freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Yep, this. There is a diiference between a social justice activist and a social justice warrior.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am a SJW
- Thread starter Curious George
- Start date
Thanda
Well-Known Member
This. This is the very problem with feminism (IMO) - they have found a perspective through which they can view the world - power dynamics - and they have run with it until they believe they can explain all human actions past and present through this one prism. Now I am sure looking at the world in terms of power dynamics can give you great insight. But, just as natural selection is just one aspect of evolution and it doesn't explain the whole concept, so power dynamics is just one view of the world and does not explain everything. The SJW is typically unaware of this very important fact and so, as has been mentioned, they look for victims and oppressors, racists and sexists in every sphere and in every country and age in the world.
I once had a conversation with someone who admitted knowing very little about my country but they were willing to assert that our women were oppressed and our men were privileged. She had a philosophy and the whole world needed to fit into her philosophy - without exception.
Exactly. It's like a conclusion has already been met and through analysis the factors have to fit the conclusion. It's the very opposite of everything I ever learnt about analysis. Be it Scientific or about the "arts."
I mean coming from a Patriarchal culture (Eastern, not Western) I do acknowledge that it's not an entirely false premise. But it always seemed a little too......I don't know. Black and white I guess?
I mean male privilege? Ha! Clearly never been to the clubs where if a woman bashes a man, the man will still be arrested simply because it's a violent altercation involving a woman.
Woman is blamed for being raped in some Indian village? Sexist absolutely, but it also speaks of other varying factors, like reputation, the concept of Dharma and (ewww) family honor. It's not only power dynamics it's all sorts of varying cultural circumstances that culminate in the destination. Rather than the entire world having this Totem Pole with a hierarchy of the oppressed and oppressors. There's all sorts of circumstances and differing nuances to every situation.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Well, I suppose so. Yeah.
Let's stick to some examples of sexism against women. Got any? Because I do.
You're pointing out reasons why somebody like me points out sexism and is met with a "what about the menz" question.
not only have I been met with a response that sexism doesn't even exist against women, but that nobody likes feminists anymore...and again SR...feminists have ALWAYS been disliked since first wave.
Then argue against why a statement isn't sexist rather than make feminists and "SJW's" the target of disillusionment. That had been the point of the OP and - tbh - my own requests in these debates. But really...who here at RF has told you you're a sexist piece of trash?
On the other hand, PLENTY has been said about me as a feminist and why nobody likes feminists. If you think your kinship doesn't deserve what you claim, then logically I don't deserve this kind of response either.
Show me a video that shows Ania Sarkeesian or Laci Green call for the heads of entire groups of people. Or suggest that doxxing the opposition is good. Thing is...they don't. They say things you disagree with. I disagree with Nation of Islam supporters. I used to listen to them preach in NYC. I even engaged in conversation with them face to face about our disagreements. But I never thought to myself that they deserve to be harassed.
You want loud voices? The ones with the most money and the most media support. There's a reason why Trump is adored by large sections of the population. It's not because of feminism or social justice activists.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
"The difference between a SJW and an activist: An activist tries to get a ramp added to a building for easier wheelchair access. The SJW tries to get the stairs removed because they might offend people who can't use them." -Anon
Well, I'm a feminist and an activist. I've been called this slur by the haters. Its this litmus test and imaginary hoops that I'm challenged to jump through to prove that I don't hate straight white men that serves as what is considered a legitimate complaint if I voice my opinion on sexism or racism.
See, I call this pathetic litmus test bull****. And it's too bad my activism regardless of how positive it is in lifting the marginalized to the levels of the status quo is seen as a waste of time or evidence of how I don't care about straight white men.
So I counter your quote with the qualifying factor that the people who sling mud in my direction and use the SJW slur do so because (I've been told) I don't make straight white men out to be the real and ignored victims of society AND I don't take responsibility for my actions.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Well yes, I do see privilege as a thing in 2016. However, I find that the concept of privilege is misunderstood. So, I think it important that you understand privilege before we have a discussion on it. Privilege is a statistical concept. So privilege need not apply the way you (or others you have heard) are contriving it to apply.
Privilege is the idea that there cannot be detriment without someone else receiving benefit. So, if one receives detriment because of factor x, one who doesnt posess factor x will receive privilege. Now, when one receives such benefit they are not aware which makes it impossible to tell when it happens individually. But we can with statistical certainty say without doubt privilege exists. Does this mean your achievements are not your own? No. Does this mean that black guy has it "rougher" than you? No. Does this mean that you are not disadvantaged by other factors? No. Does this even mean that black person is disadvantaged? No.
