How does it not? I am explicitly bringing to the floor that bickering over the tiniest visage of offence or lack thereof is not real Social Justice.

It is not Social Injustice to be born Caucasian, Male, or into a Christian Family. . .

What is tiny and insignificant to you actually is a big deal to those who care about such things.

I still don't see any firm distinction in either your posts or the comic you sited between 'advocates' and 'warriors', so I can't tell if I disagree with your position on social justice.

In general I support social justice (though there may be things some consider social justice that I consider its opposite). Where I draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable activism is that acceptable activism doesn't silence its opponents or label them with terms they would not apply to themselves.

But since all rules have exceptions (except this rule), there are places where I don't support the right of some groups to label themselves. Criminals come to mind, in that I don't think they have the right to invent politically correct language for their crimes. I wouldn't support burglars calling themselves 'property liberators', and I don't support illegal immigrants calling themselves 'undocumented'. I also don't support the right of groups to label themselves in such as way as to implicitly deride their complements (c.f. 'brights').

On the 'silence their opponents' front, I prefer minimal (but not non-existent) restrictions on free speech. Speech which threatens a crime on someone or incites others to prevent a crime is unacceptable. Yes, I'd have a hard time coming up with an exact definition of 'incitement', in case you're wondering.

I'd like to see similar statements from you as to what general principles you use to draw the line between 'advocates' and 'warriors'.

Fair enough. This is actually just a little bit relevant to the Zoe Quinn incidents which have become discussed in gaming forums across the internet. She has people's websites shut down, and if I heard right, sleeps around with journalists and reporters so they can use their skills to silence people who oppose her sexually manipulating people in order to get her games sold. . .

She also employs hackers to shut down forums, and complains to people across the internet for being sexually harassed, and for sexism against her whenever they call her out on her unethical behaviour. That's a "Social Justice Warrior". ((Apostrophes included this time)).

Or at least, that is what is being said about Zoe Quinn.

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 15):

I don't have any idea who Zoe Quinn is, but if you're objecting to her methods, surely her message doesn't matter?  If you don't think the same thing can be said of people who hold an opposing viewpoint, isn't that hypocritical?

"Often?" I don't think it's very useful to make sweeping, probabilistic statements about social justice issues. If you've got a specific set of so-called "social injustices" that you view as invalid, then that's something we can discuss. Otherwise, there's really no point.



As a white, male, heterosexual, I really haven't experienced that myself, and I really don't know any other liberals personally that would act in the way you've described, but your point seems less to be a philosophical one and more a personal rant. You keep using the word "often," but I don't know what you're trying to get at with that. Are you trying to castigate all advocates of social justice for the unrepresentative actions of an extremist sect? The majority of Americans are moderates, whether one checks off the name next to a (D) or an (R) at the ballot box. While extremists are more vocal and more alarming (hence the "extremism") than moderates, it's rather unproductive to smear all advocates of a certain philosophy/belief/stance with the ill behavior of their extremist colleagues; what's really needed is an honest, philosophical discussion about the issues at hand, and the differences between groups.



Sure, Christianity absolutely isn't the only religion with a dark past. So what? Does that mean that one shouldn't examine the historical sins of the religion? Or of any other religion, nation, or race, for that matter? I wouldn't argue that we should hold people accountable for the sins of their fathers (e.g., obviously modern whites are not responsible for colonial-era slavery), but I still see these events as historically relevant as they pertain to modern-day issues (e.g., African Americans are more impoverished than whites in America today, and a historical understanding helps us understand that this isn't because "white are biologically superior" or some other such nonsense; history can provide context for modern problems). I'm sorry if you've been persecuted by "some" people that "often" take these otherwise meaningful points and twist them into justifications for blaming the sons of 2014 for the crimes of 1619, but please don't use this as a spring-board to proclaim that "'Social injustices' often aren't Social Injustices at all."

@PeaceLoveScience. . .

you presume much if you think that I'm just pretending like all social injustices are an imagination. . .

