A short essay on why you should stop calling people SJW

[jthwilliams]

So I have been following the GamerGate (and please stop calling things Gate. I know it is just short hand in our society for scandal, but it has been overused to the point of meaninglessness at this point) and the campaign against Anita SarKeesiana for some time now and I have seen the accusations of people being SJW, Gamers are dead, ideologies, and so forth. Since it appears that everyone?s favorite go to ad hominem1 is no true Scotsman2 I will start with my gamming credentials.

The first game I ever played was called gremlins and it was on the commodore color. I played it after buying a large catalog which didn?t come with a disk, it came with the source code in basic written out in page after page of text. I got it by patiently and precisely copy the source code line by line into my commodore color and I played only after I got ever single line of code right and I did that somewhere around the age of 7. The first game I ever wrote myself was in visual basic, it was very simple game where a barely recognizable human character stood one side of the screen and from the other side pixels would fly across the screen and the only controls let you either jump or duck to avoid the pixels.

Since then I have played and created games on many platforms, I have owned a 1-4 PCs simultaneously ever since I was 14, my first came console was a Atari. I have owned in my life and Sega Genesis, a NES, a N64, a Lynx, a Gameboy, an xbox. At this moment, I own an xbox360, a PS3, a Xbox one, a PSP, a DS, a 3DS and while I don?t own a PS4, it is probably just a matter of time until an exclusive comes out that motivates me to buy it. I have 5 PCs at the moment 2 of which are dedicated for games and media, and 2 of which are development environments for making games and other software. I do not know how much money I have spent on gaming, but a quick mental survey says it must be $100,000+ . Additionally I have a board game collection of around 25 titles which has been rotating for several years.

I have written games over and over again. Games that have never been published never had the hope of being published and never had the chance of making me a penny. I wrote them for my own education and for the fun and passion of making them. I have written games in Visual basic, C, C++, C# on a TI Graphing Calculator I wrote 2 version of chess one that would let you play with someone else who had a TI calculator using the data transfer cable which was not what that was designed for and another that had a very rudimentary AI that basically cheated by having known moves to play for almost every board configuration. At this time I have 3 games in development, 2 of them with co-developers, and I have the paperwork together to get my EIN and business license because for the first time in my life I believe 2 of them are sufficiently well done and fun that people might actually be willing to buy them.

I am not sure there has been a 7 day period in my life that I wasn?t in the hospital that I didn?t play some video, board or D&D style RPG and even then I was probably thinking about game play mechanics. It?s hard to say, they had me on a lot of drugs so I may have been thinking about pink elephants.

All of this is a very long winded way of saying. I am passionate about games, I am experienced with games both as a consumer and as a producer. Any definition of the word ?gamer? that you come up with that manages to exclude me would have to be so specific as to be useless as a definition. And No, this doesn?t make me ?more of a gamer? than you. All of it just simply means that I am inexorable associated with the word gamer. There isn?t a person in my life, friend, lover, co-worker, family member, boss, or employee who doesn?t associate that word with me. Well I doubt the grocery store checkout lady who I knows me by name does, but the list of people who know me and don?t is small.

The point so far is:

1) Don?t pull the no true Scotsman crap on me. It seems like the very first thing anyone ever says when anyone else is even slightly critical of gamers or behaviors associated with gamers is to say ?Well, you aren?t really a gamer?. It?s a crap ad hominine, it has no place in any argument and it definitely does not apply here.

2) I do have a right to comment on your behavior because it affects me. When you harass people, make poor arguments, go around calling people social just worriers, or say that gamers are dead, you are impacting my reputation and how people I know think about me and the things that I am passionate about. So, when I say something like Stop Harassing people, it isn?t out of some vague sense that I need to protect the people you are harassing, its because the behavior is wrong and because you call yourself a gamer, because you are in fact a gamer that behavior gets associated with all gamers including me and we are all worse off.

Stop Harassing people

Harassment is a crime. It is mean spirited. When you do it, it makes you a bad human being. When you do it what you are saying is ?I get some satisfaction or enjoyment from trying to hurt other people?. I doubt that is how you would like to see yourself and I doubt it is how you would like others to see you, but that is exactly what you are doing. Further because we are all gamers, you bring disrepute on all of us. Every single time someone who either identifies themselves as a gamer or is identified as a gamer starts calling people names, posts their personal details on the web, sending death threats, or otherwise tries to ruin their life, their livelihood or their social standing it makes everyone who enjoys video games look bad. Further, it doesn?t even help you win the argument. When you resort of coercion it indicates both that your point of view, your position is weak and that you know it because if you had a good point to make, you would and you wouldn?t resort to attacking people to try to get them to run away from the discussion. Now maybe that isn?t the case, maybe you have some really good points or arguments, but this is the message you are sending out and you are doing it loud and clear.

When the general public hears about the whole Anita SarKeesian thing, do you really believe that their response is ?Wow, those gamers are really passionate about games and defending them? or do you think they say ?Wow, look at what has happened, she must have some really good points if people are trying this hard to silence her??

Anita Sarkeesian

This brings me to the feminist frequency and Anit Sarkeesian thing. First and not be too repetitive, but stop, seriously stop everything you are doing on this topic. The hateful tweets, the YouTube videos calling her a liar and a fraud, the sexiest, abusive, and harassing blog posts. All of this needs to stop for two reasons

1) As I said above, you aren?t making your point. If you think what she says is wrong you have done everything in your power to make everyone else in the world think she must be right.
2) It is making games, gamers, and gaming look bad to the world at large.

