Support NeoGAF

[AlimNassor]

I take it as a badge of honor. I'm rather proud of being a SJW.

 

[Coffee Dog]

How is that fair though? I mean, if we're to use the examples of demonization so many people online do, it just leads to aggressive and condescending "EDUCATE YOURSELF, PROBLEMATIC" comments and creates an even wider gap due to the hostility that's born from it.

It isn't fair. I never said for a moment that it's fair. But it's how you stay ahead of the curve.

I mean, when applied practically, the bolded where discussion ends in progressive circles. If you try and move towards something more nuanced that engages with positions, the rebuttal is "we don't need to coddle people/this is so beyond the pale it isn't worth engaging/gtfo" etc.

Nobody is interested in conversation in the first place or discussion would move past that roadblock, but it rarely does.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

In short, I find it really troubling that people think SJW should be a used term.

 

[cubicle47b]

Still sounds like some kind of receptive orifice to me.

You just reminded me that we had a "man cave" scandal in Tennessee a few years ago that involved sex in a public park.

 

[LosDaddie]

To me, the term describes people who are socially progressive in the understood sense, but push their arguments and point of view in an aggressive and reductive way. I've been hounded and labelled "transphobic" because I wrote on Facebook that the movie Speed Racer was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers", in the context of me literally transcribing the director credits of a few films.

I was told I was denying a trans woman her work, I was told I was transphobic, and I was told that when a trans person tells you that you're transphobic, you just have to be quiet and agree with them, and ask how to be better. In principle I agreed, but in practice I wasn't being transphobic and I was furious at the semi-public flogging I was getting over it.

That, to me, was the work of what could be called "Social Justice Warriors". Verbally bludgeoning someone into deference doesn't teach them a thing.

Despite that incident - shockingly! - I don't now dislike trans people or hate any minorities, and I still consider myself a progressive. I don't support GamerGate, I'm not an MRA, but I have had a bad experience with some "SJW"s. Me saying that doesn't invalidate my position, it doesn't negate all my opinions, we're all just people.

There's a lot of this behavior on GAF as well. A recent example would be some of the Star Wars TFA threads where any criticism of Rey was labeled as sexist. That and some people telling others that you need to appreciate the movie's diverse cast before enjoying the movie. Essentially, that other people were enjoying TFA for the wrong reasons.

SJW may, or may not have been co-opted by "wrong" people, but the terms has merit in certain contexts.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Obviously I'm speaking broadly when I say men and women. Right now the type of issues that get focused on are the ones that effect the type of people in government. Not exclusively the ones that only effect that type of person of course, but those ones get more focus than ones that don't particularly effect the type of person who makes up the government.

If a group was set up to focus on the issues that specifically effect black men, I'd have no problems with such a group. Because they would be bringing focus onto something that doesn't get enough focus today. Same with advocacy groups that want to highlight issues that most impact women.

Now if a group came along and said 'well if black men get an advocacy group, we're going to start one for white men' I'd be similarly against it. Because that group is already seeing more focus paid to it by the government, and an advocacy group trying to get the government to pay issues that only effect white men, would only distract and work against people fighting for equal thought and representation in society and law and what have you.

That's why I think an advocacy group aimed specifically at men's rights is only harmful.

But the truth is, issues which specifically effect men already get more government focus... because men make up the government. I don't think they single those issues out or anything... but I don't think they get ignored either in the same way as issues that pretty much only effect women or minorities. Similarly issues that don't effect white men but do effect black men get mostly ignored too.

The whole point of an advocacy group is to ensure that more of the governments attention is focused on a particular issue. That does happen at the cost of other things.

Abused?

Or are people finally tired of living in a society where only a certain race, gender and sexuality take presidency over the others. For decades when people outside the norm had issues, they had to sit back and take and now they don't have to.

I find it rather ironic that people are whining about people whining about stuff. it is so funny.

And the even sadder thing about your logic, it was probably one person out of 7 billion who complained but to people who hate the outrage culture it was everyone in that group. I guess 1 is a representative of a whole group.

Yea abused. Minorities being legitimately shafted is absolutely a thing, but so is the batshit crazy, overly militant PC culture.

Let's not make the leap from criticizing extreme stances that fall into self-parody territory, to writing off groups that are actually treated in a lesser manner.

When I see someone on tumblr post something like "If you're cisgender or don't even know what that means, don't bother fucking talking to me" I have to write you off in that insane tumblr crowd. Was this person unfairly mistreated? Probably, yea. But exerting this insular, elitist, closed off attitude isn't gonna exactly help educate others or create new allies. And this is pretty much the general attitude of that scene.

While this tumblr crowd's the one that brought these issues and terms to the zeitgeist via social media (which is great), they proceeded to go onto this hypersensitive "world around me better be wrapped in bubble wrap!" attitude. Suddenly everything is triggering and offensive. Yea, we'll guess what? Your grievances in the general publics' eye don't carry weight anymore thanks to crying wolf at everything. And in the process, lables like "cultural appropriation", "triggered" etc are now reduced to a joke. That crowd hurt its own cause and provided fuel to bigots by becoming caricatures of themselves.

The term SJW may be flung around liberally and unfairly now. But, it's the knee-jerk, compensating reaction to a frankly pretty antagonistic movement that was pushing for equality in the most counter-productive way ever.

