Where's all the SJWs at?
- Thread starter Quadocky
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I strongly suspect you didn't read my series of posts. Let me sum it up. No one is going to confess to wrongdoing on twitter. People use social media to ***** to their friends and write sarcastic comments. Quinn is sarcastic about everything.R0guy said:
Random tweets are just not compelling. When it's something like that guy who said gamergate was worse than ISIS, yes, that pretty much stands on it's own. Someone saying I totes blew up the servers is not a slam dunk. It mostly makes you look silly for thinking if you comb public statements enough, you'll find a confession. Real people do not operate like batman villains.
Skipping 6 pages of undoubtedly civil and balanced discussion, so bare with me if I missed something.
I'm definitely 100% a big fan of social justice (in fact I'm procrastinating writing an essay about social justice for uni) and I'm super into games. There are definitely a boat load of problems with representation in gaming and because I enjoy games so much is why it bugs me so much. I want videogaming to be a really big deal and I don't think that will happen in their current state.
I feel like the reaction against social justice in the gaming community comes from a big ol misunderstanding and a chunk of gamers not taking criticism very well.
I don't agree with absolutely everything other proponents of social justice say, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does. Feminists aren't the one collective hive-mind it seems like a lot of people here are treating us like.
I'm definitely 100% a big fan of social justice (in fact I'm procrastinating writing an essay about social justice for uni) and I'm super into games. There are definitely a boat load of problems with representation in gaming and because I enjoy games so much is why it bugs me so much. I want videogaming to be a really big deal and I don't think that will happen in their current state.
I feel like the reaction against social justice in the gaming community comes from a big ol misunderstanding and a chunk of gamers not taking criticism very well.
I don't agree with absolutely everything other proponents of social justice say, and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does. Feminists aren't the one collective hive-mind it seems like a lot of people here are treating us like.
Devil's advocate mode activated:Impulse725 said:
Where's the proof that he was being serious? Devin Faranci says sarcastic stuff all the time. Surely you don't believe that a gamejourno would actually be crazy enough to publicly insult his own audience and really mean it. That random tweet isn't a slam dunk. Real people don't act like penny arcade comic strips, showhosts from the Onion news network or Achmed the dead terrorist (Silence! I kill you!).
/deactivated.
In all seriousness, there's nothing "Batman villainish" about sicking Twitter followers on people you don't like. Or by using contacts in the press to sick even more people on a website for suicidal depressives (Wizardchan).
And here I thought I was being nice mentioning and conceding a legitimate complaint. I can't imagine why review outfits came to the conclusion they should just wait this out.
I meant for the Batman villain bit to refer to the idea that people seem to expect to find incriminating confessions in public venues in the modern age, not the easy of setting your knights on Thomas Moore.
I don't expect or have interest in convincing you. I find these tweet photobombs unpersuasive and was mentioning why. If my chat logs were released, no doubt there'd be a 4chan photo mockup about how I confess to abusing animals. (I seldom answer my wife's inquiries into how the dogs are doing seriously). I strongly suspect I'm not the only one to dismiss this as grasping at straws, as the official memo is that gamergate's not about Quinn.
I meant for the Batman villain bit to refer to the idea that people seem to expect to find incriminating confessions in public venues in the modern age, not the easy of setting your knights on Thomas Moore.
I don't expect or have interest in convincing you. I find these tweet photobombs unpersuasive and was mentioning why. If my chat logs were released, no doubt there'd be a 4chan photo mockup about how I confess to abusing animals. (I seldom answer my wife's inquiries into how the dogs are doing seriously). I strongly suspect I'm not the only one to dismiss this as grasping at straws, as the official memo is that gamergate's not about Quinn.
Alex1508 said:
I belive its because someone from Bioware basically wrote a thing saying "my "artistic integrity/freedom" is PERFECTLY FINE THANKS" basically calling bullshit on people who use the "artistic freedom" as a way to ridicule and silence discussionirishda said:
a sentiment I'm sure you can see I more or less agree with
its funny this "anti-GG vs pro-GG" thing to me seems less about opposition of what "GG" is "supposed to be" but more like "they aren't what they say they are"
If you want to find a "Social Justice Warrior" on Polygon, read the review on Tropico 5, where the guy said the gameplay was fun and intuitive, but gave it a 6.5 out of 10 because being a dictator made him "feel like a bully."EternallyBored said:
Honestly, I think that's more his shortcoming than the game's- I always go out of my way to play as a truly democratic Presidente, and I do my utmost to look out for the people of my country. If you're playing that game as a dictator and getting depressed because of it, it's your own damn fault.
