A short essay on why you should stop calling people SJW

[jthwilliams]

FAQ

1. Why is your post so long? Couldn't you have made it shorter?
Yes.

2. You went on for quite a bit about how you are a "gamer". What does that have to with your point?
So far in what is a fairly short thread about 5 people have used some variant on the OP isn't a real gamer. This is the first go to argument that I have seen used frequently. I was trying to cut it off at the pass by giving overwhelming reasons why I am a gamer. People still went to it. I am actually a bit amaze.

3. How dare you tell us not to harass people, the SJW did it too.
First, I'm telling everyone who harasses people not to and explained both why it is morally and ethically wrong and why it isn't effective. The first was for people who want to be good people which I believe is the vast majority of us, the second is for people who just want to "win" the argument at any cost. No mater which you are harassment needs to stop.

Also stop calling people SJW.


4. How dare you, Gamer Gate is on the side of right. Educate yourself before you speak again pleb.
Ok I'm guilty of a bit of straw man here and I admit it, but this is the impression I'm getting.

First, I didn't take a stance pro or con on gamer gate. I mentioned it once in the first statement as one of the topics I have been watching and made a semi snarky remark about how we have used the "gate" tag way too often as a society. I'll stand by that.

I also talked about "gamers are dead" nonsense. I said that game journalist were probably wrong for saying it. I did show some empathy for the position they are in, but I hope you don't believe that you have to be on someone's "side" to try to understand them.

So let me say definitively here that ... I don't know.

I have watched videos and read articles and there does appear to be some evidence that people were taking advantage of their public pulpit and trusted position for personal enrichment and that is wrong. But the conspiracy to push a "feminist" agenda part seems very shaky. The arguments that I have seen seems to boil down to "More and More people, and particularly people in position of power and influence, hold views and opinions that I don't agree with and so there is a conspiracy". If you have a better argument than that, I would love to hear it, but as I said everything I have personally read so far seems shaky.

As to the argument that " well Bob and Frank are friends. Bob is a indie gamer and Frank is a game journalist, therefore kill Frank for not saying they were friends before talking about a game that Bob worked on."

a) Of course Bod and Frank are friends. They share a strong interest in gaming which is why Bob is trying to make games and Frank likes to write about them. It would be very surprising if there were no friendships between game journalist and game makers

b) Yes, disclosure would be nice, but failing to do so isn't necessarily a quid pro quo. I'm more concerned about the few cases where there was a game journalist who failed to disclose personal financial involvement.

5) I don't think your post flows in any logical way.

So here is the flow outline
1. Who I am and why I have standing to talk about this (Credibility on topic)
2. Why harassment is wrong and doesn't work and how it effects not just the harasser and the person being harassed but also anyone labeled "gamer" when gamers are the one doing it.
3. A specific example of harassment and why it is wrong and doesn't work and how it impacted general public opinion about "gamers"
4. All of which ties into why the term social justice warrior is wrong.
- Because it is often used wrong, just as I went on about why I personally have a standing on this issue. the same applies to many people who get the label applied to them. The same no true gamer and the same white knight argument that I have just tied to debunk
- Because the term itself works against the person using it.
- An example of how people who are often mislabeled as SJW were actually impacted by the topic they are often called SJW for talking about and a bit of a comment on the fallout
5. Summary, Conclusion and Go Dos

Could I have done it better? Yes most defiantly. Can and have. To start with there are a few areas that I ramble a little bit out of what I was trying to say and I feel like the connection between the specific example and the general case wasn't as clear as I meant it to be.

6) you are dumb or some variant of that.

I am not dumb. You are incorrect.

Also please stop harassing people including me. Ad hominem attacks don't actually make your point and while insulting people is hard to avoid at times, it is still just mean. I'm sorry that what I said didn't connect with you. Perhaps the next person who tries to help you see that what you are doing hurts everyone will have a slightly better chance.

 

[L. Declis]

EDIT: In light of my new warning, I have decided to attach Trigger Warnings. Trigger: Does not agree with your point of view. Trigger: Asks you to have a higher standard of writing. Trigger: Supports Gamergate. Trigger: Mansplaining.

Sigh. This isn't an attack, I am just responding.