I understand the people I'm being critical of here are only the way they are because they're angry with how they've been mistreated. But their behavior is frankly and insult to people of minority groups that are trying to live with general society in a non batshit crazy manner.

You got an ax to grind? Yea I get that. But for fuck's sake, don't become the very thing that your opposition and can point at and go "see? They're crazy!" And then act like some enlightened being in the process.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

There's a lot of this behavior on GAF as well. A recent example would be some of the Star Wars TFA threads where any criticism of Rey was labeled as sexist. That and some people telling others that you need to appreciate the movie's diverse cast before enjoying the movie. Essentially, that other people were enjoying TFA for the wrong reasons.

SJW may, or may not have been co-opted by "wrong" people, but the terms has merit in certain contexts.

Whenever I read "it happens on gaf" then I go to the thread in question its usually not nearly as bad as it was stated. Nornally if you formulate a thought out argument you dont get accused of anything even if people really disagree with you.

Also I really liked TFA and I the cast.

 

[plagiarize]

One that you're ok with ignoring because it's at the bottom of your list of issues to deal with.

One final thing. 'Why are men more successful at killing themselves than women?' is a question I value a *lot less* than 'How can we stop people trying to kill themselves?'.

Here's a CDC study on suicide. It covers 2008 to 2009. In that period more men killed themselves than women. But more women attempted suicide than men. But of course you know that because this issue is so near and dear to your heart.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6013a1.htm?s_cid=ss6013a1_eSuicidal

Men are approximately three times as likely to have a gun license as women...

Look I solved it for you.

 

[Zoe]

Saying "SJW" is still, at its core, a positive term is 100% ignorant.

Still positive? It was never intended to be positive. It was meant to be an insult towards those who were vitriolic in their fervor.

 

[Crash Station]

I may be over selling its use actually. But a while back it got some uptake in atheist circles. Who were sick of being labeled xenophobic for:

1. Holding a position that Islamic text directly contributes to some of its interpretations.
2. Arguing that the immigration in crisis in Europe needs to be gotten under control.

So the word was used to talk about those who couldn't stand a minute of either of the above, and labeled them xenophobic for it. Yeah, I guess I haven't seen it used much recently. I was worried that it was going to become a word that when used is immediately dismissed. But I still don't use it because I just don't know how people take to it.

I mean, that's kind of how it SHOULD be used. People immediately jumping to "that's racist!" when someone has a very valid criticism of immigration policy is something I would consider "regressive left". Same with completely hand waving any kind of issues of culture clash and hoping the problems will work themselves out while simultaneously contradicting those views when it comes to other groups.

 

[Crocodile]

But I'm not saying the equivalent of that... because those two issues aren't directly related. You aren't either black or jewish. For the most part you are either male or female (again, acknowledging that there is some grey area in between the two genders). If only one side gets a perk, the imbalance swings in that direction. If only one side has a disadvantage solved, it swings back to them.

Personally I'd like to see equality (similar impact of the remaining disadvantages) hit before we've solved every problem (if we can ever solve every problem).

And I'm not saying we have to solve *all* of the problems that women face before we start solving the smaller list that men face. I'm saying lets get the lists about the same length.

I want to keep working towards the goal of equality for men and women, for people in between, for people of all races and sexual orientations... etc etc.

You don't get there sooner by solving problems that disproportionately effect the advantaged. Say we tackle the problems with equal focus... very soon men don't have any specific problems and women still have loads.

We talk about privilege. Well it sounds incredibly privileged when I hear people saying that their very short list of problems shouldn't have to wait while we tackle another groups much longer list of problems.

There's some weird base assumption to your position that advocacy and government change is a zero-sum game. That's not how this works. Nobody is asking Feminist groups to pick up extra work - they have a ton of stuff they should rightfully be focused on. Hell, I even gave what I thought was a good example of how two groups can attack one particular structure (patriarchy) to their both mutual advantage. Addressing suicide rates among men (be their cause toxic masculinity, issues with economic opportunity, etc.) doesn't hurt the fight for women to get paid better, not get slut-shammed, etc.

Also I feel you have a serious misunderstanding of what privilege is if you're defining it as "why don't people just wait their turn". It feels like approaching the "why are you complaining about not being able to find a job or that you broke you leg or whatever, don't you know there are starving children out there?!"

Finally, won't equality be reached only once we've solved all these issues? You speak as if the lack of equality along gender axis and these gender issues we are discussing aren't inherently linked. You can't have one without solving the other.

There's no need to replace the term. Attack the argument. Whenever I see someone I know is fucking up, like if they're getting really worked up over a misunderstanding or something minor, I explain how they're getting worked up over a misunderstanding or something minor. That's always been the problem with "SJW": it assumes people fit into easy packages for us to understand without full consideration for and engagement with the person and their opinions. SJW has always just been there to dismiss a person and their arguments entirely without having to spend any additional time on how they got there, why they're there, and who they are. It's for stupid people to hand wave what they don't understand and don't want to understand while trying to be childishly insulting.

If I'm actually in a position to interact with someone who I think means well but it stepping over the line of reason/tact, ignoring context and degree, etc. I will do so. I've never called someone a SJW to their face and would only be included to do so if it was clear they were unable or unwilling to moderate their position (assuming it needed moderation). That is to say I already tried to interact with them or I saw a bunch of other people try to do the same and we just became fed up. However, when I'm discussing people I can't interact with due to a separation of time/place, I thought the term was useful in the past as a mere descriptor. I know people nowadays have used it to be just dismissive - that sucks and is stupid but that's never how I used the word in my mind or why I felt the term had any use at any point in time. Again, I'm just speaking for myself here.