In reply to Kathulos (msg # 18):

I don't believe that I accused you of that. Rather, I used your own words in describing your opinion: "'Social injustices' often aren't Social Injustices at all." So, as I asked in my aforementioned post, do you have any social justices in mind that you'd like to discuss as being invalid? I think we could have a much more productive conversation that way. (:

Well okay.

So, here's one idea. Maybe more women than ever would like to become an occupation in certain areas of life. . . but think, that, just for a moment, that some women just want traditional roles in life. Stay, home, take care of children, take care of the House, etcetera. (House Wife). . .

Sometimes House Wives are seen as victimized "by the Patriarchy". If they WANT to be stay at home Mothers. If they don't want to work away from their homes they shouldn't really have to.

It's not a social injustice that a Woman wants a traditional role to play in life. It's "normal". It's normal to them because it's what they want, and it's often said that when someone wants to do their job they do it more effectively.

Then there's this strange idea that Homosexuality must be forced down some Church'es throats to accept. A few somewhat isolated cases of this are happening at the moment. If you would lay aside the Civil Right's side of the argument for a moment, a Church is something that the Government should not have control over.

If Homosexuality is indeed a Civil Right, then a Ship's Captain, a Justice of the Peace, etcetera, can do their ceremony, or they can look for a Church that will do it.

"Normal" is a highly relative term.  I could argue that a stay at home spouse is highly abnormal, simply by citing the fact that most households are now two-income.  It's also a red herring, because you're using "normal" for a stand-in for "acceptable"; do you have any citations of people saying staying at home isn't acceptable?

Same for your homosexuality line.  That sounds like a reaction to a straw man to me.  Do you have any cases you can show us?

I think most people in this thread are just over-analyzing things.

Or perhaps you're not analyzing things enough? ;)

Kathulous, would you consider yourself a "social justice warrior?"  Would you consider people offending you on the internet to be a "social injustice?"  Does raising this topic turn you into what you're describing?  It sort of sounds like you're saying "I'm speaking out against people on the internet who offend me...because they speak out on the internet about things that offend them!"

You complain about people viewing themselves as victims...then portray yourself as the victim of their complaints.  You seem to feel "hey, nobody's perfect!" should prevent people from pointing out flaws in groups you like, but then point out flaws in groups you don't like.  You seem to dislike people "presuming" that you don't think there are any real social injustices, but at the same times seem to presume quite a bit about those you disagree with (e.g., that they hate white males, that they want to force women never to stay at home, etc.).

And when you say stuff like "you're all just over analyzing this," or "if you disagree with me, you're thinking too much!" it creates the impression (in me at least) that you maybe haven't given much thought to what you're saying.  You know you don't like the people you call "social justice warriors" (though it's not 100% clear to me if these are real people, or just a caricature), but it seems to me like you haven't given a ton of thought to why you don't like them.

Perhaps you'll get more traction if you attack some specific ideas you disagree with, rather than the group that holds them?  Instead of complaining about "social justice warriors," perhaps it'd be more fruitful to look at a specific position they've taken, and critique it?  Instead of "some people somewhere on the internet think X and that's crazy talk," it might be more productive to link to their actual words, so we can see what they actually think/believe.  Then you can tell us what you disagree about in their words, and how you think we should react to them.  I think that'd help us all have a better idea of just what we're all talking about.  Because right now people can't really tell the difference between what you call a "social justice warrior" and a social justice advocate, except that you mock the former but respect the latter.  It might also firm up in your own mind what it is you disagree with, rather than just knowing that you don't like those people you mock.

I'm not going to address your points as the straw feminist that you've portrayed, but rather from my own, feminist perspective. If a woman (or a man, for that matter) simply wants to be a stay-at-home parent, then I wouldn't classify that as a instance of victimization by the so-called "patriarchy." Rather, it's when a woman can only conceive of being a child-bearer (or in which a person can only conceive of women in that fashion) that I might have some qualms, and thus feel the need to point out that a woman is capable of more than childbearing and rearing-- but that's as far as one should go. The act of raising a child as a stay-at-home parent is not in itself evidence of victimization. Rather, it is when women are forced by their husbands to do so, or feel that they are incapable of doing anything else, or when businesses discriminate against hiring women as a consequence of this notion, that a woman becomes a victim by virtue of her sex. I can't say that I personally see this around today, or hear it from female colleagues when discussing the topic, but there was indeed a time when nothing more was expected/allowed of a woman (see: most of American history).

