Where's all the SJWs at?

[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.

 

[Therumancer]

A. He actually attempted constructive things he thought would help humanity.

Apparently, ALL SJWs think they're helping. Or has the stereotype changed.

B. He didn't complain or draw gratuitous attention nearly enough to be an SJW.

Except, you know, when he was in jail and stuff. I also wouldn't be shocked if Martin would have taken to social media were it available at the time. Well, available to coloured people, because it'd probably be whites only.

Of course, the irony is, even blacks were tired of MLK before he was shot. We might well have seen the same complaints. I say "might" because there's no way to speak with 100% certainty.

C. He was in actual physical danger because of the things he decided to do to try to change society (this is an important one; if Anita Sarkeesian was MLK, she probably would have mailed a bullet to herself or something for instance).

And we wrap up specious stereotypes and incorrect history with baseless accusations with no good faith basis. Wonder if that one even needs to be addressed.

Well, the major difference between MLK and a SJW is the legitimacy of the issues. MLK existed at a time when there were a lot of major issues to be addressed. Also he had direct experience with the problems he was dealing with. The thing is your typical SJW is well intentioned, but frequently represents non-issues, or ones they know little about, having very little real world experience. Basically they hear the left wing speeches, get told there are all these issues, are made to feel guilty, and then set out to change the world without any real idea what they are doing. The stereotype of your SJW is basically some tubby neckbeard hunched over a computer in a fairly safe, whitebread neighborhood where most of the social issues he's commenting on don't exist, and will likely never reach in his lifetime even with the spread of urban blight. Sure he might have met minorities in a rather safe context, maybe even volunteered at a soup kitchen or whatever, but always in a fairly controlled environment and protected by his status and separation. This is a guy who will claim to be an expert in black culture and gangs and such despite having probably never even been to a real lower class neighborhood never mind an inner city ghetto, or ever met a real gang banger (though probably some poseurs representing the "diversity" in his suburbs). He has a lot to say about all the poor Mexicans coming across the southern borders, but doesn't live in a border state so will never have to deal with the problems. He has no police, security, or surveillance training, yet thinks he knows what people are like when nobody is around (incorrectly). He's all for tolerance, but still checks all the on his locks his doors and windows at night as a paranoid routine, and probably doesn't let his kids roam the neighborhoods because of all the whackos out there and doesn't see the connection. If your a SJW on a geek site, odds are you spend a huge amount of time immersed in geek culture so as to not deal with the real world which makes it particularly ironic to pursue such issues with such vehemence and allged expertise. MLK wasn't anything like this, he was out there at the riots, in the ghettos, and dealing with the people on both sides pretty much every day. Even if you disagreed with him, he was a guy that had the right to have an opinion by anyone's standards.

Your right that towards the end Black America was getting tired of MLK and it's arguable that he died at the perfect time since it made him a martyr and even more of an icon. There are some unlikely conspiracy theories about him having himself shot specifically for this reason. A big part of it was that he was leading angry black men who wanted vengeance around, and pretty much talking them down. He pretty much won the battles he set out to win, but pretty much told people that it was time to settle down and take advantage of the victories that had been won, the militants and radicals supporting him behind the scenes pretty much had to put down their guns and being the painful process of assimilating and becoming part of culture as opposed to a counter-culture. This was not as popular as the conflict, as it was kind of anti-climactic. Fighting is easy, living in peace afterwards is the hard part. Pretty much he wanted to avoid everything we're seeing from Black America today, and I'd imagine he would be disappointed, especially with leaders like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson that both allege to follow in his footsteps but are divisive in pursuit of personal power.

Basically I more or less agree with you. MLK was not a social justice warrior by our definition. What's more I don't think anyone would call him one. SJW exists for people like Jim Sterling or Bob Chipman. To put this into perspective Bob is a film critic who runs around to film screenings and immerses himself in comics, movies, video games, and other things and works full time producing various things for the internet as he has multiple shows. What gives Bob the right to say some of the garbage he does, or claim expertise and the right to make those judgements? How can he fairly talk about tolerance or the "unfair persecution" of people and groups he has no experience with. Can you imagine Bob or Jim in a rowdy nightclub fitting in, never mind walking or even driving through a truly bad neighborhood? See, I'm a mess today (that looks very similar, being a fat blob) but as I point out I did security and surveillance-type work for an area a lot of types of people came through, I worked with and was trained by all kinds of experts, and I can claim a lot of first hand experience with the groups and people I criticize, and also point out that it's what made me socially conservative. Indeed while there are conservative hypocrites, I've also pointed out that I've noticed a trend that the more you actually know, and the more of this stuff you deal with the less liberal you become. Back when they had the nightclubs at Foxwoods I would have given Bob six months tops in security before he became as jaded as I am if he did the same jobs.

