Quote from: Catelf;799177Oh?
Even if the same person would say "woman up" to women?

My wife's expression is "Put on your Big Girl Panties, and deal with it!"

The reason I don't associate as a Feminist is the same reason 80% of Americans do not; at best, the current institution serves only it's own ideological purity, and at worst, it's a flagrant Hate Movement (yes, #KillAllMen is a hate movement, sorry to disappoint). Like 89% of Americans I believe in the equality of the sexes.

I'm also more than willing to have a discussion (even an argument) about some of the worst areas where sexism still creates a disparity. I'll be more than happy to question why so few women follow a career in STEM fields, just as I'll happily ask why so many women expect a man to pay for dinner, on a date.

Quote from: Snowman0147;799223

Quote from: Ladybird;799209We've got a stage where some people have bought into this "SJW's are destroying fun" delusion that they confuse basic human decency for being part of a global conspiracy.

Social justice warriors been demanding human decency, but had treated others less than human.  The lack of human decency started off with them when they decided to be hypocrites.

I don't think SJW's ask for common human decency; moderates ask for common human decency. The definition of a SJW is asking for special privileges, to combat the special privileges they see in another group.

Hence why they can make assertions like "Sexism cannot happen to men." (ironically, an incredibly sexist remark in itself).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799232I have long held, and often expressed, my absolute disgust in the hypocrisy of the vocal SJW movement.  Back with Grim, then again with Pundit/Zak, and again here.  They seem to be more than willing to engage in the exact same behavior that they supposedly are so much against.

Ergo, the divergence between SJWs and basic human decency: If you hate something, don't do it too.
JG

Quote from: Novastar;799233My wife's expression is "Put on your Big Girl Panties, and deal with it!"

The reason I don't associate as a Feminist is the same reason 80% of Americans do not; at best, the current institution serves only it's own ideological purity, and at worst, it's a flagrant Hate Movement (yes, #KillAllMen is a hate movement, sorry to disappoint). Like 89% of Americans I believe in the equality of the sexes.

I'm also more than willing to have a discussion (even an argument) about some of the worst areas where sexism still creates a disparity. I'll be more than happy to question why so few women follow a career in STEM fields, just as I'll happily ask why so many women expect a man to pay for dinner, on a date.

I'm pro-feminist, but i'm not a feminist.
The reason is that I think feminism is needed as a counterweight, or as a crowbar, to give the necessary leverage needed to produce gender equality.
For this reason, I can accept some extremes, but not too much.

I live in Sweden, we are more used to lefties here, and people in general is more .... (ahem) moderate (in Sweden we have a right-wing party that calls themselves "the Moderates" which messes up the concepts a bit).
We are also more left in general than people in the US.

So, the feminism here is in general also more able to discuss matters, and more reasonable.

Of course something called "Kill all men" is a hate movement and misandrist to an extreme degree, even most feminists in Sweden would see it that way.
No, I dare say most Feminists in general would see it that way.
However, it seems feminism suffers from the same problem as all political movements:
Extremists that over-interpret and overreacts, and shout the loudest.
It is possible that SJW's suffer from the same thing, but as I hadn't heard of those before the Sarkeesian-thing, and then only barely before the GamerGate started, I have no real idea.

I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative, but I first encountered it on this site in relation to the RPGnet tangency clique. I do think that Pundit's "pseudo-activists" moniker fits better, mainly because it doesn't rely on sarcasm to get across its point. Before GG, there were 2 entrenched communities of this brand of "marxist post-feminism" I encountered: the aforementioned Big Purple, and the Gail Simone message boards. Both groups had similar messages and tactics and had staked out one particular geek hobby to focus their attention on.

I don't think any of these groups existed until after "geek chic" became a thing in popular culture. Make of that what you will. In regards to the Simone board, I amusingly identified a majority of their more vocal supporters as a group of formerly hardcore Objectivists (Ayn Randians) that frequented the Byrne Robotics mb in the early aughts.

Quote from: Catelf;799311The reason is that I think feminism is needed as a counterweight, or as a crowbar, to give the necessary leverage needed to produce gender equality.

The problem with that, is rightly or wrongly, you create a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of politics.

e.g. A scholarship sends 10 people to University, based upon exceptional merit. Suddenly, they decree they will use at least one of those spots to send a person to University. But what if there is no qualified candidates, who meet both the merit requirements AND the requirement? Do you not send you de jour to University, awarding by merit as previously, or do you select the 'best possible candidate' from , even if they would not normally meet the merit requirements?