Now I have watched the tropes vs. women youtube series. It isn?t great, a lot of the points aren?t well thought out but there are some good points in there and it is very hard to take an objective look at the gaming industry and not come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to love this thing if you were a woman. There are a lot of negative tropes around women in games that come up over and over and over again. I don?t think it is because gamers or games designers on a whole are anti-woman, but it is easier when you are trying to make a story to fall back on well-known and well understood social memes and a lot of these tropes are to various degrees unflattering to woman and while it is true there are also some tropes that make men look and feel bad if I really think about it the ones used most often tend to flatter men.

I haven?t done a study on this or anything that would make my point more valuable, but if I had to summarize it. I would say in society at large but in videos in particular, male characters tend to have traits that you want to aspire to, they are what you want to be or want to see yourself as. It is part of what makes gaming fun. I take control of an avatar and pretend for a bit that I am the hansom bad ass who doesn?t take shit from anyone. Female characters tend to have traits that you want in your mate or more frequently in your one night stand. They do tend to be acted on rather than the initiator of action. I would say ask yourself a question, when you see Bayonetta, do you want to be her. Do you want to be a hot woman who is a bit of a bad ass and very sexual and confident in your behavior or would you prefer if she was someone you knew, someone who maybe you had a bit of a relationship with. And I think that is the point. But my purpose here isn?t really to talk about gaming and gender roles just to say that there may be some valid points in Anita?s overall stance.

However, even if she was completely wrong in everything she said, even if she is a fraud who is intentionally manipulating people for her own personal benefit, even if the worse accusations against her are all 100% true. None of it justifies the behaviors that I have personally seen hurled against her. The digging through her personal life and publishing it. The name calling on twitter, the suggestions that she perform sexual acts on you. Just frankly harassment and sexual harassment. None of it is justified, none of it does anything to say that she is wrong, and all of it makes games, gaming, and gamers look bad.

It is counterproductive to your point of view. Over the past year Anita has gone from a unknown youtube blogger to a high profile public speaker almost entirely based on how much harassment she has received. People see it and say well she must have a good point since so many people want so strongly to get her to shut up. At this point in time public opinion in general as swung strongly towards believing her points, not because she makes great arguments, she makes ok arguments but they definitely could be better thought out and demonstrated, but because of the anger hurled against her.

Stop calling people Social Justice Warriors

The biggest point I have in this short essay is this. Stop calling people Social Justice Warriors because you disagree with them. It makes you sound unintelligent. Social Justice is a good thing. Justice in all forms is something as a society that we aspire to. Injustice is one things people hate most in the world. When you call someone a Social Justice Warrior, you are implicitly saying that they have good intent and are trying to do the right thing. You may mean that they are actually doing the wrong thing by ham fistedly trying to do the right thing, but you are acknowledging out of the door that they are at least trying to do the right thing. It also seems to imply to some degree that you are not trying to do the right thing and know it.

Further, it is wrong. I have seen it used against game designers, game journalist even movieBob and Jim Sterling on this site, and just about anyone who has anything critical to say about the state of the gaming industry or gamer behavior. I suspect that people we say it about me either in their heads or in the comments. However, it is wrong. You are trying to say that the person has no right to call out your behavior because it has no impact on them. However, as I have tried to make clear that is simply and obviously wrong. Your behavior good or bad impacts every single person who is associated with the label gamer and so they do have a right and possible an obligation to call you out or to call the industry out when its doing something that is counter to how they want others to perceive them.

Game journalist and game bloggers in particular are put in a position where they have to say something because they have made a career and huge part of their life and personal identity about games and gaming. Yes it was stupid and probably wrong when so many came out with a variant on the theme of Gamers are dead, but what could they do, they needed in some way to try to distinguish themselves from the people going around and harassing people. Its untenable for them to be guilty by association of these truly horrific behaviors and so they tried in a very ham fisted way to say to the world that there was a difference. Give them a break, for most gamers, it is easy to disassociate yourself, the people who know you are a gamer generally know you personally and don?t judge you specifically on the behaviors they know you don?t participate in, but for game journalist the vast majority of people who know of them have no personal contact with them at all and since the biggest thing known about them is that they are a gamer then every habit or behavior associated with ?gamers? is immediately applied to them. Of course they tried to proclaim the death of the gamer if only to try to wash a little bit of the worse of the worse off their own name.

Not me and thank you

If you have read this far, well first, thank you. Second, you are probably thinking well this is all interesting but I don?t do these things, it isn?t me. Yes it is you, maybe you don?t do these things but you are being painted with the same brush because you love games and very vocal minority of people who also love games is behaving in a very bad way. It is making you look bad too and there is something you can do about it. Next time you are playing COD and someone yells hateful slurs, ?say hey, that isn?t cool stop making our team look bad? When you see a youtub video that asks Anita to do something sexual leave a comment and say, hey I agree with your points but the way you are saying it is ugly maybe try using stronger arguments rather than harassment. When you are drunk and angry and you had a bad day, maybe don?t write that blog post or comment. Lets all stop being the silent majority and overwhelm the few bad actors in our shared passion with the positive and thoughtful people we really are. Let us say to the game journalist Gamers are not dead, we are alive, we are good people and you do not have to be afraid to be associated with us because we make the word gamer a positive label.







