Gamergate, No "Right Side." - We Should Avoid Picking Sides

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

And yet again, none of that matters, because people like me are in charge of deciding what Social Justice means.

The media and academics are on my side and they support my crusade. The only thing necessary for the evil to triumph is that all the good men do nothing. I am Social Justice.

Read through your last few posts a few times and still genuinely can't tell whether or not this is meant to parody.

Anyways, I'm actually a bit sad about gamer gate, because their's would have been a genuinely interesting discussion to have under different circumstances. Unfortunately, there are far fewer people that actually want what gg is aiming for than some of the members would like to think, or we could have had this discussion in relation to one of the fairly numerous instances in the past where developers were caught paying of reviewers in some way. As it is, I can't help but feel a lot of the numbers are being made up by people who are really just interested in finding a home for their feminist bashing and/or sexism. Perhaps the defining point of the situation for me is that no one really seemed to see it coming before hand. Comparing it to the feminist argument which has been building for years now, you would think if this was a build up resentments and frustrations that was finally let out in the form of gg, then there would having been more indication of it than the occasional comment about how you can't really trust review scores. As is, it seemed to me and many I've talked to that the trustworthiness of reviewers was promoted essentially overnight from being a quirk of the industry to one of it's most major issues. And as I say, I see value in the discussion, I suppose I just don't trust that everyone involved in gg actually sees it as well.

 

[Netrigan]

I'll happily join the on-the-fencers if it stops hogging forums. Doubt it will though.

I just wish they'd stop dragging their Twitter/Tumblr bullshit to places where actual conversations can happen.

Look, I'm sorry you think arguing about stuff on Twitter and Tumblr matter, but it's fucking gibberish to anyone who wasn't part of the conversation. No, I don't care if the Evil SJW was being mean to you, because the only way I can figure out exactly what happened is if you link the discussion and I can determine whether or not you were being mean to them first... so your little screen captures don't mean terribly much to me without the context.

And since I feel my brain cells committing suicide every time I try to follow one of those idiotic conversations, I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Feels like they constantly want me to be the judge in their Asshole Olympics.

I can't read Twitter, it logistically does not make any sense in my mind.

I've never quite gotten the hang of it either. It just feels like Bumper Stickers to me. There's virtually no way of saying anything of substance. You're just throwing rhetoric and buzzwords at each other.

I had one person on my Tumblr Feed go full on GamerGate... and I never understood what the fuck she was talking about. There was no context for anything. She's obviously responding to something, but she would never say what that something was. And it was dozens of times a day. I even went to her page to see if it made any more sense there... nope. She was just speaking GamerGate Gibberish. I've got some Feminists on my feed and while I don't always agree with them, I can at least understand what they're discussing; it's not just random insults thrown at SJW for sins undisclosed.

 

[Erttheking]

I haven't picked a side. Everyone involved disgusts me. The anti-gamergate side jumps to conclusions, and the pro-gamergate side is just a mess that I've levied plenty of criticism against. Then again I imagine for my criticism of gamergate I'm gonna be labeled anti-gamergate, but I resent that. I don't want to be pushed into a crowd in this whole mess. What I think is not because of me taking a side. It's just what I think. What do you want from me? I find the movement to be incredibly underwhelming.

 

[Netrigan]

Anyways, I'm actually a bit sad about gamer gate, because their's would have been a genuinely interesting discussion to have under different circumstances.

This, a thousand times this.

When Sarkeesian first hit, I rather enjoyed discussing video game writing. About why this scene is nothing more than a cliche, while this scene is trying to say something. Or why do game makers keep putting in things which aren't really fun or interesting in their quest to fill their game with content... I likened picking up prostitutes in GTA to going bowling. It's a thing you can do, but after the initial novelty wears off, it's not very interesting. Or about how the industry has been moving toward greater inclusivity for quite some time as their bigger and bigger budgets mean they have to expand their audience beyond the traditional gamer base.

These days, the discussions just go off into Tin-Foil Hat Land, as they talk about her faking the harassment on herself or how her boyfriend is using her as his sock puppet for his Feminist Agenda. You can't have a semi-intelligent discussion on the matter without it devolving into some weird GamerGate Conspiracy bullshit thing.