 

[Therumancer]

The NSA? Excuse me? The NSA?

What exactly is it that you think the NSA does?

goes after people using hackings, doxxings, ddosing and blackmail as a casual tool in an publicly visible orchestrated campaign of relational aggression.

amongst other things.

Yeah, that's... not even remotely what the NSA does.

yes, im sure they have nothing to do with the tackling "cyber crime"...absolutely nothing...it's so very hard for the US government to track these kinds of things nowadays...

The NSA is the National Security Agency, they deal with threats to the country, not citizens committing crimes against other citizens, federally speaking that's the domain of the FBI. The FBI is federal law enforcement, the NSA is pretty much counter-intelligence, sort of the defensive version of the CIA (the CIA does stuff offensively in other countries to get us intelligence and modify things in our favor, the NSA does things to prevent other countries from doing that to us). The Secret Services is basically a governmental body guard service, they specifically protect The President and other high ranking government officials. Homeland Security is a sort of redundant organization that exists between all of these organizations to sort of get them to work together, share information, and take action in areas between the lines. Given the mandates involved a lot of these things can overlap. For example if a domestic crime involves someone who is believed to potentially be in service to a foreign power and acting against US interests you might see both the NSA and FBI involved. Into this entire mess you also have various military intelligence and counter intelligence services as they have their own divisions (for example NCIS is famous because of TV shows right now), investigators that can be empowered by special congressional approval and comitees , and of course then you have various special police units organized by state and even local governments that can in theory have far-reaching power within their domain. This is a very basic version (so apologies if I made some mistakes, I'm tired) but this is why so many people talk about "Alphabet Soup" when it comes to law enforcement, spycraft, and other stuff, there are tons of agencies all of which do different things and overlap in their authority, which can create a huge mess. Of course this is also surprisingly intentional so nobody has too much power. Bill Clinton did a lot to dismantle this intentional infrastructure which is why the US was so blind after the 9/11 attacks and had to rely so heavily on foreign intelligence networks. The US rebuild a lot of this stuff, and when they were doing so, there were fears that if they consolidated too much of it under one umbrella they would create a "Spy Czar" that was too powerful, and given it's broad mandate there are concerns that this is functionally what Homeland security became. Clinton was referenced I believe as being concerned about these organizations as well which is why he did a lot of what he did (he didn't like not knowing as much as he did, and allegedly when he became President one of the things he declared was he planned to figure out if the government knew about aliens, supposedly he got stonewalled by his own intelligence people who kept passing him from group to group, and he threatened to start shutting people down and doing firings if nobody gave him straight answers, they didn't so it's part of why he was waving an axe around, whether there are aliens or not he never discovered, but he did learn he hated the intelligence bureaucracy).

At any rate, all rambling aside, the bottom line is that the NSA likely would not even remotely give a crap about any of this, they have bigger fish to fry and things to worry about. Right now all their attention is probably on Russia, China, and ISIL. The most likely people to get involved in a cyber-harassment case is actually a state level task force if they considered it a big enough deal. At the end of the day this kind of stuff is a nuisance and not doing any kind of real damage, simply put task forces have limited budgets unlike on TV and they have to pick and choose their targets. At the end of the day nobody is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment and manpower to do large scale searches for hackers so some prosecutor can slap them on the wrist for making someone sad. Now if Zoe had a ton of money and she could claim actual damages being caused by this, that would be different. As things are now she can't even claim defamation of character because as far as the allegations against her are concerned she actually did them. If she denied sleeping with these five guys, and was actually charging money for her game (she's not to my knowledge), then she might be able to make a case that could get someone to investigate. This is a big deal in geek circles, but to put things into perspective would you rather have resources used on this, or say continued to be used to say track gun runners or cyber criminals doing actual damage or whatever. Resources are limited in the real world and the police
can't be everywhere. Especially when they keep getting their budgets cut.