 

[plagiarize]

Yea abused. Minorities being legitimately shafted is absolutely a thing, but so is the batshit crazy, overly militant PC culture.

Let's not make the leap from criticizing extreme stances that fall into self-parody territory, to writing off groups that are actually treated in a lesser manner.

When I see someone on tumblr post something like "If you're cisgender or don't even know what that means, don't bother fucking talking to me" I have to write you off in that insane tumblr crowd. Was this person unfairly mistreated? Probably, yea. But exerting this insular, elitist, closed off attitude isn't gonna exactly help educate others or create new allies. And this is pretty much the general attitude of that scene.

While this tumblr crowd's the one that brought these issues and terms to the zeitgeist via social media (which is great), they proceeded to go onto this hypersensitive "world around me better be wrapped in bubble wrap!" attitude. Suddenly everything is triggering and offensive. Yea, we'll guess what? Your grievances in the general publics' eye don't carry weight anymore thanks to crying wolf at everything. And in the process, lables like "cultural appropriation", "triggered" etc are now reduced to a joke. That crowd hurt its own cause and provided fuel to bigots by becoming caricatures of themselves.

The term SJW may be flung around liberally and unfairly now. But, it's the knee-jerk, compensating reaction to a frankly pretty antagonistic movement that was pushing for equality in the most counter-productive way ever.

I understand the people I'm being critical of here are only the way they are because they're angry with how they've been mistreated. But their behavior is frankly and insult to people of minority groups that are trying to live with general society in a non batshit crazy manner.

You got an ax to grind? Yea I get that. But for fuck's sake, don't become the very thing that your opposition and can point at and go "see? They're crazy!" And then act like some enlightened being in the process.

Call me an SJW. What good has it done? It just makes me ignore you. Same as saying 'poltical correctness has gone mad!' and any other sound bites you might come out with.

Have you convinced anyone else of anything about me in doing so?

I'm harsh. And blunt. Yes. It's not the prettiest thing. I don't give people using terms like SJW the benefit of the doubt. Not any more.

I did for years. Oh, every discussion about gender politics in gaming or media people would come in just asking their questions. Always the same questions. Every time. Always coming out with their 'but what about the ways in which men are badly represented'.

And you'd answer those questions. But they'd never change. They'd never get it. Every discussion. Year after year.

Whether intentional or not... they were continuing to stifle the discussion. So yeah, at a point after lord knows how many such interactions... I stopped giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I decided to judge people on the effect of their actions, rather than their intentions. So yes, I decided that if you weren't actively working towards equality that you were helping to protect the status quo. Intentionally or not.

If you call me an SJW to infer that I don't really want these things, and to claim that I'm just doing it to make me look good...

ask yourself...

do I look good?

 

[Wowfunhappy]

I think there are probably more annoying terms, yes.

...I can't think of any right now though.

 

[plagiarize]

There's some weird base assumption to your position that advocacy and government change is a zero-sum game. That's not how this works. Nobody is asking Feminist groups to pick up extra work - they have a ton of stuff they should rightfully be focused on. Hell, I even gave what I thought was a good example of how two groups can attack one particular structure (patriarchy) to their both mutual advantage. Addressing suicide rates among men (be their cause toxic masculinity, issues with economic opportunity, etc.) doesn't hurt the fight for women to get paid better, not get slut-shammed, etc.

Women attempt suicide at the same rate as men. Something tells me toxic masculinity and issues with economic opportunity etc have nothing to do with why more men *succeed* at killing themselves than women. I'm amazed that people that really care about why more men kill themselves than women seem not to know something I found out in about five minutes by reading the results of a CDC study.

Also I feel you have a serious misunderstanding of what privilege is if you're defining it as "why don't people just wait their turn". It feels like approaching the "why are you complaining about not being able to find a job or that you broke you leg or whatever, don't you know there are starving children out there?!"

Women and minorities have seen many of their issues untouched for years. Now they are starting to see some of those issues addressed and men start yelling out about issues like suicide rates as if the government never did anything to address suicides. If you expect all of your problems to get seen to by the government... then yeah. That's what you're used to from having a government that caters to you. And yeah, it kind of sounds awful from the other side.

Again, there are finite resources. If we're going to focus more resources on issues that disproportionately effect women... they have to come from somewhere.

Finally, won't equality be reached only once we've solved all these issues? You speak as if the lack of equality along gender axis and these gender issues we are discussing aren't inherently linked. You can't have one without solving the other.

We won't solve all of these issues. We'll never solve all of the issues. But maybe we can make sure everyone's pile of issues is about the same.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Still positive? It was never intended to be positive. It was meant to be an insult towards those who were vitriolic in their fervor.

Then tell that to the people in this thread that think it should be used as a positive.

 

[plagiarize]

Then tell that to the people in this thread that think it should be used as a positive.

I take it as a badge of honor when someone calls me an SJW. The same way I used to take it as a badge of honor when being accused of cheating in online games.

