Where's all the SJWs at?

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

The OP asked a question, I gave my answer off the top of my head.

I don't care. You made a statement, back it up if it's worth anything.

As for claims, I made one in that post. You might want to recount. But hey, here's an example (original image taken down):

http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/1e3av1/

And they got this from this totally legit article:

http://trolledbot.net/?i=6013

Because I don't go off vague impressions or recollections. When I say something, I actually can back it up.

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't underestimate pigeons man. We not only have badges of honor in our name during war, but we are revered in religious books as well! Nothing can top the beauty of the dove. We also have our own dating Sim. Where's the dating Sim for Eagles? That's right. Nowhere. Eagles are overrated. Go with our pudgy feathery friends.

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.

Awww yeah, it just got real!

Nor can you generalize this to everyone who uses the label

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.

Well I mean if THEY though there was a trend that lends some credibility to it don't you think?

I forgot that Critical Miss was a column addressing the real woes of the gaming industry.

Wait, it's not. It spoofs things. Frequently. It even spoofs things the auther likes and believes in. How does that give it credibility?

Wait a minute you know about http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction and you want to argue that SJWs don't exist? Is that your argument or am I misinterpreting it?

You've misrepresented everything else you've ever quoted me on, so go with the latter.

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.

I have this sinking suspicion this is just something repeated by people, almost as an autonomic reaction. I also suspect that, given enough time, every publication will have said or done something to get a "SJW" branding.

Emphasis mine, and before anyone twists my words, I was talking about Killsteal's specific accusation when I said "this" in the first sentence.

And so what if Hernandez had some straw men made of her, that doesn't make her not bad.

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?

 

[WhiteNachos]

Don't underestimate pigeons man. We not only have badges of honor in our name during war, but we are revered in religious books as well! Nothing can top the beauty of the dove. We also have our own dating Sim. Where's the dating Sim for Eagles? That's right. Nowhere. Eagles are overrated. Go with our pudgy feathery friends.

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.

Awww yeah, it just got real!

Nor can you generalize this to everyone who uses the label

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.

Well I mean if THEY though there was a trend that lends some credibility to it don't you think?

I forgot that Critical Miss was a column addressing the real woes of the gaming industry.

Wait, it's not. It spoofs things. Frequently. It even spoofs things the auther likes and believes in. How does that give it credibility?

Wait a minute you know about http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction and you want to argue that SJWs don't exist? Is that your argument or am I misinterpreting it?

You've misrepresented everything else you've ever quoted me on, so go with the latter.

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.

I have this sinking suspicion this is just something repeated by people, almost as an autonomic reaction. I also suspect that, given enough time, every publication will have said or done something to get a "SJW" branding.

Emphasis mine, and before anyone twists my words, I was talking about Killsteal's specific accusation when I said "this" in the first sentence.

And so what if Hernandez had some straw men made of her, that doesn't make her not bad.

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.

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).

 

[Lieju]

And SJW refers to the ones with radical views and the ones who act like special snowflakes and/or make self righteous crusades out of everything that annoys them.

There's some who self identify as misandrists, think of the worst thing that comes to mind when you think tumble feminist and that's where the term came from. Being against that is probably the majority.

Yes...
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?

 

[Jesterscup]

or 'acting like a special snowflake'

I'm a special snowflake ^.^

And more often than not, to pretend there is some organized group sneaking out there somewhere.

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....

 

[WhiteNachos]

And SJW refers to the ones with radical views and the ones who act like special snowflakes and/or make self righteous crusades out of everything that annoys them.

There's some who self identify as misandrists, think of the worst thing that comes to mind when you think tumble feminist and that's where the term came from. Being against that is probably the majority.

Yes...
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?)

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)

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.

Yeah that seems to happen a lot with vaguely defined insults, like hippie, or politically correct or Bible thumper.

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.

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.

It is a vague term though

 

[Lieju]

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)

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...)
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?

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.

It is a vague term though

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...

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?

 

[WhiteNachos]

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)

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...)
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?

I'm just telling you what special snowflake means

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.

It is a vague term though

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...

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.

E: Ok maybe not profound ignorance but still I'm fairly sure Anita knows about tvtropes.

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!)

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.

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?

Why bring it up? That's the topic of discussion.

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)

 

[QuicklyAcross]

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?

