An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[C. Cain]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

Too kind. I can see where you're coming from.
This Leigh Alexander is not very good at defining the terms s/he uses.

 

[Thorn14]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

Too kind. I can see where you're coming from.
This Leigh Alexander is not very good at defining the terms s/he uses.

Not once have I cared for Zoe Quinn, and while I disagree with Anita, I don't believe she deserves death threats for making videos.

Leigh on the other hand? I want her to never work again. Have you ever seen the garbage she has spewed on twitter?

I've seen people fired for much less.

http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-leigh-alexander-part-2/

 

[Something Amyss]

Hey, if people are going to throw around the argument that all gamers are nerdy white males, I'll take anyone calling that out with actual proof they aren't any day.

Who, precisely, is throwing that around?

Hell, the evil SJWs folks are bitching about is saying the opposite for what I can say. And, might I add, getting dismissed.

Edit: Yeah, saw your link. It's like people intentionally miss the argument there in order to have something to complain about.

 

[C. Cain]

Not once have I cared for Zoe Quinn, and while I disagree with Anita, I don't believe she deserves death threats for making videos.

I don't care for the whole Quinn thing, either. I have barely any idea what this non-insect gamergate is about and I don't really want to know; it sort of does look like a storm in a teacup from my perspective, though.

As to Anita, I can definitely see her overarching point. The individual examples may be flawed but on the whole I think she isn't wrong.

Leigh on the other hand? I want her to never work again. Have you ever seen the garbage she has spewed on twitter?

I've seen people fired for much less.

http://theralphretort.com/gamergate-exposes-leigh-alexander-part-2/

Lovely.

 

[MysticSlayer]

This is how SJW's work. They make you fear yourself, your impact on the world and force you to hate what you are. Then when you are quiet and trying to figure out how to interact with the world they speak for you, and you, scared, tired and hating yourself latch on to what they tell you to say. I fell for it.

Maybe that is how she took it, or maybe that's what goes on on some odd website, but that is not how "SJWs" work.

Social-justice movements aren't about looking at the under-privileged in society and telling them how rotten and worthless they are. It is about recognizing the struggles that they go through because of the way that they were born, trying to find a solution to that problem, and even providing comfort to those in those situations. Likewise, it isn't about shaming those who are privileged and telling them that they were horrible people because they happened to be born white and/or male and/or heterosexual. It is about asking them to be aware of their privilege and to do what they can to help those that don't currently share that privilege. Anyone who uses it as a way to tell others how awful they are probably doesn't even understand the movement that much and likely isn't well respected in it.

Ultimately, this reads little differently than a standard "I was X but then became Y and now I see how hateful X was." We see this kind of stuff all the time from people who advocate very strongly for or against a religion, and it generally isn't taken very seriously by anyone outside of the speaker's position. Why? Because anyone outside the target group understands that what the speaker is describing is just the most extreme part of the group they are attacking, and anyone part of the attacked group knows how small and disregarded those extremists are.

So in the end this offers little more than, "Yeah, there's some shitty people who just happen to be 'SJWs'," which is something we already know is true. It doesn't, however, do much to point out which side is right. Or should I point to the harassment that some feminists have faced as a sign that all gamers are hateful? We all know that all gamers aren't hateful despite a few bad people that happen to be gamers. Likewise, we can't say that "SJWs" aren't all hateful people, just that there happens to be a few bad people who choose to channel their hatred through "SJW" causes.

 

[C. Cain]

Edit: Yeah, saw your link. It's like people intentionally miss the argument there in order to have something to complain about.

The argument is poorly worded, to be fair. It's intentionally incendiary; overgeneralising by using ill-defined terms.

That said, the underlying critique itself is not necessarily unfounded.

 

[Bad Jim]

Its just like when someone decides in the middle of a series in which the main character was never gay, had never shown tendencies to be gay, but all of sudden now he/she is just because.... what... you just wanted to claim it was now a diverse story? No. You just made an inconsistent change that is now apart from the actual story that was progressing and now it doesn't logically fit right.

That's actually a terrible example. Homosexuality is still very much stigmatised and in some parts of the world illegal (to the point of offenders being put to death). Coming out of the closet is not an easy decision to make and trying to blend in by not giving any indication of one's true sexual preferences is not only realistic but common.