FAQ

1. Why is your post so long? Couldn't you have made it shorter?
Yes.

Then please do so. Or at least, cut out the repetition. And be a bit more succinct. In a forum environment, waffling on an already long post becomes tortous.

2. You went on for quite a bit about how you are a "gamer". What does that have to with your point?
So far in what is a fairly short thread about 5 people have used some variant on the OP isn't a real gamer. This is the first go to argument that I have seen used frequently. I was trying to cut it off at the pass by giving overwhelming reasons why I am a gamer. People still went to it. I am actually a bit amaze.

No one has gone to it. We've just said it isn't relevant to write so much. I am amazed by your amazement.

3. How dare you tell us not to harass people, the SJW did it too.
First, I'm telling everyone who harasses people not to and explained both why it is morally and ethically wrong and why it isn't effective. The first was for people who want to be good people which I believe is the vast majority of us, the second is for people who just want to "win" the argument at any cost. No mater which you are harassment needs to stop.

But you haven't addressed that the majority of people are not harrassing, it's called a debate. Secondly, you haven't provided any really interesting or new reasons to change anyone's behaviour that they won't have already thought of. Thirdly, your article is squarely aimed at the gamers.

Also stop calling people SJW.

When you write an essay that explains why I shouldn't in succinct points and has good reasons to not do so, then I won't. Otherwise, it remains a word that perfectly explains a type of person.

4. How dare you, Gamer Gate is on the side of right. Educate yourself before you speak again pleb.
Ok I'm guilty of a bit of straw man here and I admit it, but this is the impression I'm getting.

First, I didn't take a stance pro or con on gamer gate. I mentioned it once in the first statement as one of the topics I have been watching and made a semi snarky remark about how we have used the "gate" tag way too often as a society. I'll stand by that.

I also talked about "gamers are dead" nonsense. I said that game journalist were probably wrong for saying it. I did show some empathy for the position they are in, but I hope you don't believe that you have to be on someone's "side" to try to understand them.

So let me say definitively here that ... I don't know.

I have watched videos and read articles and there does appear to be some evidence that people were taking advantage of their public pulpit and trusted position for personal enrichment and that is wrong. But the conspiracy to push a "feminist" agenda part seems very shaky. The arguments that I have seen seems to boil down to "More and More people, and particularly people in position of power and influence, hold views and opinions that I don't agree with and so there is a conspiracy". If you have a better argument than that, I would love to hear it, but as I said everything I have personally read so far seems shaky.

Well, in that case, perhaps ask first what's going on. We'd be happy to help explain the situation and why this matters. Did you watch that video I linked earlier? He does a summary of the past 3 weeks and it's pretty good at explaining.

As to the argument that " well Bob and Frank are friends. Bob is a indie gamer and Frank is a game journalist, therefore kill Frank for not saying they were friends before talking about a game that Bob worked on."

a) Of course Bod and Frank are friends. They share a strong interest in gaming which is why Bob is trying to make games and Frank likes to write about them. It would be very surprising if there were no friendships between game journalist and game makers

b) Yes, disclosure would be nice, but failing to do so isn't necessarily a quid pro quo. I'm more concerned about the few cases where there was a game journalist who failed to disclose personal financial involvement.

Bob and Frank are friends. Frank pays towards Bob's wages. Frank then says the game is great, even though Frank is paying for it. Frank paying for it goes against all journalistic ethics. Frank doesn't mention this to his consumers, which is a massive breach of ethics and trust. Frank still calls himself a journalist.

Frank is on a voting board where Bob's game is (which he helped fund). Bob's game wins because Frank pushed hard. Frank then writes an article about how amazing it is.

Bob and Frank then go to a charity event to help woman. Bob and Frank destroy this event so they can funnel money towards Bob's bank account. Frank makes sure no one reports on this.

People find out what Frank is doing with Bob and Bob's game. When they try to complain, Frank asks his friends and his boss in the media if they will censor any discussion. They do. Frank and Bob then start calling anyone who dislikes their censorship or unethical behaviour as racists and sexists. They encourage doxxing of people. They act as bullies. They ask all their indie friends and media friends to help and join in.

Alan Baldwin makes Gamergate.

5) I don't think your post flows in any logical way.