It's one of the most common criticisms of Affirmative Action in the US, and one of the reasons it's a fairly rare policy in professional careers.

QuoteWe are also more left in general than people in the US.

I'm a conservative, and even I have enough awareness to point out the only nations more conservative than the US tend to be Islamic monarchies/theocracies.

QuoteOf course something called "Kill all men" is a hate movement and misandrist to an extreme degree, even most feminists in Sweden would see it that way.
No, I dare say most Feminists in general would see it that way.

I daresay there was a lot more favoriting of #KillAllMen, than the entire sum of misogynistic threats generated in the 3 months of #GamerGate.

QuoteHowever, it seems feminism suffers from the same problem as all political movements:
Extremists that over-interpret and overreacts, and shout the loudest.
It is possible that SJW's suffer from the same thing, but as I hadn't heard of those before the Sarkeesian-thing, and then only barely before the GamerGate started, I have no real idea.

I would normally give that benefit of the doubt, but after 3 months of GamerGate, I'm just not sure I can believe that religious fervor hasn't taken hold (I can argue matters of reason with a person; there is no point to argue a matter of faith, by it's very definition).

Quote from: TristramEvans;799324I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative...

I've personally preferred "Social Justice Profiteer" myself. The major players of anti-GG are profiting nicely off the current system, so I can see reform threatening their pay check.

Quote from: Spike;799138I think the corruption in Journalism angle is way oversold. A huge part of it has to do with the newest attacks on the persons of gamers and the games they play.

Gamer is a pejorative to a lot of people, and having all this pressure being applied to them: This time from the left instead of the Right, has caused the designated out-group to close ranks and defend themselves... again.

Make no mistake: The calls from the Zoe Quinns and the Anita Sarkeesians are not merely to make gaming somehow more inclusive to women (how much money has Bejeweled made? Anyone?), but essentially to fundamentally end games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto for being thoughtcrimes, ending the hobby that nearly literally is the only thing the social outcasts have to give their lives simple enjoyment.

Once more the enlightened elite wish to impose top down controls on the market. You shall not make games the people wish to buy, instead you shall make games that are deemed 'inoffensive'.

Thank you.

Yes, GG is about journalistic ethics. The fact the gaming press has always had problems with that is irrelevant; as Novastar stated, the current climate within the hobby is such that those who are concerned about the issue are finally able to do something about it with a reasonable expectation of significant results.

That said, It's also a push back against feminist ideologues trying to co-opt and politicize our hobby in order to reshape it to their liking, and the fact it's generating such a strong push back is directly rooted in their having already done so in so many other areas of society. Hobby gaming, be it video, tabletop or otherwise, is one of the few remaining areas of western culture in which people don't reflexively feel the need to walk on egg shells lest they unwittingly run afoul of the paper-thin skin of some self-righteous harpy with a persecution complex and an ideological axe to grind.

I know quite a few people who feel like they're living in Martin Niemöller's famous poem. Somewhat melodramatic, perhaps, but more or less accurate. "First they came for the board room... and now we're planting our fucking flags and saying enough is fucking enough. We're speaking up, we're fighting back and we're playing to fucking win."

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;798792I guess I'll just keep following my survival guidelines outside of this website:
- Never discuss gender issues
- Leave the space when gender issues that could become heated enter
- Never say anything about a woman's appearance, positive or negative
- Do not be seen publicly interacting with material where attractive female forms are too prominently featured

Rephrase this to put it in the context of a gay man having written it. See the naked bigotry at work yet?

I'm not accusing you of bigotry, of course; that would be all kinds of out of line. Simply making the point.

Quote from: Novastar;799333The problem with that, is rightly or wrongly, you create a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of politics.

Yeah, that's much worse than a system that discriminates against merit, in favor of privilege.

The best thing about GG and things like it is that it's a sign of how much progress has been made, that folks are realizing that their comfortable privilege is ending and they are freaking out about it.


And I'll point out that I'm a man who manages to have friendly conversations with all sorts of people without making them go 'wtf!' and cringe away. It doesn't take some hysterical I MUST NOT SAY card that I must refer to during all interactions lest my parole officer get wind.

Though, admittedly, I don't bring up women's appearances or carry prominent pictures of scantily clad women because that's demented.
I find if a man or woman wants my opinion on their appearance, they'll ask.

Though if the conversation goes an appropriate way, you never know. Cool tattoos, glasses, and so on? Sure.
In the right crowd, you CAN talk about women's breasts with them. It's just not really an ice breaker.

Quote from: The Ent;799167Bullshit.

