An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[BloatedGuppy]

I will resign that argument then, although if you don't mind me asking what awful ways do you mean as I have mentioned I don't mean it in any sense of demeaning or otherwise.

Not arguing, just chatting. It's all good.

It's a pejorative. There's no "nice" way to use it. It's like saying "I don't use spic in a derogatory way, I just use it to make it apparent that I'm talking about spics!".

I am enjoying this conversation we are having I hope you feel the same.

Yep. Perfectly collegial.

 

[God'sFist]

I will resign that argument then, although if you don't mind me asking what awful ways do you mean as I have mentioned I don't mean it in any sense of demeaning or otherwise.

Not arguing, just chatting. It's all good.

It's a pejorative. There's no "nice" way to use it. It's like saying "I don't use spic in a derogatory way, I just use it to make it apparent that I'm talking about spics!".

I am enjoying this conversation we are having I hope you feel the same.

Yep. Perfectly collegial.

What are spics? But beyond that what would you suggest is a better term? Seeing as how I'd prefer to regard what I'm talking about in a better light than a racial term. Because I see both sides as a group of people with differing ideas to improve the medium of which we share. Plus if I just say group of people vs group of people it can be quite confusing for those that try read whatever I type.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

What are spics?

Ethnic slur. Just one chosen at random to illustrate the point.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=spic

But beyond that what would you suggest is a better term?

You don't need a term. Just debate people as individuals. If you must have language to describe a particular mindset, you could use one of the several examples I listed in my original post in this thread. Although you'll want to keep in mind to use terms like "That sounds like fundamentalist thinking" rather than "You are a filthy fundamentalist".

 

[EternallyBored]

I will resign that argument then, although if you don't mind me asking what awful ways do you mean as I have mentioned I don't mean it in any sense of demeaning or otherwise.

Not arguing, just chatting. It's all good.

It's a pejorative. There's no "nice" way to use it. It's like saying "I don't use spic in a derogatory way, I just use it to make it apparent that I'm talking about spics!".

I am enjoying this conversation we are having I hope you feel the same.

Yep. Perfectly collegial.

What are spics? But beyond that what would you suggest is a better term? Seeing as how I'd prefer to regard what I'm talking about in a better light than a racial term. Because I see both sides as a group of people with differing ideas to improve the medium of which we share. Plus if I just say group of people vs group of people it can be quite confusing for those that try read whatever I type.

terms like feminist or progressive, diversity advocate, or anything like that would probably work better, the problem with SJW being that, like guppy said, many people just use and see it as a pejorative, like calling the other side stupid, "get a load of what those stupid/SJW people are doing now". Even the people who call themselves "SJW's" generally still recognize that it is a pejorative and only use the term as a way to strike back at the people trying to insult them.

It's not easy, and there isn't a default acceptable way right now that's going to make everyone happy, but, from my experience at least, lumping the group together as generic SJW's tends to stop most rational conversation before its ever begun, it's like going into the gamergate threads and describing the movement by using the word misogyny, it may technically be accurate for some small amount of people in the movement, but the term itself is going to halt rational, calm discussion if you throw it into a group.

 

[God'sFist]

@BloatedGuppy: Well guess I've got nothing left to say thank you for the nice chat I learned a little bit and understand more as well which my goals have been sated.....for now.

@EternallyBored: I definitely think those are probably better thank you

 

[Rayce Archer]

Wait...why is it "sjw woman" and not just "sjw"?

. SJW comes from men's rights activists

where do you get your information, because it sounds like it comes from "the sun". Really where the hek did you read that SJW come from men's rights activists? And where did you find slut shaming at #gamergate?

This is a joke, right?

The first usage of Social Justice Warrior seems to be taken from Fuck No Tumblr Social Justice (later amended to Fuck No Tumblr SJW), a parody of Tumblr's "Fuck Yeah" aggregator pages, ironically hosted ON TUMBLR. Their first post is about how the asexual community should shut up and it devolves from there. It was closely followed by the style-identical Shit Social Justice Allies Say, which has since vanished but is reposted suspiciously heavily on Misandry-The Hatred of Men, an anti social justice tumblr page purportedly written by a lady with lots of edgy stuff to say about ladies. YOUR WORDS ARE NOT NEW.

