I want to hijack this thread to lend further credence to my conspiracy theory about an ongoing nation-state attempt to create nameclashes for maximum disruption in the U.S.:
The author quotes a NYT articles which quotes the author's piece on "Radicalizing the Romanceless." In it, the author writes this:
> And I made the horrible mistake of asking this question out loud, and that was how I learned about social justice.
Notice it's not "social justice warrior" or "SJW", the derisive terms for someone who speaks the lingo of widely-known, widely-respected collective grass-roots movements from history (or the present) for mere self-serving purposes: superficial fashion, personal advancement, petty vindictiveness, etc. No reasonable adult would read "SJW" and accidentally think the writer is talking about, say, Harriet Tubman.
Instead, the term used is social justice-- the original term-- as a nickname for the newer derisive term. (The author mentions "social justice movements" elsewhere in the same article.) I still won't confuse the author for referring to Harriet Tubman. But what about the Civil Rights movement from the 60s? The 1984 Nicaraguan Election? BLM?
Looks like we got ourselves an old-fashioned nameclashin'. Yeehaw!
Given a) social media in its current form has a greater incentive for derisive terms like SJW than its non-derisive referent, b) the derisive term includes the referent so that the referent can become a shorthand for the derision, and c) Americans have a shit understanding of history, the derision slowly but surely overtakes public consciousness of the original meaning on social media.
All that's needed is for a nation-state to find some nameclashin' efforts where the original term is included in the burgeoning derisive term... a little boost here and there... and voila, SJW will become a kind of "Bulverizing force" against the very idea of the efficacy of social movements from history. :)
What's so ironic here is that the author is both unwittingly nameclashin' while at the same time complaining about another case of nameclashin': "nice guy." Let's go through the steps:
1. Original term "nice guy" to mean "actually decent fellow who acts in good faith" for a given generation of speakers.
2. New term "nice guy" to mean a bad faith actor who claims by fiat they are decent as a means to manipulate others. Used by a newer generation of speakers.
3. boost of definition 2 by some entity/entities
4. Unnecessary disruption among these two generations who would otherwise understand each other just fine.
Nameclashin', baby!
Look for it at any participating locations where upvotes can be bought.
Edit: clarification