"We are not your shield"? Gamergate, you need a new motto.

[small]

thank you for clarifying but yeah first gut reaction is its a negative so thats not a good start to it

 

[RexMundane]

So, gamers felt journos were trying to speak on behalf of minorities, so some of them jumped into the hashtag in order to speak on behalf of minorities? Because they didn't want to be lumped into a group seen as nothing but white guys, by a group they see as nothing but white guys? So from what I've seen it inserted into a dozen conversations with people who aren't journalists, and who never brought up race, so from what I've seen it isn't "about" journalism in an explicit sense as much as about being offended at everything... by the actions of SJW who they say are just offended at everything.

It's like watching a politician in the middle of a racial issue say "You know who wants to talk about race? RACISTS!" just to deflect questions and take the moral highground, leaving the debate we all sort of need to have by the wayside.

The truest intent of the tag I think is to say "GamerGate gamers refuse to protect anti-GamerGate gamers from GamerGate gamers," which didn't need to be said as much as they perhaps feel it did.

 

[Lightknight]

#notyourshield, as people here have already stated, isn't specifically a gamergate motto. If anything gamergate is the gamer gate motto.

No, notyourshield is the motto of people whose race/ethnicity/gender/orientation are appropriated or even exploited by SJWs to try and deflect from the real issues.

See, it may feel like our motto because people have to use it so frequently because using minorities as a shield is tit for tat in the SJW community.

Can straight white males use it too? I guess, it'd have to be along the lines of someone deflecting from a topic by using a non-genetic group association rather than personal attribute.

So, gamers felt journos were trying to speak on behalf of minorities, so some of them jumped into the hashtag in order to speak on behalf of minorities? Because they didn't want to be lumped into a group seen as nothing but white guys, by a group they see as nothing but white guys? So from what I've seen it inserted into a dozen conversations with people who aren't journalists, and who never brought up race, so from what I've seen it isn't "about" journalism in an explicit sense as much as about being offended at everything... by the actions of SJW who they say are just offended at everything.

It's like watching a politician in the middle of a racial issue say "You know who wants to talk about race? RACISTS!" just to deflect questions and take the moral highground, leaving the debate we all sort of need to have by the wayside.

The truest intent of the tag I think is to say "GamerGate gamers refuse to protect anti-GamerGate gamers from GamerGate gamers," which didn't need to be said as much as they perhaps feel it did.

Huh? notyourshield is supposed to be used by minorities against journos pretending that they're defending said-minorities rather than dealing with the real issue of gamergate which is corruption in the industry.

Or are you saying that some Journos then tried to use the hashtag incorrectly?

 

[Verlander]

#notyourshield is used by people, ironically, trying to deflect criticism, in the same way that "SJW" is a made up term used to discredit people who criticise.

It's the internet equivalent of "don't tread on me" when rednecks think that the Obama's trying to take their guns. Amusing, but getting far more attention than deserved. I guess that makes the cartoon girl that 4chan created a confederate flag, or something.

 

[grey_space]

It's like watching a politician in the middle of a racial issue say "You know who wants to talk about race? RACISTS!" just to deflect questions and take the moral highground, leaving the debate we all sort of need to have by the wayside.

The truest intent of the tag I think is to say "GamerGate gamers refuse to protect anti-GamerGate gamers from GamerGate gamers," which didn't need to be said as much as they perhaps feel it did.

Awesome point.

I feel if there was more self policing on their part I would have way more sympathy for their cause. This 'them and us' attitude from both camps makes the gaming world online at the moment a very negative place.

Right now I feel that both camps are both really really right, and dead wrong at the same time, and I'm sick to my teeth of the arguments.

 

[Lightknight]

#notyourshield is used by people, ironically, trying to deflect criticism, in the same way that "SJW" is a made up term used to discredit people who criticise.

It's the internet equivalent of "don't tread on me" when rednecks think that the Obama's trying to take their guns. Amusing, but getting far more attention than deserved. I guess that makes the cartoon girl that 4chan created a confederate flag, or something.