The expectation of a woman to be a stay-at-home parent isn't necessarily resultant of a particular desire to do so. I completely agree with you that if a woman doesn't want to work outside of the home then she shouldn't have to. I have absolutely no problem with that. The only feminist critique that I would raise would be in the event that a woman feels a societal need to do so, as if this is the only role that a woman could ever have, or is forced to do so (which, today, is much less of a problem; women can no longer be fired for simply becoming pregnant or getting married, women are actually allowed to hold most of the same jobs that are open to men [excluding negligible, sex-related exceptions], and there are protections in place against other forms of discrimination in the workplace).



Now, to put on my atheist hat. Having spoken to many homosexual colleagues and friends about this topic, I can offer you my personal perspective. I do not know any homosexuals that would advocate for "forcing" a church to change their beliefs and marry them. The entire "gay marriage" issue is about the right to be legally married, not to be married in a church under one's religion of choice. Of course, this doesn't mean that homosexuals true to their faiths shouldn't strive for reform within their respective religions, but I've never met a homosexual that actually advocated for making said reform a governmental matter rather than a canonical one. Churches are free to practice what they deem appropriate, and should be allowed to do so. The beautiful thing about marriage is that a church needn't be at all involved. While I'm sure that many Catholic, homosexual couples may want to be wed in a stained-glass building with family and friends lining the pews (for example), that simply isn't what the "gay marriage" issue is about. The intention is to make legal (and state/federally recognized) marriage between two men or two women; to make marriage a civil right afforded to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, that's all.

Don't take this as in insult, but it seems to me like your perspective on social justice is one that's limited to the ranting of liberal keyboard warriors over the interwebs, rather than formed from speaking with progressive-minded friends and family. I only say so to encourage you to speak with colleagues and the like about these issues if you really want to learn about social justice issues (and I applaud you for coming here and making an attempt at doing that), rather than construct a liberal strawman made from the emotional extremism of the blogosphere. I can't speak for everyone, but your claims about "social justice warriors" do not resonate with me or any of the other progressively minded people in my life.

@Tycho: Wonderfully said. :)

I have heard some people denigrate stay-at-home moms for their choices, as though they're somehow 'betraying' feminism for that choice. I wouldn't say it's a majority opinion, but I also know more stay-at-home dads than stay-at-home moms, so my circles just don't have a ton of exposure to it that might prompt comments either way.

I'd say you'll find more confrontation on the topic of having kids (either refusing to have kids, or a willingness to have more than three).

In reply to katisara (msg # 25):

I would say there's an important difference between disagreeing with a decision someone has made, and thinking they don't have the right to make the decision.  Kathulous' comment talked about people thinking women should "have to" work rather than be stay-at-home moms, which is a bit different than thinking that women should work.

Disagreeing with people's choices, and trying to convince them to make other choices is just part of living in a free society.  Trying to take away their choice is quite different.

Similarly for his comments about gay marriage.  It's one thing for a church member to push for their church to change, and it's another get the government to force them to change.  As PLS said, most gay-marriage supporters aren't pushing to have the government make churches change their doctrines.

It might help clarify things if Kathulous is talking about people who are expressing an opinion about other's choices, and trying to make change that way, OR if he's talking about people who are trying to use the government to take away the choice.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:33, Mon 08 Sept 2014.

I tend to agree with Tycho.  I was a stay at home dad for a while; while some people expressed their disapproval, I never saw anything past that.  Usually, it was because they didn't understand why I made that choice.  In the same vein, while I do hear people voicing their disaaproval over the stay at home moms I know, it's never anything more than that.  It's on par with disapproving of someone's shoes.

As for the gay marriage thing, that sounds more like a Koch Bros. Scare tactic.  Without a specific example, it's hard to discuss.