Sleekit said:
....nope. Still wrong. This is not anywhere near the NSA's jurisdiction, unless you think Zoe Quinn is a deep-cover ISIL agent.
It's awful cute you think the NSA and FBI will give two warm shits about all this, but at least you've come to realize part of what the NSA does and does not do.
Yeah it was one claim, I took it two separate ones. My mistake. I guess what you said 'inspired' me to look for actual evidence to back up my claim. So I searched, found some things that were close, but upon inspecting them they turned out neutral for the most part. Looks like you were right and Kotaku itself doesn't have a notable SJW slant, not that I could find anyway. I guess I got my opinions elsewhere without realising it. Thanks for that.Zachary Amaranth said:
Eagles are too busy saving Middle Earth to be involved in dating sims. Besides, only pigeons are into dating simulators. That's why they don't put pigeons in real games.Dragonbums said:
Awww yeah, it just got real!
Oh, I see you're not done misrepresenting me. You know, half the time I'm not even sure how you "get theyah from heyah," in the dialect of my people. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I thought I could generalise this to everyone who uses the label.WhiteNachos said:
I forgot that Critical Miss was a column addressing the real woes of the gaming industry.WhiteNachos said:
Wait, it's not. It spoofs things. Frequently. It even spoofs things the auther likes and believes in. How does that give it credibility?
You've misrepresented everything else you've ever quoted me on, so go with the latter.WhiteNachos said:
1. I haven't read the reddit and I don't go on reddit normally.
2. I used the first example on Google.
3. I might technically be aware it exists (in the sense I know it's the url), but because of 1. I don't know a damn thing about it.
4. I never claimed SJWs don't exist. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's literally true. I can't be arsed to search my post history, but I'm pretty sure this has never been a stance of mine.
To the contrary, the argument here is that Kotaku is a SJW stronghold because of the vaguely defined issues someone had with two of their contributors. By that logic, so's The Escapist, so it's kind of ironic that people are complaining about SJWs here. Jim Sterling, Bob Chipman, Grey Carter, Greg Tito, and probably others I forget have been labeled SJWs. The Escapist, therefore, should be twice the SJW stronghold.
I'd actually argue the SJW label is completely fucking worthless, but that wasn't my original point. Well, except it kind of was.
Emphasis mine, and before anyone twists my words, I was talking about Killsteal's specific accusation when I said "this" in the first sentence.Zachary Amaranth said:
Another counterpoint to something I'm not arguing. However, if they won't make a case for their complaints, then their complaints are less than useless. And, might I add, completely indistinguishable from a strawman to an outside observer.
You're right, though. I can't universally prove a negative. So what.
You know, in a roundabout way you're demonstrating my argument. The way people will take someone in even slight opposition to them and treat them as though they are the complete opposite. Using vague impressions of two people to define Kotaku as a SJW stronghold isn't significantly different from continuously deciding to misrepresent me because I don't agree with you. I don't think you're even doing it intentionally. This is a common, knee-jerk response on the internet. "I don't believe X" turns into "oh, so you believe Y?" because person Z has an issue with Y. The worst part is, even when corrected, you cleave to these ideas.
It's weird that so much effort is put into defending accusations rather than actually demonstrating them, don't you think? I mean, if Hernandez is really so horrible, why not show it, rather than keep asserting it? I mean, I could actually show Ann Coulter's work, providing some samples of horrendously inflammatory things. I could do that, whether you provided evidence some material attributed to her was fake or not. I'm reasonably confident I could even find you live footage of her speaking on YouTube. And if I was so inclined to actually argue that she was a horrible person and so on, I would want to prove it.
So why don't they? Why don't you, rather than arguing by analogy? From what I've seen, people have blown a couple of pieces waaaaaaay out of proportion, in the kind of way that Thorn and company have objected to when the same thing was leveled at gamers (or even assumed to be leveled at gamers). If that's the evidence, no wonder. But if that's the evidence, then I guess we really are angry white virgins, as well, because if it's okay to generalise "them," the same should be true of "us."
And why shouldn't I believe this is just another mountain out of a molehill?
Sometimes I mix up who says what, that might've happened here.Zachary Amaranth said:
The guy said he wasn't interested in debating it. He's not obligated to debate or put in the work finding old articles
Anyway I talked about an article she wrote earlier in the thread, here is a link
http://kotaku.com/5985822/why-were-there-no-women-presenters-at-the-playstation-4-event
Between this, her follow up and her other articles she seems to constantly make mountains out of molehills. I honestly can't tell if she seriously believes that these are all huge issues or if she's just writing clickbait (and it's coming from gawker media so neither would surprise me).
