JRE: When did SJW culture start? ( and discussion on it's current/future state)

Dec 22, 2010
2,202
605
605
#51
Here is my cliff notes on it for people who don't want to watch it

  • 2014 in universities is where SJW stuff started to become more prominent
  • there was no singular event, multiple social trends intertwined and influenced each other
  • based off polling data, 70's & 80's people with differing views were fine with each other, 90's is where it started to take a turn and 2000's everything got a lot worse
  • Haidt likens the current climate to a football game, winning is what's important. people truly believe they are combating evil
  • gen z kids (95ers and onwards) are not prepared for modern society. more fragile, anxious, depressed but it's the younger generations that are more politically motivated and leading the charge. social media to blame
  • Rogan self-identifies as a centrist. Free speech and freedom to debate are key aspects for developing knowledge
  • Haidt thinks media is very selective. Universities in America have leaned left for a long time and right-wing media has always been suspicious. At times right-wing media exaggerates or misinterprets events. Left-wing media is more likely to ignore and not report on certain issues
  • most schools are fine. the problematic events stem from liberal elite universities on the west coast and in the northeast.
  • most universities dont have any issues. students who come from those cultures are fine.
  • social justice is not as pervasive as it is presented but the right wing media has some justification to be morally panicked.
  • Rogan equates it to reading the news and thinking the world is full of murders, robberies, etc. statistically speaking you dont have much to be worried about
  • Haidt equates it to the concern over child abductions in the 80's and 90's. we changed how we let our kids play when there was no reasonable concern but the odds are slightly higher today
  • lack of trust between students and professors. professors playing it safe means everyone is hurt when they can't or dont encounter unpopular ideas
  • social media plays a big part in this. "callout culture" is about scoring points
  • Haidt talks about a professor was becoming agitated trying to explain something to a class. Jokingly said to "shoot me now." Was called out by a single student for being insensitive towards those affected by suicide.
  • If the student approached the professor privately it would have been fine but you can't get social credit when you don't callout people.
  • most students are fine but if you have a class of 300 you no longer teach to a "reasonable person standard" but to the "most sensitive standard"
  • Lot of weird trends in most countries, social media to blame for driving the wedge and sowing divisiveness
  • Haidt thinks the culture will never correct itself. This is here to stay.
  • once people's basic needs are met, actions are taken to increase prestige. we all act out reputation management. this is fine except when the culture around cultivating prestige is about attacking other people, not improving oneself.
  • those in the social justice movement know they're walking on eggshells. tendency to eat their own. takes an extreme mental health toll on those involved as evidenced by essays from those who separated themselves from that lifestyle
  • sjw types are no fun. always hyperserious and angry.
  • we have to raise the next generation of kids on how to deal and encounter with social media.
  • we have to callout the callout culture. mocking the behavior will socially condition it
  • Rogan sees too many patterns in people. Maga guys are very similar. It's not just SJWs that are tribalistic. It's too easy to predict if people are pro 2nd amendment, skeptical of climate change, etc. Lefties and righties both take part in this.
  • based off polling data, people's views were much more mixed a few decades ago. now it's an us vs them. you must be entirely on board or you are a traitor. liberal republicans and conservative democrats used to exist
  • all it takes is one student to report a professor and they'll get notices to speak more carefully. discussion and debate in the classroom suffers as a result
 
Jan 25, 2018
2,283
2,601
265
29
Southeastern USA
#53
One thing to remember is what we're essentially talking about is the ascendancy of social media websites like Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr.

There would be no SJWs if it weren't for these websites, this is simply what politics look like in the modern digital age, social media makes people dumber, it's as simple as that, so we get dumber versions of past politics.

This doesn't just apply to the left wing either, it applies to the right just as much, it applies to everyone, one good example of right wing bullshit that came about thanks to social media is the "crisis actors" conspiracy theories related to Sandy Hook and other shootings, that crap never would have become so common had it not been for the net.

Like I said, social media and the internet in general makes people dumber, our brains are just not evolved to handle the way these websites work, they encourage extremism.

Remember the Tsarnaev brothers? They were just two average dudes until they were radicalized by content they found on the net, which lead to them murdering people, it's all quite terrifying when you really think about it.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,276
788
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#56
I wholeheartedly agree with the man.
I wholeheartedly agree with... the quotes that came from someone apparently pretending to be Dwayne Johnson.