Kathulos, no offense, but you seem to want people to read that rant, nod their heads, and share their similar experiences.  Unfortunately, a lot of "Yeah, that's how it is" posts doesn't make for good discussions.  Your thesis wasn't very strong, and when you reply with: "You're overanalyzing things", it makes it sound like we're just supposed to laugh and agree, as opposed to exchange opposing views.

I will address your humor point, though.  Not everyone finds the same stuff to be funny.  If someone on the internet were to make fun of you in a hurtful manner, would saying: "Lighten up, it was only a joke!"make it ok?  Using humor as a cover for hurting people isn't ok, and by saying it was a joke, you imply that being hurt or offended is their fault.

If you want a good example of the interaction between "SJWs" and "Social Justice", as well as the ostensible difference between the two, I would recommend looking into the Gamergate controversy.  Read what the media is saying, read what people in the movement are saying, see what outsiders are saying about it. (By outsiders I mean the conservative press who views GamerGate as a Leftist civil war, and the people looking at it simply from a Business/Marketing/PR perspective).

Regardless of the impression you take away from it, it's a good opportunity to understand what people who have a problem with it are talking about.

For the most part when most people think "Social Justice", things like Civil Rights Movements come to mind.  But a lot of people referring to Social Justice negatively are probably thinking of this sort of thing:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F_4X...sdX1qagc5do1_500.jpg

I count myself as one of those people, despite being a Lefty Liberal Socialist Commie Egalitarian :P
-------------

Here are some articles to get you started, arranged in chronological order.

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...long-live-the-gamer/

http://www.slate.com/articles/...e_over_but_they.html

http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/19/adios-gamergate/

http://gawker.com/how-we-got-r...-gamergat-1649496579

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1...31/gamergate-is-dead
------

You may wish to do a bit of further investigation yourself, since I have given mostly the opposition's side of the situation, and their reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated ;)
This message was lightly edited by the GM at 19:58, Fri 31 Oct 2014.

I haven't had a chance to look into it too deeply, but there are some facts that seem very clear.  First of all, "social justice warriors" is largely a myth.  Unlike gamergate, there is no large organized movement that even resembles what they describe.  Really, it's just a buzzword that they use so they dont have to actually face evidence and facts.

Second of all, even among the most rabid feminists I know, none of them would ever go past online name-calling to make a point.  Gamergate kids have not only issued rape threats, but death threats, exposed people personal information, and harassed them online.  Felicia Day was doxxed by one of them, just for speaking out.

So, there is a huge difference between the two: the gamergaters, who are more than willing to take things well past any sense of proportion; and the social justice people, who are speaking out strongly, but not actually doing anything harmful to the other side.  That right there is enough to show you which side is "right", the side that is acting properly, and not using underhanded terror tactics.

You've left out another side in this conflict, the the trolls and the dramamongers, which have been proven (often by their own testimony, due to the nature of high-profile trolls) to be behind the majority and the most egregious of the death threats and harassment on both sides.

(and it does happen to both sides).

https://twitter.com/Nero/status/513666683916255232
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1NZrhGCIAAlsKi.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0RGxEvCYAAh3xY.jpg
http://33.media.tumblr.com/076...gW1tkhroeo1_1280.png
http://i.imgur.com/E1xxidy.gif
http://gamergateharassment.tum...m/image/100419839286
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0Aj_TOCIAEu7Bc.jpg

Official trolling organizations have been harassing both parties under varying flags trying to keep the drama going, organizations like the GNAA:

http://theralphretort.com/gnaa...-gamergate-sabotage/

Mateus Prado Sousa, a click-bait journalist from Brazil, is highly likely to be behind the death threats and violent comments issued to several high-profile women against GamerGate in order to manufacture stories.

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...nding-death-threats/
---------



And not only have the trolls posting under the #GamerGate Hashtag been associated with the larger movement, but doxxings and death threats have been associated without even any evidence of association.