1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[redlemon]

2) I do have a right to comment on your behavior because it affects me. When you harass people, make poor arguments, go around calling people social just worriers, or say that gamers are dead, you are impacting my reputation and how people I know think about me and the things that I am passionate about. So, when I say something like Stop Harassing people, it isn?t out of some vague sense that I need to protect the people you are harassing, its because the behavior is wrong and because you call yourself a gamer, because you are in fact a gamer that behavior gets associated with all gamers including me and we are all worse off.

Did you know Social Justice Warriors have recently been going around doxxing, hacking, sending death threats, and ddosing people in the name of justice? Are these the type of people you want to be associated with defending?
And yet no where in this essay do I see you at least say something to the effect of "Social justice warriors have their own crazies but they're not the majority". No, it's all just "Gamers quit doing this".

You're confusing cause and effect here. Gamers are associated with misogamists not because of the actions of a few trolls, but because the media frames it that way. Because these journalists who represent gamers released a dozen articles in the space of a few hours proclaiming them to be white, nerdy, misogamists. And yet the Social Justice Warriors have committed their own fair share of crime, including pulling a false fire alarm in order to suppress a MRA gathering, in addition to all the other things I listed above. So why is it that gamers have this image problem, yet most people don't know what a Social Justice Warrior even is?

The answer is because the media doesn't report it. I agree that we should call out harassment when we see a gamer do it, if only for basic human decency, but it's not going to fix the image problem. No one will know that we call out our own behavior because no one will report it. The only way to change the image of gamers is to change what the media reports. And we can't do that when the people representing us go out of their way to paint every example of harassment as common behavior for the group as a whole while ignoring every example of us actually calling out those trolls.

Stop calling people Social Justice Warriors

I disagree. The term refers to self-entitled extremists who go out of their way to look for something to be offended by. Right now, the term has an extremely negative stigma attached to it. The first page of results on Google gives negative results. They can't be allowed to reclaim this term. When people Google hear this term and Google it, they need to know that these are extremists painting themselves as warriors for equality. I suggest that if you want to still fight for social justice, use a different term. Sure, there are some people who misuse this term. But there's also a blatant misuse of words like "racist" or "misogamist". Does that mean we should stop using those words too?

Why is it that when people label gamers as misogamists for the actions of a few, it's the gamers' fault and they should police themselves better, but when Social Justice Warriors do it, it's everyone else's fault and they shouldn't judge an entire group by the actions of a few?

 

[jthwilliams]

Did you know Social Justice Warriors have recently been going around doxxing, hacking, sending death threats, and ddosing people in the name of justice? Are these the type of people you want to be associated with defending?
And yet no where in this essay do I see you at least say something to the effect of "Social justice warriors have their own crazies but they're not the majority". No, it's all just "Gamers quit doing this".

I agree that it is just as bad that those gamers are also making us all look bad. I called out the behavior not the side, but I can understand why you might assume a side because I was trying to take a neutral stance on the one of moment topic I mentioned, but I could see that it might not be read so. Also the title seems to imply a side, but I did not mean to. That being said, I'm calling out this behavior by anyone who thinks of themselves as a gamer regardless of what point they are trying to make.

You're confusing cause and effect here. Gamers are associated with misogamists not because of the actions of a few trolls, but because the media frames it that way. Because these journalists who represent gamers released a dozen articles in the space of a few hours proclaiming them to be white, nerdy, misogamists. And yet the Social Justice Warriors have committed their own fair share of crime, including pulling a false fire alarm in order to suppress a MRA gathering, in addition to all the other things I listed above. So why is it that gamers have this image problem, yet most people don't know what a Social Justice Warrior even is?

The impression of gamers as misogamists is not new. I think the first time I saw it hitting the general public as a meme was that video of a guy shouting very nasty things as one of his teammates at a gaming convention. I also would like to point out that I did say the game journalist were probably wrong for doing that.

The answer is because the media doesn't report it. I agree that we should call out harassment when we see a gamer do it, if only for basic human decency, but it's not going to fix the image problem. No one will know that we call out our own behavior because no one will report it. The only way to change the image of gamers is to change what the media reports. And we can't do that when the people representing us go out of their way to paint every example of harassment as common behavior for the group as a whole while ignoring every example of us actually calling out those trolls.

I think we mostly agree, but I do think we can and should impact how we are perceived by the general public. In fact we have. When I was young, gaming was only for nerdy white middle class boys. That has changed. Most people who have access to them have now at least played a video game on their phone. Maybe it isn't a passion for them but it is now far more socially acceptable as a passion than it has ever been and it has been because people who were passionate about games were also passionate about not being stigmatized over it.

I disagree. The term refers to self-entitled extremists who go out of their way to look for something to be offended by. Right now, the term has an extremely negative stigma attached to it. The first page of results on Google gives negative results. They can't be allowed to reclaim this term. When people Google hear this term and Google it, they need to know that these are extremists painting themselves as warriors for equality. I suggest that if you want to still fight for social justice, use a different term. Sure, there are some people who misuse this term. But there's also a blatant misuse of words like "racist" or "misogamist". Does that mean we should stop using those words too?

