your vegan claim, regardless of what you say about yourself.”
D'Sousa: "You're willing to have social justice with other people's pay, but you're not willing to pay.
So that's the problem. And that's the problem with the progressivism that marches behind social justice, while protecting its own privileges. You know, how you said, we all have to survive, really, you have to be at Amherst to survive?
You don't have to be at Amherst to survive, you have to be at Amherst to benefit.
You have to be at Amherst because you're getting opportunities at this college that many other people are not getting.
So if you say you believe in equal opportunity, you're a hypocrite because you are taking advantage of opportunities unavailable to others. But for you this hypocrisy is fully justified because you are militating on behalf of the poor. But if it's if you're against privilege - this college is privilege. So there's a glaring hypocrisy, and you will never turn your moral mirror on yourself to say, What am I doing about it?
That's my point. For you - society should act before you do - to enforce your moral code.”
____________
Person A: “I’m a vegan but I occasionally have some chicken.”
Person B: “By the logic of Nassim's Sword of Social Justice - the act of eating the chicken cancels out your vegan claim, regardless of what you say about yourself.”
by bewdew December 09, 2023
Justice is a huge dickhead she will do anything for a friend or boyfriend. She likes to assume that people are talking about her and her has no friends! If you know a justice DO NOT be friends with her!!!! If you are friends with her all I’m going to say is good luck!
by Fhudhehfhdh March 13, 2019
Justice is a very unique and very anti-social. She can be very aggressive but vulnerable too one person. Get on her bad side your going too lose ya life. She’s very rare so if you get her better hold on to her.
by Jaydaaa November 23, 2021
Hey Justice! WASSSUUUPPP
by wasssuuupppp February 13, 2018
Justice is an amazing girl. She is very pretty and outgoing. She can be shy but once you get to know her she is very open and very sweet. She will not let go of any of her friends no matter what. She acts like a 6 year old boy, but she loves aesthetic things. She loves memes. And has lots of inside jokes with her friends. Justice is over all and AMAZING person to be friends with.
by Food🍲 September 25, 2021
Please rise for the Pledge of Confederacy. "I pledge allegiance to the South of the Confederate States of America. And to the confederacy, for which it stands, one nation, under God, divisible from the Union, with Liberty and Justice for the South."
by Random Words & Definitions May 28, 2024