As for no slut-shaming in gamergate, I guess just asking you to read a few pages of it is too much?

 

[Vigormortis]

Wait wait wait.

She is being racist and NOT being racist against white people?

Can't be a SJW then I guess.
Haven't we decided them SJW's lurk around Tumblr (or are everywhere) plotting to get rid of all the white cishet men as a somekind of PC-policing hivemind?

I'm sorry, but what the hell are you on about?

What exactly are you implying here? Are you honestly excusing her incredibly racist comment? And when did I use the term "SJW" at all in my post?

Please elaborate here because I'm quite confused. It almost seems like you're ignoring her offensive comment because someone somewhere said she's racist against caucasians. And frankly, I'd like to think more of posters around here than to be convinced they'd defend such a comment, simply because they supposedly share a singular ideal with the person who made it.

Unless you agree with her and you honestly want a culture war against black people. In which case....well...

I'm not even sure what to say about that.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't know who Bob Faraci or "us" is in this context and I don't know why he would or wouldn't call me a terrorist, but I'm sure that there's a lot of hyperbole involved.

Oh, man, you missed the Devin (sorry, don't know why I said Bob) Faraci thread?

But yes, much hyperboles.

 

[Something Amyss]

For one glorious, perfect moment, Google said "a piece of bread soaked in liquid". But no, it apparently stands for Standard Operating Procedure. *Protracted, wistful sigh*.

I would rather have that. Let's go with sop.

It could well be true but this sounds like the most madey-uppey story that has ever been made-up.

It sounds like something from a deleted scene in PCU.

 

[Something Amyss]

What exactly are you implying here? Are you honestly excusing her incredibly racist comment? And when did I use the term "SJW" at all in my post

Lieju is taking the piss. She's having fun with all the rage about SJWs.

Specifically that "we" are all tolerant of everyone except for white cis heterosexual males, who we hate and are actively conspiring about. Ergo, a racist remark about someone who isn't that [Homer Simpson voice]caaaaaan't[/Homer Simpson voice] be a social justice warrior.

It has nothing to do with whether the comment is right or wrong.

 

[C. Cain]

Oh, man, you missed the Devin (sorry, don't know why I said Bob) Faraci thread?

But yes, much hyperboles.

Less missed and more actively avoided.

I kind of enjoy the occasional scuffle, but I'd rather not get dragged into threads which already have more than twenty posts before I show up. After reading the first page I usually come to the conclusion that there are enough sensible people who already covered everything I might have said. And they tend to be more eloquent, too.

 

[Lieju]

snip

Zachary Amaranth already explained what I was on about, having picked up my meaning through the SJW-hivemind.
Or by being able to recognize sarcasm.

My point is that even though you didn't call her a SJW she was brought up in the discussion as an example of one.
And the way the term is used around here lately, is to pretend there is a some organized anti-cis anti-men anti-white anti-hetero crowd out there, lurking and ruining games.

When it's a label thrown around to refer to unassociated individuals who happen to disagree with whatever or criticize games in some way.

But it's just so much more exciting to imagine you're fighting against an organized oppressive regime, right?

I mean, at least when something is called racist or sexist there is a definition for it, and we can discuss if the thing IS racist or sexist.

While a SJW is a vague boogeyman that's out there somewhere I guess, and used as an excuse to lump valid criticism together with extremists.
I mean, it's usually used to refer to some vague third party out there, rather than even calling specific people that, at least on these forums.

 

[Something Amyss]

Less missed and more actively avoided.

I kind of enjoy the occasional scuffle, but I'd rather not get dragged into threads which already have more than twenty posts before I show up. After reading the first page I usually come to the conclusion that there are enough sensible people who already covered everything I might have said. And they tend to be more eloquent, too.