 

[dragonswarrior]

snips of the OP

Welp, I have no idea where this thread went, because I just want to answer your question.

I, my two best friends, my brother, and both of my partners are people who play video games and are extremely into Social Justice... Stuff. (See my banner?)

Of the people listed above, one of my best friends, my brother, and myself are comfortable calling ourselves "hardcore" gamers.

Of my other best friend and partners, they really enjoy teh vidya games they just aren't as invested in the culture or the media as much, and don't see themselves as "gamers" so much as "people who like video games."

Bottom line however, is that we all love the games, and we all love the social justice, and there ya go.

 

[Naqel]

I guess I'm a social justice warrior. I don't hate women or minorities and I agree with most of contemporary feminism, that counts, right? And one time I spent about an hour and a half on the Fuckyeahlesbiansex tumblr, and as we all know there's no reason to frequent Tumblr except for social justice warfare and lesbian sex. And I love the shit out of video games.

IMO that's just being a decent human being, especially the lesbian sex part.

 

[Karadalis]

SJW is a label applied to others, not something people self identify with.

I'm a SJW , and proud. There are issues that are close to my heart ( yeah that bodily organ with the icy-dagger poking out of it ), and yeah I'm going to stand up for what I believe in.
So what if it's a derogatory term? I reclaim it!

and I'm a gamer.

a) youre not a social justice warrior... youre to nice and not extreme enough. Thats why we call them warriors and not activists. Or did you called someones workplace and told them the person was a pedophile because said person twittered something "offensive" that you happened to read for god knows what reasons? Because that last part is important. Only if you lash out angrily at people and try everything in your might to insult and harass them and make their lives hell or support the endorsement of actions like that in any way or form... thats when you get the W in SJW

b) You play games and its a hobby important to you? Welcome to the gamer club... we got something for everyone... just... be carefull with that EA guy over there in the corner... he sells shit attached to strings... and the less we talk about konami the better... oh and capcom? Arrogant douchebag who doesnt let you play with his best toys... only his throwaway stuff he has no real interest in anymore.

c) From what ive seen of you around here you honestly just want better games. SJWs dont want better games... they want games to comform only to their ridiculus standards and checklist, anything else is labeled with -isms and -istics. There was an article on kotaku i think talking about how to "save games" for example:

One of the points was that games should not be fun anymore.... let that sink in for a while...

"Saving" gaming ladies and gentlemen... the SJW way.

But yeah the great hive of SJWs is tumblr... so tumblr is known for two things:

SJWs

and Porn.... a wonder that website hasnt imploded on itselfe.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

SJW is a label applied to others, not something people self identify with.

Absolutely this. People would call me a SJW. I'm more of a Social Justice Pacifist if I'm being honest.

 

[JohnFei]

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 discussion

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"

Bioware talking about artistic integrity.

Thats a good one.

 

[Therumancer]

I guess I'm a social justice warrior. I don't hate women or minorities and I agree with most of contemporary feminism, that counts, right? And one time I spent about an hour and a half on the Fuckyeahlesbiansex tumblr, and as we all know there's no reason to frequent Tumblr except for social justice warfare and lesbian sex. And I love the shit out of video games.

According to #Gamergate, most of the Escapist writers would fall in that silo too.

Well strictly speaking Moviebob and Jim Sterling are the ones who got labeled with that. Bob is a huge SJW who absolutely oozes white guild and liberal pandering, and has had a tendency to turn even the strangest things into political crusades. He's pretty much against anything traditionally manly or whatever, knocking things like "The Expendables" and more recently calling "The Equalizer" a "Dad movie" by way of being obsolete in terms of any kind of relevant view of manhood given his politics... which I suppose is better than when he called people who'd like "The Expendables" the worst kind of person.

Jim was pretty inflammatory towards people who didn't want gay men in "Mass Effect 3" at one point.

Both have done lots of stuff but those are the kinds of "big moments" that stick in my mind and show how they go there.