Again, I don't care so much about why people do things as the effect of them. If you're donating money to a charity just to look good vs because its something you really care about doesn't matter to the charity. If there truly are people who argue and fight for progressive notions just to make themselves look better... if it helps it helps.

The more people coming out against certain backwards, hateful, or bigoted positions, the fewer kids growing up right now will be suckered into learning those same positions.

 

[Zoe]

Then tell that to the people in this thread that think it should be used as a positive.

You mean posts like these?

Like honestly who's supposed to be offended by being called such, is there anything wrong advocating for Social Justice?

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

I love being a SJW. I'm thinking of designing a flag.

I'm pretty sure they're aware of the intent behind the term.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Whether intentional or not... they were continuing to stifle the discussion. So yeah, at a point after lord knows how many such interactions... I stopped giving people the benefit of the doubt.

So you took it upon yourself to stifle discussions instead?

Because make no mistake, if you disregard someone's potential argument based on something you think they might say (rather than what their opinion actually is), shut down a conversation over a possibility, that is exactly what you're doing.

You might think that the odds are in your favor, that you are mostly likely correct in your assumption that having a conversation will go nowhere, but that is a justification for the act of not having a discussion.

 

[Kaiterra]

Still sounds like some kind of receptive orifice to me.

Well now I can't help it.

 

[Glendemonium]

Not sure why but to me the term sounds like a line of action figures from the 90s, complete with badly animated cartoon and extreme 90s jingle.

 

[CygnusXS]

This crowd completely hurt the discussion that could have been had regarding race, trans issues, culture, sensitivity, etc by going way the fuck overboard. I wanna take these people and put them in a room with teabaggers. I wonder of they'll unite into one horrifying group.

I've never bought this argument. The biggest impediment to discussion about the issues of the oppressed always comes from the oppressors. It's not up to the oppressed to earn the right to be heard.

 

[anaron]

I've never bought this argument. The biggest impediment to discussion about the issues of the oppressed always comes from the oppressors. It's not up to the oppressed to earn the right to be heard.

Reacting as if to immediately silence or treat them as a bigoted dumbass for daring to ask does absolutely nothing for anyone so I don't buy that at all.

 

[Palette Swap]

Not sure why but to me the term sounds like a line of action figures from the 90s, complete with badly animated cartoon and extreme 90s jingle.

"Arctic Action SJW and his Social Justice Snow Bike"

 

[Coffee Dog]

I've never bought this argument. The biggest impediment to discussion about the issues of the oppressed always comes from the oppressors. It's not up to the oppressed to earn the right to be heard.

Well then you've missed the point; You don't want a discussion. You want education.

It's okay to admit that. There are certainly issues to which I personally believe do not merit discussions, either. But to frame them as such and then deny other parties a turn to speak is nothing more than mental gymnastics.

 

[CygnusXS]

Reacting as if to immediately silence or treat them as a bigoted dumbass for daring to ask does absolutely nothing for anyone so I don't buy that at all.

I agree that vitriol and aggression is no way to have a discussion, but you also can't blame people who have experienced a lifetime of not being heard for being angry about it. That's just human. Pushing for oppressed groups to practice respectability politics as the only way to earn their dignity as people is just another form of domination in my view.

It's good that those on the other side might ask questions about perspectives they haven't encountered before, but it's also not fair to burden an oppressed person with the duty of educating and placating someone from the dominant group, even if the latter person's intentions are well meaning.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Call me an SJW. What good has it done? It just makes me ignore you. Same as saying 'poltical correctness has gone mad!' and any other sound bites you might come out with.

Have you convinced anyone else of anything about me in doing so?

I'm harsh. And blunt. Yes. It's not the prettiest thing. I don't give people using terms like SJW the benefit of the doubt. Not any more.

I did for years. Oh, every discussion about gender politics in gaming or media people would come in just asking their questions. Always the same questions. Every time. Always coming out with their 'but what about the ways in which men are badly represented'.

And you'd answer those questions. But they'd never change. They'd never get it. Every discussion. Year after year.

Whether intentional or not... they were continuing to stifle the discussion. So yeah, at a point after lord knows how many such interactions... I stopped giving people the benefit of the doubt.

I decided to judge people on the effect of their actions, rather than their intentions. So yes, I decided that if you weren't actively working towards equality that you were helping to protect the status quo. Intentionally or not.

If you call me an SJW to infer that I don't really want these things, and to claim that I'm just doing it to make me look good...

ask yourself...

do I look good?

If you wanna have a "this is how I'm gonna present my stance. Take it or leave it." you certainly can. But don't be crushed of people don't warm up to your cause then.

The biggest impediment to discussion about the issues of the oppressed always comes from the oppressors. It's not up to the oppressed to earn the right to be heard.

No change comes without the actions of the oppressed. And method and execution matters.

 

[CygnusXS]

Well then you've missed the point; You don't want a discussion. You want education.

It's okay to admit that. There are certainly issues to which I personally believe do not merit discussions, either. But to frame them as such and then deny other parties a turn to speak is nothing more than mental gymnastics.

There's also a difference between discussion at the individual level and at the social level. I got the sense that the person I originally quoted was referring to the social level and that's what my response was aimed at. To say that public discussion around marginalization was hurt by some people within the marginalized group acting in a way that the hegemony doesn't approve of is a privileged view.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

If you wanna have a "this is how I'm gonna present my stance. Take it or leave it." you certainly can. But don't be crushed of people don't warm up to your cause then.