I wish I had done the same. But the gist is that "us" supposedly meant "all gamers," and this was in no way hurt by one of the twits (I will not call them tweets) used to demonstrate this included Faraci using the #notallgamers hashtag.

I compare the above article primarily for that reason. Also, it'd be fair to say that Devin was a bit of a dick himself. Much like this author, who comes off as a tool. I certainly won't defend them for that.

I would love to see that too. When I say the feminist "crowd" what I really mean is essentially those people who write those labels and those that agree with said unnecessary labels and try to enforce them.

Well, you might try actively describing them, rather than relying on the nebulous term "feminist crowd." To a lot of people with a boner for anti-feminism, it means one thing. To me, it's just confusing, as I'm trying to figure out which crowd. It's one of the funny little things that most of the anti-feminist crowds are far more homogenous than the group they're trying to paint with a single brush. Not all, not completely, but enough.

But back to the point: when you actually get descriptive, the "feminist" part pretty much becomes superfluous.

The same's true with SJW, a term which has basically come to mean "people who don't agree with me." "SJW" is tossed around the internet like the word "******" is in an online game. The people who use it likely don't even care whether you are a homosexual male, they simply know it's a word that means something negative. Which makes the use fairly ironic, because many (not all, or even necessarily most) of the people using the term are the same ones who object to the use of words like "sexism," claiming they're a way to shut down arguments or offensive or whatever.

Or, for example, don't want to be pegged as MRAs, dudebros, misogynists, or fedoraphiles.

Before anyone jumps me, I'll say what I've said several times of late: I am not immune to the effect, nor am I perfect. I have attempted to be aware of it, though, and to not fall victim to it (and when I do, to attempt to rectify the behaviour). I am not some shining paragon of virtue. But I am trying not to go "STFU and go back to your man-cave, you MRA scum!" or whatever. It's counterproductive.

I know you had a large chat with Bloated Guppy, but I wanted to be specific about that part.

 

[Alex Baas]

First (and last) SJW thread I have ever posted in. I need to get this off my chest or I will explode.

People can make any claim they want but you dont have to listen. If they scream in your face, press for documented proof from a credible source. Nothing scares that crazies away better than that. Also, tell them "So you have identified a problem. What long term solutions do you see to fixing it?" That works too.

If you'll excuse me I am going to go back to a place where people all get along even if they disagree

 

[Vigormortis]

Zachary Amaranth already explained what I was on about, having picked up my meaning through the SJW-hivemind.
Or by being able to recognize sarcasm.

My point is that even though you didn't call her a SJW she was brought up in the discussion as an example of one.
And the way the term is used around here lately, is to pretend there is a some organized anti-cis anti-men anti-white anti-hetero crowd out there, lurking and ruining games.

When it's a label thrown around to refer to unassociated individuals who happen to disagree with whatever or criticize games in some way.

But it's just so much more exciting to imagine you're fighting against an organized oppressive regime, right?

I mean, at least when something is called racist or sexist there is a definition for it, and we can discuss if the thing IS racist or sexist.

While a SJW is a vague boogeyman that's out there somewhere I guess, and used as an excuse to lump valid criticism together with extremists.
I mean, it's usually used to refer to some vague third party out there, rather than even calling specific people that, at least on these forums.

. . .

I reiterate: Where the hell in ANY of my posts in here have I even remotely hinted at any of that? I never even made a comment on what side of the whole debacle I fall on. Is this how conversations go on this site now? Projecting biases on others?

Maybe you should try taking some posts at face value instead of assuming they're all hiding some sinister ulterior motive.

And I still do not understand why you quoted me in the first place. Are you defending Ms. Alexander's tweet or just using me as some prime example of....whatever your implying?

 

[Lieju]

Maybe you should try taking some posts at face value instead of assuming they're all hiding some sinister ulterior motive.

And I still do not understand why you quoted me in the first place. Are you still defending Ms. Alexander's tweet?

I quoted you because you linked to her racist comments.