Yes, we should probably stop using them with the frequency that they are used. Anita is case and point. she uses misogamist where she means slanted against women. It is probably her biggest failing and/or success depending on how you look at it as she has become famous and wealthy by doing it.

Regardless when you call someone an SJW, you to imply that they are on the side of social justice. Even of people google it, they'll just see hateful and ugly conversations from the people calling other people SJW so it doesn't have the impact you seem to think it has.

When you see the westboro baptist church people do you think well maybe they have a point let me listen to what they have to say or do you think I don't care what their point is, they way they are saying it is so ugly I don't even want to listen to them.

Why is it that when people label gamers as misogamists for the actions of a few, it's the gamers' fault and they should police themselves better, but when Social Justice Warriors do it, it's everyone else's fault and they shouldn't judge an entire group by the actions of a few?

It isn't the gamers fault. But we are still impacted. You do not act only to respond to things that are your fault, the world would be a very sorry place if that is how we behaved. It is our responsibility however if we love gaming and we want to see it continue to grow to make our voices heard before we loose ground and it becomes more of a disrespected thing.

 

[DC_78]

2) I do have a right to comment on your behavior because it affects me. When you harass people, make poor arguments, go around calling people social just worriers, or say that gamers are dead, you are impacting my reputation and how people I know think about me and the things that I am passionate about. So, when I say something like Stop Harassing people, it isn?t out of some vague sense that I need to protect the people you are harassing, its because the behavior is wrong and because you call yourself a gamer, because you are in fact a gamer that behavior gets associated with all gamers including me and we are all worse off.

Stop Harassing people


I haven?t done a study on this or anything that would make my point more valuable, but if I had to summarize it. I would say in society at large but in videos in particular, male characters tend to have traits that you want to aspire to, they are what you want to be or want to see yourself as. It is part of what makes gaming fun. I take control of an avatar and pretend for a bit that I am the hansom bad ass who doesn?t take shit from anyone. Female characters tend to have traits that you want in your mate or more frequently in your one night stand. They do tend to be acted on rather than the initiator of action. I would say ask yourself a question, when you see Bayonetta, do you want to be her. Do you want to be a hot woman who is a bit of a bad ass and very sexual and confident in your behavior or would you prefer if she was someone you knew, someone who maybe you had a bit of a relationship with. And I think that is the point. But my purpose here isn?t really to talk about gaming and gender roles just to say that there may be some valid points in Anita?s overall stance.

Not me and thank you

If you have read this far, well first, thank you. Second, you are probably thinking well this is all interesting but I don?t do these things, it isn?t me. Yes it is you, maybe you don?t do these things but you are being painted with the same brush because you love games and very vocal minority of people who also love games is behaving in a very bad way. It is making you look bad too and there is something you can do about it. Next time you are playing COD and someone yells hateful slurs, ?say hey, that isn?t cool stop making our team look bad? When you see a youtub video that asks Anita to do something sexual leave a comment and say, hey I agree with your points but the way you are saying it is ugly maybe try using stronger arguments rather than harassment. When you are drunk and angry and you had a bad day, maybe don?t write that blog post or comment. Lets all stop being the silent majority and overwhelm the few bad actors in our shared passion with the positive and thoughtful people we really are. Let us say to the game journalist Gamers are not dead, we are alive, we are good people and you do not have to be afraid to be associated with us because we make the word gamer a positive label.

Maybe it is just me but I could have sworn the internet had terminology for those that shit post or harass folks online.

TLR Trolls are bad. If you are a troll. No. Stop it.

There fixed that for you.

Now how do we fix them? Want to call them out? Okay I am there with you. Want to kick them from your game? Sure. When do we vote on it? I mean there is no way to abuse that type of system, right? No one would do that right? After all we are just targeting the trolls, right? But what if in the lobby you are in they are all trolls? Can they kick you then and you would be okay with it right?

Maybe we could all have internet karma meters and if yours goes red you lose your internet privileges for awhile say a day? That cannot be abused right? Not to silence critics or anything, right? Naww that never happens.

 

[jthwilliams]

Maybe it is just me but I could have sworn the internet had terminology for those that shit post or harass folks online.

TLR Trolls are bad. If you are a troll. No. Stop it.

There fixed that for you.

Now how do we fix them? Want to call them out? Okay I am there with you. Want to kick them from your game? Sure. When do we vote on it? I mean there is no way to abuse that type of system, right? No one would do that right? After all we are just targeting the trolls, right? But what if in the lobby you are in they are all trolls? Can they kick you then and you would be okay with it right?

Maybe we could all have internet karma meters and if yours goes red you lose your internet privileges for awhile say a day? That cannot be abused right? Not to silence critics or anything, right? Naww that never happens.

Yep, definitely a TLDR post. And you did pick out some of the more meaningful bits.

To your point, no I'm not trying to suggest we need a karma rating or should kick people out of games. Exclusionary behavior just makes people more angry and more likely to act up. I am saying we use normal social influence and tell people when they are acting in a way that you don't want to be associated with. When they hear that from enough people enough times, they will stop behaving that way. And I am not just talking about trolls. Yeah trolls are annoying but that is all they are. These are people who feel like what they are doing is ok, and they'll keep thinking is ok while people keep not telling them it isn't. This is the social process by which the rough edges are polished through grinding against others who will speak up.

 

[The Lunatic]

A hereby vote to refer to them as "Social Justice Clowns" instead.