 

[irishda]

Do SJWs post massive walls of texts too? I'm not up to date on my stereotypes, so I don't know if they're also unable to filter out their posts down to the essentials of text. I think we all know that famous quote though: "Brevity is the opposite of wit, so there's this one time when I was at the grocery store..."

 

[Therumancer]

[small]Here goes nothing...[/small]

I am of the recently labelled Social Justice Warrior variety, although I would much prefer to be a Bard. I'm much more verbose, I write, and my diplomacy is great. I have no upper body strength to speak of, and I'm a pacifist. So... Warrior just doesn't sit well with me. But that's mostly semantics, we can cover that later.

I game as well. Lots of them. Can't say whether I'd be a hardcore gamer (I've been told I'm not because I don't do X or don't do Y, or that I am because I do do X and do do Y (heh, do do). The point is, I fall into both those categories.

But can I for a moment get out my dusty old soapbox? I can? Thank you.

I really hate labels. I mean it. There are certain things I can't avoid, woman being one of them, the vagina between my legs kind of seals that deal. Pacifist is also locked in, can't stand fighting at all. Also, baker, I do make a lot of baked goods. But really, when it comes down to it, I don't fit into any one type of style of anything. None of us do. Humans aren't meant to be turned into black and white, yes and no, circle and squares. They're beautiful and intrinsic and that's why this world is so amazing every single day we wake up. Today I woke up and it's gross outside, I feel like ass, but I'm smiling because it's okay, I know that I'm going to come along someone today that's not me, that's different and interesting, who will have another opinion and I may not agree with them, but at least I can respect them and learn from them.

Every time we stick someone in a box to fit some preconceived notion we have about the world, we make the earth a little less colourful and infinitely duller. Perhaps it's a natural need to make everything tidy? I don't know. But just assuming that anyone who stands up for rights, despite perhaps never having those rights taken away, is some sort of social warrior, is ridiculous. We needed people like that all through history, and we will always need people like that. And, we need people that will call out the idiots who just drone on about all the good things they do, because those guys are assholes. No one likes standing next to them at parties, because they're pretentious, with their tweed sweaters and their Cosby glasses, and their Glenfidditch scotch.

The point is, we need each other. Putting each other in boxes and then ignoring each other isn't a way to fix the world, it's a way to make it worse. So, to everyone who has been suspended, or warned, or (holy crap!) banned because of this thread (seriously, wow) just take a moment to remember we're all humans. We're all wonderful in our own ways, even the sides of us that are complete idiots and dicks. Because we all have them, those shades of burnt umber that are ugly and gross, we just have to start looking for that nicer shade of lilac or salmon (it's not a bad colour) that's buried under there.

Now then, I'm taking my soap box, my orators stuff, and I'm going to social justice bard my way to the kingdom of... social justice... um... this analogy is going nowhere.

Well, as I said, the issue is less with you, so much than a lack of representation from the other side. Basically the way things stand now there is no real freedom of speech on the internet. Simply put all the platforms are privately owned, and the right to free speech was designed at a time when it was believed only the government would be powerful enough to quiet voices and silence dissent. Today it's a case where your typical website wields more power over free speech than elected officials. This is not likely to change soon, but it's created an environment where when one political point of view dominates most of the platforms they can effectively silence the other side. On a big issue like gay rights for example, someone can make all kinds of pro-gay comments, and even attack those who don't like gays, but say the opposite and someone can run up and whack you with a ban hammer for being intolerant. That's fine I suppose if it happens to support your point of view, and you won't see protests from people who disliked what was being said to begin with, but it's very one sided. What's more when you start trivializing the opinions of, and suppressing views held by millions of people... well, eventually that floodgate is going to burst. Just because you whack someone with a ban hammer does not mean that person disappeared, and just because people have to remain silent about disagreeing with you out of fear and a desire to speak on other subjects does not mean they disappeared. Right now your seeing a situation on geek culture sites where pretty much the only group you have the right to be discriminatory and offensive to are social conservatives and Republicans, and gee, despite claims they are trivial and about to die out any second now, there sure seems to be a lot of them now that the hornets nest got riled up, and imagine that, they are counter-attacking the other side and going after SJWs. I mean it's only one of the major political parties in the US (where both have been forecasting the imminant demise of the other pretty much forever, either saying the scared old men will die up, or the hippies will mature and face reality), geez I wonder if there might be a lot of them.