Saw this corrected when I got back online and wondered how they thought they'd get away with printing an interview that never happened with a celebrity that has such an online presence. I don't have any tolerance for fake news. I questioned why Dwayne Johnson would give an exclusive interview to the Daily Star of all sources, but didn't see anything suggesting it was fake this afternoon either. He only corrected it 2-3 hours ago.
 
Jan 18, 2017
165
30
200
#57
Facebook,Twitter, and IG pretty much lead the charge on a lot of things that’s wrong, it seemed to make everyone soo on edge about any comment and extra sensitive. It brought on all these different sjw groups who one day love you an in the same 24 hours want you to go away forever due to you disagreeing online. I know this might be an unpopular opinion but I wish social media, mainly the big ones had some way to just block ppl from even using it or at least limit. Even if it was some type of payment form or something idk. Pre2010 was a fun time online, all I looked at was gaf, YouTube and Justin tv.
 
Feb 6, 2012
1,322
117
435
#59
The ideology was already there in the late 80s, it is just that it was confined to the darkest corners of the most left-wing college departments.
If you google you will see that everything about intersectionality/oppression or what some call cultural marxism was alredy there in the 80s.

It really spread like wildfire over the last 8 years, though.
 
Nov 18, 2012
1,690
342
425
Narvik, Norway
#60
I don't like the term SJW, I think it's a needless label thats used to dismiss the opinions of people the user of the term disagrees with, it's the same game as identity politics but instead of race, sexuality, gender, it uses ideology as a separator.

That said...come on, you know who they're talking about, and you know when people say SJW they're not simply talking about people with socially progressive views or civil rights activists. You know that when people say SJW they're talking about the kind of person who calls Ben Shapiro a nazi, who say that anyone who doesn't support diversity quotas is a racist or sexist, who believes that straight men who don't think Caitlin Jenner is beautiful only feels that way because they're bigots. If you were on this forum before the split, you'd know these people exist. True we probably shouldn't call them SJW's as that shuts down debate, but let's be honest here...SJW doesn't refer to your garden variety feminists.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,046
992
240
Moore Park Beach
#61
Are SJW only left leaning?

Cos the right have been pushing identity politics for decades upon decades upon decades.

Apparently, I'm supposed to be outraged by trans people, just like I was supposed to be outraged by gay people, women and black people.

Yes and No.
Far extreme identitarians have been around for a long time on both sides.
Kkk verus true marxist/stalinists for example.


SJW are mostly extreme far left leaning and are the opposite of the kkk.
Both of them are disgraceful and need to be opposed.
SJWs have better PR than KKK, that is the main difference and why people don't hate them as much.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,046
992
240
Moore Park Beach
#62
I don't like the term SJW, I think it's a needless label thats used to dismiss the opinions of people the user of the term disagrees with, it's the same game as identity politics but instead of race, sexuality, gender, it uses ideology as a separator.

That said...come on, you know who they're talking about, and you know when people say SJW they're not simply talking about people with socially progressive views or civil rights activists. You know that when people say SJW they're talking about the kind of person who calls Ben Shapiro a nazi, who say that anyone who doesn't support diversity quotas is a racist or sexist, who believes that straight men who don't think Caitlin Jenner is beautiful only feels that way because they're bigots. If you were on this forum before the split, you'd know these people exist. True we probably shouldn't call them SJW's as that shuts down debate, but let's be honest here...SJW doesn't refer to your garden variety feminists.
Feminist != SJW

Most feminists are nice, sane people. My Wife is one.
SJW are not feminists. They are a toxic cancer that must be destroyed.
 
Nov 12, 2016
660
679
250
#63
I never meet SJWs like I always read about. Not once during undergrad or my master's program or IRL did I ever meet someone who pushed some crazy left wing views like I read about on Reddit or as people often claim. I do know and have met people who complain about SJWs and they do so often. These are mostly whining toxic white men. I think the term 'SJW' is a nebulous term which people often use to espouse their questionable beliefs and play the victim. They want to rage at change of any kind.
I remember hearing a comedian interviewed a few weeks back. I forget who it was. He was talking about how there are certain places, like LA, where he doesn't even like to go anymore, because everyone gets offended at the jokes.