When it comes to SJWs the thing isn't so much a matter of being tolerant, but when it comes to promoting the idea that various minority groups should be inserted into everything, certain social positions must be upheld and it's wrong not to do so, and so on. For example by being okay with gay men being out there and appearing in things if the creators want them to, your probably not a SJW. On the other hand if you believe that it's an entitlement to have gay men in things like "Mass Effect 3" and "Old Republic Online" and that the creators are wrong (offensively so) for not having put them into the game, having not really come up with any ideas that they anted them for, then chances are your a SJW. The same applies to a lot of other things, it's not just about being liberal, but about being extremely liberal and taking it to the point of a crusade, especially when you revel in the idea of it getting the goat of people who disagree. What's more SJWs tend to usually talk about issues they are largely isolated from, for example someone who say lives in Canada, or the Northeastern parts of the US, going on about the border crisis, and the human rights aspects of immigration, along with the nature of those people, when they themselves do not have to deal with the repercussions and have no real knowledge of the situation. Basically it's fine to have an opinion, but if your say trying to tell people from Texas and Arizona "how it is" based on social principle and no real experience, then chances are your a SJW. Ditto for those who go on about social issues in general that they have no real experience with or knowledge of. The stereotypical SJW being some tubby white dude on a computer in a white suburb who thinks he's wordly but lives a very sheltered existence and educated about issues due to idealistic political and social commentary, which also makes him feel guilty. The point sort of being that part of what makes your average SJW what he is, is that he is likely to never see the effects of what he professes, and is able to be idealistic due to relative isolation. Some SJW who writes game articles professionally for example doesn't have to worry about say being hit by an illegal immigrant without insurance driving a car, which is bad enough when everyone is legal and has insurance, but a nightmare in such cases. It's easy to be tolerant and rally behind people like that lady who just spent 5 whole days in jail and is trying to sue (in Arizona) for being an unlicensed, uninsured, illegal immigrant driving a vehicle with a cracked windshield when your not the one that has
to deal with her on the road.

The truth is I think a lot of the more vocal SJWs are ducking and covering right now because we've seen the first major kickback against them through #gamersgate. I don't expect it to last though, and likely there will be a resurgence until the next explosion.

That said, I also think there is a lot of energy in the air as I've said before, I think a lot of people have realized there is pent up pressure, and a lot of liberals are beginning to think that maybe they went too far, especially in terms of marginalizing the other side. While I don't buy some predictions that the country might be in anarchy soon, preventing a 2016 election, the bottom line is that roughly 15 states so far are in insubordination to the federal government in one form or another. People are starting to realize that the law only really works as long as everyone agrees it's in the best interests to follow it. The Federal government has been forcing a lot of states one way or another to accept things, especially social policies, that they do not want to accept. All these gay rights rulings, immigration rulings, and everything else are great on paper, until you consider that without genuine popular support in a lot of these areas all it does is piss people off, and what happens if states just finally say "no, and we don't care about the rulings, we're going to do, what we're going to do". A lot of people were looking at the situation with Scotland wanting to leave the UK (it didn't) specifically because of how various state independence parties are gaining traction where they were a fringe element before, and there is more at stake here arguably than with Scotland. I doubt anyone is about to cede from the union tomorrow, but it's been noticed and actually gotten more attention than ever before. People also predict an explosion (though I personally doubt it will happen) come November because really whomever controls the senate is going to make a lot of people unhappy. If The Republicans gain a majority and start using it to undo a lot of victories by Obama and his people, and/or actually make good on their threats to impeach him (in addition to sueing him) there could be a left wing riot. If the Democrats keep their majority, it's going to mean a lot of the "Red States" are going to become even more insubordinate towards to federal government, and frankly if this ever turns into open defiance, rebellion, or leaving it's going to suck all around. Of course not everyone thinks anything is going to happen, but there is sort of that vibe in the air, and I think a lot of people are being a hell of a lot more careful than they would have been otherwise, even if they can't put their finger on why.