So what exactly does it mean? Well it means that there is a statistical disparity in how classes of people are treated, feel, etc.
Well that is fine and dandy, but what does it mean for the individual? The statistics are not themselves applicable to individuals. However, for reflection it is good to understand the statistics and marinate on how your life might be different. Access to loans or housing, for instance, offer a common life altering event that is subject to others bahaviors and despite living in 2016, this facet is often enough colored by racism. So, knowing that a person just like you, save their skin color, might get rejected when you would be accepted for a loan or a rental should offer some reflective food for thought. Does this mean you were accepted because of your skin color? No. Does this mean that someone with a different skin color would have been rejected for the loans for which you applied? No (we have no way of knowing that). But it does happen, more frequently to people of color than vice-versa....and yes, it does happen the other way around as well. Just not as frequently. But it is unfortunate, and with reflection you should be able to realize that this statistical privilege, whether you personally were affected or not does statistically benefit a class of people to which you belong. I can even say this, without knowing the color of your skin or the genitals between your legs, because everyone is part of a privileged class in some regard.
Privilege is not about a p*ssing contest on who has it worse. It is about realizing there are benefits and detriments beyond our control that help or hinder the success of others-statistically. And some of these factors could contribute to our success or failure without us even knowing that it is so.
So, what exactly about the above concept is it that you disagree?
Why? Sexism is sexism. It doesn't matter if it's a known phenomenon of society thinking ill of fathers out with their daughters (no seriously.) Or a man thinking he is entitled to deny a woman a job because he thinks that women are inherently dumber. The effects are still the same for the victim. If feminism is supposed to be about equality, then why is the conversation always fixated upon sexism that women face? If it wants true equality and wishes to put an end to sexism once and for all, shouldn't it tackle all types of sexism?
Why do I have to seemingly ignore the plight of men to talk about sexism? I mean growing up the men in my life were and are infinitely more accepting and encouraging of me than any woman that I have encountered (save for me ma and close friends of course) regardless of them being a feminist or a SJW or both or neither.
So it feels almost like a betrayal to exclude them entirely.
Just because I point out that men have issues regarding sexism (and for that matter women who also face sexism for daring to play devil's advocate from other females, no less) doesn't magically make sexism faced by women smaller or non existent. And vice versa. Why is this seemingly a competition for who is the most disadvantaged anyway?
Okay. Which statement specifically? Because as soon as you do, you are called a sexist or misogynist.
I was called a self hating woman because I pointed out discrepancies in Tropes Vs Women, more specifically inaccuracies presented. Suddenly I'm a misogynist who is "attacking" Anita because apparently I feel that she is the one and only threat to Video Games. Mmkay? Not like I just wanted to offer criticism in the hopes her team would do better in the future or anything. Nope. Apparently I just really hate myself and other female gamers. Who knew?
Not on RF though your feminism only DIR is far more exclusive than even the religious DIRs here. Or at least far far far more strict on what it deems to be "debate" rather than discussion. I mean I have posted far more "dissenting" debate like posts in the Hindu DIR than I have in the Feminism DIR without much complaint. And there are many different "rivalries:"going on there. In any case, RF isn't the only forum in the world you know?
There are chatrooms and forums that tailor to my interests that I like to visit as well. Or rather used to. Like games sites like NeoGAF, GameFAQs etc and usually the comments section of YouTube reviews offers good discussion. When it's not political anyway. But alas, gamergate took over a lot of the focus on many boards and discussions and it became more like a warzone. Literature like the obvious Goodreads, most clubs on there are good, but I have been kicked out of a few feminist ones because apparently offering slight dissent is akin to harassing someone. Though at least they didn't discover my dirty secret of having not read any Austen yet. That could have been ugly.
At least the TV land site I visit to discuss GoT and Grimm has remained welcoming. Well more welcoming than some.
I never said you did. Both sides do nothing but fling mud at the other. I am speaking as someone who is kind of "collateral damage." But I make no distinction of which "side" has it worse, so to speak. Because you could be collateral damage on ether side or be a neutral and cop it from both sides.