There's a reason why Liberals want to abolish the electoral college. By and large, there isn't this high concentration of SJWs across the country. However, go to Liberal hive minds like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc and it becomes unbearable at the amount of people that suddenly lose their ability to think independently.
 
Likes: Cunth

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,391
105
430
New York
#64
I don’t think you “push” for change, or rather “shove” is more appropriate in today’s political climate. I think you encourage change. What happens when you do the former, you get push back, which creates unhealthy conflict. There needs to be more compassion and dialogue instead of finger pointing and blame. It’s a shame really, cause we were doing so good.
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#65
You seem to be greatly exaggerating and generalizing when it comes to your own argument. I'm simply curious how you can complain about "nebulous terms" and then turn around and pin the crux of your standpoint on nebulous terms. MLK Jr would've been called an SJW? Goodness.

As a researcher, you should be sensitive to making "unfalsifiable claims", yet here you are, preaching at us and telling us what those people who use SJW really think about everything.
In his own time MLK jr. was often referred to as a Marxist.
 
Jan 12, 2009
15,839
1,353
835
#67
I don’t think you “push” for change, or rather “shove” is more appropriate in today’s political climate. I think you encourage change. What happens when you do the former, you get push back, which creates unhealthy conflict. There needs to be more compassion and dialogue instead of finger pointing and blame. It’s a shame really, cause we were doing so good.
“Power never takes a back step – only in the face of more power. ”
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#68
The revisionism and sanitizing of the climate surrounding MLKJr and the civil rights movement will always confirm that much work still needs to be done.
I’m not even American, and consider it basic knowledge about his life and time. One of the reasons is that labels like that are intellectually lazy smears that proves people can’t or won’t take the time to counter arguments, but still wants the social media likes.
 

bad

Member
Nov 5, 2013
2,391
105
430
New York
#69
“Power never takes a back step – only in the face of more power. ”
I’ll say one thing about Malcome X. He viewed all whites as Wolves and blacks as Sheep. But that’s not necessarily true. He made a lot of strong points, but he also had his own agenda. People are people, and titles like wolf & sheep are interchangeable depending on who has power, no matter of race. But... I’m some scmuck on a video game forum and he’s Malcome X.
 
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#75
I don't think he was, based on what I know about him and his principles.

That still doesn't affirm that "he would've been called an SJW". It's a nonsensical argument.
He was called almost anything with a negative connotation to his political opponents decades ago, even if it wasn’t objectively true, what makes you think that would be different today?
 
Apr 18, 2018
6,204
9,210
545
USA
dunpachi.com
#81
He was called almost anything with a negative connotation to his political opponents decades ago, even if it wasn’t objectively true, what makes you think that would be different today?
Because it's an empty statement, a leap in logic, an unfalsifiable claim.

It follows the following formula:

"Jesus would've been called a Republican in his day"
"Ghengis Khan would've probably joined the KKK, if he had been given the option"
"Martin Luther King would've been called an SJW"

It's an association that has no weight. Whether I think it might've happened or could've happened is irrelevant. Do any facts seem to back up the notion that he would've been called an SJW, and therefore we should give so-called modern SJWs a pass? I'd like to know the connotation here.

Please don't ask me to believe your fairy-tale association that Martin Luther King Jr. "would've been called an SJW". For all you know, he could've called others that term.
 
Likes: Ryujin
Nov 21, 2012
429
133
410
#82
How would you capture data like this to be measured? No one calls themselves a SJW. Someone like you might call anyone advocating for someone else a SJW. A study like this would bring biases in especially with loaded terms like SJW. How the hell do you collect enough data on this to run analysis?
A lot of this “SJW” prejorative is just social media gossip. It has no relevance in ordinary people’s lives. If people spent less time online and more time engaging in the real world, they might become aware of that.

No one goes around screaming “I am SJW!” And why are people against change that benefits minorities and woman. By today’s definition if we had social media in the 1950’s people would be calling civil rights activists, SJW’s or if we had the same technology during Woman’s Sufferedge they would be calling them “SJW’s!” I feel there is nebulous forces at work here that are influencing people’s thoughts, rather than encouraging open ended dialogue that would hopefully make two separate party’s come to a mutual understanding.