 

[Breakdown]

Maybe it is just me but I could have sworn the internet had terminology for those that shit post or harass folks online.

TLR Trolls are bad. If you are a troll. No. Stop it.

There fixed that for you.

Now how do we fix them? Want to call them out? Okay I am there with you. Want to kick them from your game? Sure. When do we vote on it? I mean there is no way to abuse that type of system, right? No one would do that right? After all we are just targeting the trolls, right? But what if in the lobby you are in they are all trolls? Can they kick you then and you would be okay with it right?

Maybe we could all have internet karma meters and if yours goes red you lose your internet privileges for awhile say a day? That cannot be abused right? Not to silence critics or anything, right? Naww that never happens.

Yep, definitely a TLDR post. And you did pick out some of the more meaningful bits.

To your point, no I'm not trying to suggest we need a karma rating or should kick people out of games. Exclusionary behavior just makes people more angry and more likely to act up. I am saying we use normal social influence and tell people when they are acting in a way that you don't want to be associated with. When they hear that from enough people enough times, they will stop behaving that way. And I am not just talking about trolls. Yeah trolls are annoying but that is all they are. These are people who feel like what they are doing is ok, and they'll keep thinking is ok while people keep not telling them it isn't. This is the social process by which the rough edges are polished through grinding against others who will speak up.

Say you have somebody who's behaving badly (by your standards), but they don't realise. And you challenge them. And a bunch of other like minded people challenge them as well. And the original person thinks they're behaving fine, but suddenly they're taking shit from a load of other people. From their point of view they are now a victim of a harrassment campaign.

 

[jthwilliams]

Maybe it is just me but I could have sworn the internet had terminology for those that shit post or harass folks online.

TLR Trolls are bad. If you are a troll. No. Stop it.

There fixed that for you.

Now how do we fix them? Want to call them out? Okay I am there with you. Want to kick them from your game? Sure. When do we vote on it? I mean there is no way to abuse that type of system, right? No one would do that right? After all we are just targeting the trolls, right? But what if in the lobby you are in they are all trolls? Can they kick you then and you would be okay with it right?

Maybe we could all have internet karma meters and if yours goes red you lose your internet privileges for awhile say a day? That cannot be abused right? Not to silence critics or anything, right? Naww that never happens.

Yep, definitely a TLDR post. And you did pick out some of the more meaningful bits.

To your point, no I'm not trying to suggest we need a karma rating or should kick people out of games. Exclusionary behavior just makes people more angry and more likely to act up. I am saying we use normal social influence and tell people when they are acting in a way that you don't want to be associated with. When they hear that from enough people enough times, they will stop behaving that way. And I am not just talking about trolls. Yeah trolls are annoying but that is all they are. These are people who feel like what they are doing is ok, and they'll keep thinking is ok while people keep not telling them it isn't. This is the social process by which the rough edges are polished through grinding against others who will speak up.

Say you have somebody who's behaving badly (by your standards), but they don't realise. And you challenge them. And a bunch of other like minded people challenge them as well. And the original person thinks they're behaving fine, but suddenly they're taking shit from a load of other people. From their point of view they are now a victim of a harrassment campaign.

You are right to a degree, because harassing people for harassing people is silly and cyclical. However, saying, I don't like what you are doing. Is not the same as calling them names, sending them death treats, DOSSING, DOXXING, making sexually suggestive or explicit comments about them.

So don't harass them either even if you think you are right and they are wrong. Then what you say is "Your behavior is unpleasant, I do not feel it reflects well on you or on us as a culture." Even if 100 people say that it isn't harassment. It is harassment if 10,000 people go through their personal lives and start calling them. But if you are playing a game with someone or reading their post and their behavior reflects badly on you and gamers, it isn't harassment to say so.

 

[DC_78]

To your point, no I'm not trying to suggest we need a karma rating or should kick people out of games. Exclusionary behavior just makes people more angry and more likely to act up. I am saying we use normal social influence and tell people when they are acting in a way that you don't want to be associated with. When they hear that from enough people enough times, they will stop behaving that way. And I am not just talking about trolls. Yeah trolls are annoying but that is all they are. These are people who feel like what they are doing is ok, and they'll keep thinking is ok while people keep not telling them it isn't. This is the social process by which the rough edges are polished through grinding against others who will speak up.

Yes in society public disapproval can lead to some folks changing, look at how we got rid of the KKK, LGBTQ communities, communists, Black Panthers, and Neo-Nazis. Oh wait, societal disapproval has not gotten rid of any minority group. Ever.

The internet is anonymous and unfortunately without consequences. That is a good thing. A thought posted online has to stand or fall on its own merits. No one has a reason to be respectful to anyone else. We have all seen trolls that would be a bigger asshat if you tried telling them they were being trolls. Hence why we do not feed them. You ignore them and walk away.

I feel for everyone that is harassed or threatened, but at the same time the tools we do have: mute, ignore, & block are more than enough for most folks. If things start happening in the real world then we have more tools in law enforcement, that is enough. You have the right motive, but no real tools to enforce the change you seek besides good intentions. More power to you, but I fear that even if we all agreed on doing this we would not all agree on what constitutes harassment. Because what offends one person is a joke to another. So where do we vote on what is harassment and what is crude humor?

 

[redlemon]

Surely a SJW is just something that someone else calls someone?