It's really just a bad storytelling technique known as an asspull. It's the same when a comic book character dies in a seemingly definitive way but a later story explains that he didn't die, that it was a robot/dream/clone/illusion/parallel universe version or whatever and the real hero is still alive. Just because the explanation is technically watertight, doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Movies with a major twist, like Fight Club or The Sixth Sense, usually have a lot of subtle clues before the reveal, and everything is consistent with it. It's known as foreshadowing. For a secretly gay character, little details such as having lots of female friends but no girlfriend should be present. Not enough that it would be immediately obvious to anyone in universe, but enough that some viewers might guess it, and that those who did not notice before the reveal might acknowledge them afterward.

 

[Something Amyss]

The argument is poorly worded, to be fair. It's intentionally incendiary; overgeneralising by using ill-defined terms.

That said, the underlying critique itself is not necessarily unfounded.

It's not so poorly worded as to be exclusionary, and she couches her language multiple times.

Is it a bad piece from a journalistic or op-ed perspective? Yes. But I won't concede anything beyond that because it's just feeding more "GamerGate" histrionics. And I just got done dealing with the notifications from people screaming that Bob Faraci called us all terrorists.

 

[C. Cain]

That's actually a terrible example. Homosexuality is still very much stigmatised and in some parts of the world illegal (to the point of offenders being put to death). Coming out of the closet is not an easy decision to make and trying to blend in by not giving any indication of one's true sexual preferences is not only realistic but common.

It's really just a bad storytelling technique known as an asspull. It's the same when a comic book character dies in a seemingly definitive way but a later story explains that he didn't die, that it was a robot/dream/clone/illusion/parallel universe version or whatever and the real hero is still alive. Just because the explanation is technically watertight, doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

Movies with a major twist, like Fight Club or The Sixth Sense, usually have a lot of subtle clues before the reveal, and everything is consistent with it. It's known as foreshadowing. For a secretly gay character, little details such as having lots of female friends but no girlfriend should be present. Not enough that it would be immediately obvious to anyone in universe, but enough that some viewers might guess it, and that those who did not notice before the reveal might acknowledge them afterward.

Thank you for lecturing me on narrative techniques and tropes that I am well aware of.

I still maintain that MirenBainesUSMC chose a poor example, for this very situation is actually tethered to reality, irrespective of whether or not the execution was set up properly. A lack of foreshadowing can even be used to the narrative's advantage, because it essentially mimics a real world situation enabling the audience to experience the same shock and surprise the characters in-universe go through after it is revealed.

Now we may very well argue about the subtleties of proper usage of twists and the right amount of foreshadowing, or how to handle red herrings like lavender marriages, or whether or not the character's importance warrants that much attention, but I think this is all terribly academic if we don't have a specific example to discuss.

It's not so poorly worded as to be exclusionary, and she couches her language multiple times.

Is it a bad piece from a journalistic or op-ed perspective? Yes. But I won't concede anything beyond that because it's just feeding more "GamerGate" histrionics. And I just got done dealing with the notifications from people screaming that Bob Faraci called us all terrorists.

Very well, then. Let's leave it at that.

I don't know who Bob Faraci or "us" is in this context and I don't know why he would or wouldn't call me a terrorist, but I'm sure that there's a lot of hyperbole involved.

 

[C. Cain]

I laugh at the SJW morons now.

You consider yourself a SJW?

you support this woman:

<spoiler=Tweet>

Love how it's not racist if a SJW [sorry, going to start calling them Social Justice Morons] SJM's says it.

Seriously? That's the best you can come up with?

Alright, I'll bite.

Do you eat sugar?
Well, then you evidently support this man:

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hitlerdog.jpg

 

[Barbas]

Well she's using the term SJW at all, a stupid term used by stupid people, so clearly she's a moron. Not much else to say really.

Is it a stupid term used by stupid people...exclusively?

Wait...why is it "sjw woman" and not just "sjw"?

Simple. Because A GIRL agrees with us.

This has been pretty SOP for a while now.

For one glorious, perfect moment, Google said "a piece of bread soaked in liquid". But no, it apparently stands for Standard Operating Procedure. *Protracted, wistful sigh*.

 

[Colour Scientist]

A severely mentally handicapped, biracial transsexual individual above me had the habit of playing music at 3 am and continuing it loud enough for the walls to shake until they fell asleep the next night. I went upstairs and was called ablest for asking for the music to get turned down. When I went to my friends crying over the word they told me I was because clearly the music was part of their treatment. When the person upstairs reported me falsely for drug use I was encouraged not to counter report as that was racist. When I finally cracked and called the cops after the transexual individual broke into my house and smeared "trans hater" on my wall in crap for what I later found out to be a perceived slight by not smiling right at him. I was told to examine my potentially biased view points as I clearly didn't smile at him right.