In the end, it’s social media that is the contributing factor to a lot of this. Writing a sentence or two on Facebook or Twitter does not make you a social activist. You have to actually go out there and get involved and do something.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2018
139
52
195
#83
Because it's an empty statement, a leap in logic, an unfalsifiable claim.

It follows the following formula:

"Jesus would've been called a Republican in his day"
"Ghengis Khan would've probably joined the KKK, if he had been given the option"
"Martin Luther King would've been called an SJW"

It's an association that has no weight. Whether I think it might've happened or could've happened is irrelevant. Do any facts seem to back up the notion that he would've been called an SJW, and therefore we should give so-called modern SJWs a pass? I'd like to know the connotation here.

Please don't ask me to believe your fairy-tale association that Martin Luther King Jr. "would've been called an SJW". For all you know, he could've called others that term.
You do not seem to have read my other posts, please do. I don’t care about these labels that other people throw around, weather it’s alt-right, racist, sjw or Marxist. It all goes in the trash.
 

ArchaeEnkidu

Vincit qui se vincit
Jan 30, 2018
2,490
3,830
460
#84
A lot of this “SJW” prejorative is just social media gossip. It has no relevance in ordinary people’s lives. If people spent less time online and more time engaging in the real world, they might become aware of that.

No one goes around screaming “I am SJW!” And why are people against change that benefits minorities and woman. By today’s definition if we had social media in the 1950’s people would be calling civil rights activists, SJW’s or if we had the same technology during Woman’s Sufferedge they would be calling them “SJW’s!” I feel there is nebulous forces at work here that are influencing people’s thoughts, rather than encouraging open ended dialogue that would hopefully make two separate parities come to a mutual understanding.

I do not believe most people are in favor of sexual harassment or abuse or anything of that nature. And if people are expelling focus and energy and bitching about contrived things like anime or video games, having a character with cleavage, then they need to seriously self examine what’s actually important in this life.
You haven't been to Berkeley or Evergreen, then.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Jun 13, 2017
528
506
205
#85
A lot of this “SJW” prejorative is just social media gossip. It has no relevance in ordinary people’s lives. If people spent less time online and more time engaging in the real world, they might become aware of that.

No one goes around screaming “I am SJW!” And why are people against change that benefits minorities and woman. By today’s definition if we had social media in the 1950’s people would be calling civil rights activists, SJW’s or if we had the same technology during Woman’s Sufferedge they would be calling them “SJW’s!” I feel there is nebulous forces at work here that are influencing people’s thoughts, rather than encouraging open ended dialogue that would hopefully make two separate party’s come to a mutual understanding.

In the end, it’s social media that is the contributing factor to a lot of this. Writing a sentence or two on Facebook or Twitter does not make you a social activist. You have to actually go out there and get involved and do something.
You kinda explain exactly why they wouldn't right here. It's the people who sit at home typing on twitter about all the evil in the world that get called SJW. I've never seen actual activists, like people who fight for gay rights in russia, be called SJW. I always though the term Social Justice Warrior came from Keyboard Warrior.
 
Nov 21, 2012
429
133
410
#86
You kinda explain exactly why they wouldn't right here. It's the people who sit at home typing on twitter about all the evil in the world that get called SJW. I've never seen actual activists, like people who fight for gay rights in russia, be called SJW. I always though the term Social Justice Warrior came from Keyboard Warrior.
I use to be politically active years ago. Was involved in protests against globalization/Neo-liberalism and the War in Iraq. But current circumstances keep me from being involved, plus the protests going on today differ in a large degree to the ones I was involved in.

Maybe I am wrong, but I feel a lot of the Generation Z youth, are very conformist minded and do not question the corporate hierarchy the way I did or others of my time did or still do.
 
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#87
That's a very specific date. Someone is obviously referencing RiskyChris.
I was like, who the hell is RiskyChris? So I looked him up and the last thread he posted in, and oh...

It was particularly amusing because I saw my old self arguing with him, saying the exact things that would end up getting me banned a few years later. It's really amazing how much NeoGAF went down the shitter in three short years. Let's hope it never returns to those dark days.
 