Um... sure... if you want to try and associate an image created out of donating to a feminist charity with a flag that has become a redneck or even racist symbol... (though, to be fair, it was also a flag/banner that families fought and died for, so it isn't purely that to groups who display it, and that admission is coming from a guy whose family had significant losses at the hands of the confederate soldiers that shot them)

Why not stop there. If you're going to negatively associate, why not go full Godwin's Law and associate it a Nazi flag or something?

Or... how about they're completely separate things? SJW is used to discredit people who abuse social justice issues for personal gain. It can also be used for people who want to elevate social groups above the majority rather than aiming for equality in the same way that femi-nazism as a term was developed to describe feminists who think men are evil and should fade into the background rather than just normal feminists wanting gender equality for all.

Are sometimes legitimate proponents of social justice mis-categorized as SJW's? Sure, and that's unfortunate. But it doesn't make the reason for the term any less valid. Any type a new category is defined there is a danger of mis-attributed the category designation to non-members.

I think it's pretty cool that our fellow minority gamers are standing up and trying to not let journalists exploit their attributes to avoid the issue at hand. Kudos to them.

 

[Verlander]

Um... sure... if you want to try and associate an image created out of donating to a feminist charity with a flag that has become a redneck or even racist symbol... (though, to be fair, it was also a flag/banner that families fought and died for, so it isn't purely that to groups who display it, and that admission is coming from a guy whose family had significant losses at the hands of the confederate soldiers that shot them)

Why not stop there. If you're going to negatively associate, why not go full Godwin's Law and associate it a Nazi flag or something?

Or... how about they're completely separate things? SJW is used to discredit people who abuse social justice issues for personal gain. It can also be used for people who want to elevate social groups above the majority rather than aiming for equality in the same way that femi-nazism as a term was developed to describe feminists who think men are evil and should fade into the background rather than just normal feminists wanting gender equality for all.

Are sometimes legitimate proponents of social justice mis-categorized as SJW's? Sure, and that's unfortunate. But it doesn't make the reason for the term any less valid. Any type a new category is defined there is a danger of mis-attributed the category designation to non-members.

I think it's pretty cool that our fellow minority gamers are standing up and trying to not let journalists exploit their attributes to avoid the issue at hand. Kudos to them.

Yeah, like the black guy that Fox News wheels out to tell other black people that they're lazy and should work harder. Everyone likes one of the other guys turning coat.

The people who are labelled SJWs are labelled as such not because they personally gain from it, but because people don't like criticism. While extreme feminists exist in the tiniest minority, any woman who talks about equality is labelled as a "feminazi", a ridiculous turn of phrase if there ever was one.

All of these terms are used to discredit, same as "notmyshield" because there's no legitimate argument against inclusion, and so it resorts to name calling pretty quickly. And the cartoon? It exists to troll someone, nothing more. It appears as the avatar now among some of the more misogynist or generally unpleasant people posting on this forum. I 'spose I should be happy that they're identifying themselves up front now.

 

[BeerTent]

So first, game journalists start writing articles about how the conventional image of the "gamer," the mid-20s heavy white male with stunted emotional development, is in fact not representative of gaming today, nor the world at large, and start declaring that stereotype "dead."

Afterward, gamers who don't fit that stereotype somehow feel like those articles are attacking them, or claiming to speak on their own behalf somehow. So they form the hashtag as a way to demonstrate to the world that gaming is filled with all sorts of people, and that the stereotype is, effectively, "dead."

That's what #NotYourShield means to me. You have two seperate groups, both with the same enemy, yet fighting each other. Tragic, yet poetic, in its way.

You know, when you look at it your way, I can't help but to think this...

Games Journalists start writing articles about how the conventional image of the "gamer," the mid-20s heavy white male with stunted emotional development, is in fact not representative of gaming today, nor the world at large, and start declaring that stereotype "dead."

Gamers, in turn, respond that this is in fact incorrect by getting insulted by something that's not even directed them. Disproving that stereotype, and expanding it so that it's just "mid-20 person with stunted emotional development."

PROGRESS!!! GET THE CAKE OUT!

On a serious note. I do see your point, and agree to it.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

That's it - I can't resist channeling Bill Maher on this...