Same deal with journalistic ethics. Bring it up and some self-important idjit is going to come swooping claiming that only GamerGate is doing anything about it... when they all but refuse to talk about the giant elephant taking a massive dump in the middle of the room. There's a huge, massive discussion about all the ways the major publishers are exerting constant influence over gaming sites... and they want to rid the industry of the SJW Agenda, whatever the fuck that is.

And I'm blaming George Piimpton. It was he who set the course for this kind of binary thinking in the industry when he did those Atari Vs. Intellivision ads in the early 80s, setting the stage for far too man black & white arguments about things which are infinitely nuanced. GamerGate has reduced the whole thing to Us Vs. Them... and fuck them for that.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

As long as you aren't a dick to someone else, I don't really care what side you are on. Express your opinion however you like, whether pro, anti, or neutral, just don't start harassing and making lives difficult.

 

[Popido]

A little more on-topic: Popido, it sounds like you are painting with a very broad brush. I ask you this: would you accept someone painting all of GamerGate with the tar of a minority of trolls? I feel like you wouldn't. Describing "Social justice" in terms of the worst abuse of the term that you have perceived is pretty similar.

I'm bored so I decided to do some narrative roleplay. GamerGate is already being slantered with broad brush. That is the narrative how media wants you to see them, as an movement of hate. "Social Justice" is also getting painted by broad brush of slanter, but more of because it has been hijacked by abusers for years. There was never any fact checking in "Social Justice", so in the end it all came down to personal opinions. The media is yet again, enforcing this as truth with their actions. They might not say it, but everyone can see it being used as I described it. Even @Uro_vii can't tell if I'm parodying or not. Lastly, theres the narrative of journalistic ethics and allegations. That is the GamerGate's narrative.

Gaming is toxic. Social Justice is absolute. Journalistic ethics needs to be uphold.

There is now 3 narratives being enforced in this situation. Whichever comes on top, will then be further enforced by the whole gaming community. That is what we created. All 3 choices will kill gaming journalisms as we know it. One of them reworks the journalism for better. One creates toxic environment that sets casual gaming back. One speeds us up towards 2nd gaming crash. The winning conditions for all the 3 have been met. It's now up to see which one is going to triumph.

 

[Calbeck]

I'll happily join the on-the-fencers if it stops hogging forums. Doubt it will though.

I just wish they'd stop dragging their Twitter/Tumblr bullshit to places where actual conversations can happen.

Look, I'm sorry you think arguing about stuff on Twitter and Tumblr matter, but it's fucking gibberish to anyone who wasn't part of the conversation. No, I don't care if the Evil SJW was being mean to you, because the only way I can figure out exactly what happened is if you link the discussion and I can determine whether or not you were being mean to them first... so your little screen captures don't mean terribly much to me without the context.

And since I feel my brain cells committing suicide every time I try to follow one of those idiotic conversations, I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Feels like they constantly want me to be the judge in their Asshole Olympics.

Okay, howzabout this? Everyone stops being dicks and apologizes for what they've actually done, not whatever the "other side" wants to accuse them up. Each individual according to their dickery.

And then they make it right, because words are nothing if whatever's being apologized for lays there in the road like a dead cat. Again, each according to their dickery.

Most, if not all, of GamerGate would agree to that IF they could be sure of sincerity. Because, really, what the hell has GamerGate done to actually damage anyone? Ads pulled? Fix the toxicity, and the ads will return, moreover, GGers will laud the return IF that toxicity is actually fixed.

BIG FAT PROBLEM: Imagine, for one moment, that Leigh Alexander EVER apologizes for ANYTHING.

The sun would hit the moon first.

 

[Thorn14]

As long as you aren't a dick to someone else, I don't really care what side you are on. Express your opinion however you like, whether pro, anti, or neutral, just don't start harassing and making lives difficult.

Thank you. I wish this kind of thing was said more.

 

[IceForce]

Just let them walk all over you? No thanks, I rather pick a side and defend it. I don't want to see this great hobby of mine be dictated from some group that have no business in gaming.

And yet you're quite happy to dictate to game journalists and reviewers what you want them to write.

Does no one seriously see the hypocrisy in this?

Also, I'd like a citation for video gaming being manipulated by people "that have no business in gaming".
If what you're saying is purely hypothetical, and hasn't actually happened yet, you're just jumping at shadows.