I didn't say that Anita and Laci go after people, oe engage in such awful behavior. To their credit they have never encouraged anything of the sort. I said their discussions are often the loudest on YouTube and they present an argument of "everything is sexist/racist." This coupled with their many "enemies?" "opponents" whatever, like Sargon, Undoomed and the Honey Badgers are often the first taste of feminism young people get when they're faffing about on YouTube looking for these types of discussions. So already you have both sides with borderline extremist views imposing this very specific definition of Intersectional Feminism and SJWs.
I said that self proclaimed SJWs like Laughing Witch, Jenny McDermot and Potato go after people. Or they did, hopefully they learnt their lesson. They actually started a campaign to have a person fired because they disagreed with them. In the process they accused their opponent of being a Nazi supporter, something that is illegal where he lives and wrote letters to his employer disparaging his name, his views and imploring them to fire this person and throw them in jail. They did this supposedly in "defense" of Sarkeesian. On top of that they mocked their intellectual opponent multiple times for having the audacity of having a parent slowly dying of cancer. When one of them self doxxed proudly, people retaliated and then she went on the News to cry victim. Much to the YT community's disgust.
There is YouTube idiocy and then there's that debacle. *shudders*
I admit to having built up a severe prejudice against Sarkeesian, to the point where it probably colors my judgement of many of her public actions. I consider her a con artist and something of a fraud. But even I will say in her defense that at least she doesn't go after people in their time of grief or resort to disgusting tactics like slander, character assassination or libel. I don't think she's a bad person. Such tactics done by people claiming to be her supporters/defenders is an unfair blight upon her image.
I think it is. People want someone who is a rebel. People are tired of the Public Image they have of Social Justice and want someone who is tough and rough around the edges and clearly not afraid to speak their mind. Having grown up in the wake of PC, even I can see that. Of course in Australia Trump is considered another in a long list of odd American Polies. (Ours are little better, tbh. But they usually make every American Politician look like extremists!)
Last edited:
Then you aren't a SJW. Sorry, those are the breaks kid. You need to up your insanity to a level where you say things like "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" or taking a literal page out of 1984 with Crimestop "purge myself of dangerous 'unthinkable' thoughts, mindkill myself regularly." Or "the only way to be rational in this world is to be irrational."
To say, and a quote from a person who is supposed to be an academic "E=mc^2 is a sexed equation" or that solid physics being easier than fluid mechanics is sexist.
You have to be a hypocrite, to say that an all white and/or male(group/cast/workplace/etc.) is sexist and/or racist, but a different homogeneous group is empowering. That everyone should feel welcome everywhere, but having "PoC" or women's only spaces is good.
An SJW sees that men are routinely more successful at negotiating wages and instead of saying we need to help women become better negotiators so they can improve themselves, says that we should ban negotiating for wages.
SJWs get people fired, or try to, for jokes. They attack a scientist for wearing a shirt they don't like, that a female friend made and gave to him. They try to get an advertising campaign from a fitness based company because it asked if you were in shape. SJW professors call for muscle against student reporters.
SJWs say that a false rape accusation can be a good thing for a man.
An SJW sends pictures of his kid to a pedophile because they are both SJWs.
SJWs throw **** bottles at people they disagree with.
I know, I know, there are people on the other side of things that are illogical, violent, racist and sexist too. But to deny there is a phenomenon among advocates of social justice of rejecting logic, morality, and any other facet of human decency in search of social justice is absurd. There is a reason SJW is a term that is still gaining traction.
I disagree with many social justice advocates in that I don't believe that you should fight inequality with inequality. But we are both looking for a path to the same place.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
This leaves me with more questions, than answers.
Anyways, that's great, but it depends on how you define 'SJW',
The reason Anita Sarkeesian gets **** is because she blatantly lies about video games and has received over a million dollars in speaking fees and raised hundreds of thousands for her "intensive research" into video games that never finished her series. But anyone who's actually played the games knows she doesn't know what shes' talking about.
She's a con artist. She goes to the UN and says that people criticizing her is a more important issue for women around the world than actual human rights being violated in countries like Saudi Arabia ect.
I actually remember her video on the Hitman series and I've played most of the series and she basically just made stuff up out of thin air about it, same with Tomb Raider. Her episodes on butts in video games for example she claimed that you couldn't see batman's butt because of his cape. But if she had actually played the game she would know that when Batman fights his cape is flying around everywhere and you can see a really well toned butt as he punches and jumps around. All she had to do is actually play the game.