Whereas a supporter of GamerGate calls themselves that?

By saying a SJW is doing (X thing), then aren't you just picking and choosing who you consider a SJW, therefore making the entire distiction that SJW's are doing (X thing) entirely meaningless?

And terrorists call themselves freedom fighters. Or holy warriors. Doesn't make calling them terrorists any less meaningless.
Besides, SJWs usually call themselves SJWs.

I agree that it is just as bad that those gamers are also making us all look bad. I called out the behavior not the side, but I can understand why you might assume a side because I was trying to take a neutral stance on the one of moment topic I mentioned, but I could see that it might not be read so. Also the title seems to imply a side, but I did not mean to. That being said, I'm calling out this behavior by anyone who thinks of themselves as a gamer regardless of what point they are trying to make.

Here's the problem. You don't have to lie to frame the narrative the way you want. Simply by carefully selecting what you do and do not report is enough. This is exactly what's going on right now. If a gamer does something bad, everyone jumps on it. If a gamer does something bad and other gamers call him out on it, the media will leave the latter part out. If gamers raise thousands of dollars for a charity (I bet you never heard of that), no one cares. If a group of extremists claiming to hack in the name of justice mail a syringe to someone? No one cares.

This is why I have to call you out on how one-sided your essay makes the issue look. Intentional or not, it's dangerous rhetoric that only contributes to the problem.

The impression of gamers as misogamists is not new. I think the first time I saw it hitting the general public as a meme was that video of a guy shouting very nasty things as one of his teammates at a gaming convention. I also would like to point out that I did say the game journalist were probably wrong for doing that.

And the perception is changing. People are beginning to realize that gamers aren't a bunch of hateful misogamists.

I think we mostly agree, but I do think we can and should impact how we are perceived by the general public. In fact we have. When I was young, gaming was only for nerdy white middle class boys. That has changed. Most people who have access to them have now at least played a video game on their phone. Maybe it isn't a passion for them but it is now far more socially acceptable as a passion than it has ever been and it has been because people who were passionate about games were also passionate about not being stigmatized over it.

Here's the thing, most of the people who think gamers are mostly misogamist hateful bigots, don't consider themselves gamers. Most people aren't part of the gaming community, period. Their perception of gamers comes from second hand sources, like the news or the media. And the news and the media get their information from the people who represent us: Journalists. Calling out harassment is something we should do, but that's not going to fix the problem. That won't affect people who never interact with the community.

The only way to change the perception is through the media. But these journalists are extremists. They won't stop calling us misogamists until we bow down to their political ideologies. And they're not above using corruption and bullying to achieve their goals.

Yes, we should probably stop using them with the frequency that they are used. Anita is case and point. she uses misogamist where she means slanted against women. It is probably her biggest failing and/or success depending on how you look at it as she has become famous and wealthy by doing it.

From a practical viewpoint, it's her greatest success. Easiest way to fame is to throw around charged words.
From a moral viewpoint, it trivializes what actual misogamy is, and eventually no one will take these words seriously anymore.

Which viewpoint do you think is better for society?

Regardless when you call someone an SJW, you to imply that they are on the side of social justice. Even of people google it, they'll just see hateful and ugly conversations from the people calling other people SJW so it doesn't have the impact you seem to think it has.

Really? This tactic seems to be working pretty well for the SJWs. If anyone so much as disagrees with you, call them a misogamist. It works even if you misapply the label.

It isn't the gamers fault. But we are still impacted. You do not act only to respond to things that are your fault, the world would be a very sorry place if that is how we behaved. It is our responsibility however if we love gaming and we want to see it continue to grow to make our voices heard before we loose ground and it becomes more of a disrespected thing.

I agree. That's why we have to get rid of the cancer that's currently in our media first. They are our voice, and they've proven to be corrupt to the core. Even if they weren't spewing "Gamers are angry men who want to keep girls out of the boy's club", we still can't have people this corrupt representing us.

 

[jthwilliams]

To your point, no I'm not trying to suggest we need a karma rating or should kick people out of games. Exclusionary behavior just makes people more angry and more likely to act up. I am saying we use normal social influence and tell people when they are acting in a way that you don't want to be associated with. When they hear that from enough people enough times, they will stop behaving that way. And I am not just talking about trolls. Yeah trolls are annoying but that is all they are. These are people who feel like what they are doing is ok, and they'll keep thinking is ok while people keep not telling them it isn't. This is the social process by which the rough edges are polished through grinding against others who will speak up.

Yes in society public disapproval can lead to some folks changing, look at how we got rid of the KKK, LGBTQ communities, communists, Black Panthers, and Neo-Nazis. Oh wait, societal disapproval has not gotten rid of any minority group. Ever.

The internet is anonymous and unfortunately without consequences. That is a good thing. A thought posted online has to stand or fall on its own merits. No one has a reason to be respectful to anyone else. We have all seen trolls that would be a bigger asshat if you tried telling them they were being trolls. Hence why we do not feed them. You ignore them and walk away.

I feel for everyone that is harassed or threatened, but at the same time the tools we do have: mute, ignore, & block are more than enough for most folks. If things start happening in the real world then we have more tools in law enforcement, that is enough. You have the right motive, but no real tools to enforce the change you seek besides good intentions. More power to you, but I fear that even if we all agreed on doing this we would not all agree on what constitutes harassment. Because what offends one person is a joke to another. So where do we vote on what is harassment and what is crude humor?