 

[IceForce]

Serious question: does any of that actually matter to the question of ethics in journalism?
If ethics in journalism is being used as a smokescreen, does it make it any less important of an issue?

Of course it matters. Because if it's only a smokescreen, it completely undermines the credibility of the entire movement.

How is this even a question?

 

[know whan purr tick]

I disagree, social justice can be understood through the lenses of the -isms. A humanist take will be different than that of a more specific population espousing social justice. There isn't a codified listing of what constitutes the aims for all forms of social justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] is a social justice document.

That's just some fancy righteous text to make us sound like the good guys. You should look more into the actions of Social Justice than mere words. Social justice wasn't anything until it was put in use to scam people. People leave themselves open when you state to fight for the justice.

It doesn't really matter what you think Social Justice is about. What matters is who uses it and how.

What matters is understanding and perspective. The idea lenses present different understandings of social justice. For the sake of arguement, let's say religion is inherently a good thing. If a small group tries to use that religion to manipulate and control people then it is being abused. Perhaps you are viewing social justice through your own -ism, cynicism.
A short history if you are interested:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Social%20Justice_%20History,%20Theory,%20&%20Research.pdf

 

[Netrigan]

I'll happily join the on-the-fencers if it stops hogging forums. Doubt it will though.

I just wish they'd stop dragging their Twitter/Tumblr bullshit to places where actual conversations can happen.

Look, I'm sorry you think arguing about stuff on Twitter and Tumblr matter, but it's fucking gibberish to anyone who wasn't part of the conversation. No, I don't care if the Evil SJW was being mean to you, because the only way I can figure out exactly what happened is if you link the discussion and I can determine whether or not you were being mean to them first... so your little screen captures don't mean terribly much to me without the context.

And since I feel my brain cells committing suicide every time I try to follow one of those idiotic conversations, I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Feels like they constantly want me to be the judge in their Asshole Olympics.

Okay, howzabout this? Everyone stops being dicks and apologizes for what they've actually done, not whatever the "other side" wants to accuse them up. Each individual according to their dickery.

And then they make it right, because words are nothing if whatever's being apologized for lays there in the road like a dead cat. Again, each according to their dickery.

Most, if not all, of GamerGate would agree to that IF they could be sure of sincerity. Because, really, what the hell has GamerGate done to actually damage anyone? Ads pulled? Fix the toxicity, and the ads will return, moreover, GGers will laud the return IF that toxicity is actually fixed.

BIG FAT PROBLEM: Imagine, for one moment, that Leigh Alexander EVER apologizes for ANYTHING.

The sun would hit the moon first.

It's just a flame war writ large. No one will apologize, no one will learn anything, people will eventually just get bored and stop. No one will win, no one will lose.

The problem is it got noticed by people outside of video games, so it keeps finding more oxygen to keep it going. Sarkeesian had brought in the Anti-Feminists prior to this, who jumped on GamerGate in the early days, this ended up dragging in Adam Baldwin who is all about the Anti-SJW thing. This drags in other celebrities. There's enough going on to interest non-gamers so major publications start throwing in their two-cents. Now it's on the 24 hour news channels, and it's possible the Second Amendment stuff connected to Sarkeesian might drag Fox News into it. Every group that joins in moves the conversation further and further away from video games.

 

[Deckard Kain]

Just let them walk all over you? No thanks, I rather pick a side and defend it. I don't want to see this great hobby of mine be dictated from some group that have no business in gaming.

And yet you're quite happy to dictate to game journalists and reviewers what you want them to write.

Does no one seriously see the hypocrisy in this?

Also, I'd like a citation for video gaming being manipulated by people "that have no business in gaming".
If what you're saying is purely hypothetical, and hasn't actually happened yet, you're just jumping at shadows.

The GTA5 review on Gamespot (misogyny!) and Polygon Bayonetta 2 (sexism!) just to name a few.

When we have someone standing up for his review, he gets fired (Gerstmann).

 

[Popido]

I disagree, social justice can be understood through the lenses of the -isms. A humanist take will be different than that of a more specific population espousing social justice. There isn't a codified listing of what constitutes the aims for all forms of social justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] is a social justice document.

That's just some fancy righteous text to make us sound like the good guys. You should look more into the actions of Social Justice than mere words. Social justice wasn't anything until it was put in use to scam people. People leave themselves open when you state to fight for the justice.

