An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[CaptainMarvelous]

Limericks, ey? I AM IN FAVOUR OF THIS

While we may not teach it in school
For this topic there can be a rule
It may seem quite contrary
Maybe arbitrary
But the warriors act like a fool

They don't care for the problem of ethics
Instead they discuss gender politics
For them there is war
There can be nothing more
And they're fucking up all of our topics

These warrior corps don't exist
The people clenching their fist
Are individual fools
Who are acting like tools
With no organisation to list

You callously call us that name
You treat us as if we're the same
Quite out of the blue
Indignation you spew
To dismiss a cause! Such a shame

I disagree, that using this label
To the idiots existing in fable
Will hurt your good cause
Indeed, it calls for applause
For if you aren't one, what can it disable?

While we may disagree on some bits
We agree being cruel is the pits
But indeed while it sucks
Both sides have dumb fucks
It's only a problem if the boot fits

 

[BloatedGuppy]

SJWs hate the terms SJW because it attacks the very core of their dogma, it reveals them not as the struggling oppressed but the violent, censoring oppressor; it changes them from the freedom fighter they seen in their mind into bully they are in real life; it forces them to actually engage with the meaningless platitudes and nauseatingly PC linguistic they use to usher through so much of their creed in their mind and speech. They don't like it because "tolerance and diversity" through censorship and repression is inherently hypocritical.

Another good SJW barometer is checking to see if someone claims "censorship" has nothing to do with the issue. SJWs hate being called on their censorship as the term is redolent of the nebulous "man" they are "fighting".

Essentially, the term SJW causes a massive attack of the Rage of Caliban in SJWs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864). The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army's strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership.

Before you get started, I could give less of a shit whether you ascribe to a personal sense of "social justice" or not. I don't know you, we're not friends, your personal belief system is rather irrelevant to me here, on the gaming forum. But this lazy generalization and blanket pejorative? I do care about that. You complain about dogma while uttering one of the outrageously dogmatic screeds I've ever heard. Are you oblivious to the hypocrisy of that?

 

[DataSnake]

A severely mentally handicapped, biracial transsexual individual above me had the habit of playing music at 3 am and continuing it loud enough for the walls to shake until they fell asleep the next night. I went upstairs and was called ablest for asking for the music to get turned down. When I went to my friends crying over the word they told me I was because clearly the music was part of their treatment. When the person upstairs reported me falsely for drug use I was encouraged not to counter report as that was racist. When I finally cracked and called the cops after the transexual individual broke into my house and smeared "trans hater" on my wall in crap for what I later found out to be a perceived slight by not smiling right at him. I was told to examine my potentially biased view points as I clearly didn't smile at him right.

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

Alright, they're not even trying to be subtle anymore. Or maybe they still are, in which case, wow, that's kind of sad.

 

[C. Cain]

I disagree, that using this label
To the idiots existing in fable
Will hurt your good cause
Indeed, it calls for applause
For if you aren't one, what can it disable?

While we may disagree on some bits
We agree being cruel is the pits
But indeed while it sucks
Both sides have dumb fucks
It's only a problem if the boot fits

The terms are still way too broad
Reasoned thoughts are put to the sword
The terms do not apply
We wave points goodbye
Social justice is to be abhorred

I concur with you on not being cruel
Such behaviour is the mark of a fool
The thing I can't abide,
Lack of precision aside,
Is the exception proving the rule

 

[God'sFist]

dude a SJW is a term used to describe someone who take the whole fighting for equality thing way too far.

We already have lots of words for that. Extremist. Fundamentalist. Ideologue. There is no shortage of words in the English language to describe people who are rigid and inflexible in their belief system.

"SJW", though, is a pejorative coined by idiots to throw a blanket over a varied cross section of people whom they disagree with. It is the new "White Knight", as modified to apply to both genders equally. Don't agree with someone? Poison the well by calling them a name first, a term designed purely to insult, and to imply membership in a group with presumed characteristics. Then you don't HAVE to debate them point by point, or try to understand their point of view, or come to an understanding. You can just call them a name, and dismiss them off-hand. This kind of labeling allows for a greatly simplified world view. You're not disagreeing with PEOPLE, who have a variety of opinions, motivations, rationale, etc, etc. You're disagreeing with an IDEA that you invented. The idea of the "social justice warrior", a blinkered idiot who believes in lazy, unfocused activism, the cause of the week, and soap-boxing on the internet about issues they barely understand. Much easier to dismiss. You know everything you need to know about them! They're a SJW! It's an open and shut case!

This is the essence of prejudice and bigotry. Invent a group with presumed characteristics, give it a name, assign people you disagree with to that group, and sneer at it at every given opportunity. You can put a little jacket and hat on it and say you're doing it because you believe in "ethical transparency in game journalism" or engage in slippery slope hysteria about the death of the hobby at the hands of meddling beatniks, but at the end of the day you are just rationalizing bigotry.