Ah... such eloquence. I shall, of course, pretend that this is, in fact, a reasoned and cogent argument and respond in kind.

Yes, I suppose it is possible that Sacrosanct is not merely loudly proclaiming what a right-thinking person he is, with the correct beliefs out of fear that if he doesn't someone might accuse him of wrong-think.

The alternatives that present themselves are few, of course:

Sacrosanct sees himself as Leading the Mob of Inquisitors on their latest witch-hunt, thinking, as all such men do* that it will not eat him in turn.

Sacrosanct is a true believer, a drinker of the coolaide, who has no fear of the mob because it has never turned on him, yet.  This hardly invalidates my observation that he is a willing participant in the auto da fe, of course. They usually are believers.

One supposes that Sacrosanct might, in fact, not be terribly interested in Feminism and SJW activities at all, but merely leapt with a somewhat old fashioned chauvanistic chivalry to the defense of those poor hapless women who were being, in his mind, slighted by having their beauty, or lack, commented upon.


The last option, simply put, is that I was right, but since you are standing next to him in the crowd jeering at those heretics who have already been pulled forth for purging, you cannot allow yourself to see. In which case your response will be along the lines of 'there is no auto da fe, no inquisition... only evil heretics and witches being called to account by 'public decency' '

But, sadly, your belief is not required. The world does not order itself according to how you wish it to be.




* Robespierre, anyone?

Quote from: TristramEvans;799324I've no idea who coined the phrase SJW as a pejorative,

I can't answer that question directly, but the term 'Social Justice' has been in use for quite some time, well over a hundred years, and is always linked to this sort of utopian-puritanism that we see in the SJW crowd.  The current crop are far more obnoxious and removed from reality than its past adherents, but frankly I've always found Utopians to be blinkered fools.

The term "Social Justice" remains quite popular for PR reasons. We all like Justice and fairness right? So who could object to Justice in the social realms?

The problem is that Social Justice is no Justice at all.  

Example: Peter slaps Mary. Social Justice demands that Paul is punished for Peter's crime, either alongside Peter, or if he escapes justice, in his place.

Peter, of course, is innocent. That is no justice at all.

Too often Social Justice is about blind Retribution, lashing out at all perceived and potential oppressors without assigning any merit.

What makes the current crop especially obnoxious is how very pathetic and trivial their complaints are.  A woman in New York was oppressed by a shirt being worn by a british man in Northern Europe*, and the entire world had to recognize her complaint as valid.

Of course, there is also the rampant hypocrisy. A loud shirt is offensive and oppressive, but clitoridectomies performed with no anesthesia? Why that's a valid expression of a vibrant culture! Burkas are empowering!  

Or for more fun the Requires Hate/Benjanun Sriduangkaew scandal, where all manner of shaming tactics that the SJWs love to employ were perfectly fine until they found themselves being targetted by them. Or the frequent complaints about Doxxing, when in most SJW related incidents, its the SJWs doxxing their opponents... often while loudly proclaiming their victims were teh doxxers. The list goes on, for tedious lengths.





*Several minutes of googling did not tell me where Dr Taylor works or was interviewed, but the ESA operates out of the Netherlands and Germany, primarily. Since this isn't an academic thesis, I feel that's accurate enough.

Quote from: Novastar;799333I'm a conservative, and even I have enough awareness to point out the only nations more conservative than the US tend to be Islamic monarchies/theocracies.

I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.

Particularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.

Like, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.

Quote from: Spike;799351Ah... such eloquence. I shall, of course, pretend that this is, in fact, a reasoned and cogent argument and respond in kind.

Yes, I suppose it is possible that Sacrosanct is not merely loudly proclaiming what a right-thinking person he is, with the correct beliefs out of fear that if he doesn't someone might accuse him of wrong-think.

The alternatives that present themselves are few, of course:

Sacrosanct sees himself as Leading the Mob of Inquisitors on their latest witch-hunt, thinking, as all such men do* that it will not eat him in turn.

Sacrosanct is a true believer, a drinker of the coolaide, who has no fear of the mob because it has never turned on him, yet.  This hardly invalidates my observation that he is a willing participant in the auto da fe, of course. They usually are believers.

One supposes that Sacrosanct might, in fact, not be terribly interested in Feminism and SJW activities at all, but merely leapt with a somewhat old fashioned chauvanistic chivalry to the defense of those poor hapless women who were being, in his mind, slighted by having their beauty, or lack, commented upon.