It doesn't really matter what you think Social Justice is about. What matters is who uses it and how.

What matters is understanding and perspective. The idea lenses present different understandings of social justice. For the sake of arguement, let's say religion is inherently a good thing. If a small group tries to use that religion to manipulate and control people then it is being abused. Perhaps you are viewing social justice through your own -ism, cynicism.
A short history if you are interested:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Social%20Justice_%20History,%20Theory,%20&%20Research.pdf

Then it comes to back into "your" and "my" Social Justice. Right now, "your" SJ has no voice in gaming sphere. While "my" SJ is enforced and supported by professional people in the industry. People who's jobs depends on understanding it. If I had to pick and choose which one to believe in, ofcourse I would choose the one that professionals work hard to upkeep. Their SJ is based on modern academic research.

Wait, now I got it. My self-identity as Social Justice Warrior.

 

[cleric of the order]

Dammit i have to grab my bus in like 20min so i will have to make this quick.
I like to trade in information and that's why I so far have enjoyed this conversation. Though if her nature is suspect if she is willing to lie then well, everything is in question until more facts can be revealed.

Well, no, it's not. Everything isn't in question. A "bad character" of someone you make accusations against isn't an excuse to not present any evidence and say that "everything is in question until more facts can be revealed". That's just a way to make up an excuse to never reveal any facts, never have any evidence, because you can just keep them in "bad character" forever. Just leave it there in a limbo and get away with presenting abosulutely nothing.

I mention a list of things proving that she subverted facts to their own ends, iFred was contacted and asked about it to which the replied no, she had not donated any money to them. It's not an accusation. IT is fact and when we examine that she was willing to lie like they then we get a picture of the greater character. She also harassed wizard chan after they criticized her stance in depression quest. Along with that she has been incriminated with all this other stuff and while nothing been convulsive it draw into question. Personally It doesn't matter to me, she's a sub-par writer and game Dev that produced a mediocre game that would not have hand much of a following or notice without the controversy. I do care about those timbits out of some vaguely love of information but otherwise she's nothing in the long run. What mattered was the censorship and we were having that discussion before in #stopGG and i wouldn't mind bringing it in here. More importantly, even if some how the Quinnspiracy were all 10th lvl misogynist Nazi vampire then Leigh Alexander put that all to axe when she declared gamers dead. those 15 articles is what at the very least lumped most people in with the bad and ticked everyone off.

Of for the Anita thing, I wanted to makes sure my facts were in order, i haven't really been paying attention to it and i wanted to make sure the facts I'm getting line up with your's the Zoe one had info withheld to me and well trust no one in a game like this.
That being said i do have my ideas here this is going, going to keep my and to myself thank you. Also that was kind a mean, i have bad evidence not a lack of it.

No you don't have bad evidence, you just have a conspiracy based on nothing. That's not bad evidence, that's just straight up no evidence. It's just a conspiracy based on zero.

Okay, dude calm down.
Man it's like you a trained to nip this in the bud, look I am not here to express things that are of mine on suspicion, I like to withhold judgement and see how i thought it would play out. Now I have my ideas, theories and beliefs and I know they are, as with my nature, imperfect.
Why I said i had bad evidence was simply, IF this discussion had shown me, I need the whole story. That being said I wanted to ask if you would be willing to give me that information because frankly i can't care enough about Anita's business. I have been annoyed the someone would be so boring for an academic and so passionless when speaking of her topic of choice but I cannot fault her for that, many people can't inspire those emotions in their speech.
but that is not withstanding, please just stop.
You know what you think I'm going to say and reacted trying to stomp it out. Please just stop, calm down (sorry if you ware calm, I'm bad at tracking emotions worse so on the internet) and let continue this discussion like reasonable gamers and adults

 

[Irick]

Of course it matters. Because if it's only a smokescreen, it completely undermines the credibility of the entire movement.

How is this even a question?

How so?
If there are a non-insignificant portion of a movement that are genuinely holding an issue at heart, willingly engaging on an issue, and promoting that issue regardless of 'the canonical status' of that issue to the shadow cabal that decides such things, how does it make it any less credible or any less relevant?