Likes: matt404au
Dec 3, 2018
850
1,293
215
#88
Maybe I am wrong, but I feel a lot of the Generation Z youth, are very conformist minded and do not question the corporate hierarchy the way I did or others of my time did or still do.
That's because the corporations are their parents. They grow knowing their iPhone better than their family, and they have PR staff so they end up looking immaculate while parents just end up looking like parents.
 
Dec 10, 2018
19
14
80
#89
A lot of this “SJW” prejorative is just social media gossip. It has no relevance in ordinary people’s lives. If people spent less time online and more time engaging in the real world, they might become aware of that.

No one goes around screaming “I am SJW!” And why are people against change that benefits minorities and woman. By today’s definition if we had social media in the 1950’s people would be calling civil rights activists, SJW’s or if we had the same technology during Woman’s Sufferedge they would be calling them “SJW’s!” I feel there is nebulous forces at work here that are influencing people’s thoughts, rather than encouraging open ended dialogue that would hopefully make two separate party’s come to a mutual understanding.

In the end, it’s social media that is the contributing factor to a lot of this. Writing a sentence or two on Facebook or Twitter does not make you a social activist. You have to actually go out there and get involved and do something.
This “novel such thing as an SJW”mentality would be a whole lot More believable if an actual Democrat didn’t public ally say something along the lines of “white men need to be quiet ,when a POC is talking about things concerning minorties.”

That’s just one example lol. The women’s march had a coupe terrorist as special guest or something. I think one would have to be willfully ignorant to think that SJWs don’t exist/aren’t a problem etc.

I do agree people sometimes tend to just slap a label on someone when they can’t/won’t debate them.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,346
235
915
#90
Yes and No.
Far extreme identitarians have been around for a long time on both sides.
Kkk verus true marxist/stalinists for example.


SJW are mostly extreme far left leaning and are the opposite of the kkk.
Both of them are disgraceful and need to be opposed.
SJWs have better PR than KKK, that is the main difference and why people don't hate them as much.
This comparison makes no sense.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,346
235
915
#92
Only if you don’t understand the difference between a social justice warrior and a civil rights activist. It has to do with motivations and self-interest.
Has it really gotten to the stage where you are unable to discern the very obvious differences between the KKK and so called Social Justice Warriors?
 
Nov 18, 2012
1,690
342
425
Narvik, Norway
#94
Only if you don’t understand the difference between a social justice warrior and a civil rights activist. It has to do with motivations and self-interest.
I think we need to distinguish between the KKK and far-left extremists (so called SJWs) though when talking about motivation.

SJWs are essentially participating in a social media fuled popularity contest, virtue signaling are their weapons and self aggrandisement is their goal. They are typically insecure about their own believes and so overcompensate in the other direction.

KKK members on the other hand aren't trying to "fit in", they're not trying to be liked, and instead of virtue signaling their weapons are unfiltered hate, threats and often violence. Their goal is so called racial purity, and while it no doubt also comes form insecurity they aren't overcompensating to hide it, instead they embrace it ("I'm an unemployed looser and it's the Mexicans fault!").

I freaking hate what can be called the typical SJW, but I'll take that over a "loud and proud" racist any day.
 
Last edited:
Jul 13, 2018
354
336
205
#95
Unless I missed it, the financial aspect that influences the rise of social justice mentality was overlooked.

The way that works is basically: Government loans for college create assured tuition payments for the colleges. These loans are aimed to the disadvantaged and others. The assured money is enticing to colleges, so they agree to the loan paying students. Government wants to increase youth in college, so they increase the availability of loans.

This is where the problem comes in: College isn't meant to be widely available. To be of any worth, an institution of higher learning must be very selective. It's similar to a country club or private retreat. You wouldn't pay thousands and thousands of dollars to get into a club that just anybody could get into. There's no prestige in that and no security in it. Yet that's what is happening in colleges.

So the colleges lower standards to get more students in and the students pay the tuition via loans. Market adjusts and tuition skyrockets. Business minds get into the college racket for the assured government money. Tuition continues to rise. The bureaucratic part of college increases as well.