She was brought up as a 'SJW', whatever that is, I made fun of the fact that her being racist against black people doesn't fit the image people throwing that term around try to construct.

Also wut.
At what point did I defend her tweet?
Which I said was racist?

Or actually:

She is being racist

 

[Vigormortis]

I quoted you because you linked to her racist comments.

She was brought up as a 'SJW', whatever that is, I made fun of the fact that her being racist against black people doesn't fit the image people throwing that term around try to construct.

Also wut.
At what point did I defend her tweet?
Which I said was racist?

Or actually:

She is being racist

Well, based on the wording in the original quote-post, it felt a bit like, for lack of a better word, an attack on my post. It felt as though you were attempting to project some kind of ulterior motive onto my words.

If that was not your intent, then apologies for the confusion.

I would add that there's a chance she may be racist towards both blacks and whites. Kind of a...reverse Uncle Ruckus, if you will.

Given how shitty she's proven herself to be these past few weeks, it would not surprise me.

 

[irishda]

So if you follow the twitter link for the author of this piece, the account's a little strange. They join in 2012, have one post ("Tweet test"), don't post again until 2013 with a total of 5. Then they don't post again until May 10th, with 2 retweets in Russian. There's another break until September 18th with a #notyourshield tweet, and then they're off to the races posting constantly (500 tweets and about 494 of those are from the last 5 days...).

Coupled with the...odd...story and how they just highlight every stereotype the anti-SJW crowd believes about "SJWs", and I don't even think this is at all real. That article is the anti-SJW version of "God is Not Dead".

 

[jamail77]

The broad generalizations about GGs from SJWs and about SJWs from GGs have caused me to stop seeing a difference between the two.

The irony is appalling.

Captcha: Legendary Toughness. Not for skins it seems.

And saddening. Anyone who is on the fence but leaning towards one "side" or the other (though not the extreme aspects of said "side") is getting swept up in this kind of rhetoric. If they do choose a "side", it often is the one that doesn't benefit them most individually and prevents them from seeing little if any of the nuances in the opposite "side". So there goes sympathy, empathy, rational discussion, and progress for you.

Nonetheless, I am going to kind of be against the article regardless of this point because, as others have pointed out

I'm suspicious of this article. It feels like she is trying to feed us what we want to hear about the other side in the same way many professional victims do for SJWs. Does anyone have anything to back up her claims? I don't want to end up spreading this just because it agrees with me.

Side note before I move on to what else has been pointed out already: Great outlook on this article. I can respect that regardless of whether I'm on one side of the debate or even actively involved in the debate at all. It's nice to see considering what this often turns into.

Moving on...

Yeah, I know everybody still hates comparisons because some go too far but I think the one I'll make here seems a bit justified.

You know how some religious leaders claim to have been atheists for much of their life and saw the light and completely changed and felt they realized their former peers had thoughts like "They just hated God" or "They want to deny the existence of God so they can sin"?

Yeah, I don't support that, even if they genuinely were a nonbeliever. Once you imply the beliefs of a group you held on to was not only ignorant, but some form of malicious or at its core is negative, I can not support you. This article seems no different.

You know how I know people talking about misogyny in gaming culture aren't talking about me and I have nothing to be worried about? Because I know I've never harassed women online. So frankly, I don't give two shits about any "the term gamer is dead" articles. Because that has in no way impeded my ability to play games or insulted me in any way.

I am also a COD fan, so I pretty much already know which people are talking about me specifically being bad for enjoying COD (Usually none) and who is just using a generalization that I don't fit in with.

You're not a misogynist? You're not hateful? These articles probably weren't talking about you then.

Wasn't this whole thing about journalistic integrity in game reviews and making sure journalists disclose any ties they may have before reviewing a game? What does this have to do with any of that?

not gonna lie i only skimmed, but it really smacks of some anti-sjw propaganda.

when i read the opening of the post and saw it starts with a resume of minority traits, abuse and oppression my bullshit radar was immediately triggered.

Not just a woman.