Seriously, step me through your logic. I see a fundamental assumption that somehow the origins (if the narrative as you have described it is even accurate) influence the now. I'm not just throwing this out there to be dismissive, but this is a fallacy[footnote]specificly a fallacy of irrelevance called the Genetic fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy][/footnote]. That makes it difficult to stand by the claim for anyone who is looking for truth rather than just rhetorically pointing out conviniantisms for their 'side'. If there is something more that 'undermines the credibility', then please elaborate.

Otherwise (as the category of the fallacy indicates) it is irrelevant.

 

[doomrider7]

Anyways, I'm actually a bit sad about gamer gate, because their's would have been a genuinely interesting discussion to have under different circumstances.

This, a thousand times this.

When Sarkeesian first hit, I rather enjoyed discussing video game writing. About why this scene is nothing more than a cliche, while this scene is trying to say something. Or why do game makers keep putting in things which aren't really fun or interesting in their quest to fill their game with content... I likened picking up prostitutes in GTA to going bowling. It's a thing you can do, but after the initial novelty wears off, it's not very interesting. Or about how the industry has been moving toward greater inclusivity for quite some time as their bigger and bigger budgets mean they have to expand their audience beyond the traditional gamer base.

These days, the discussions just go off into Tin-Foil Hat Land, as they talk about her faking the harassment on herself or how her boyfriend is using her as his sock puppet for his Feminist Agenda. You can't have a semi-intelligent discussion on the matter without it devolving into some weird GamerGate Conspiracy bullshit thing.

Same deal with journalistic ethics. Bring it up and some self-important idjit is going to come swooping claiming that only GamerGate is doing anything about it... when they all but refuse to talk about the giant elephant taking a massive dump in the middle of the room. There's a huge, massive discussion about all the ways the major publishers are exerting constant influence over gaming sites... and they want to rid the industry of the SJW Agenda, whatever the fuck that is.

And I'm blaming George Piimpton. It was he who set the course for this kind of binary thinking in the industry when he did those Atari Vs. Intellivision ads in the early 80s, setting the stage for far too man black & white arguments about things which are infinitely nuanced. GamerGate has reduced the whole thing to Us Vs. Them... and fuck them for that.

I 100% agree with this comment. This whole thing just needs to go away to sone dar corner of the Internet and die.

 

[Something Amyss]

After much research, I can safely declare that everyone is wrong.

But, if you're someone, then you're wrong, so you're wrong about everyone being wrong. So everybody's not wrong! Except then you're not wrong about this....Hmmm..

Since, after all, their entire point was to tell you WHY you should be ashamed to call yourself a gamer, and why specifically there were feminist reasons that you should be ashamed.

Which ones were those again?

I thought it was started by 'a lack of journalist ethics'.

Isn't that the same thing, though? At least, that's the impression I got from all the complaints about girls and feminists and "SJWs" taking over our hobby.

But seriously....

While I wouldn't blame you if you wanted to not read these things, you probably should if you want to engage people on the matter. Alexander's piece, for example, is far from the defamatory attack on gamers that people have made it out to be. I suspect most of the outrage comes from people who didn't actually bother reading the whole thing, but had it "no spin zoned" for them and took it as gospel.

Similarly, people blew up over Anita Sarkeesian "not talking about" male prostitutes in Fallout NV (she does, and even shows onscreen footage of one of them saying he's yours for the right price) or elements of the stripper scene in Hitman (which she does). Literally, all you need to do to debunk a lot of these claims is check the original source (Which should not just be journalism 101, but common sense 101, and that this isn't happening in a movement about "better games journalism" is a flippin' travesty).

It all seems like such manufactured outrage when you look at the content without having it reconstructed for you by the gamergaste community.

I suppose people are going to use this to put me in the #stopgamergate camp again, though I literally didn't know it was a thing until yesterday.

 

[maffgibson]

A little more on-topic: Popido, it sounds like you are painting with a very broad brush. I ask you this: would you accept someone painting all of GamerGate with the tar of a minority of trolls? I feel like you wouldn't. Describing "Social justice" in terms of the worst abuse of the term that you have perceived is pretty similar.

I'm bored so I decided to do some narrative roleplay. GamerGate is already being slantered with broad brush. That is the narrative how media wants you to see them, as an movement of hate. "Social Justice" is also getting painted by broad brush of slanter, but more of because it has been hijacked by abusers for years. There was never any fact checking in "Social Justice", so in the end it all came down to personal opinions. The media is yet again, enforcing this as truth with their actions. They might not say it, but everyone can see it being used as I described it. Even @Uro_vii can't tell if I'm parodying or not. Lastly, theres the narrative of journalistic ethics and allegations. That is the GamerGate's narrative.