So here is the flow outline
1. Who I am and why I have standing to talk about this (Credibility on topic)
2. Why harassment is wrong and doesn't work and how it effects not just the harasser and the person being harassed but also anyone labeled "gamer" when gamers are the one doing it.
3. A specific example of harassment and why it is wrong and doesn't work and how it impacted general public opinion about "gamers"
4. All of which ties into why the term social justice warrior is wrong.
- Because it is often used wrong, just as I went on about why I personally have a standing on this issue. the same applies to many people who get the label applied to them. The same no true gamer and the same white knight argument that I have just tied to debunk
- Because the term itself works against the person using it.
- An example of how people who are often mislabeled as SJW were actually impacted by the topic they are often called SJW for talking about and a bit of a comment on the fallout
5. Summary, Conclusion and Go Dos

Could I have done it better? Yes most defiantly. Can and have. To start with there are a few areas that I ramble a little bit out of what I was trying to say and I feel like the connection between the specific example and the general case wasn't as clear as I meant it to be.

Well, good on you for admitting it. I understand what you were trying to do, but shoving it online means it gets looks at and criticised.

6) you are dumb or some variant of that.

I am not dumb. You are incorrect.

Also please stop harassing people including me. Ad hominem attacks don't actually make your point and while insulting people is hard to avoid at times, it is still just mean. I'm sorry that what I said didn't connect with you. Perhaps the next person who tries to help you see that what you are doing hurts everyone will have a slightly better chance.

No one is harrassing you (that I know of). If anything, you're the one who PM'ed me. No one has insulted you (unless you're an SJW, in which case, many people have both insulted and stood up for you), and I do wish you'd be rid of this victim complex you seem to be developing. Not everything is an attack on you personally.

EDIT: However, you think it is an attack on you, so don't worry, I shan't be responding to this thread anymore. Enjoy the circlejerk, fellows.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

There are two key factors to OP's premise.

1: The idea that social justice is good.
2: The idea that people shouldn't be criticised if they are extreme in their attempts to do good.

Well, it's not as clear cut as all that. Social justice is a political term. It has implications. Implications quite a few people are uncomfortable with. It is heavily associated with communism, for example. The idea that power should be redistributed to the disadvantaged simply because. And that, by implication, this should be done whether or not those with power wish to share it. Regardless, social justice is not "justice", per se. Otherwise it'd just be called "justice".

Secondly, the "warrior" part of "social justice warrior" has multiple meanings. It depends on whether one approves of social justice. In one form, it's a scornful "you're an extremist". In the other, it's "you're an extremist, and the ideology you're pushing is bad."

I would compare it to Christianity. I consider Christianity to be a super good thing. Everyone should be a Christian. HOWEVER, I don't approve of fanatical and extremist methods used by some people to force others to, at least outwardly, be Christian.

Regardless of whether something is a good thing, being a fanatic about it is not. Trying to create a society which alienates and excludes people you disagree with is not a good thing.

This is also the core problem with modern feminism. Women who think for themselves instead of parroting dogma are alienated and excluded. Feminism itself isn't the problem. It's the extremist branches which have overwhelmed everything. (For example, telling the millions of anti-abortion women that they're not real feminists, driving them to conclude that their only option is to identify as "anti-feminist".)

edit:
I'm not fond of the term "SJW" because it's used as a blanket term to mean "anyone I don't agree with". It's insulting, and stifles discussion.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

because Social normalization works.

Who's normal? What is the standard by which we judge normal? Is it your standards we are to follow in hopes of being "normal"?

SJW has different meanings for the different folks that sling it around. I'm willing to wager that most people that use SJW in the pejorative do not bemoan social activism and the pursuit of balance between all people and ideals.

SJW when used "negatively" describes a very specific sort of activist, and they are usually deserving of the title.

Let me ask you, are you over on Tumblr, or in the forums at Neogaf, Kotaku, or any of their sister sites browbeating their particular populations into submission over using terms like "Manbabies" or "Neckbearded mouthbreathers" to identify their ideological opposition?

I'm guessing you aren't. Which also leads me to assume that you believe you are the supreme authority on all things ethical, moral, and socially just. I appreciate your attempt socially engineer dissenters to the "equality or better at all costs" movement, but maybe you should just let it lie,and focus your efforts on more noble pursuits, because telling others how to think is probably a waste of time.