New Rule: People talking about #GamerGate and things related to it need to look up the words "censorship," "hate speech," "criticism," and "corruption," and, like Bart Simpson, write each definition on a primary school blackboard ten times with a skateboard beside them and while wearing a t-short, shorts, and baseball cap.

Yes, it will provide confusion to janitors and teachers, but this is important (and janitors and teachers should be confused at times). You see, "censorship" doesn't mean to neglect or decide not to say something - it means to force somebody else not to say something. "Hate speech" doesn't mean criticism of something a group is actually doing, or saying something a group disagrees with - it means expressing actual hatred against a group. "Criticism" doesn't mean harassment, haranguing, and threats - it means an expression of disagreement with something or someone. And "corruption" doesn't involve criticizing the video game industry or hiring people who will, it involves journalists and editors taking bribes from video game companies to spin the coverage they receive.

Neglecting to mention who created #notyourshield is not censorship. Forcing Jenn Frank out of the industry IS censorship - her voice has now been silenced on this topic.

And, while we're at it, New Rule: Angry young gamers need to come up with a more offensive slur for people calling them out than "Social Justice Warrior." That doesn't make moderates say "I want to stay away from that!" - it makes them say "I can be the Conan the Barbarian of fighting for people's rights - where do I sign up?!"

 

[RexMundane]

So, gamers felt journos were trying to speak on behalf of minorities, so some of them jumped into the hashtag in order to speak on behalf of minorities? Because they didn't want to be lumped into a group seen as nothing but white guys, by a group they see as nothing but white guys? So from what I've seen it inserted into a dozen conversations with people who aren't journalists, and who never brought up race, so from what I've seen it isn't "about" journalism in an explicit sense as much as about being offended at everything... by the actions of SJW who they say are just offended at everything.

It's like watching a politician in the middle of a racial issue say "You know who wants to talk about race? RACISTS!" just to deflect questions and take the moral highground, leaving the debate we all sort of need to have by the wayside.

The truest intent of the tag I think is to say "GamerGate gamers refuse to protect anti-GamerGate gamers from GamerGate gamers," which didn't need to be said as much as they perhaps feel it did.

Huh? notyourshield is supposed to be used by minorities against journos pretending that they're defending said-minorities rather than dealing with the real issue of gamergate which is corruption in the industry.

Or are you saying that some Journos then tried to use the hashtag incorrectly?

I'm saying that I've had it thrown at me directly in conversations that weren't about race at all, and I'm not a journalist. Saying it's "about" one specific complaint but watching it get used for roughly everything, implicating as it does that anyone who doesn't support, say, harassing journalists into leaving their field is somehow vaguely racist for doing so. I mean it might surprise them to learn that some of those journos are themselves non-white, non-cis-males (well, fewer now than before this started, and again, thanks for that) and that they are "#NotTheirShield" against blanket harassment, too.

It's much like how, though "everyone agrees" Gamergate is only ever about vaguely specified ideals of "corruption" and "ethics," the second an opportunity is presented to slag off on Zoe Qu... oh, I'm sorry, "Literally Who" or "Literally Who #2" (Jesus you must think we're idiots) they're all champing at the bit to release some of that sweet, sweet rage-o-hol.

Why not stop there. If you're going to negatively associate, why not go full Godwin's Law and associate it a Nazi flag or something?

You know who else pre-emptively accused people of invoking Godwin's Law? Hitler.

 

[RexMundane]

So first, game journalists start writing articles about how the conventional image of the "gamer," the mid-20s heavy white male with stunted emotional development, is in fact not representative of gaming today, nor the world at large, and start declaring that stereotype "dead."

Afterward, gamers who don't fit that stereotype somehow feel like those articles are attacking them, or claiming to speak on their own behalf somehow. So they form the hashtag as a way to demonstrate to the world that gaming is filled with all sorts of people, and that the stereotype is, effectively, "dead."

That's what #NotYourShield means to me. You have two seperate groups, both with the same enemy, yet fighting each other. Tragic, yet poetic, in its way.

You know, when you look at it your way, I can't help but to think this...

Games Journalists start writing articles about how the conventional image of the "gamer," the mid-20s heavy white male with stunted emotional development, is in fact not representative of gaming today, nor the world at large, and start declaring that stereotype "dead."