Gaming is toxic. Social Justice is absolute. Journalistic ethics needs to be uphold.

There is now 3 narratives being enforced in this situation. Whichever comes on top, will then be further enforced by the whole gaming community. That is what we created. All 3 choices will kill gaming journalisms as we know it. One of them reworks the journalism for better. One creates toxic environment that sets casual gaming back. One speeds us up towards 2nd gaming crash. The winning conditions for all the 3 have been met. It's now up to see which one is going to triumph.

I had guessed that. When you say "everyone can see it being used as I described it", I am not entirely inclined to agree with you, any more than I would agree with someone saying "everyone can see that GamerGate is being used to harass female developers": both examples assume that people who they are in contact with are a representative sample of "everyone": if either statement was correct, this debate wouldn't be happening.

The problem with caricatures is that they only "ring true" with people who already agree with the sentiment behind the parody. Personally speaking, I thought that your caricature was pretty inelegant, because I do not already agree with that perception of what "social justice" is. I am sure that had I spent time in the more ridiculous sections of Tumblr, my idea of the meaning of "social justice" would be closer to yours.

Anyway, the fact is that there are not "three narratives", there are millions. The fact that @Akjosch professed both a belief in social justice and in GamerGate is proof of this. Moreover, the "GamerGate narrative" you present is a GamerGate narrative. There are literally hundreds, with everything from "we need more transparency, clearer editorial guidelines and less censorship" through to "Anyone I decide is a "feminazi" should be censored and lose their job" represented. Likewise, the anti-GG narratives range from "I think that there is a unpleasant edge to this debate when it comes to women" through to "people who disagree with me are all misogynists who should be censored and chased out of society": the position that you were caricaturing.

As it is, when deciding to describe the whole affair in terms of "three narratives", you picked the most pleasant possible GG position and the least pleasant media and anti-GG viewpoints. Basically, a reasonable position set up against two straw men. This is not a war, and no single "narrative" will "win". There is no "winning" to be had. Whatever comes of this when it ends (if it ever does) will be a complex mosaic of mixtures of different views, not some "grand victory/ grave defeat" for the common gamer.

And this is why (back OT yaaaay)I have decided not to pick a side: the weird "us vs. them" logic that says that you can't be "left-wing" and pro-ethics, or demand reform of practices and not be slandered. Where people first decide that they are 100% correct, then get behind their keyboard.

"Thinking in terms of first principles entails acting with machine-guns"

The framing of a complex debate as a war both leads to and is caused by a lack of critical thinking, guaranteeing that the fire keeps burning, and innocents all over the place get hurt. I am not going to sign up to that.

 

[know whan purr tick]

I disagree, social justice can be understood through the lenses of the -isms. A humanist take will be different than that of a more specific population espousing social justice. There isn't a codified listing of what constitutes the aims for all forms of social justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] is a social justice document.

That's just some fancy righteous text to make us sound like the good guys. You should look more into the actions of Social Justice than mere words. Social justice wasn't anything until it was put in use to scam people. People leave themselves open when you state to fight for the justice.

It doesn't really matter what you think Social Justice is about. What matters is who uses it and how.

What matters is understanding and perspective. The idea lenses present different understandings of social justice. For the sake of arguement, let's say religion is inherently a good thing. If a small group tries to use that religion to manipulate and control people then it is being abused. Perhaps you are viewing social justice through your own -ism, cynicism.
A short history if you are interested:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Social%20Justice_%20History,%20Theory,%20&%20Research.pdf

Then it comes to back into "your" and "my" Social Justice. Right now, "your" SJ has no voice in gaming sphere. While "my" SJ is enforced and supported by professional people in the industry. People who's jobs depends on understanding it. If I had to pick and choose which one to believe in, ofcourse I would choose the one that professionals work hard to upkeep. Their SJ is based on modern academic research.

Wait, now I got it. My self-identity as Social Justice Warrior.

Are you trying to be funny? Sincere? I can't tell the last part is unclear, pardon my failure to understand you. I don't know what you are saying and we've had enough exchanges. Good luck with whatever you are interested in.