No change comes without the actions of the oppressed. And method and execution matters.

What causes did you personally require convincing to support? LGBT rights? Equity for women?

Were you apathetic and uneducated about them until someone sat you down and schooled you gently?

I feel like a lot of people turn "SJW" because they get tired of the apathy of the general public and the antipathy toward efforts to educate. Why would people who are fed up actively try to court those who've proven to be uninterested or antagonistic previously?

 

[CygnusXS]

No change comes without the actions of the oppressed. And method and execution matters.

This is true, because you can't expect the oppressing group to spontaneously decide to restructure a society that asymmetrically benefits them. But I believe that requiring that the quest for freedom be done through further subjugation (in this case, of the kinds of tactics that are deemed acceptable) is just more domination.

 

[Dishwalla]

I view SJW as a term of endearment. Excuse me for having a good moral compass.

 

[Coffee Dog]

There's also a difference between discussion at the individual level and at the social level. I got the sense that the person I originally quoted was referring to the social level and that's what my response was aimed at. To say that public discussion around marginalization was hurt by some people within the marginalized group acting in a way that the hegemony doesn't approve of is a privileged view.

Oh, I see what you mean. I have solely been referring to behaviours in online communities, as that is where you see intersectional politics, SJW namecalling, etc the most, and that is largely what this thread has focused on. I typed a rebuttal to an earlier post of yours, but since it assumes we are discussing online communities, it continues on that tangent:

I agree that vitriol and aggression is no way to have a discussion, but you also can't blame people who have experienced a lifetime of not being heard for being angry about it. That's just human. Pushing for oppressed groups to practice respectability politics as the only way to earn their dignity as people is just another form of domination in my view.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think a deciding factor lies in how you perceive the people involved in the first place.

Are they oppressors, or are they other posters on a message board? Oppressors deserve hate, and deserve vitriol. Posters are just individual people with possible opinions. Oppressors have already been heard from, and have been throughout history; posters deserve turns to speak their mind.

It's like I said: education of oppressors is one thing, discussion with fellow posters is another.

It's good that those on the other side might ask questions about perspectives they haven't encountered before, but it's also not fair to burden an oppressed person with the duty of educating and placating someone from the dominant group, even if the latter person's intentions are well meaning.

They do not have the duty to educate, but that also does not give the right to assume.

 

[plagiarize]

So you took it upon yourself to stifle discussions instead?

Because make no mistake, if you disregard someone's potential argument based on something you think they might say (rather than what their opinion actually is), shut down a conversation over a possibility, that is exactly what you're doing.

You might think that the odds are in your favor, that you are mostly likely correct in your assumption that having a conversation will go nowhere, but that is a justification for the act of not having a discussion.

I took it upon myself to stifle tactics I saw used again and again to suppress or change the conversation to be about something other than issues effecting women. I don't go into threads about issues effecting men and try to sabotage them.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Oppressed groups have always been trying to speak out and were being ignoreded and now magically the perfect opportunity to be heard, to have the majority pay appears and "SJWs" are the reason the "discussion" was ruined. . . Fuck outta here. People can't actually be peddling this narrative with a straight face? This is bullshit. There is no great opportunitt that has been ruined. Ignorant assholes were not magically turned away by a few people who troll tumblr. Don't kid yourself.

 

[CygnusXS]

Oh, I see what you mean. I have solely been referring to behaviours in online communities, as that is where you see intersectional politics, SJW namecalling, etc the most, and that is largely what this thread has focused on. I typed a rebuttal to an earlier post of yours, but since it assumes we are discussing online communities, it continues on that tangent:



I understand where you're coming from, but I think a deciding factor lies in how you perceive the people involved in the first place.

Are they oppressors, or are they other posters on a message board? Oppressors deserve hate, and deserve vitriol. Posters are just individual people with possible opinions. Oppressors have already been heard from, and have been throughout history; posters deserve turns to speak their mind.

It's like I said: education of oppressors is one thing, discussion with fellow posters is another.



They do not have the duty to educate, but that also does not give the right to assume.

I'm going to go full "identity politics" here, but oppression doesn't have to involve explicit behaviours. It can be latent. It can involve simply perpetuating the status quo. It can be just passively benefiting from a political economy that oppresses. I myself benefit from a global political economy that harms many, many other people around the world, making me complicit in their suffering.

Challenging marginalized people on their daily experiences is one thing that the non-marginalized do which can itself be oppressive. I respect that that often occurs in an earnest attempt at a give-and-take discussion, where the non-oppressed person is trying to learn more and is honestly questioning what they're hearing because they either haven't experienced those things, or they're practicing good debate methods. But, it also can have the effect of traumatizing the marginalized, because those kinds of discussions can reinforce within marginalized people that their experiences matter less, or are deserving of less responsiveness, than others'.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

You mean posts like these?

I'm pretty sure they're aware of the intent behind the term.

None one these posts insinuate it should be used as a positive, except maybe the last one.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

What causes did you personally require convincing to support? LGBT rights? Equity for women?

Were you apathetic and uneducated about them until someone sat you down and schooled you gently?

I feel like a lot of people turn "SJW" because they get tired of the apathy of the general public and the antipathy toward efforts to educate. Why would people who are fed up actively try to court those who've proven to be uninterested or antagonistic previously?