Gamers, in turn, respond that this is in fact incorrect by getting insulted by something that's not even directed them. Disproving that stereotype, and expanding it so that it's just "mid-20 person with stunted emotional development."

PROGRESS!!! GET THE CAKE OUT!

On a serious note. I do see your point, and agree to it.

Hey, as a mid-30s person with stunted emotional development I take the deepest possible offense to that, and am #NotYourShieldEitherBuddy!

 

[Lightknight]

Yeah, like the black guy that Fox News wheels out to tell other black people that they're lazy and should work harder. Everyone likes one of the other guys turning coat.

You'll have to forgive me for not being aware of their tokenism but I don't spend my time caring what Fox News has to say or does unless I get to watch a grown man cry about how much he "luvs 'muricka". But let's run with your example to try and draw out a little bit of honest social commentary here. There are a few practices in the black community that are particularly and overtly harmful for them that proponents of the black community like Bill Cosby are currently trying to repair. For example, there is currently something defined as an epidemic of black males not attending college despite black female attendance increasing steadily and also despite available scholarship opportunities for black males to afford college. This is a cultural problem and not a racial problem (in that they are being encouraged not to go to school or being discouraged from going to school by their culture rather than any internal racial difference). So if a black guy were to stand up and say, "Hey, stop dropping out of school" then they wouldn't be turn-coats, they would be positive forces within their community trying to improve their standing in society. This is the same as when Bill Cosby comes out against another cultural phenomenon encouraging having multiple children by multiple women and depriving all those children with a stable two-parent home. As a chairman of a social awareness committee I was frequently asked to set up discussion boards on social issues that the school population should be aware of. One such time the discussion board I was asked to set up was to discuss the whole non-college attending issue. Black females are having to work harder on two fronts. As single parents and/or as the only/main household contributor as the most educated adult. This is a cultural issue that can be fixed but is a topic often avoided because it is automatically translated into it being a problem with black people which isn't the case. Though, I'll certainly admit that the racist community does use these problems as proof of inferiority, which is likely why people who bring the problems up with noble intentions are still demonized.

Ignoring real cultural issues for the fear of it turning into something race specific is harmful to society. I can't say anything for Fox's intentions as I fully believe them to have an oppressive agenda aimed at one extreme side of the equation rather than the majority of us (Americans) who are likely more in the middle. But I can say that a lot of societies and cultures have serious problems that should be safe to discuss without it being turned into something it isn't. The cultures that are more open to discussing real problems are the ones that will be able to mitigate the damage those issues inflict.

Unfortunately, anyone acknowledging a cultural issue is automatically categorized as a bigot or turn coat regardless of their point or intention. I would personally call this automatic categorization racist itself. Bill Cosby's most frequent criticism is purely his public acknowledgement of the issues rather than issue rebuttal (they aren't saying he's wrong, just that he shouldn't talk about it). But staying silent on such important topics will be far more harmful to society in the long run than people hearing that some communities harbor disadvantageous practices. If they are real (and the numbers indicate that they are), then maybe people should be embarrassed by them enough to enact change. White communities should be embarrassed when racist practices are revealed and black communities should be embarrassed when data that harms women and children is revealed. It should not be to shame them for being white or black. But to shine light on the problem and motivate them to enact change because it isn't tied to their race but to their culture. I suspect that me discussing this intellectually will also be ill-received as bigotry or whatever. That something I clearly defined as a statistically provable culture-based issue will somehow be turned into an anti-race comment. Maybe you'll imagine my comments as saying that one race is better than another when I believe in equality of races. But honestly, I'd far rather we all were able to overcome the hindrances put in our way by our peers to become the best people we can be. The first step is becoming aware of those obstacles and you don't become aware of them if no one talks about it. Pretending like our shit don't stink is a foolish endeavor.