Basically my attitude at least is not so much that I want to see SJWs die, so much as I want to see balance and free speech on both sides. For example you can say your pro-gay stuff, the other side can say anti-gay stuff, if gays happen to get "scared and offended" oh well, it's a major political and social issue. Likewise people should reap what they sow so to speak, someone wants to talk liberal trash they should get the backlash and live with it, I do things from the other end despite the environment and don't exactly go crying every time someone disagrees with me or is a bit mean.

That said, being a SJW or Bard or whatever you want to be called generally comes from the fact that especially in this environment the people claiming to speak for various groups have no real experience or knowledge of the subjects they claim to be talking about. You basically wind up with a bunch of ivory tower idealists, hunched over keyboards, parroting political positions they have heard and read about, with no real knowledge of the subject matter or personal experience. They have been told specific things, feel guilty, and then run out as champions of people and causes they have no experience with. What's more most of them are tubby white guys who are sheltered in the suburbs and such, and in this environment are on these sites because they have immersed themselves in video games and geek culture to a huge degree. This is especially true of a lot of the people with platforms who use them for politics as much as gaming. Given what say Bob Chipman has said about his life experiences and what makes him qualified to discuss geek culture, make him qualified to say some of the things he does on social issues? This is a guy who produces shows for the internet and attends film screenings, and plays enough games to be an expert on them to do shows on it, he claims to have been doing this forever, pretty much having been doing this since he was a kid and getting picked on for the stuff he liked in school. How the heck does Bob know anything about the groups he champions? The same can be said of most SJWs. I mean you get some dude who will tell you they have 30 years experience as a hard core nerd and have spend all their money on video games and warhammer figures, while working full time in a cubicle on the east coast, and yet this guy is going to tell you what you should think about say the border crisis and the illegal immigrants flooding the southern states. Like he'll likely have to deal with the fallout from that, and is somehow more capable of judging the problem and what those people are like than the people who live there and deal with them. See, at least in my case I've explained why I think some of the things I do, and point it out constantly to explain why I have the knowledge I do and on what I base my opinions. Your typical SJW can't do that, any experience he might claim to have is from very controlled circumstances, or due to a particular political philosophy. What's more to be frank being tolerant is easier than not nowadays, because if your tolerant it means not having to actually do anything, and reduces the chance of your own life being disturbed. If say the US decides to eject what is it... 50 million illegals, and those people object, well that might actually spill over into your neighborhood or force you to do something.

In closing I'll say that it's possible some people labeled SJWs can justify their attitudes, but one can only call it like they see it. For example at some point Bob Chipman could justify his attitudes and experience, and say reveal he somehow actually spend 20 years in the peace corps. or something and travelled all over the place and prove it by putting up photos of his travels in one of his videos. Of course I very much doubt that's going to happen, and for every one SJW that might be able to justify having an opinion, there are probably going to be 50 who have no practical real world experience with what they are talking about. Idealists as opposed to realists... and frankly my experience has been the more you actually deal with these issues the more socially conservative you become. It's like when I was taking criminal justice, when you become a cop (which I never was) or something similar it changes your perspective entirely because you see things you never did. See someone like Martin Luthor King Jr. who was pointed out before wouldn't be considered a SJW even if he was very socially liberal (obviously) because he was out there dealing with all sides of the issue he represented, even if you disagreed with him, he's someone you had to acknowledge had the right to have an opinion on the matters he represented because he experienced them. In comparison someone like Bob (whom I pick on because he's become the infamous example, I actually like him and his shows, even if he likely doesn't feel the same) likes to sound off about black culture, white washing, and all kinds of other things, but I doubt he has experience with many of the black people he's talking about in doing episodes of "Game Overthinker" and attending movie viewings. Sure I'm sure he meets black people, probably even has some friends and colleagues, but the people he meets in the context of the life he has presents are not part of the culture that has become the center of socio-political discussions. It's doubtful many of them would say have much in common with the people of an inner city ghetto, or even the people of Ferguson simply on the merits of being someone Bob would run into in the course of attending movie pre-screenings, playing video games to comment on, and taping internet shows.

At least that's the best I can explain it, as unpopular as what I have to say might be.

 

[Therumancer]

Because derp

Spoiler

Someone's probably gunna come and correct me but this is all I have to contribute. Don't know this topic well enough to debate it really.