It could well be true but this sounds like the most madey-uppey story that has ever been made-up.

 

[MirenBainesUSMC]

For the sake of not quoting ---

I don't believe it was a poor example I made, only because in the means you've described, I have never seen this done properly in any game I've played yet. Of course the act of coming out is a momentous thing for a character, what I was saying, is that this isn't done properly or handled in such a way to make it a logical step in a given story. --- at least in any mainstream game I've ever seen.

That is what is missing in the equation out of all of this, most certainly you can have subject matter like this but if its not in a proper context or a part of the narrative rather than an aside, it doesn't work well in the way people would like to make it work.


If your intention is to break ground and evolve, making what you want as a side-show rather than an important part of the game, isn't the way to go... IMO.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

That doesnt seem very logical at all. Its actually to help to distinguish between a zealot and someone who tries to actually help people.

Then what do you call someone who genuinely tries to help people?

Their name? A good person? "That person who doesn't declare they hate certain sections of society because they are seen as fair targets"?

Y'know, take your pick.

Or if you'd rather pick a different term than Social Justice Warriors try Lynch Mob, same basic principle.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

dude a SJW is a term used to describe someone who take the whole fighting for equality thing way too far.

We already have lots of words for that. Extremist. Fundamentalist. Ideologue. There is no shortage of words in the English language to describe people who are rigid and inflexible in their belief system.

"SJW", though, is a pejorative coined by idiots to throw a blanket over a varied cross section of people whom they disagree with. It is the new "White Knight", as modified to apply to both genders equally. Don't agree with someone? Poison the well by calling them a name first, a term designed purely to insult, and to imply membership in a group with presumed characteristics. Then you don't HAVE to debate them point by point, or try to understand their point of view, or come to an understanding. You can just call them a name, and dismiss them off-hand. This kind of labeling allows for a greatly simplified world view. You're not disagreeing with PEOPLE, who have a variety of opinions, motivations, rationale, etc, etc. You're disagreeing with an IDEA that you invented. The idea of the "social justice warrior", a blinkered idiot who believes in lazy, unfocused activism, the cause of the week, and soap-boxing on the internet about issues they barely understand. Much easier to dismiss. You know everything you need to know about them! They're a SJW! It's an open and shut case!

This is the essence of prejudice and bigotry. Invent a group with presumed characteristics, give it a name, assign people you disagree with to that group, and sneer at it at every given opportunity. You can put a little jacket and hat on it and say you're doing it because you believe in "ethical transparency in game journalism" or engage in slippery slope hysteria about the death of the hobby at the hands of meddling beatniks, but at the end of the day you are just rationalizing bigotry.

So while calling someone who uses the term "a moron" would be throwing wild punches, calling someone who uses the term prejudiced would be entirely accurate.

Now, I have no idea about you, but I tend to disregard obvious prejudice when I hear it. If you want to keep using the term because you think it's a cute way to ridicule people you dislike, you may continue to do so, but don't be under any illusions about what you're doing.

So, kinda like how everyone who plays games and is male is a Misogynist? (a fairly common accusation from folks who are labelled as SJWs)
Also if your prejudice against someone who IS prejudiced does it balance itself out orrrrr what's the etiquette here? Are you prejudiced for calling members of the Ku Klux Klan racist?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So, kinda like how everyone who plays games and is male is a Misogynist? (a fairly common accusation from folks who are labelled as SJWs)

Find me that quote. Find me a single quote from an actual source that says "everyone who plays games and is male is a Misogynist". Give me a source and I will join you in condemning it.

Also if your prejudice against someone who IS prejudiced does it balance itself out orrrrr what's the etiquette here? Are you prejudiced for calling members of the Ku Klux Klan racist?

Oh I'm sorry...are "social justice warriors" part of a structured organization with a stated ideology? I must have missed that. Please, point me to their website so I can read their mission statement and decide for myself whether it reads as prejudicial. Thanks!

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Remember when gaming discussion was about games? As opposed to now where it's about randomly selecting people from the internet and arguing: "This sample size of one proves holding a certain opinion makes you worse than Hitler!"

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The broad generalizations about GGs from SJWs and about SJWs from GGs have caused me to stop seeing a difference between the two.

The irony is appalling.

Captcha: Legendary Toughness. Not for skins it seems.