Now, if the Fox guy says that black people are lazy because they are black? Sure, he's a turn coat/bigot/racist whatever. If he says there's a problem with members of the black community deferring to live off of the system rather than enter the workforce to better their position in society because it's easier for them to do? If there really is data to indicate the existence of such a problem then he's anything but as then his intention is to call people out of socially driven complacency which is a noble goal even if it hurts our ears to hear. Though, Fox and cherry picking study results is a lot like fat kids and eating cake instead of veggies. It happens all the time, that's why they're fat/fox. So any 'data' from them to indicate a problem actually existing is highly suspect.

Honestly, I personally assume that these problems plague poor communities in general. I'd wager that the wage gap is more responsible for these specific differences than anything else. I wouldn't be surprised if black and white neighbors living side by side of the same poverty level would express the same propensity to take advantage of the system which in turn would result in low motivation to pursue legitimate careers. The issue there is that the black community is also often much poorer so it may be mistakingly viewed as race-based rather than wealth-level based or class based. Though, I'm not sure you can easily divorce that component from the overall culture if the overall culture suffers from it at disproportionate levels. I still think that poverty is the absolute largest contributor to the problem and right now with poverty begetting poverty we've got a snake eating its own tail problem.

Talking about it to educate people on the issue is the only tool we have. No one is going to legislate cultural changes, only the members of the culture can spearhead changes of belief.

The people who are labelled SJWs are labelled as such not because they personally gain from it, but because people don't like criticism. While extreme feminists exist in the tiniest minority, any woman who talks about equality is labelled as a "feminazi", a ridiculous turn of phrase if there ever was one.

I disagree. And an internet of definitions also disagrees.

Feminazi is used to describe an extreme or militant feminist. That people misuse the term is little more than an indictment of public education system. Go ahead, type in "Feminazi Definition" in your google-box and see what you get.

noun - a radical feminist.

Not someone who 'talks about it' or any feminist. Sorry, but that's you projecting your own view of a word onto it's definition. But I don't blame you as I have heard people throw feminazi at anyone in the way you mentioned. Still doesn't make it correct usage.

As for SJW, it isn't so authoritatively defined. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior

Urban dictionary describes it as a person who uses social justice issues to elevate themselves. It has an element of making a poor argument as questions actual belief in what they're saying without outright denying that they can believe in it.

If you want to redefine the terms then by all means go out and do so. But I'm going to take the general consensus over any claims you can make.

I have also seen SJW defined by SJWs as just someone who fights for social justice. However, we are discussing the use of the term by people who use it pejoratively. While I'm sure assholes exist who think fighting for social justice in general is bad, the majority of definitions of the term indicate that SJWs as defined pejoratively are extreme and often insincere.

All of these terms are used to discredit, same as "notmyshield" because there's no legitimate argument against inclusion, and so it resorts to name calling pretty quickly. And the cartoon? It exists to troll someone, nothing more. It appears as the avatar now among some of the more misogynist or generally unpleasant people posting on this forum. I 'spose I should be happy that they're identifying themselves up front now.

The cartoon? You mean Vivian? The character created as a result of supporting a female game jam charity?

These people are really bad at trolling. I wish they would line my pockets with money to troll me. I'd let them make a cartoon too. Haha, what a weird world it'd be where people troll causes by supporting them.

Let me be clear. Those 4chan people are trolling Zoe and/or SJWs in general. They are not trolling actual and legitimate female or feminist causes. There is a huge difference between trolling pushes for equality and trolling pushes for elitist bullshit that demonizes huge masses of people including attempts to disenfranchise the majority under the guise of equality. Guise being the key word there.

 

[Verlander]

-snip-

I had to snip that text, but allow me to reply in a concise manner.

First issue - maybe I didn't elaborate enough, so I feel bad that you spent time typing about Bill Cosby. I wasn't referring to Bill Cosby, but rather about the tendency for Fox to bring out an member of whichever group that they are demonising as a way to jusitfy their stance. Lately, with the Michael Brown/Trayvon Martin and focus on racially motivated police brutality cases, Fox will get a "black expert" on to confirm the fears of the viewers (which are preinstalled by the hosts). I disagree with some of what you said, agree with other bits, but it's not for this conversation.

Feminazi is used to describe an extreme or militant feminist. That people misuse the term is little more than an indictment of public education system. Go ahead, type in "Feminazi Definition" in your google-box and see what you get.