Well, I wouldn't say that has much to do with it. Simply because it seems like someone trolling, and honestly I think it's more joking than trolling. A radical feminist claiming video games are sexist I can see. Claiming its the LAST bastion of the patriarchy is kind of silly though and intentionally so, and I'd imagine most people would get that immediately. I mean in a world where we have NASCAR, Pro-Wrestling, men-oriented network television, a huge porn industry, and all kinds of things video games are going to be small potatoes even if for some it's going to be a big deal.

The thing is that there are a couple of serious issues here, but given the attention it's garnered people looking for some lulz have also flocked to it like moths to a candle. That said I personally stay off Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and other things for the most part, to me they aren't worth the trouble and I have a hard time taking them seriously, even if I occasionally miss out on things (game promotions for MMOs I play and such). I pretty much never got any golden keys for Borderlands 2 sadly enough because of how limited I tend to be with social media and refused to hang out waiting for codes.

The one thing that surprises me is that I haven't really heard about any impersonators yet. During this entire fiasco I kind of figured there would be at least one fake Zoe Quinn account, not to mention people pretending to be various game journalists involved in this thing. Maybe it's happened, but I haven't heard about it yet if it had. Given how successful it's been in the past that's one of the first things I'd try and do if I was a troll trying to stir up some delicious lulz. Of course maybe it's become harder to do, as I said, I don't mess with those kinds of services.

 

[Therumancer]

Do SJWs post massive walls of texts too? I'm not up to date on my stereotypes, so I don't know if they're also unable to filter out their posts down to the essentials of text. I think we all know that famous quote though: "Brevity is the opposite of wit, so there's this one time when I was at the grocery store..."

No that's just me, and it's why I'll never be a professional writer. A big part of it is that I have my issues and one of them is that when I start typing I tend to ramble and go off on weird tangents, and keep re-stating myself.

I've tried to get over it, I really can't. Some people find it interesting or oddly endearing, many just skip my posts, which actually might not be a bad thing given that forethought is not something I have much luck with and my "fan club" would probably be much larger than it is now.

 

[Therumancer]

snip

It's sad, but you kind of just immediately didn't put me in a box, but put so many others in a box.

But first, let me go to the whole shut down idea: As I have seen, no one is getting shut down. In the years I have been on the internet, which is back when it was still the Intranet, and my dad wasn't supposed to let me see it because it was a government project and he could get in trouble... (but obviously he didn't, thank goodness), seriously though, back when it was just mostly AOL chat rooms, and people talking about nothing, people always had ideas like this. The idea that either this was bad, or they had to fight for this, or there were things to get done. But even before the internet, there were papers. People wrote into papers, and before that, people wrote religious treaties. And before that, books, before that... I can keep going.

.

When I started it was all BBS systems and echoes I had a speedy 1200 baud modem.

That said, when it comes to certain social media services your right, but on forums of this sort people can and do get banned and/or have posts blocked. In my case my current forum health meter is the result of disagreeing with people on the issue of gay rights (multiple hits at the same time even), and this is a relatively open and accepting site. Others will ban people immediately, no real need for a health meter or anything else. The Escapist has had a few moments I disagreed with like mass bans when people got angry over the "White Guy Defense Force" strip Critical Miss did a while back. So yeah, the problem exists, especially on sites a lot less tolerant than this one which itself has it's moments.

As far as I defined SJWs it's difficult to explain a trend which you seem to be inquiring about without using a "box" as you put it, because that's what a trend is... and as much as you might want to argue that we're all individuals, the bottom line is humanity forms to certain patterns and stereotypes. Entire sciences like sociology exist based around this and are exploited to great effect through advertising and the like. As a general rule SJWs might diverge somewhat from that stereotype on one or more points, but they tend to conform to it more than they don't. Furthermore when you talk about how you could know these statements are made without any kind of knowledge or experience, the thing is that the people frequently doing it in no way attempt to justify how they could know something, and pretty much refer entirely to political sources that reinforce what they are saying. Rarely do you see anyone even trying to claim experience, and in many cases the very position people occupy in geek media means that they are very unlikely to know anything about the subject at hand. For example with Bob, not one thing he's ever said about himself, and he's said quite a bit, even remotely justifies some of the positions he's taken. In my case in comparison I've at least explained why I think what I do. The thing about the SJW "box" is that it comes by looking at the people who take these kinds of positions in the geek media. Look at your typical guy with one of these gaming platforms who uses it for his social views in addition, and notice invariably that put a synopsis of their life experience up at some point to justify why they are an expert on all things geek, and that same experience makes it clear that they have lead incredibly sheltered lives to be able to dedicate themselves to this stuff to that extent, and if that's the case they aren't remotely qualified to present a social platform as truth. All they can do is basically point to what someone else said that they happen to want to believe.