Just this last couple weeks, a GameDev threatened to kill Gabe Newell (owner of steam) because his game was accidentally released as an early access title, and when his game was removed from Steam entirely, he tried to lay the blame of the consequences for his actions on GamerGate.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/10/2...ranautical-activity/
--------------------

Make no mistake, the stuff that has been happening is certainly horrible.
Focusing on this harassment, given who's statistically behind it, is only giving them what they want.

Blaming GamerGate for these harassments despite substantial evidence to the contrary, or at least substantial enough to place significant doubt on the allegation is unfair.

To claim that this small group of individuals somehow reflects negatively on the entire movement, or invalidates the claims of ethical/legal violations within the Games Media, I feel would be disingenuous and too convenient given the very real nature of those violations, and the nature of twitter hashtags and internet anonymity.

Additionally for your here is the Colbert Report Segment with prominent figure in the controversy Anita Sarkeesian (at least, the one able to get the most media coverage).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L_Wmeg7OTU
------------------

This is a multifaceted controversy of course, including the harassment of women which you've pointed out, and this was the initial facet being covered (optimistically, because that's the facet that will get the most clicks/viewers; pessimistically, because corrupt press doesn't report on its own corruption).  With any luck the facets that pertain to the ethical integrity will be addressed afterwards since the people involved with the harassment facet are at best tangentially related to that.

There's been some movements towards covering that by the smaller press sites like The David Pakman show, and there is a bit of resistance against switching investigation and coverage over to other facets.

------------------

For me personally, I am interested in the portions of the movement that are out to remove the current rot in games press by consumer action; a lot of this is the fault of the consumer being too complacent and feeling disenfranchised.

As a result, the constant lowering of quality and standards for these outlets has continued, attracting these toxic natures; click-bait articles (articles with a provocative title but actually containing little of substance), collusive behavior between press outlets that are supposed to be competing, and people being hired to write content for a consumer site, but whom actively despise their readership, the products they're writing about, or both.

However the contempt reached a back-breaking level that has re-awoken the awareness in a lot of people of their consumer power (myself included), and we are wielding that power in order to put pressure on outlets to establish and enforce a higher standard of professionalism on their sites and staff.

While it's true that anyone can use the gamergate tag, it's also true that there's not a lot of condemnation of these actions under that tag.  In fact, I haven't seen any-- most of the gamergate people say something like "Bitch had it coming" or other similar sexist drivel.

Of course, that's not evidence that there are none, but it is proof that if they exist, they're very rare.


Yes, trolls exist on both sides.  That said, I haven't seen any evidence that "social justice warriors" are organizing to mass-doxx gamergaters, or issuing death threats, or even rape threats.  "Social justice warriors" are a myth, anyway-- there is no organized movement that has any of the goals they supposedly have.  Gamergaters, however, are a distinct movement.  "Organized" might be a bit strong for them, but there's no denying that there is a group of like-minded people doing this.


Sorry, but that ship has sailed.  The day of "honest journalism" died a long time ago.  Personally, I think Fox News was the nail in the coffin, but it started a long time ago.  I remember "entertainment news" shows as far back as the early 80's, and it only got worse over the decades.

So gaming journalism is crooked.  That's a bit like saying politicians are crooked, or CEO's are greedy.  Go ahead and tilt at that windmill if you want, but dragging feminism into it is a bad idea, it guarantees that you'll go down in mud.

My take on it...

I do think SJWs are a 'thing', but it's a cultural thing. Just like racism is a 'thing' even if businesses don't normally write a policy saying 'hire no blacks' (at least in 2014), it's a cultural movement that exists, spreads between people, and has real-world impacts. The crowd I roll with is pretty heavily left-leaning, so I for one feel pretty inundated with it.

However, I agree with GMC, that GamerGate is also definitely a 'thing', with at least a large faction created artificially and directly managed and directed.

And like GMC said, I've seen plenty of caustic responses from the GamerGate crowd; like real, violent threats and such. When I said something like that on twitter, it took literally seconds for them to start accosting me. Say something pro-GamerGate and mostly you just get links and insults (but no threats).