She is nothing but a con artist and it's painfully obvious to anyone who knows anything about video games or anyone who starts to scrutinize her words and actions in other respects.
I would kindly ask that you reconsider your view of Anita Sarkeesian. The world needs real feminists, feminists who will care about something real like forced marriages, stuff that is about *real* subjugation. We don't need any more Sarkeesians.
EDIT:
Last night I was playing GTA V. Not once did I see anything sexist. I've never even been harassed in the game for being female and I've played it for hundreds of hours (my character in Online is female and i have a female name). The game is violently fun as hell, but not sexist. Anita mentioned GTA as being sexist... you know I've played 4 of the games in the series and I can't think of how the games in part or whole are sexist. There is a very weak argument for San Andreas but it was a rouse to earn a pimp's trust so you could take him out and it was only one mission. Actually, all of the protagonists have treated women like real people. The only ones who haven't are villains in all of the GTA games i have played. In GTA IV there is a couple of side missions for Nikko to help a woman in an abusive relationship. HELL in GTA V"s story mode Trevor who's a psychopathic killer even says to respect women, particularly mothers (this is probably because he's got weird Freudian mommy issues but that's a subject for another time lol).
Last edited:
Speaking of discussions and loud voices... ever since Anita became part of Twitter's new whatever you call it, a lot of posts/people have been banned for even slightly criticizing her. Even just mentioning it with so much as eyes rolling. There is a **** ton of proof of this out there.
Also Anita is freaking loaded from all her speaking money and money from donations for a series she never delivered on.
She's conning the entire feminist community and everyone is afraid to go against the dogma.
edit: I should add its been like two years since she was supposed to finish that series.
I'll also just leave this here...
http://realgamernewz.com/41779/anita-sarkeesian-gets-exposed-as-a-fraud-by-stephen-colbert
Last edited:
It's literally a religion for her followers. They actually think everything and the world is against them and hates them.
How about they go to a place where sexism actually takes away their rights. Sad that feminists and fake feminists today are more concerned with perceived slights than helping women who are being brutalized in certain parts of the world.
Funny thing about the internet that Anita should learn... you can ignore them. Why should what something someone said to you online require it being brought up at the U.N.? She is a joke. And ever since she became part of twitter's new team there's been a lot of underhanded banning.
As both someone who's female and played games her entire life many of which shes' critized I can tell you that by far and large the average game is not sexist.
Sad that parts of modern feminists are now just as bad as the MRA's, Red Pill, or MGTOWs. They are all just extremes in the other direction. The sad difference is that Sarkeesan is mainstream. It's all mob mentality anymore, and they cry harassment when they are called out for the BS. Sure, some of it is legit harassment (threats ect) but they consider ALL critique to be harassment as it makes them feel "unsafe".
Apart from random sexist trolls or people just wanting to **** around with her because of their frustration at lack of actual debate from her, that is actually not the case.
Anita isn't "attacked" because she's a feminist, a female gamer or even because she's critiquing games from a feminist perspective. She's **** on because her videos are poorly researched, her critiques range from superficial whining to complaints a person would have if they hadn't played the game in the first place and cherry picking examples to show "sexism." Couple that with her raising thousands upon thousands of dollars for a kickstarter only to have such a bad production queue that her opponents, with far less supporters and money, outdid the amount of videos she produces over a year within a week and you have all the makings of someone who is hated. Not for their political views necessarily, but because of their actions.
Look, I'll show you. The latest in the Tropes Vs Women series.
Time stamp 00:41
The example she shows is from a game called Watchdogs if I'm not mistaken. In that game the character is operating to undermine the establishment and stealthily hack devices among other missions. The outfit which she claims is an "extreme" taken by devs to cover his butt is nothing more than a trenchcoat offering the character a more stealth like look.
1:03
She claims that the original Tomb Raider games draw attention to the posterior of Lara. Whilst I agree that the clothing serves no function and is unnecessary the graphics of said game are too ancient to offer the player any sense of aesthetic pleasure from the character. Unless you have a weird fetish for Polygon, that is. Furthermore the camera does not serve to "display" Lara, rather it tries to get the player to focus on the platform gameplay. She would know this if she actually played the game! And having grown up playing some of the earlier Tomb Raiders, I've never actually known ANY male get even slightly turned on by early Lara. Not even teenage boys! They were too busy actually playing the games.