A Bi woman at that. Now if we could only had her not be white and be just a little transsexual on her cousin third removed from her mother's side, she'd really, really hit the trifecta.


And here's the reason why this article is bogus, regardless of whether or not the things in it did occur: SJW's don't exist. They were a label given by other people to describe whoever spoke of social issues, a label that very few people have taken up without a fairly substantial degree of irony. She may very well have been preyed upon by assholes, but what is it they say about every side?

Oh yeah: that it is filled with assholes.

I don't necessarily agree that SJWs don't exist. I'm not sure actually. I think the rest of this is quite valid though when you take into account how often this is done regardless of what side of the fight someone is on.

snip

snip

snip

It's not even about gaming. SJW comes from men's rights activists, the thinly veiled hategroups who saw all the slut shaming in #Gamergate and thought "dude, I could go for some of that!" The whole turdpile has since become indistinguishable from just another angry misogynist clusterfuck, which at least in my opinion is what keeps it from succeeding as the supposed talk about journalistic integrity that we should probably have.

As for the article: let's look at it rhetorically.
-Begins with enough weepy garbage as to make it functionally unassailable because THAT POOR LADY
-Covers bases of author having minority heritage and nonconventional sexuality to silence kneejerk liberals
-Blame placed on mother EVEN OTHER WOMEN HAVE BETRAYED HER
-Asserts she was totally a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR but not how, IMMEDIATELY jumps to 4chan good, WOMEN LEARNING bad
-Specifically states "liberal elite SJWs will try to silence you" to preempt any contradiction
-Plays race card as soon as possible to bring up the hipocrasy of white guilt, which as we all know COLLEGE FORCES ON YOU
-Oddly specific horror stories about mentally handicapped transsexuals (something that, while possible would be uncommon since in the US, you need to pass an absurd number of psych screens for gender reassignment)
-Calling out the whole "Feminists take power over gamers" angle that, once again, HAS NOT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

OKAY. I mean I don't mean to be condescending, and it's certainly possible this lady exists, but this is all EXACTLY what I would write if I were an angry dude trying to cater to the gamergate crowd. And, you know there's no way to prove ANY of this. But look! She has depression, just like that slut you guys like! SJWs, am I right? Looks like the best we can do is check her twitter-

Which had ZERO posts before gamergate except one about how Ayn Rand > liberals.

YEAH, I'm calling BS.

Also want to refer to this post in that I don't necessarily agree with the premise in its entirety, but he does a good job of breaking down common tactics for these sort of things.

So if you follow the twitter link for the author of this piece, the account's a little strange. They join in 2012, have one post ("Tweet test"), don't post again until 2013 with a total of 5. Then they don't post again until May 10th, with 2 retweets in Russian. There's another break until September 18th with a #notyourshield tweet, and then they're off to the races posting constantly (500 tweets and about 494 of those are from the last 5 days...).

Coupled with the...odd...story and how they just highlight every stereotype the anti-SJW crowd believes about "SJWs", and I don't even think this is at all real. That article is the anti-SJW version of "God is Not Dead".

Even if it were all true this person lost too much of what I stated at the beginning of my post. This requires a nuanced perspective to see through the awful stuff people sometimes say to justify their belief system, way of life, and code of conduct. Otherwise, you don't get past your own biases that makes you feel victimized rather than seeing a critique for what it is, something looking at a group that happens to include you but isn't targeting good individuals, like you, of said group. This person lost that along with sympathy and empathy to accompany that and the rational discussion you'd hope would follow.

I don't want to dismiss this person by trivializing serious issues because causes and groups CAN do this to people when they approach passerbys the wrong way especially passerbys with histories like this. Of course, you have to exclude all the people new to the philosophies and the realizations these things espouse and make clear respectively . These are people too easy to rush in, often sounding awful if not actually awful, because they lack the experience or knowledge to put it all together to make sense AND sound non-threatening. Though, there are plenty of awful people too either way. But, this isn't the way to advocate about problems faced by such individuals nor is it a good way to discredit movements.