The last option, simply put, is that I was right, but since you are standing next to him in the crowd jeering at those heretics who have already been pulled forth for purging, you cannot allow yourself to see. In which case your response will be along the lines of 'there is no auto da fe, no inquisition... only evil heretics and witches being called to account by 'public decency' '

But, sadly, your belief is not required. The world does not order itself according to how you wish it to be.




* Robespierre, anyone?

hate to break it to you, but you're not nearly as clever or as smart as you think you are.  The most probable, and accurate, is one where a regular person can call out his stupid post objectifying women for exactly that without either being some part of some SJW conspiracy or fear from SJW.  Seriously, as much as I've expressed my disdain for them, you think I'm afraid?  Get real.  Maybe instead of attacking me, you shift focus on the guy who objectified women.  You know, the actual behavior that is unacceptable and proves them right?

the question then becomes, "what are you afraid of?"

protip: if you're tired of anti GG folks focusing on sexism and misogyny instead of journalistic integrity, STOP turning a blind eye and/or accepting and/or tacitly approving of sexism/misogyny in your ranks.  Just a thought...

Quote from: Will;799360I've always found it odd how anti-Islam conservatives are and pro-Israel, given radical Islam is WAY more consistent with conservative policies than Israel is.

I am constantly shocked at how anti-Israel Liberals are, and pro-Islam given how Israel is way more consistent with Liberal policies than Islam is.

QuoteParticularly given conservatives really worked hard to install radical Islam so they could push out socialist-leaning moderates.

Da fuq?  Wahabism has its roots in Saudi Arabia more than a century ago, and the general movement of Radical Islam is old enough to have assassinated the fifth Caliph within a generation of Muhammed's death. The only 'Socialist Leaning Moderate' in the middle east pushed out by conservatives was?  I mean: Offically the Baath Party was socialist, but Saddam Hussein was definitely not a moderate... or really even a socialist. Afghanistan was a failed state without any governance since the communist Afghans called in the Soviet Army to help them after they overthrew the not terribly socialist monarchy. Iran? The Shah was a socialist moderate?  If the US was responsible for those particular radicals, well: Carter was President. Not a conservative.

So where does that leave us: Syria, Egypt, Libya? All under a profoundly liberal president.

So... what stable middle eastern country did Conservatives deliberately install radical Islam into in order to replace a moderate socialist?

QuoteLike, the whole 'Obama is a secret Muslim!' when he supports policies the Muslims being referenced hate.

You're behind the times. Pretty much everyone who hasn't drunk the kool aid has pretty much come to notice that Obama is pretty much a narcissist, though clearly one who has a great opinion of Islam... possibly because he grew up in Indonesia, with a Muslim stepfather.

If you want the current 'conspiracy theory', I do believe it is that Obama is secretly gay, which explains why he spends so much time with Reggie Love, wears mom-jeans and rides girl's bicycles.  Of course: that beggers the question: Why secretly? I mean: In addition to being the first (second? Bill was deeply hurt to lose his status so quickly, and I sorta feel sorry for him...) black president, he could also be the first Gay president. Given that every member of the LBTQWTFBBQ coalition has more rights than straights now, and more social cachet, why wouldn't he?

Re: liberals and Israel.

Good question. Possibly folks just generally hate on Israel and conservatives nowadays find them politically expedient allies. Yeah, Israel has its war Hawks, but compared to the rest of the region? Smacks of antisemitism to me (obviously not entirely, as you have a number of Jewish critics)

As for the rest, I'm not sure how OT the mods will put up with me on, but I'll poke at it tomorrow when I can.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;799362hate to break it to you, but you're not nearly as clever or as smart as you think you are.  The most probable, and accurate, is one where a regular person can call out his stupid post objectifying women for exactly that without either being some part of some SJW conspiracy or fear from SJW.  Seriously, as much as I've expressed my disdain for them, you think I'm afraid?  Get real.  Maybe instead of attacking me, you shift focus on the guy who objectified women.  You know, the actual behavior that is unacceptable and proves them right?

I'm never as smart as I think I am. I'm used to it.  

That's okay, though, since you either fail at reading comprehension, or you simply refuse to acknowledge that I might have a point.   I never attacked you. I simply pointed out that your behavior is similar to what Shipyard Locked claimed, only without the self reflection SL showed.

But I have no hope of actually getting through to you, since you and I are fundamentally not speaking the same language.  Rendering judgements about someone's looks is not objectifying them.  Nor is it particularly unacceptable to normal people, and there is nothing wrong with that.