So while calling someone who uses the term "a moron" would be throwing wild punches, calling someone who uses the term prejudiced would be entirely accurate.

Now, I have no idea about you, but I tend to disregard obvious prejudice when I hear it. If you want to keep using the term because you think it's a cute way to ridicule people you dislike, you may continue to do so, but don't be under any illusions about what you're doing.

While I understand where you are coming from and know that you obviously don't find [insert group here] perfect. I must say that neither side is worth defending in a group minded setting. Because no matter what even if you say that x group is doing something "bad" others in x group will sit and say we don't do that or they don't do that. The same can be said when the x group does the same blaming of group y for doing a "bad" thing. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. But there are cases where the SJW or feminist crowd have labeled something for being sexist or racist when really it was unnecessary to do so. Likewise on the anti-sjw and anti feminist side they called out those crowds on something that was actually a problem. neither side pays attention to its mistakes nor do they credit each other for good points made in defense of their arguments. And yes most of these crowds are made up of people arguing over the internet myself begrudgingly included.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

While I understand where you are coming from and know that you obviously don't find [insert group here] perfect. I must say that neither side is worth defending in a group minded setting. Because no matter what even if you say that x group is doing something "bad" others in x group will sit and say we don't do that or they don't do that. The same can be said when the x group does the same blaming of group y for doing a "bad" thing. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. But there are cases where the SJW or feminist crowd have labeled something for being sexist or racist when really it was unnecessary to do so. Likewise on the anti-sjw and anti feminist side they called out those crowds on something that was actually a problem. neither side pays attention to its mistakes nor do they credit each other for good points made in defense of their arguments. And yes most of these crowds are made up of people arguing over the internet myself begrudgingly included.

I can't speak for "SJWs" because they don't exist, but the "feminist crowd" doesn't "do" anything, because it is composed of a great multitude of individuals who all think and feel differently about issues. So yes, certain PEOPLE who identify as feminist have occasionally labelled something as racist or sexist when it was "unnecessary to do so", because hey, people get emotional and stick labels on things when they really don't belong there. The proper response to that is to discourage labeling, not to give them a label in return.

All I want to see is a return to civility in the discussion. I want to see the attitude polarization dropped, and PEOPLE share their thoughts with other PEOPLE, treating them like individuals. At that point we can probably have these discussions in this forum without me throwing up in my mouth every time I read them.

 

[God'sFist]

While I understand where you are coming from and know that you obviously don't find [insert group here] perfect. I must say that neither side is worth defending in a group minded setting. Because no matter what even if you say that x group is doing something "bad" others in x group will sit and say we don't do that or they don't do that. The same can be said when the x group does the same blaming of group y for doing a "bad" thing. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. But there are cases where the SJW or feminist crowd have labeled something for being sexist or racist when really it was unnecessary to do so. Likewise on the anti-sjw and anti feminist side they called out those crowds on something that was actually a problem. neither side pays attention to its mistakes nor do they credit each other for good points made in defense of their arguments. And yes most of these crowds are made up of people arguing over the internet myself begrudgingly included.

I can't speak for "SJWs" because they don't exist, but the "feminist crowd" doesn't "do" anything, because it is composed of a great multitude of individuals who all think and feel differently about issues. So yes, certain PEOPLE who identify as feminist have occasionally labelled something as racist or sexist when it was "unnecessary to do so", because hey, people get emotional and stick labels on things when they really don't belong there. The proper response to that is to discourage labeling, not to give them a label in return.

All I want to see is a return to civility in the discussion. I want to see the attitude polarization dropped, and PEOPLE share their thoughts with other PEOPLE, treating them like individuals. At that point we can probably have these discussions in this forum without me throwing up in my mouth every time I read them.

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. So not exactly saying all feminists just those ones that may or may not be made up. But then again the sjws do exist because there people who label themselves as such and go about doing things in the name of that label. I won't chastise an entire group nor will I label such people unreasonable because then I am just doing the same thing as others. I would rather contribute to the discussion rather than point fingers and find blame or label others as something to disenfranchise them. Such behavior is appalling and adds nothing to a conversation. I seek dialogue and wish to learn and understand as much as I can.

captcha: flat tire

captcha if you're trying to help do it somewhere else.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But then again the sjws do exist because there people who label themselves as such and go about doing things in the name of that label.

I could label myself a super hero, it wouldn't mean I was one. If someone attaches a stupid label to themselves and goes about doing and saying ridiculous things, we don't presume there is now an entire demographic of people to whom we can easily apply that label and pre-judge everything they might say. We just see a single person with an overly high opinion of themselves.