Yes...WhiteNachos said:
But the problem is people have wastly different criteria for 'radical'(considerin how often I have heard Anita called a radical feminist!) or 'acting like a special snowflake' (what, like insisting they need the label 'gamer' and can't just call themselves hobbyists or not define themselves through their hobby?), and the term is thrown around quite a lot around here.
My problem with that term is that it's so widely used it basically becomes an insult used to group any criticism with the crazies.
And more often than not, to pretend there is some organized group sneaking out there somewhere.
And quite a lot of people are willing to paint 'the other side' in this mess as SJWs...
Are you seriously saying Jim Sterling or Anita Sarkeesian or MovieBob fit your criteria of the self-righteous radicals? Because the term had been widely used to refer to them.
I mean, show me a misandrist who wants all men dead and want to ban the word 'cement' because it has the word 'men' in it or something, and I'll join you in condemning them and calling them nutters, but are those people common or influential enough in this mess to be constantly brought up?
I'm a special snowflake ^.^Lieju said:
awww man, you just crushed all my dreams... think of how awesome their uniforms would be!
I'm seriously resisting googling "feminazi porn" about now....
No, that'd be like saying that calling yourself a metalhead makes you a special snowflake. I've yet to see someone who calls themself a gamer who acts like being a video game fan makes them a very unique person, unlike, to use an extreme example, some of the people on tumblr who insist you use their special pronouns (xe/xi whatever) and use 10 different made up words to describe their sexuality. (To be clear those people aren't necessarily SJWs but they are special snowflakes)Lieju said:
Yeah that seems to happen a lot with vaguely defined insults, like hippie, or politically correct or Bible thumper.Lieju said:
IMO Jim no, Anita maybe (watch her video about sexist Christmas songs, one of the entries is Mariah Carey singing aobut how much she misses her man and Anita interprets it as 'this is saying the only thing a women needs is a man' and in another video she calls the straw feminist the worst trope in existence). Bob yes because he made a twitter post about how all organizations dominated by straight white men are inherently shitty or something like that.Lieju said:
It is a vague term though
How does any of that bother you though? (Also I have hung around some total snobby metalheads who were so much better than those commoners with their 'popular' music...)WhiteNachos said:
Also personally considering how I keep running into the attitude that homosexuality is just made up or caused by sexual abuse, I'm just inclined to sympathise or not care.
I mean, if someone identifies as a tri-gender demisexual how does it affect me then?
Considering how I haven't seen/read either things I can't evaluate how accurate the conclusions you drew from them are, but if you genuinely think saying a thing like that makes Anita a 'radical' feminist...WhiteNachos said:
Yeah, our definitions of the terms are definitely different.
Also if you include people like Anita or Bob as SJW's...
Do they 'self identify as misandrists'?
Are they 'the worst that comes to mind when you think of Tumblr feminists?' (bloody vague that, I have an active imagination, I can think of way worse boogey(wo)men than that!)
And how common that is amongst people who meet those standards?
If it's rare, why did you bring it up?
Unless you are trying to define a whole group of people according to the very worst?
I'm just telling you what special snowflake meansLieju said:
When you say straw feminist is the worst trope in existence, then yes you probably are a SJW. You ever read tvtropes? Some of the tropes they list that extend to real life include 'rape is OK if it's female on male' and other double standards including those that hurt women. So saying straw feminist is worse than all of those either shows ignorance or a profound narcissism about how important your cause and your work is. And since Anita deals with tropes all the time, ignorance seems unlikely.Lieju said:
E: Ok maybe not profound ignorance but still I'm fairly sure Anita knows about tvtropes.
I wasn't defining the requirements to be an SJW I was giving examples. Just think of the kind of self righteous moral crusader or uber feminist that would do that kind of thing and you have an SJW. It is a vague term that can mean radical feminist or self righteous moral crusaders willing to act like oppressed victims and scream at people about their cause no matter how trivial. Just think Don Quixote if he were a feminist (there's a white knight joke in this somewhere). As an aside if you haven't read Don Quixote I recommend it even though I haven't finished it.Lieju said:
Why bring it up? That's the topic of discussion.Lieju said:
Edit: And I'm not trying to say all feminists are social justice warriors.
And to avoid further arguing on a vague term, I guess under the previous definition Bob isn't SJW but he is firmly in the feminist camp and the guy is pompous about it. Plus he's used questionable interpretations to call something racist before (his very first big picture, which was on Halo)
If SJWs argue for the point that gaming is dead and gamer culture never existed then how can they be fans of games?
If games arent real then how can they be real?
If games arent real then how can they be real?