That said whether your a SJW or not, doesn't much matter. The problem is less with SJWs themselves but a lack of balance. Basically we have tons of Jim Sterlings and Bob Chipmans out there in the geekdom community but no equally bombastic personalities from the other side, and certainly not in anywhere near the same quantities. Furthermore people who tend to be right wing and strongly disagree with SJWs especially on social issues, tend to get banned and persecuted by sites, which of course has inflamed the anger. Balance things out and the problem starts to recede. The problem is for example is that someone can say make strong pro-gay statements about inclusion and so on, and push for things like gay romances to be put into games, but if someone wants to make anti-gay statements and disagree with those things then they will be banned on most sites (The Escapist is fairly tolerant though), under the pretension that the site be "welcoming and safe to everyone". Basically since gays can feel threatened by those who oppose their issues and dispute their inclusion, it can be justified by liberals as an excuse to ban. That's great if you happen to be a left winger and liberal, but not so great or fair if your one of the millions of people on the other side of that debate that not only gets suppressed, but frequently insulted. Basically it's been argued that Republicans/Social Conservatives are the only social group it's okay to attack and belittle on geekdom forums, not a good move in a polarized society. What's more banning people just forces silence, it doesn't make the alleged liberal supermajority a reality. Something like the way #Gamersgate went down (more so than the actual issues) caused an explosion and these issues to come to the forefront and a lot of the oppressed to start pointing out the sheer hypocricy inherent in the way a lot of geek-related sites have been conducting themselves and how slanted they have allowed themselves to become, perhaps without even realizing it in some cases.

As I've said many times, my personal attitude is one of free speech. Basically if you allow social liberals to represent, allow social conservatives to represent. If being exposed to the other side makes people uncomfortable or causes cognitive dissonance, then so be it. When that happens all is well. I don't disagree with the right of SJWs to conduct their crusades even if I disagree with them, I just disagree with the infrastructure supporting them and the other side not being able to represent with equal vehemence. I also believe websites need to start recruiting the "Rush Limbaugh of Geekdom" for their various sites. It would be nice if for example when people discuss an issue like making Heimdall black, you saw people actually representing the not uncommon attitude that they should simply cast people that look like the comic characters as much as possible, yet it seemed every time someone said anything like that (including me) they were at least implied to be racists.

Ah well, such is my rambling. The bottom line is, I wouldn't worry much about whether you qualify as a SJW (by the stereotype or opinions) or not. It's mostly become an issue due to things being one sided rather than simply because
it exists. For example how many people have you seen on these forums (which are relatively tolerant) who are open social conservatives (on most issues) and post from that perspective? Me, and whom else? The last time I saw anything like a rally was when people got upset over "White Guy Defense Force" and that was a blood bath because so many people posted angry, probably the biggest ban streak in Escapist history.

 

[Therumancer]

Wait a sec, how the hell did Bioware get in there?

Because there's gay relationships in some of their games, which is truly a sign of the SJW infiltration in cooperation with the reverse vampires and the saucer people in order to suppress proud hetero male awesomeness and also make us think we're rapists if we DON'T participate in these awful options.

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 discussion

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"

Actually the issue is this.

What happened was Bioware chose to have all gender combinations represented in Dragon Age Origins which the writers wanted at the time they did it. Basically you could have man-man, and girl-girl. A lot of social liberals were pleased by this inclusion. They took this as an entitlement that such options should exist in ALL of Bioware's games. The guys writing "Mass Effect" did not include any man-man options despite there being girl-girl (sort of) as an option and of course hetero options for romances. They pretty much whined, and whined, and whined, and whined, until eventually Bioware relented and despite the creators having no real vision for it, tacked on a man-man option in Mass Effect 3. Then of course the SJWs whined, and whined, and whined because it was a tacked on option that was never intended and not exactly fulfilling, much like the other "lesbian" options added (that didn't involve an alien that doesn't exactly count as "female" by our definition being able to cross breed with anything, without even needing full physical intimacy). There was another front to this where when "Knights Of The Old Republic" came out, there were only heterosexual relationships, the creative team just didn't come up with any gay options, so of course the SJWs came out and whined until Bioware relented and tacked some on in the first major expansion, and then the SJWs whined some more because
again they were tacked on.

The whole artistic integrity thing comes into it because at the end of the day the SJW position is that such things are an entitlement, even if they cater to a VERY small number of people. Pretty much if there is romance there needs to be gay options for both genders. If a creator does not want to create such things, then the publisher should force them to do it anyway, whether they have a vision for any fully fleshed out characters or not. So basically it's an argument demanding token characters be shoehorned into works even when they don't fit with what the creators wanted to do. As I remember Bioware saying "Shepard" was not really a full player avatar, which is why there was so little dialogue control in a practical sense, he has a sort of pre-defined personality of which you pick one or the other (Paragon or Renegade), something people have joked about. The creators never envisioned Shepard, either version, as being gay, so there were no options for it, and as they pointed out the whole "Asari Option" wasn't really a lesbian romance since Liara isn't really a girl despite how she looks, a point that a lot of people didn't want to accept. In comparison in "Dragon Age" the "Gray Warden" was more of a blank slate, and in coming up with the concepts they viewed Orlais as being very decadent and sexually open, as a result Leliana was bi-, and the same was done to Zevran because it fit the vision of the character as also being very decadent coming from a similar kind of background, and also their version of elves being more open to that kind of thing than humans. As a result they just ran with it because that's what the creators thought felt right.