 

[jthwilliams]

There are two key factors to OP's premise.

1: The idea that social justice is good.
2: The idea that people shouldn't be criticised if they are extreme in their attempts to do good.

I don't think I have said anything even slightly similar to people shouldn't be criticized if they are extreme. What I said was stop harassing people that goes for every one regaurdles of what side they take on any point. I said not to call people SJW because it doesn't help make any point, but I didn't say anyone was justified in extreme behavior.

edit:
I'm not fond of the term "SJW" because it's used as a blanket term to mean "anyone I don't agree with". It's insulting, and stifles discussion.

Well we agree on that.

 

[Schadrach]

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

I like calling them "Social Justice Saboteurs" because they actively spread misconceptions about certain groups while claiming to be in favour of tolerance.

I don't know, post XOXOFest, I'm liking "Social Justice Cultists."

"Independence is a Myth"
"You Have No Obligation to Your Former Self"
"Fuck Your Dreams"
"Lower Your Expectations"
"Listen and Believe"

I feel like "Have Some Flavor Aid" could have followed those up pretty well, or maybe "We've Always Been At War With Eurasia".

 

[Schadrach]

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.

Not at all, at least not in this case. What happened to 4chan is that the owner of the site, Chris Poole aka moot basically did a 180 on how the site should be, fired a bunch of moderators and replaced them with what many would call "SJW"s and declared that talk about certain topics was to be universally banned from the site, notably GamerGate. Channers don't take kindly to being told not to talk about certain topics without a damned good reason, which in turn resulted in various angry and aggressive responses.

In other words, not social normalization, but rather forced conformity.

 

[Belaam]

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.

I don't see gamer=misogynist. (I think, linguistically, that misogamist would be someone who is biased against gametes, but I'm assuming you meant misogynist) I see gamer as being someone who plays games regularly. Some of those people (myself included) are concerned about misogyny in both some individual games and the industry in general. Others seem to be taking that concern as a personal attack. I'd call all of them gamers.

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.

The term is used as a slur, not as a self-identifier. "is a SJW" gives 2.7 million hits "am a SJW" gives four thousand. Not sure how a group could "reclaim" something that was clearly never a self-idntifier. Clearly, people are not identifying as SJWs nearly as much as it's being used as an insult. In which case, of course it gives negative results. I'd assume the dreaded n-word gives negative results, as would other racial or orientation-based slurs. Even if it was an effort to reclaim the word (as has been done with n-word and "queer", so what?

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.

Again, that's not actually happening. People self-identify as SJWs in tiny numbers compared to being given that designation by other people.

But there's also a blatant misuse of words like "racist" or "misogamist". Does that mean we should stop using those words too?

There are also blatant racists and misogynists who don't like it when that is pointed out.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

SJW is pretty much just an insult. It is worthless for discussion. When you try to argue against the 'SJW's the argument becomes so mutable it is meaningless. An SJW is whoever you call an SJW and you're free to drop or add members to the group as you see fit since it is a label you apply and not generally a term of self-identification. People freely use it against others then are quick to define it as traits they couldn't even know about the people they use it against. And of course they do a stuoid thing where they expect anyone they call an SJW to support random crap someone else they consider an SJW said.

 

[Something Amyss]

That really depends on the community the discussion is taking place in.

No, no it doesn't. Even in GamerGate heavy sites, they're throwing the word around as to mean practically nothing except for "people who disagree with us!"

But even if we ignore that, its common use isn't close to what you're asserting outside of other SJWs justifying how SJWs are really bad people so they can continue to use the word. Then they go on and label anyone, even if it doesn't fit the definition, SJW. Jim Sterling and Yahtzee have been accused of being SJWs. 4Chan's owner has been accused of it. People have been accused of being SJWs even as saying and doing things that are antithetical to the various "real" definitions the "true" users use.

Because it means what you claim it means only as far as "******" just means "lazy."

 

[Dizchu]

No, no it doesn't. Even in GamerGate heavy sites, they're throwing the word around as to mean practically nothing except for "people who disagree with us!"