I think I'm pretty open to supporting causes. (But who knows. Ignorant people aren't consciously aware that they're ignorant right?) But, I live and grew up in a diverse town with all sorts of different people. Moved to the states with my parents and became first generation immigrants, and then came outta the closet. I'm not mentioning these as something to brag about or anything like that. Just that these were things that shook me outta my comfort zone and made me (at least I'd like to think) an open minded person, early on. John Smith in middle America probably had a very different experience. (And I don't mean that in a belittling way.) Reacting to his potential ignorance of LGBT/racial/etc issues with anger robs him of the chance to examine the issue and robs minority groups of a potential ally. It's a slow uphill climb. It won't happen overnight.

This is true, because you can't expect the oppressing group to spontaneously decide to restructure a society that asymmetrically benefits them. But I believe that requiring that the quest for freedom be done through further subjugation (in this case, of the kinds of tactics that are deemed acceptable) is just more domination.

Oh yea I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that further oppression would lead to a better climate or anything like that. I just think that knowing people, as friends, colleagues etc from various minority groups is the biggest contributor to change for the better. And being someone that's constantly angrily going off about "micro aggression" and being "triggered" is gonna further alienate you and frankly turn people off.

 

[Imm0rt4l]

It's really hard to be offended by the word considering the type of people who use the word as an insult. I know it's supposed to be an insult , but it says more about the person who uses it tbh. It's a really annoying term

 

[Crocodile]

Women attempt suicide at the same rate as men. Something tells me toxic masculinity and issues with economic opportunity etc have nothing to do with why more men *succeed* at killing themselves than women. I'm amazed that people that really care about why more men kill themselves than women seem not to know something I found out in about five minutes by reading the results of a CDC study.

Women and minorities have seen many of their issues untouched for years. Now they are starting to see some of those issues addressed and men start yelling out about issues like suicide rates as if the government never did anything to address suicides. If you expect all of your problems to get seen to by the government... then yeah. That's what you're used to from having a government that caters to you. And yeah, it kind of sounds awful from the other side.

Again, there are finite resources. If we're going to focus more resources on issues that disproportionately effect women... they have to come from somewhere.

We won't solve all of these issues. We'll never solve all of the issues. But maybe we can make sure everyone's pile of issues is about the same.

1) If you're trying to argue better gun legislation might close the gender gap and reduce total suicides, I can't say I disagree. I'm not sure why you are adamant in denying that there might be any gender politics at play though. Or that we couldn't purse issues with guns and gender at the same time? Irregardless, I only touched upon suicides because it was the topic at hand. If you want to pick another issue to argue over that's fine I guess.

2) Why are you conflating MRA with actual issues, however few there are, that negatively affect men? I thought we already sought to separate the two and most expressed their disdain for what the MRA movement has come to represent.

3) We are capable of multitasking. We can pass tax laws and healthcare laws and LGBT laws and voting laws and race laws and gender laws all at the same time. There doesn't have to be an overlap between the people advocating for one issue or another nor does there have to be an overlap between those who would legislate for one issue or another. You'd be raising the total number of advocates and legislators dealing with gender issues not bottlenecking a static number of them. Some advocating for custody battle issues is not taking away oxygen or resources for someone arguing for better pay or maternity leave.

4) Gender equality isn't achieved by making everyone's "list" (is there a way to discern objectively how long each list should be and how egregious each point on it is?) is equally shitty. It's about hitting away at all the ways gender roles and stereotypes negatively impact our lives in any way possible. I can't comment on how you feel but the way you speak makes it seem you're more interested in checking off lists and marks than just positive change - any way we can get it. It's weird.

I take it as a badge of honor when someone calls me an SJW. The same way I used to take it as a badge of honor when being accused of cheating in online games.

Again, I don't care so much about why people do things as the effect of them. If you're donating money to a charity just to look good vs because its something you really care about doesn't matter to the charity. If there truly are people who argue and fight for progressive notions just to make themselves look better... if it helps it helps.

The more people coming out against certain backwards, hateful, or bigoted positions, the fewer kids growing up right now will be suckered into learning those same positions.

How you go about things can and do matter. Now to be clear, I'm not trying to tone police. Lords knows people complain of "you can't do or say that if you want people to be on your side" when what they are really trying to say is "I don't want to hear this, shut up!". Lord know a lot of people were complaining about BLM in that matter. Also see MLK's quote about moderates whites and what not. However doing stuff like described in the quote below:

To me, the term describes people who are socially progressive in the understood sense, but push their arguments and point of view in an aggressive and reductive way. I've been hounded and labelled "transphobic" because I wrote on Facebook that the movie Speed Racer was directed by "The Wachowski Brothers", in the context of me literally transcribing the director credits of a few films.

I was told I was denying a trans woman her work, I was told I was transphobic, and I was told that when a trans person tells you that you're transphobic, you just have to be quiet and agree with them, and ask how to be better. In principle I agreed, but in practice I wasn't being transphobic and I was furious at the semi-public flogging I was getting over it.

That, to me, was the work of what could be called "Social Justice Warriors". Verbally bludgeoning someone into deference doesn't teach them a thing.