Membership in the KKK has been in decline both in real numbers and a percent of the population. Membership declines pretty much in lock step as general public approval of their behaviors have changed. Additionally the behaviors have also declined aka the number of lynchings, burning crosses, public beatings per year as a percent of the population between 1804 and today is way down. I tried to find a nice chart, and am now probably on an FBI watch list and while I did find various data sources with this data, none had the chart I wanted. Same for NeoNazi's.

As far as LGBTQ normalization has gone the other direction the groups continue mostly because 1) Fundamental social principals of our society aka independence, tolerance, liberty, and justice favor their continuance and exposure shows that fears of secondary behaviors such as child endangerment, conversion are false and so social approval and acceptance increases over time with continuous exposure.

When was the last time you heard of a violent action from the black panthers? For me the answer is around 1968. Also as with LGBTQ normalization has gone the other direction because of etc ....

Normalization Theory has very strong evidence.

To your other point being offended doesn't make you right. It is just a way to react. As long as we give people the benefit of the doubt we are generally ok. But there is a pretty easy way to tell if a joke is crude or harassment. The intent of the person who said it. Sure you can't control if people are offended by anything you say, only they can control that, but if you doing it to offend then you've answered your own question. If you aren't doing to offend and someone tells you that they are then you'll probably feel sorry about offending them. You'll may not change your behavior because that one person may just be very easily offended. Some people are just looking to be offended, but if another person tells you they were offended and then another and another and if it really isn't what you are trying to do then you will eventually change because you realize it is in fact offensive and not just that one person.

That is social normalization and it works on just about everyone who isn't a sociopath. In fact the failure of it to work is one of the possible indicators of sociopathic tendencies.

 

[DC_78]

Normalization Theory has very strong evidence.

To your other point being offended doesn't make you right. It is just a way to react. As long as we give people the benefit of the doubt we are generally ok. But there is a pretty easy way to tell if a joke is crude or harassment. The intent of the person who said it. Sure you can't control if people are offended by anything you say, only they can control that, but if you doing it to offend then you've answered your own question. If you aren't doing to offend and someone tells you that they are then you'll probably feel sorry about offending them. You'll may not change your behavior because that one person may just be very easily offended. Some people are just looking to be offended, but if another person tells you they were offended and then another and another and if it really isn't what you are trying to do then you will eventually change because you realize it is in fact offensive and not just that one person.

That is social normalization and it works on just about everyone who isn't a sociopath. In fact the failure of it to work is one of the possible indicators of sociopathic tendencies.

Quick analogy to prove your point in my personal experience. Growing up I used jew as a verb. Basically it meant stiff someone or be swindled. I never noticed it because I did not know any jewish folks. Until I did in the army. Then I used the statement without even thinking and was called out for it by my friend. I apologised and he told me he actually thought it was kind of funny. But I chose to change it and worked to drop it from my vocabulary.

To disprove your point go to 8chan (4chan seems to have become PC) and post for awhile. There they have stripped all meaning from racial slurs because they have become so common in the parlance that fag means person. Like a lawyer will start a post "lawfag here yada yada..." Which seems a better solution to you? Letting the words keep their power to offend, or just everyone using them so much that they lose all meaning?

 

[jthwilliams]

Normalization Theory has very strong evidence.

To your other point being offended doesn't make you right. It is just a way to react. As long as we give people the benefit of the doubt we are generally ok. But there is a pretty easy way to tell if a joke is crude or harassment. The intent of the person who said it. Sure you can't control if people are offended by anything you say, only they can control that, but if you doing it to offend then you've answered your own question. If you aren't doing to offend and someone tells you that they are then you'll probably feel sorry about offending them. You'll may not change your behavior because that one person may just be very easily offended. Some people are just looking to be offended, but if another person tells you they were offended and then another and another and if it really isn't what you are trying to do then you will eventually change because you realize it is in fact offensive and not just that one person.

That is social normalization and it works on just about everyone who isn't a sociopath. In fact the failure of it to work is one of the possible indicators of sociopathic tendencies.

Quick analogy to prove your point in my personal experience. Growing up I used jew as a verb. Basically it meant stiff someone or be swindled. I never noticed it because I did not know any jewish folks. Until I did in the army. Then I used the statement without even thinking and was called out for it by my friend. I apologised and he told me he actually thought it was kind of funny. But I chose to change it and worked to drop it from my vocabulary.

To disprove your point go to 8chan (4chan seems to have become PC) and post for awhile. There they have stripped all meaning from racial slurs because they have become so common in the parlance that fag means person. Like a lawyer will start a post "lawfag here yada yada..." Which seems a better solution to you? Letting the words keep their power to offend, or just everyone using them so much that they lose all meaning?

I wish there was a highlight function, but counterpoint to your counterpoint and just by quoting you

(4chan seems to have become PC)

because Social normalization works.

 

[redlemon]

because Social normalization works.

Ok, here's one thing I've been noticing. You have a habit of looking at something, and then interpreting your own reason for it based on your own social theories rather than looking at the evidence.

Think, if social normalization was the reason, why would so many people be moving to 8chan at the same time?

 

[Plunkies]

(4chan seems to have become PC)

because Social normalization works.