That doesn't mean anything though. It doesn't define extreme or militant, both of which concepts are left in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't use the word, but if I had to use it to identify someone, it would be a woman who actively persecutes men based on their gender. These are not the actions of those who are called the name. Sarkeesian/Quinn/whoever don't do this, but frequently get the label attached.

As for the Vivian character, it was created out of an "enemy of my enemy" type allegiance. TFYC is hardly the first competition of it's kind, and it's not the most inventive or even well thought out competition either. It's somewhat ironic that, accidentally, Quinn's managed to give it far more attention to what it deserves. The image, however, has been most actively appropriated by people to show their support for the competition, many of whom are a part of the aggressive anti-SJW crowd.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm saying that I've had it thrown at me directly in conversations that weren't about race at all, and I'm not a journalist.

Well, people have been known to accidentally misuse or even entirely misappropriate terms for their personal benefit. Doesn't change the term itself or its definition if it has one.

Here's a legitimate article on the hashtag if you want to know how it is and should be used. Then you can at least call those people out when they misuse it.

Saying it's "about" one specific complaint but watching it get used for roughly everything, implicating as it does that anyone who doesn't support, say, harassing journalists into leaving their field is somehow vaguely racist for doing so. I mean it might surprise them to learn that some of those journos are themselves non-white, non-cis-males (well, fewer now than before this started, and again, thanks for that) and that they are "#NotTheirShield" against blanket harassment, too.

The term, used correctly, sidesteps the identity of the journo trying to speak on the minority's behalf. A gay black female doesn't speak for all gay people, all black people, and all female people. They can only speak for themselves and members of any of those communities can ask her to stop using them as a shield to deflect questions about the larger issue.

It's much like how, though "everyone agrees" Gamergate is only ever about vaguely specified ideals of "corruption" and "ethics," the second an opportunity is presented to slag off on Zoe Qu... oh, I'm sorry, "Literally Who" or "Literally Who #2" (Jesus you must think we're idiots) they're all champing at the bit to release some of that sweet, sweet rage-o-hol.

Actually, I advocated against the nonsense of the literally who stuff. But their intention was good. They wanted to distance the movement from just having to do with someone who turned out to be a minor player in the whole thing.

Why not stop there. If you're going to negatively associate, why not go full Godwin's Law and associate it a Nazi flag or something?

You know who else pre-emptively accused people of invoking Godwin's Law? Hitler.

Was Verlander not arbitrarily associating their group with a negatively perceived group? How is that not similar to breaching Godwin's Law? I we going to pretend like Nazi's were the only negatively perceived group in human history or current existence? If I started to make analogies about your comments and the Inquisition or ISIS then it would follow the exact same logic as Godwin's law that people in debate will inevitably begin to use a group perceived as negative or evil as analogies to debate a point. Just because they used "rednecks" or something seen as a racist/bigot banner doesn't mean they didn't breach Godwin's Law. It just means they replaced Hitler with something else they deemed less overt but similar for function in debate.

Are you going to claim they weren't using an inappropriate hyperbolic comparison here? Is "redneck" or the "confederate flag" particularly relevant here? Just as Godwin's intention was to make people consider the Holocaust when trying to actually compare things, so too should you and Verlander consider lynchings and social brutality and injustice when making this comparison. They've at best fallen into association fallacy territory. At worst, they've just replaced naziism with another negatively perceived group to try and avoid getting called out on Godwin's Law and the sort of principle it stands for. That people shouldn't stoop to such as this in debate. It serves no one any purpose and should discredit anyone to use hyperbole in that manner.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

NYS was a response by gamers of disenfranchised groups to being silenced by games journalists, devs, and supporters, as well as attacks levied against them of a distinctly sexist, racist, ableist, and body-negative character. That's pretty much the beginning and end of it.

 

[Lightknight]

I had to snip that text, but allow me to reply in a concise manner.