I'm not exactly pro-gay (I won't go into my reasons or thoughts yet again) but frankly I don't give much of a crap when this stuff shows up in video games as it's existence isn't why I have the attitudes I do and usually there is nothing really wrong with the portrayals in fantasy games. That said I don't think forcing the creators to include gay relationships, or any kind of relationships is in any way right. You won't exactly see SJWs rallying for heterosexuals to be represented in Yaoi anime/manga (which might not even be overtly sexual, like Yuri it's just about the central orientation).

Basically Bioware's creators got forced multiple times to introduce token characters. Of course then again I think a lot of it came from unrelenting pressure from the SJWs, and those in opposition to them were not allowed or able to have much of a voice, nor were they represented in the geek media commenting on these "issues" leading to it being very one sided. Probably causing the support for this to seem a lot greater than it actually was, which is why Bioware capitulated, and of course why it's an issue, and an example that sort of comes up for why there is a problem with SJWs in various discussions.

That said, I doubt this will be much of a problem with "Dragon Age: Inquisition", unless they decided to intentionally play things down it's supposed to be in Orlais which was defined as a pretty sexually permissive place, so I'm guessing there will be more adult content and decadence at least implied than in other games, and options going every which way by definition.

I'm also guessing one of the reasons why they decided to kill off Shepard (or render him permanently MIA) despite their being a ME4 is so they can create a more blank slate protagonist in order to open up more options. As I said before, a big part of that problem was in part that he was never entirely a blank slate because the game demanded he do very specific things in a very specific way, which included political statements and such at various times. He basically had two personalities to choose from, but at the end of the day they all wound up doing the same things except for very specific key moments (spare or kill the Rakni Queen for example) that could later be used for mild plot divergence to create some illusion of player agency which didn't wind up being anywhere near as clever or satisfying as they hoped despite them building a great sci-fi universe ruined by a terrible ending.

 

[Vault101]

I will say three things

1. the first mass effect originally intended to have gay options and instead left us with the asssari cop put (which is problematic in of itself)

tacked on a man-man option in Mass Effect 3. Then of course the SJWs whined, and whined, and whined .

2. stop fucking doing this

3.as for the rest of it I'm not wasting my time

 

[Therumancer]

Wait if it happened in Febuary then I kinda agree with Wikipedia. It's irrelevant.

*sigh* How so? This affair, including the backlash against her baseless allegations against WizardChan (December 2013) only came to light after #GG started. Considering that it then ties to Archon's apology a couple of weeks ago, I find that it's still very relevant to the situation.

Well that depends I suppose, I thought gamergate wasn't about Zoe Quinn personally?

If that's true then how is it relevant that back in February she made tweets slagging off a proposed competition that was the target of vandals and/or hackers?

It's not really relevant. The whole issue behind Gamersgate is that it was about corruption in geekdom journalism. When this was brought up the journalists do what they always do, put on their SJW hats and tried to make it about Zoe in order to claim it was some kind of attack by misogynists. The whole thing with the con was more or less reinforcing that Zoe was pretty much the kind of unscrupules person who would do anything to promote her work, more or less in support of her banging 5 guys not being out of the question if she felt she had something to gain from it, not that she actually seemed to go the route of denial.