So here's what I have seen from GamerGate:
-- A very in-depth interest in the sex lives of some women (never men).
-- A good number of rape and death threats
-- Advertising and boycott campaigns based on push-back against GamerGate

What I have NOT seen from GamerGate:
-- Anyone, in any capacity, saying that death/rape threats are wrong, or condemning people who make them
-- Any serious inspection of journalism ethics, when it does not involve a woman's sex life

Sure, I agree that journalism ethics are a very serious, very real issue that deserve attention. But at this point, GamerGate is not the right vehicle to conduct that with.

I'll admit, it depends on where you stand,.

On the one hand, there are lots of very vocal left-leaning people. Some are very, well, vehement about their point of view, which can make non-far-lefties feel overly attacked.  I know some very radical left people, some of which have accused me of being a conservative in disguise.  From that standpoint, I can see why people think SJW's are a "thing".

However, there is no organized SJW movement, at least not like gamergate.  There's no hidden meetings, no secret handshake, nothing of that sort-- just some people with extreme views.  There's also no group that sets out to strip white straight cis men of their rights.  There are some out there who might make white straight cis men feel that way, but they're not just nutcases, they're *lone* nutcases, who don't band together to attack others.  And like most internet trolls, they never take it past then verbal annoyance standpoint.  They can be overly aggressive about it, but they never cross the line into threatening.

Theres an entire subset of people in GamerGate, labeled the "GamerGate Harassment Patrol" who have taken it upon themselves to calling people out on that, and reporting people who aren't dissuaded by being told to cut it out.  (on twitter at least, I'm not even going to touch the chans by their very nature people feel obligated to be offensive there about everything).



I don't know by the standards of personal experience I have proof of the exact opposite.  Perhaps we should collate our experiences.  Do you have any links to examples that haven't been dealt with?  If so, I have connections in certain contexts and might be able to deal with it if the trail isn't too cold.



No, they are their own side.  The way you frame it here suggests that the trolls attacking one side and the trolls attacking the other side are members of the opposing side, and aren't also attacking the other side at the same time.

These are not Privateers given a Marque by #GamerGate or The Games Press.  These are Pirates.

 

There are a couple of examples but which have nothing beyond a couple blogs and screenshots that I wouldn't consider posting here because it's anecdotal aside from the screenshots.

However, the mass doxxings that were happening?  That was done by the "Wagoner crew "(and for every account that we were reporting into oblivion, another two Wagoners would sprout up), a troll organization from Something Awful, and they were doxxing everyone, #GamerGaters included.

Again this isn't about "well trolls will be trolls and both sides have them", no this is seriously third parties taking interest in a big controversy and wanting to stir things up.



Perhaps there is no overall organized movement; not every person who you'd identify as a conservative or a liberal necessarily knows every other person.

Quite a few of them (at least, the ones where the ethical and legal violations are concerned) actually do organize, even collude, and we've discovered quite a few of these organizations through whistleblowers leaking private google+grouplogs, Financial Data, and also investigating mission plans from Media PR Firms. It's bordering on anti-trust violations, Racketeering, and Fraud in a lot of cases.



If you really mean the windmill comment, then I appreciate that you would label my concerns as quixotic, I really do, no sarcasm.  I have at the very least convinced you then that the efforts come from genuine idealism.

I believe this is a beginning of change, a reversal of the decline of news, standards, and ethics across society as a whole (and I agree it's been happening for a while as you described it).

As you've said via the Quixote comment, however, we've yet to show you the practicality of these ideals.  Well, the truth of that will be demonstrated by what we accomplish, not by what the Media says about us; It's not us who keep dragging feminism into it; what are they going to cover, the actual corruption, ethical and legal violations within the media?

We have accomplished a lot of things in the past couple of months.  The ship may have sailed but a lot of us are willing to swim hard as we can for as long as we can in order to catch up and turn the ship around.

Paydirt.  Founder of Gawker Media exposed in private chat to friends;
Praise the Whistleblowers, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1lXHzECMAA55gJ.png

Counterpoints:

Could have been intentionally leaked to misinform/sow mistrust.
Could be fake, photoshopped or otherwise doctored.
This message was last edited by the GM at 18:34, Tue 04 Nov 2014.