Despite that incident - shockingly! - I don't now dislike trans people or hate any minorities, and I still consider myself a progressive. I don't support GamerGate, I'm not an MRA, but I have had a bad experience with some "SJW"s. Me saying that doesn't invalidate my position, it doesn't negate all my opinions, we're all just people.

is neither helpful or productive. Saying things like the below with a straight face (extreme example incoming):

is downright DANGEROUS*. Just because you hold progressive views is not a license to push them in ways that are stupid, dangerous or aggressive in a way that doesn't match with the offense.

*Yes that is a real quote by a real person (whose handle I edited out). However, the above person has since apologized and realized the error of their ways. So don't throw shade their way if you find them. They are still an example of something non-zero number of people do though.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

1) If you're trying to argue better gun legislation might close the gender gap and reduce total suicides, I can't say I disagree. I'm not sure why you are adamant in denying that there might be any gender politics at play though. Or that we couldn't purse issues with guns and gender at the same time? Irregardless, I only touched upon suicides because it was the topic at hand. If you want to pick another issue to argue over that's fine I guess.

2) Why are you conflating MRA with actual issues, however few there are, that negatively affect men? I thought we already sought to separate the two and most expressed their disdain for what the MRA movement has come to represent.

3) We are capable of multitasking. We can pass tax laws and healthcare laws and LGBT laws and voting laws and race laws and gender laws all at the same time. There doesn't have to be an overlap between the people advocating for one issue or another nor does there have to be an overlap between those who would legislate for one issue or another. You'd be raising the total number of advocates and legislators dealing with gender issues not bottlenecking a static number of them. Some advocating for custody battle issues is not taking away oxygen or resources for someone arguing for better pay or maternity leave.

4) Gender equality isn't achieved by making everyone's "list" (is there a way to discern objectively how long each list should be and how egregious each point on it is?) is equally shitty. It's about hitting away at all the ways gender roles and stereotypes negatively impact our lives in any way possible. I can't comment on how you feel but the way you speak makes it seem you're more interested in checking off lists and marks than just positive change - any way we can get it. It's weird.



How you go about things can and do matter. Now to be clear, I'm not trying to tone police. Lords knows people complain of "you can't do or say that if you want people to be on your side" when what they are really trying to say is "I don't want to hear this, shut up!". Lord know a lot of people were complaining about BLM in that matter. Also see MLK's quote about moderates whites and what not. However doing stuff like described in the quote below:



is neither helpful or productive. Saying things like the below with a straight face (extreme example incoming):

is downright DANGEROUS*. Just because you hold progressive views is not a license to push them in ways that are stupid, dangerous or aggressive in a way that doesn't match with the offense.

*Yes that is a real quote by a real person (whose handle I edited out). However, the above person has since apologized and realized the error of their ways. So don't throw shade their way if you find them. They are still an example of something non-zero number of people do though.

Holy fucking shit at that quote.

 

[Platy]

It's really hard to be offended by the word considering the type of people who use the word as an insult. I know it's supposed to be an insult , but it says more about the person who uses it tbh. It's a really annoying term

And that ignoring the fact that "Social Justice Warrior" is the most BADASS way of saying you fight for social justice.

Like I know it was meant as an insult .. but DEAR GOD that is the most feel good insult ever made ! Talk about creating the wrong image

 

[GorillaJu]

The word "Problematic" is my personal kryptonite

"Problematic" and "gross" are the two that get to me. I can't explain exactly what bothers me about "gross" so much, maybe it's the idea of someone opting to use a hyperbolic term that implies physical disgust instead of taking the topic at face value and using something like "unjust" which is probably closer to what they actually want to say.

The ubiquity and vagueness of both are the most aggravating part, and it's almost always in relation to identity politics.

 

[CygnusXS]

"Problematic" and "gross" are the two that get to me. I can't explain exactly what bothers me about "gross" so much, maybe it's the idea of someone opting to use a hyperbolic term that implies physical disgust instead of taking the topic at face value and using something like "unjust" which is probably closer to what they actually want to say.

The ubiquity and vagueness of both are the most aggravating part, and it's almost always in relation to identity politics.

You've never felt physically disgusted by someone else's beliefs or actions? I know I have.

 

[GorillaJu]

You've never felt physically disgusted by someone else's beliefs or actions? I know I have.

As I said it's the ubiquity that gets me. It's the go to phrase for so many different grievances in identity politics and doesn't actually have meaning.

Example that doesn't bother me:

"Trump's rhetoric toward minorities makes me sick to my stomach."

Example that drives me nuts:

"Trump's opinions are gross."

 

[Morrigan Stark]

As I said it's the ubiquity that gets me. It's the go to phrase for so many different grievances in identity politics and doesn't actually have meaning.

Example that doesn't bother me:

"Trump's rhetoric toward minorities makes me sick to my stomach."

Example that drives me nuts:

"Trump's opinions are gross."

The two sentences literally mean the same thing. Sounds like the problem is with you, to be honest.

 

[GorillaJu]

The two sentences literally mean the same thing. Sounds like the problem is with you, to be honest.

They don't mean the same thing. One is vague, non-committal and dismissive, the other is descriptive and actually expresses something.

I went with something that has the bare minimum of specificity, even. I don't require a 500 word essay, I just can't take the opinions of anyone seriously who can't reach for anything beyond 'gross.' Same thing with people who dismiss discussion with phrases like 'SJW.'

 

[Grover]

this thead has become gross

 

[MHWilliams]

If you wanna have a "this is how I'm gonna present my stance. Take it or leave it." you certainly can. But don't be crushed of people don't warm up to your cause then.