From this, students begin to be customers. So increased customers created via lower standards gives us another problem: You can't fail paying customers. It's one thing to let the less qualified in, but if they can't pass the courses because they lack the ability then you're going to lose their business. So naturally, there needs to courses and studies the lower end of the spectrum can take.

Enter gender studies/latino studies/etc. Most of these classes aren't taxing on ones ability to think abstractly or do complicated formulas or understand a boatload of scientific theory. They mostly require faith and adherence to a set of beliefs.

The end result, from what I've observed in my time at college and the way it's gotten far worse since, is that universities are being split in two. The SJW studies that feed A's to the less mentally able keep the college financially secure, but so do the STEM fields that make their students potentially financially secure and able to give money back to the college after they've left and started up at Google or Apple. Every field of study in-between struggles to be as financially useful as those two groups and either get cut or absorbed into the groups. This is largely what has happened to various humanities and foreign languages.
 
Last edited:
Likes: matt404au

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,430
6,277
805
Australia
#97
I think we need to distinguish between the KKK and far-left extremists (so called SJWs) though when talking about motivation.

SJW s are essentially participating in a social media files popularity contest, virtue signaling are their weapons and self aggrandisement is their goal. They are typically insecure about their own believes and so overcompensate in the other direction.

KKK members on the other hand aren't trying to "fit in", they're not trying to be liked, and instead of virtue signaling their weapons are unfiltered hate, threats and often violence. Their goal is so called racial purity, and while it no doubt also comes form insecurity they aren't overcompensating to hide it, instead they embrace it ("I'm an unemployed looser and it's the Mexicans fault!").

I freaking hateehst can be called the typical SJW, but I'll take that over a "loud and proud" racist any day.
I think that's part of it, but I think social justice ideologues (my preferred term for accuracy) are also participating in the culture war as the footsoldiers of Marxist academics. Most of them don't realise it, but the ideology they've swallowed and built their identity around stems from there. When you stray too far towards the right end of the horseshoe, you get nazis; when you stray too far towards the left end, you get social justice ideologues. Both want to bring down a perceived oppressor (right: Jews, left: whites) in favour of a perceived oppressed group (right: Germans/whites, left: non-whites).

Note that I'm not referring to just anyone who cares about social issues here. I agree that the term SJW is often thrown around haphazardly, but I have no problem with it while alt-right is still in common parlance. They don't get to ban SJW while still calling people alt-right.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
6,430
6,277
805
Australia
#98
Unless I missed it, the financial aspect that influences the rise of social justice mentality was overlooked.

The way that works is basically: Government loans for college create assured tuition payments for the colleges. These loans are aimed to the disadvantaged and others. The assured money is enticing to colleges, so they agree to the loan paying students. Government wants to increase youth in college, so they increase the availability of loans.

This is where the problem comes in: College isn't meant to be widely available. To be of any worth, an institution of higher learning must be very selective. It's similar to a country club or private retreat. You wouldn't pay thousands and thousands of dollars to get into a club that just anybody could get into. There's no prestige in that and no security in it. Yet that's what is happening in colleges.

So the colleges lower standards to get more students in and the students pay the tuition via loans. Market adjusts and tuition skyrockets. Business minds get into the college racket for the assured government money. Tuition continues to rise. The bureaucratic part of college increases as well.

From this, students begin to be customers. So increased customers created via lower standards gives us another problem: You can't fail paying customers. It's one thing to let the less qualified in, but if they can't pass the courses because they lack the ability then you're going to lose their business. So naturally, there needs to courses and studies the lower end of the spectrum can take.

Enter gender studies/latino studies/etc. Most of these classes aren't taxing on ones ability to think abstractly or do complicated formulas or understand a boatload of scientific theory. They mostly require faith and adherence to a set of beliefs.

The end result, from what I've observed in my time at college and the way it's gotten far worse since, is that universities are being split in two. The SJW studies that feed A's to the less mentally able keep the college financially secure, but so do the STEM fields that make their students potentially financially secure and able to give money back to the college after they've left and started up at Google or Apple. Every field of study in-between struggles to be as financially useful as those two groups and either get cut or absorbed into the groups. This is largely what has happened to various humanities and foreign languages.
Participation degrees for the participation trophy generation.