An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[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.

 

[God'sFist]

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.

well the reason I don't describe more is because that's the only thing you can latch onto for the particular people I'm describing. I know that feminism is nebulous term almost to the point its unusable. But yeah when people start labeling themselves feminists and do things that are "feminist" then that makes them a feminist but if other "feminists" say that's not feminism then you don't have a clue who to believe and it just winds up in absolute confusion. I try to do the same as you when I talk about this stuff and honestly wish we as a gamer demographic weren't so split down the middle on the issue. But yeah if they actually had some kind of label that made some kind of sense that no one argue with I would use that but sadly no such term exists to my knowledge.

 

[Timmaaaah]

I think the entire SJW label is taking crap way too far. It's pointless. If you're sick of people making arguments about things that they believe in then get off the goddamn forums. Everyone needs to just calm the fuck down.

 

[Timmaaaah]

Well she's using the term SJW at all, a stupid term used by stupid people, so clearly she's a moron. Not much else to say really.

That doesnt seem very logical at all. Its actually to help to distinguish between a zealot and someone who tries to actually help people. Like warrior and bully for example. So I disagree with your protestation that she is moron because she uses a term to describe the people who colloquially best fit the description.

The problem with the SJW label is that idiots apply it to anyone they feel like. If they're losing an argument about something that remotely relates to social issues then they just brand them and SJW and go about their day. And something you have to realise about zealots - Zealots will never let go of their beliefs because they live on faith (the denial of observation). Zealots believe that they are helping people. Some of them are.

The people that are labelled as an "SJW" aren't zealots at all. They're not radicals. They're just people expressing their opinions and a bunch of dickheads are made uncomfortable by some of the inherent truths that come from it. Granted, some of them are kinda dumb and are unable to back up their beliefs but that's just because they're.. Well... Dumb. Stupid people labelling other stupid people. But sometimes idiots label people that are actually forming coherent, well informed arguments about what they believe and then you get a bunch of dickheads on forums attacking someone with snide pissy comments instead of discussing the topic with reason.

The entire SJW label is just pointless. There are worse things out there to label than people who believe in equality. Maybe right now some people are kinda dumb and say dumb things that they really back up (with the best of intentions) but they're not going to get smarter by a bunch of dickheads attacking them. They'll grow if people just chill out and leave them be. This whole thing is just a pissing contest so that a bunch of jackasses can feel all nice and superior.

There's an old saying; arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good you are, the pigeon is still just going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.

Anyone know who said that?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

Well she's using the term SJW at all, a stupid term used by stupid people, so clearly she's a moron. Not much else to say really.

That doesnt seem very logical at all. Its actually to help to distinguish between a zealot and someone who tries to actually help people. Like warrior and bully for example. So I disagree with your protestation that she is moron because she uses a term to describe the people who colloquially best fit the description.

I'm all for calling people who go too far out, but to be honest the term SJW has just been abused too much. I have little doubt that many people honestly reserve it for extremists, but there are just too many people out there who throw it at anyone who shows the slightest interest in the portrayal of women/PoC/LGBT characters in gaming. The phrase just has too much baggage and now whenever someone sees it, they have to play a guessing game to see if it's being used properly or not, and because of bad experiences, a lot of people don't think it is being used properly, if it ever was.

i think the term is fitting but i must say, theres some truth in what you are saying, after these recent evens some people have gone paranoid to the point where they call pandering to simple artistic choices creators make with no intent to pander anybody

i myself get confused soemtimes, which is why i reserve my sjw calling for when i know for sure somebody is one

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I think the entire SJW label is taking crap way too far. It's pointless. If you're sick of people making arguments about things that they believe in then get off the goddamn forums. Everyone needs to just calm the fuck down.

hey, these people can talk about diversity the entire day, i dont mind, as long as they dont insult, shame or harass devs and gamers

if they can keep their agendas out of gaming, i personally wont have a problem with them, and if they want more inclusive games, just make em, noone is stopping them

 

[veloper]

Whatever you think of the SJW label, what's for sure is that a sensible person won't ever call herself one. The article is therefore suspect.

The "warrior" part alone is funny since what we're talking about is extreme slacktivism at best and more commonly, a form of trolling the internet. It's a humorous derogatory term.

I wouldn't call Anita a SJW, because she's not a troll and she's not bananas either.
Only the most ludicrous stuff is SJW and the purpose of that is to get a rise out of clueless people.

 

[RICHIERICAN]

I don't how others feel but I'm getting gamergate Fatigue!! The childish behavior at times from both sides is very annoying the threats from both sides is uncalled for there no place for that!! I just want to play my games and be happy!!! Also is there anyway the mods can make a gamergate sticky thread so people wouldn't have make threads of the same topic??

 

[Silvanus]

if they can keep their agendas out of gaming, i personally wont have a problem with them

By "keeping their agendas out of gaming", what do you mean, exactly?

and if they want more inclusive games, just make em, noone is stopping them

There's no reason somebody should have to become a game developer in order to put forward criticism. Criticism is what this board is here for; it's the reason for reviewers.

People can criticise art without dedicating their lives to becoming artists. People can criticise politicians without having to join a party, run a campaign, become elected, and serve a term first. People can criticise the weather without having to become weather-deities. Criticism has no pre-requisites, apart from thought.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

if they can keep their agendas out of gaming, i personally wont have a problem with them

By "keeping their agendas out of gaming", what do you mean, exactly?

for starters, none of this

or anita and her lying, and devs getting blacklisted, or being accused of false things

and if they want more inclusive games, just make em, noone is stopping them

There's no reason somebody should have to become a game developer in order to put forward criticism. Criticism is what this board is here for; it's the reason for reviewers.

a game is not worse just bacause is racist or sexist, you can express your opinion about those topics all you want, but its not valid criticism at the end of the day

People can criticise art without dedicating their lives to becoming artists. People can criticise politicians without having to join a party, run a campaign, become elected, and serve a term first. People can criticise the weather without having to become weather-deities. Criticism has no pre-requisites, apart from thought.

if you want more games with female protagonists, why not make then? what about the people who dont want to see the artist's vision compromised? how is our opinion less valid than that of the people who want more diversity?