First issue - maybe I didn't elaborate enough, so I feel bad that you spent time typing about Bill Cosby. I wasn't referring to Bill Cosby, but rather about the tendency for Fox to bring out an member of whichever group that they are demonising as a way to jusitfy their stance. Lately, with the Michael Brown/Trayvon Martin and focus on racially motivated police brutality cases, Fox will get a "black expert" on to confirm the fears of the viewers (which are preinstalled by the hosts). I disagree with some of what you said, agree with other bits, but it's not for this conversation.

Didn't think you were talking about Bill Cosby, you brought up a guy on a news site I couldn't care less about so I brought up an individual who is known for talking about those kinds of issues and being criticized for them.

Just because a person appears on Fox doesn't make them one thing or another. All we can discuss is the veracity of what they said.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a couple months away from being released from a non-disclosure on work I did (unknowingly) for a tea party-funded group. All I can say is that I collected a lot of information on two political party practices that would have been embarrassing for both sides and Fox news only reported half of those results. So I'm not really going to sit here and defend them. But I'm also not going to say that the "black expert" doesn't believe what they're saying or doesn't have information to back it up. Honestly, when you're dealing with a minority-related issue it is journalism 101 to get a minority source involved. Fox may blatantly make shit up but they aren't doing anything wrong by having a black source on a topic involving black people. That's standard. Every organization does it. The problem is that Fox more blatantly cherry picks their sources unless they just want O'Reilly to yell at them for the entirety of his show. Then they'll pick whomever and O'Reilly will ignorantly mumble through a discussion and his viewers will take his side regardless of the sanity and reason expressed by the other side.

That doesn't mean anything though. It doesn't define extreme or militant, both of which concepts are left in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't use the word, but if I had to use it to identify someone, it would be a woman who actively persecutes men based on their gender. These are not the actions of those who are called the name. Sarkeesian/Quinn/whoever don't do this, but frequently get the label attached.

Hmm, you are right. The term "extreme" and "radical" are highly subjective due to their relational nature and while I and you may view extreme as those who support elevating feminist positions beyond just equality, maybe others might view it as anyone who thinks there's still a problem at all.

I'll have to consider that point for a bit before continuing to type. It's a good one. I'd always considered radical or extreme as someone who takes a position that harms common people or would harm regular people if carried out. Hmm...

Well, I'm not sure any majority of people would claim favoring pure equality as extreme. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in humanity but from what I've seen and experienced, most everyone is perfectly fine with equality. The argument seems to almost always be universally against taking actions that favor the minority group over the majority group or that demonize members of the majority group just for being born as such.

I have never seen someone arguing against equality in general be well received. Especially not on the side of the majority arguing for minorities to be treated inferior. Those assholes are all but blacklisted from our society and most of us don't have that much pity for them either.

FYI, Anita does participate in sexist ideals where damsel-ing men isn't a problem in her eyes despite everything she said about it objectifying the person. She also rejects that there is any power disparity in our species despite us being sexually dimorphic with clear physical power differences.

So yeah, she does fit in there. She believes in equality where no equality exists (believes that women should be treated as if they were physically identical to men despite that not being the case) and believes that women should be treated better than men (inequality).

As for Quinn? I don't know her beliefs. All I know is that she falsely accuses people of doing harm to her and harms charitable organizations. Feminists and anti-feminists alike should dislike her as a person. I'd say the complaints against her as a person should suffice.

As for the Vivian character, it was created out of an "enemy of my enemy" type allegiance. TFYC is hardly the first competition of it's kind, and it's not the most inventive or even well thought out competition either. It's somewhat ironic that, accidentally, Quinn's managed to give it far more attention to what it deserves. The image, however, has been most actively appropriated by people to show their support for the competition, many of whom are a part of the aggressive anti-SJW crowd.

As discussed, being anti-SJW isn't being anti-feminist. I want equality. I want equal representation. I want a dollar spent by a female gamer to count for exactly as much as a dollar spent by me (a male gamer). That's fair. I don't want my money to count for less because SJWs believe my group has had its turn.

I also don't think it's equal to make someone else's money count for more. For example, if 10 people are the consumer of a game and 8 of those people male, I don't think it's fair to say that they have to cater to the female demographic in that particular game at the same rate they cater to the male demographic. But where possible, an 80%/20% split in attention would be fair because it is proportionately equal with everyone counting as one.