I argue that in many cases, the discussion has been had by that person and they're no longer interested in real discussion "other side". It's more about making statements that provide a bit of catharsis.

To use examples from another thread we both participated in:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=193365116&postcount=863

This looks so hilariously ridiculous. Shame they cut something eccentric just cause it might ruffle the feathers of potential uptight, humorless players.

Get it together Nintendo. Jesus.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=193368401&highlight=#post193368401

Let's just go all the way and make sure the game will be totally clean and serious. All characters will be covered completely from the neck down. Hair will also be covered. They will also be gender neutral. Hugs, attacks with physical content and touching of any sort between characters will be cut.

There. Respectable RPG.

Anything less than this is equivalent to eating shit apparently and totally compromises the game's and player's dignity.

Your opening remarks are sarcasm and derision, because you occupy one side on the argument and you've had this discussion before. You're making some general assumptions about those who you feel oppose your stance.

Now, if you're more inclined to educate, I'd argue that's not the best place to start. But sometimes, as people we're not inclined to educate. Because education is rather time-consuming, especially when it involves those not in your immediate sphere of influence. There's a number of factors inherent in education: Can you find a solid common ground with the person you're trying to teach? How divergent are their view from yours? How likely are they to listen to your statements? All that's before you get to the backfire effect.

Which is to say, expecting any person to wholly be an educator, to be wholly reasonable , calm, and kind when dealing with biases that affect their daily lives... is not really logical. That's the preference, but sometimes if someone says something poor against me for whatever reason, I may not feel that's a teachable moment. I may just react.

The idea behind the "fuck you, go away" is social stigma. That the person will in turn go an educate themselves. It shifts the burden from the person who was the target (unwitting or otherwise) of the act, to the person who perpetrated the act in the first place. Does that work as an overall solution? No, not really, which is why I tend to present more evidence when I'm making my arguments, but I can't necessarily fault those folks for taking that stance.

Diverging sharply from all that and tackling the assertions in one of your other posts, I find that the argument against "PC" is rather overblown. I find it overblown from comedians: Seinfeld laments PC, but I can find far more provocative comedians doing college shows every week. Are you milequetoast, or a freaking comedian?

Anthony Jeselnik

“I don’t tell dark jokes because I’m a comedian,” Mr. Jeselnik says. “I am a comedian because I tell dark jokes.”

Building on this point, he concedes that he’s messed up in the head (in coarser language): “I can’t help myself.”

Mr. Jeselnik is not as indifferent to his audience as he seems, and he knows the possibility of going too far raises the tension of his jokes, which then result in bigger laughs. When it comes to criticism, he doesn’t play the victim in interviews or defensively cry “Free speech!” like some comics. He understands he’s going to be disliked and uses it. The sociopathic persona is a choice. “You can hate me and still laugh at me,” he says. “That’s how talented I am.”

http://thebaffler.com/blog/shutting

This isn’t a problem, nor is it a crisis. The redefining of “funny” for each generation is a constant of our humor. And it’s not censorship. Local vaudeville theater managers once had the authority to censor and blacklist comics at every level from the 1870s through the 1930s, on the basis of nothing more than purely whimsical local tastes. Movie studios, TV networks, magazine editors, newspaper critics (when they had weight), and even other comedians (see David Letterman versus Bill Hicks)—have all done far more to censor comedy and damage careers than anyone on Twitter or college campuses can today. Comedy has never had more venues, more outlets, more diversity than this moment, right now.

Americans have always told comedians to shut up, and American comedians, to their credit, have rarely done it. They’ve been shut up at times, yes: fired from shows, shouted down, banned from clubs etc. But that’s not what’s happening today. No one banned Seinfeld and Rock from doing campus shows; instead, they opted out, because that’s not their audience anymore. That’s just show business.

Comedy is more often than not a populist business, so why are we surprised when the response it engenders in its audience is equally populist?

I find it overblown on college campuses: People make arguments against such a thing, but ultimately, it's really not as bad or widespread as they purport. When the National Coalition Against Censorship looks at trigger warnings and shrugs at its findings, you're arguing more from an emotional standpoint than a logical one.

While it is difficult to substantiate the idea that there is currently a trigger warning 'crisis' on American campuses, the survey nonetheless indicates deep concern among faculty about where things may be heading. While this survey did not directly address student attitudes, it revealed a good deal about them.

I find it overblown in regards to gaming. Or comics. Or movies.

I find that people jeer at "safe spaces" and then go around creating safe spaces where they cannot be criticized. College students have always been idiots. What's your excuse?

Oh, and "outrage culture" is my annoying term.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

MHWilliams with the goddamn facts!

 

[Kaiterra]

I find that people jeer at "safe spaces" and then go around creating safe spaces where they cannot be criticized.

A1+ post and I especially love this observation.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

They don't mean the same thing. One is vague, non-committal and dismissive, the other is descriptive and actually expresses something.

I went with something that has the bare minimum of specificity, even. I don't require a 500 word essay, I just can't take the opinions of anyone seriously who can't reach for anything beyond 'gross.' Same thing with people who dismiss discussion with phrases like 'SJW.'

Okay, so if the second statement was "Donald Trump's opinions/rhetoric about minorities are gross", would that be acceptable to you? e_e