Because social normalization is another word for censorship?

Words aren't offensive because they're powerful, they're powerful because they're offensive. People use them to get a reaction and when the reaction is no longer being obtained by the word then it loses its power. Attempting to censor and police who uses a word only makes it more powerful when it's used, and there's no shortage of examples for that case. Apply any word to that logic and tell me if you come up with something unexpected, because I can't think of any.

 

[DC_78]

I wish there was a highlight function, but counterpoint to your counterpoint and just by quoting you

(4chan seems to have become PC)
because Social normalization works.

LOL I would not say that to a channer.

4chan changed because the owner Moot wishes to turn it into something more mainstream, and to get out from under the internet's 4chan boogieman image. That was not the result of the community having social normalization thrust upon it. Basically they were censored by the moderators to the umptenth degree.

Now if silencing another view point by stripping their platform for speech is your definition of Social normalization then we have a far larger disagreement.

 

[jthwilliams]

because Social normalization works.

Ok, here's one thing I've been noticing. You have a habit of looking at something, and then interpreting your own reason for it based on your own social theories rather than looking at the evidence.

Think, if social normalization was the reason, why would so many people be moving to 8chan at the same time?

We all interpret observed behavior based on the toolsets we have. I could definitely be wrong, I'm making a guess based on the described behavior. In order to find out you would need to spend many hours and would need to get data about who moved, when, what % still use both % of the population and so forth and I make not claim that I have done any of the above.

In fact it was mostly in jest, because in DC_78's counter point there was in fact some evidence of the point aka people who wanted to continue in that behavior found rejection by the greater population so 4chan became PC and people formed 8chan to have a place where they could continue the behavior without scrutiny. Now I will admit that this is an interpolations and could be completely wrong. It could be that as public knowledge of 4chan got bigger people who like to feel a quality of members only grew dissatisfied and formed a new group to migrate to and it is just happenstance that this also resulted in 4chan becoming more PC. Or possibly billions of other possible reasons.

I admit that regardless my conclusion is at best hasty and at worse unsupportable. But I'll fall back on the defense that I was trying to be funny not actually "win" the discussion. Had we been speaking rather than typing that would have come across in my tone of voice. If I had been trying to "win" the conversation DC_78's first statement of his/her personal experience was in fact a very good example if anecdotal evidence.

 

[jthwilliams]

I wish there was a highlight function, but counterpoint to your counterpoint and just by quoting you

(4chan seems to have become PC)
because Social normalization works.

LOL I would not say that to a channer.

4chan changed because the owner Moot wishes to turn it into something more mainstream, and to get out from under the internet's 4chan boogieman image. That was not the result of the community having social normalization thrust upon it. Basically they were censored by the moderators to the umptenth degree.

Now if silencing another view point by stripping their platform for speech is your definition of Social normalization then we have a far larger disagreement.

Nah I'm all for free expression. I'm against harassment, and sadly 4chan has had some correlation with that behavior, but again free expression is how we grow, even if I give an opinion that is very very bad, its by given that expression and getting others feedback that I learn and grow. If you try to silence people you just cause bad ideas and opinions to fester without check. So go 4chan 8chan or whatever other forums people feel safe to express themselves.

EDIT:
I'll actually go one further. People build up all sort of emotions from anger and hate to just being upset having a place where people can safely say things that are mean and nasty is probably a very good pressure cap on society. Get your bad feelings out in a place where people don't judge you for having feelings that you don't actually control even if you think those feelings might be wrong

 

[DC_78]

because Social normalization works.

Ok, here's one thing I've been noticing. You have a habit of looking at something, and then interpreting your own reason for it based on your own social theories rather than looking at the evidence.

Think, if social normalization was the reason, why would so many people be moving to 8chan at the same time?

We all interpret observed behavior based on the toolsets we have. I could definitely be wrong, I'm making a guess based on the described behavior. In order to find out you would need to spend many hours and would need to get data about who moved, when, what % still use both % of the population and so forth and I make not claim that I have done any of the above.

In fact it was mostly in jest, because in DC_78's counter point there was in fact some evidence of the point aka people who wanted to continue in that behavior found rejection by the greater population so 4chan became PC and people formed 8chan to have a place where they could continue the behavior without scrutiny. Now I will admit that this is an interpolations and could be completely wrong. It could be that as public knowledge of 4chan got bigger people who like to feel a quality of members only grew dissatisfied and formed a new group to migrate to and it is just happenstance that this also resulted in 4chan becoming more PC. Or possibly billions of other possible reasons.

I admit that regardless my conclusion is at best hasty and at worse unsupportable. But I'll fall back on the defense that I was trying to be funny not actually "win" the discussion. Had we been speaking rather than typing that would have come across in my tone of voice. If I had been trying to "win" the conversation DC_78's first statement of his/her personal experience was in fact a very good example if anecdotal evidence.

Funnily enough we have not really even been to out of step in our arguments. I have played devil's advocate to jthwilliams good intentions mostly.

I see nothing wrong with calling out bad behavior. Cheating, harassment, sexual harassment, and cyber bullying in games should stop. And I agree that having "politically incorrect zones" is an excellent release for society. My only real bone of contention is where we define harassment outside of threats of violence. And jthwilliams response in context matters is exactly mine as well.

But we are being reasonable and rational. So few folks on the interwebz lately share that disposition with us.