And for what it's worth, I spend an UNREASONABLE amount of time online, and I had never ONCE heard the term "social justice warrior" before I encountered it on this forum, and I have only EVER heard it used in the derogatory by the people who are convinced they are everywhere.

I would rather contribute to the discussion rather than point fingers and find blame or label others as something to disenfranchise them. Such behavior is appalling and adds nothing to a conversation. I seek dialogue and wish to learn and understand as much as I can.

That is laudable, and I wish there were more people with that mindset in these discussions.

 

[Lieju]

I don't like Leigh. I think she comports herself terribly on twitter, and has fallen into using hostile generalizations and inflammatory hyperbole when she speaks out on issues. That said, I've never seen a quote attributed to her where she says "everyone who plays games and is male is a misogynist". If you can find one, I'd love to read it.

Would you settle for one displaying her overt racism? [https://twitter.com/FartToContinue/status/511340606527119360/photo/1]

Honestly, she, like many others shoulder-deep in this fiasco, is an incredibly shitty person. Not deserving of harassment, of course. No one is. But still, she's the definition of repugnant.

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?

 

[God'sFist]

But then again the sjws do exist because there people who label themselves as such and go about doing things in the name of that label.

I could label myself a super hero, it wouldn't mean I was one. If someone attaches a stupid label to themselves and goes about doing and saying ridiculous things, we don't presume there is now an entire demographic of people to whom we can easily apply that label and pre-judge everything they might say. We just see a single person with an overly high opinion of themselves.

And for what it's worth, I spend an UNREASONABLE amount of time online, and I had never ONCE heard the term "social justice warrior" before I encountered it on this forum, and I have only EVER heard it used in the derogatory by the people who are convinced they are everywhere.

I would rather contribute to the discussion rather than point fingers and find blame or label others as something to disenfranchise them. Such behavior is appalling and adds nothing to a conversation. I seek dialogue and wish to learn and understand as much as I can.

That is laudable, and I wish there were more people with that mindset in these discussions.

Well the only reason I use the term sjw at all is due to the fact that it's easier to understand what or who I'm talking about. I don't mean it in any sense as a derogatory simply as a name for some people. Secondly if enough people are labeled or label themselves as something doesn't that make them a demographic no matter how specialized. For instance if a large group of people started calling themselves super hero's and going about doing things in that name then the label would apply to those people would it not? but yes if only one person calls themselves something and acts in whatever way then yes there is not a demographic. But there are a large amount of people who label themselves as such and going around preaching whatever they preach. Generally if you want to actually talk to these people you have to search them out. I agree with your last point.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Well the only reason I use the term sjw at all is due to the fact that it's easier to understand what or who I'm talking about. I don't mean it in any sense as a derogatory simply as a name for some people.

Well that's sort of the thing. It's an easy label. It's an unquestioned pejorative (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW) invented to allow for easy grouping and denigration. Yes, it makes things "easier", but it makes things "easier" in a really awful way for really awful reasons. It's not SUPPOSED to be easy to label people and discard their opinions as a result of that label.

Secondly if enough people are labeled or label themselves as something doesn't that make them a demographic no matter how specialized. For instance if a large group of people started calling themselves super hero's and going about doing things in that name then the label would apply to those people would it not?

Do we have evidence of a large group of people doing this? I've yet to even see evidence of a single person referring to themselves as a "social justice warrior".

Additionally, a label one chooses for themselves =/= a label that is chosen for you.

Generally if you want to actually talk to these people you have to search them out. I agree with your last point.

If you want to encounter a particularly radical perspective on life, odds are you can use the internet to find that perspective. This is the essence of confirmation bias.

 

[God'sFist]

Well the only reason I use the term sjw at all is due to the fact that it's easier to understand what or who I'm talking about. I don't mean it in any sense as a derogatory simply as a name for some people.

Well that's sort of the thing. It's an easy label. It's an unquestioned pejorative (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW) invented to allow for easy grouping and denigration. Yes, it makes things "easier", but it makes things "easier" in a really awful way for really awful reasons. It's not SUPPOSED to be easy to label people and discard their opinions as a result of that label.

Secondly if enough people are labeled or label themselves as something doesn't that make them a demographic no matter how specialized. For instance if a large group of people started calling themselves super hero's and going about doing things in that name then the label would apply to those people would it not?

Do we have evidence of a large group of people doing this? I've yet to even see evidence of a single person referring to themselves as a "social justice warrior".

Additionally, a label one chooses for themselves =/= a label that is chosen for you.

Generally if you want to actually talk to these people you have to search them out. I agree with your last point.

If you want to encounter a particularly radical perspective on life, odds are you can use the internet to find that perspective. This is the essence of confirmation bias.

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. (adding this to avoid low content) I am enjoying this conversation we are having I hope you feel the same.

 

[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.