Basically the entire thing is that Zoe was stringing along this guy she was parted from but wanted to possibly see again that she met on an online singles site. Since she wanted to sleep with him she pretty much played the whole "oooh, we're so alike" thing and said she was a very moral person. During the time when they were parted she went around and started screwing geeks who might be able to help promote her work, like something that might be the plot of a porno, and this guy found out about it, and he was pissed off so he outed it. Nobody really cared that Zoe cheated on this guy, but it got attention that everyone she screwed as in a position that should have been retaining professional detachment from her. This lead to cries of outrage and demands that the people she slept with be fired and such, and those people retaliated by claiming people were trying to "slut shame" Zoe and such. The situation become confusing because you've seen SJWs trying to re-direct this onto other issues. At the end of the day Zoe from what I've seen seems to be quite honest about having done it, so really there isn't much else to say about her, sure it was sleazy, but then again she's an art-chick out to promote her game, if she has these kinds of connections she's going to use them. This kind of garbage has been going on with the artsy crowd as long as there have been one, it's like some girl sleeping with a dude who runs a café or a gallery to get ahead in the poetry slam or on the access list to have her work displayed. It's not good, but at the end of the day when she says "yep, I slept with them" what are you going to do about it, she obviously doesn't care what people think about it, and it's not like a crime was committed... and really in this case the guys who slept with her were even more wrong whether they actually helped her out or not.

 

[Therumancer]

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?

They are thinking in terms of traditional gamers. They are pretty much saying that the typical "gamer" who likes hot girls, big guns, and macho men is now a fringe element in games, having been replaced by more enlightened sorts, and as such our tastes are irrelevant, so we should just sit back and die out while they make everything politically correct and enlightened. They are pointing to things like recent studies about how women and casuals vastly outnumber core gamers, and of course how SJWs have pressured companies like Bioware to be more inclusive in their games.

The thing is that it's sort of an illusion created by suppression, and ironically a lot of the issues SJWs claim to represent don't actually exist. For example when it comes to the portrayal of women in games that's accurate to the generas those games are a part of. When you see women create characters in fantasy and science fiction, even in female oriented works, the characters are always very talented, and super-hot. Indeed the whole term "Mary Sue" came about due to women fiction writers, especially amateurs on fiction sites, creating such overdone "perfect" characters that it became stereotypical and sort of annoying. Basically when it comes to this stuff female creators are arguably worse than the guys. I'll also say that while it might shock a lot of people when it comes to actual adult material, in and outside of geekdom, the girls tend to be a lot nastier about it than the guys are as well. Something which I find darkly amusing when a guy is called an insensitive misogynistic pig for having some kind of rape scene, that's because a lot of these people probably haven't read stuff like this created by women or at least didn't know what gender the person was that wrote it. Women seem to create more, and nastier, rape porn than guys do, for whatever reason that is. I could give examples (I have before) but it would get off topic, and depend on people having read certain things. But basically if you read something like Anne Rice's "Sleeping Beauty Saga" it could change your perspective on such things.

At any rate, it's a matter of context. The basic idea is that if your one of those gamers who say didn't want gay men added into Mass Effect 3, pretty much what "used to be the majority" your now an irrelevant minority and get used to it. Such comments are also why things have gotten so heated, and so many people are going after SJWs right now, largely because the numbers aren't exactly what they have been trying to promote. Just because someone was banned from some sites and forced to create politically silent accounts due to the slant, didn't mean they went away. A lot of people have simply started to come out in force, and while they aren't representing issues right now, they are attacking SJWs and disputing their alleged complete and total dominance of geek culture, and demonstrating from the industry that while quiet that actually isn't an overwhelming majority position no matter how loud it might scream.

... or for a contextual example if Bioware doesn't put gays into their next game, it's not going to be any kind of suicide. They can do it if they want, but they don't have to. As loud as they are the SJWs aren't actually going to tank their game over this, if the game tanks it will be for other reasons (like crappy design in Dragon Age 2, or Mass Effect 3's ending and the massive grudge it caused).

 

[Bruce]

Actually I see the SJWs as being the real gamers in this whole thing.

If you look to the antis, well...

Thunderf00t has never mentioned being a gamer except in relation to his war on feminism. The guys at Breitbart.com expressed outright disdain for gamers as immature manchildren, right up until they noted a potential market for their conservative crap.

On the anti-SJW side so far as I see, very few of the big name voices actually got to being big names through their gaming coverage.

You look on the pro-SJW side, and all of the major voices made their names and their followings by being gamers.

And journalism is pretty sexist as an industry. I mean hell, the first Russian woman in 17 years to go to space and what did journos ask about? Zero G hair care and makeup.

The fact that the pro-SJW side is so overwhelmingly represented in the media that games? Kind of gives me hope.