Really? The person that coined the hashtag has conservative views that conflict with many of GamerGate participants' views. Is he an "SJW"? Look, people are using "SJW" to mean "people who disagree with us!" as much as people are using "misogynist" to mean "people who disagree with us!" Intel pulled their advertising from Gamasutra because of the backlash to their controversial articles. The hashtag "#misogynyinside" circulated for a bit. Because they disagreed. That doesn't mean that the word "misogynist" has no meaning, there are people that actually hate women out there.

Jim Sterling and Yahtzee have been accused of being SJWs.

Yahtzee was also accused of being transphobic after making "transexual jokes" (which weren't in great taste admittedly). Does that mean transphobia isn't a real thing?

4Chan's owner has been accused of it.

This was probably a reaction to some of the hypocritical stuff he's done lately and the way he treated 4chan's users. I wouldn't call him an SJW but he's certainly easily impressionable. He's in an awkward Catch 22 between being 4chan's founder and trying to become a "respected" entrepreneur. He's famous because he founded 4chan and he also has a less than stellar reputation because he founded 4chan. The censorship of GG discussion was done to save his own ass.

Because it means what you claim it means only as far as "******" just means "lazy."

The origin of that word literally means "black". The etymology leads to the word "black". There's no separating the two. There's also the hundreds of years of black oppression and the word's subsequent adoption by hip-hop culture. Apples and oranges.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Christ do I hate it when people on the internet tell me what to do. It makes me want to do it more.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

I'm also not a fan of using the obviously-sarcastic ''Social Justice Warriors'' since it can be worn like a badge of honor.

Hell, it literally IS in some cases. See:

https://twitter.com/BoingBoing/status/519231387598356480

Personally, I prefer to refer to people like that as practising ''Selective Tolerance'', it covers the load better and is less open to being misappropriated. I say this as a gamer with mostly right-wing views who is sick to death of being demonized by the likes of Moviebob and other members of the gaming-press.

 

[Harpalyce]

A shorter essay on why you should stop calling people SJWs:

We're all good for warriors, thanks, we need other classes to make a balanced Social Justice party. Consider rolling a cleric, priest, or even a paladin, or perhaps a different type of DPS if you don't like tanking. I recommend Social Justice Hunter-Ranger for Social Justice Newbies - you know, the dear wee ones that are just now getting the 'women are people' concept and might need an animal familiar to guide them through harder concepts like 'yes, even gay women and non-white women and non-white gay women and so on'.

Alternatively, switch ad hominem arguments for ad hominy arguments, wherein you insult people's nixtimalized corn.

These things will do nothing to help the arguments, but at least make the clusterfuck that continues to go on unabated a little funnier so that I can look upon it and not immediately want to brain myself on the nearest wall. (Seriously though OP, excellent post.)

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It's like any buzzword.
Hence why I only refer to SJWs conceptually and never refer to anyone as an SJW. I'm sure to keep it out of arguments, because calling someone an SJW is not an argument.
SJWs themselves alternate between calling their opponents MRAs, uncle toms, angry basement dwellers, manchildren, manbabies, pissbabies, and shitlords.

It's the terminology that's used. No one cares what they're called, it merely applies to THAT "crowd" of people that desire to make everything PC, and claims to be arguing for the moral highground yet either makes excuses for the bad behavior of prominent liberal figures or do horrible deeds themselves.

Like any buzzword, the term has lost meaning. But so does any word that gets flung around too often and people start applying it in the erroneous "with us or against us attitude."
But it has its uses since it refers to "that crowd."

Tell you what OP. Make a thread like this one, about how:
"That crowd should stop calling #GamerGate a hate group"
or
"That crowd should stop using privilege as an argument"
or
"People should stop using ad hominem and strawman arguments"

 

[Hiigara_Ahead]

The gist of this "essay" seems to boil down to "DON'T DISAGREE WITH US"

Don't disagree with Sarkeesian

Don't use the words that we don't like

Don't defend yourself when you get shit smeared all over you

If you do any of the above, you make yourself look terrible.

How about no? I will use the term "sjw" when I see fit, and really, it's not even that insulting. Considering I personally was called an uncle tom and internalized misogynist, well, I'm not terribly sympathetic to sjw's plight.