Whether you agree with it or not, I'm sort of just the messenger and explaining a lot of what this is about. Basically a lot of people have seen this, and made the connection, and as a result a label for it appeared, and it's become enough of an issue for enough people that there is some anger over it.

As I've said before, the solution to this problem isn't so much to do anything to the SJWs but to diversify the community. Either keep everything on topic to geek culture, and allow no politics at all, even on dedicate forms (where bans and such still happen, perhaps even more frequently) or give equal time to both sides. If your going to let someone have a socially liberal platform with their geek culture stuff, make sure you have a socially conservative one elsewhere to balance it out. On the forums if your going to let people say make pro-gay or pro-illegal immigrant comments, then allow people to state the opposite positions even if they aren't "nice" to the people being discussed, who despite being human beings DO represent a political issue and topic of discussion throughout society. Balance things out one way or another and nobody is likely to care about things like SJWs representing a problem. The issue is less with them, than the fact that it's almost entirely one sided.

In a more practical sense than big political issues like gay rights, another example I use is how in the "Thor" movie they decided to make Heimdall black, a guy who is a norse guy and quite white in the comics (he makes semi-frequent appearances when Asgard is shown as he guards the bridge). A lot of people objected to this, feeling that when using established characters they should try and cast people that look like the characters, as opposed to trying to make a PC statement like having a black norse god (or alien believed to be one). On most geek forums the implication was that if you objected to Black heimdall it must because your a racist (I was pretty much accused of being one, I'm not a racist, even though I am not pro-gay and am honest about it). You pretty much saw universal praise for "diversity" and so on, while anyone who disagreed was being shot down and more or less persecuted. One would get the impression there was universal approval for this, but really that was hardly the case, it's just nobody had the platform to say otherwise. Speaking for myself, one of the reasons why I think this is a bad idea, along with things like "Black Human Torch" and the like is because in the course of these stunts they are not only changing long established characters for some quick PR attention, but it's being done in exclusion of actually promoting or creating black characters who are simply that way as a matter of creation. Basically black heroes like Night Thrasher, Silhouette, Black Panther, and others are less likely to ever be elevated from obscurity like they did with Guardians Of The Galaxy, if they figure they can just get away with changing the ethnicity of established characters, even if it messes with established continuity. For example with "The Human Torch" part of the entire Fantastic Four dynamic is a family dynamic where Johnny and Sue are brother and sister and Sue marries Reed, it's a huge defining part of that whole team. If all of a sudden Johnny is black and Sue isn't that means either a central defining dynamic is gone, or their mommy has some serious explaining to do. Basically if you want a black dude, why not you know, bring out one of the black super heroes. Instead of making Heimdall black, why not say have Night Thrasher show up along with Hawkeye? That's my thoughts at any rate. Not everyone agrees with them, but I don't think I deserve to be considered a racist either, and it seems enough people have similar thoughts that you'd expect some platforms out there to be echoing similar sentiments.

At the end of the day I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, all I can do is explain the issues as I see them. It's fine if you think I'm being unfair in my basic definitions, we don't have to agree on everything (or anything for that matter).

 

[Karadalis]

Do SJWs post massive walls of texts too? I'm not up to date on my stereotypes, so I don't know if they're also unable to filter out their posts down to the essentials of text. I think we all know that famous quote though: "Brevity is the opposite of wit, so there's this one time when I was at the grocery store..."

No but they are known for being very passive agressive and think very highly of themselves... like being clever when really they are just obnoxious and never really contribute to any discussion going on, rather trying to ridicule and disturb then to actually argue... mostly because alot their arguments fall flat on their noses the moment you take a closer look at them.

 

[loa]

There is no "SJW" community.
"SJW" is a derogatory term used by people who for some reason can't fathom why people would give a shit about other people even if it doesn't directly affect them and paints them as "political correctness extremists" who will constantly start shit over ridiculous things and are unpleasable.