In small words: normal people, all normal people, judge others on their looks, all the time. If someone looks good, then people attracted to those looks will express perfectly normal sexual interest in them, and this is both natural and good... since it is a foundational cornerstone to perpetuation of the human species.  There is nothing particularly noble or good about pretending that you think ugly people aren't ugly or unattractive, or pretending you are attracted to people you don't actually find attractive.  At best, in a face to face conversation with the person in question it is merely polite.  

Quotethe question then becomes, "what are you afraid of?"

Given that I almost ate a bullet in the last year? Not a damn thing. Why?

Quoteprotip: if you're tired of anti GG folks focusing on sexism and misogyny instead of journalistic integrity, STOP turning a blind eye and/or accepting and/or tacitly approving of sexism/misogyny in your ranks.  Just a thought...

Protip: Starting any piece of advice with the word 'protip' automatically signals that what you are about to say is not, in fact, advice in any meaningful sense of the word.  

Now, a more on point rebuttal:  I am not tired. I pointed out earlier that it is a knife with a dull blade, overused. In fact I encourage the anti-gg crowd to keep shouting, as loudly and shrilly as possible, about what victims they are, because the unaligned hear that shit and tune them right the fuck out.

Second: I pointed out earlier that the Journalistic Integrity is a secondary concern at best.  The nature of the corruption, to whit: That they are essentially siding against Gamers with the SJW crowd, is relevant. The real battleground is the attempts to destroy the male half of gaming (that is: Games like Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, among others) as if there was no room for games like Candy Crush or Bejeweled (the preferred games of women. And no: This is not to say that either 'type' of gaming is locked against the 'opposed' gender, don't be a tool.) can't be sold while CoD is on the market.  The dishonest tactics being employed by, say, Anita Sarkeesian earn her the focus of the GG crowd, not her tits.

Third: No blind eyes, in fact the Gamer Gate crowd have long since organized internal policing groups to marginalize or silence people who post those kinds of things supposedly under the aegis of GG. Not that you care about that, since you still think its a valid reason to discredit Gamer Gate...

Fourth: I personally don't care about the so called rampant misogyny or sexism, since both of those terms have been so redefined over the years to more or less mean 'Stuff any random woman decides she doesn't like', which is essentially a value-neutral statement.  Actual misogyny? Sure, I'll stand against that.  Pro-tip: Most men, even socially outcast men who retreat into video games really like women. That's why they want to fuck them.  As for Sexism: The word was coined entirely by movement Feminists in 1965. I hold it about as valid as Andrea Dworkin's opinion on Incest.* The word literally exists only to drive a wedge between men and women, and curiously enough it appears that only women can be victims of it. Madeup word is madeup.


Just a thought...


*Pro, in case you haven't bothered to read her books.

Quote from: Will;799364Re: liberals and Israel.

Good question. Possibly folks just generally hate on Israel and conservatives nowadays find them politically expedient allies. Yeah, Israel has its war Hawks, but compared to the rest of the region? Smacks of antisemitism to me (obviously not entirely, as you have a number of Jewish critics)

As for the rest, I'm not sure how OT the mods will put up with me on, but I'll poke at it tomorrow when I can.

In case you missed it, Will: I was satirizing your 'out there' characterization of conservatives having a lot in common with Muslims.  It works as satire as most of the similarities you presumably see are based on failing to understand, or want to understand, anything resembling conservative positions, while the similarities I mentioned are based on what we are told are liberal values. You know: Tolerance for others, multiculturalism and so forth. They hang gays in Iran, but Israel is pro gay. The liberal stance on gays is that they are people too... just like in Israel. Weirdly, most political conservatives (to include the religious/social conservatives that get all the press...) don't advocate hanging gays.

Then on inclusiveness: the Knesset has twelve arab members, palestinians can and are full citizens of Israel with no caveats. Not all Palestinians, of course, else we wouldn't be talking about Gaza and the West Bank.

Meanwhile, in the arab parts of the middle east, ancient christian communities are being wiped out, as are ancient jewish communities. Gone, finito. Its not all ISIS either, they're relative latecomers to the purging of the Ummah.


I will certainly entertain whatever research you care to deliver, but I do feel obligated to point out that your inability to answer the question directly means that it was entirely an unfounded allegation, an ass pull based on your beliefs.  Luckily, I have surrendered my title as 'point scorer of internet debates', as of my last Sig change some time back, so...  


... hmm... I guess that means I'm reduced to childish displays of shouting  'burn!' and patting myself on teh back until I sprain something. Not terribly dignified, I suppose.   Well, since I do pride myself on my dignity (not really, but run with me here...), I shall have to do all that whilst holding my pinky finger out, just so, and with a nice British Accent. Maybe some spats.