1:30 From the gameplay which shows in her own damned video, Catwoman is not the focus of the camera, nor does the game attempt to draw the eyes of the player onto her. The camera, instead focuses on the landscape. Catwoman's "exaggerated" hip sway is actually a known characteristic of the long established character who uses her sexual wiles to overpower men. This is shown in multiple iterations of the character, from Comic Books to movies to TV shows. Oddly this is not really present in the Arkham games apart from cracking one liners. The hip sway is also a known "carry over" from when the character changes into Catwoman. Emphasizing the link with cats by having the character essentially walk and move in a very catlike manner. This is shown in the game by her fighting style, her ability to leap up onto ceilings and crawling across said ceiling as well as the floor. My it's as if Anita didn't bother to research at all.
2:15 Whilst I can't comment on some of the games mentioned as I didn't play them *ahem ahem ahem!* She does reference Byonetta as an example, conveniently ignoring that said fanservice in game is actually done in an over the top comedic way and even Bayonneta seems to be sarcastically aware of this. She also references a game called Lollipop Chainsaw. Which should already tell you about just how facetious the game actually is. Ironically enough, in the game if the player tries to get a good eyeful of the character's behind using the camera, the character will shield her buttocks with her hands and the game will give you a trophy calling you a "pervert." The game is done in a tongue in cheek manner and is done mostly for comedy. Context. Where is it, Nita?
2:22 Here she again references the design of Bayonnetta as proof that women are sexualised unnecessarily in contrast to men, (ignoring that the design is actually a power sexual fantasy of Bayonetta's designer, a woman!!) at which point she points to an original outfit from the Assassin's Creed franchise. Well, if she actually played the franchise like I have done she would know that the outfit she specifically references is actually unisex worn by both men and women in the game. This is actually seen in multiple installations of the game via flashbacks in future games like Revelations. Also many in game females also wear very covering uniforms. Like Evie from Syndicate. It's almost as if she's cherry picking or something. Notice how she ignores games with highly buff men which can serve as eye candy for the ladies? Kratos from God of War, hell in one of the Metal Gear games (I forget which one specifically, it's been a few years) you literally have a level where the male character is completely NUDE. GTA San Andreas has a feature where you can customize CJ. This includes having him play naked or in his underwear for most of the game and as buff as you would like him to be (after the tutorial first levels introduces this function. So after the third mission essentially.) The Saints Row franchise (especially 2 onward) has this function as well. Including the ability to not only play as either sex, but to literally customize the skin color of your player to your choosing.
Hell in Kane and Lynch 2 Dog Days, there's an entire level of the two gentlemen running around naked, with absolutely NO censoring of any parts. In contrast to where a lady was in a compromising position earlier but is actually shielded from her nakedness through censoring of body parts. And that's just from the top of my head.
2:55 Amusing that she references Devil May Cry of all things. If she played the franchise she would know that Dante is often used as fanservice for ladies, with his buff torso being on display in many levels.
3:08 She complains at not having the ability to see Batbutt in all it's glory. But if you notice in the gameplay footage (which is allegedly stolen from another user without being credited) the player is standing on a building. This makes the cape react to the environment ie wind. Which is why it's flapping around as the camera moves. Also the cape serves an in game function allowing the player to glide from building to building or perform combat maneuvers on unsuspecting thugs below. Also, I have played all of the Arkham games. No idea what she's talking about, you get all the Batbutt viewing all the time. Hell simply walking allows this. Besides you can unlock other costumes of Batman throughout the game and many don't exactly leave much to the imagination.
Also she references Uncharted 2 around 4:00 as an example of not drawing your eye to a male butt. But honestly, it's kind of defined in such a way that you kind of do notice it on the male character. At least I did, a heterosexual female.
And to be honest, of course male butts are different to female butts. They are usually differently shaped especially when toned (most if not all characters do extensive battle and/or acrobatic maneuvers which make for the idea that they would be in top physical form.)
4:20 I find this to be the most amusingly hypocritical aspect of the video. Here Anita chastises the games' portrayal of women as nothing more than sexual objects designed specifically to encourage players not to identify with or even recognize these characters as real people. Maybe she has a point. But that's exactly what she does by focusing so much on their clothing. She reduces highly popular characters like Bayonnetta and Lara Croft, characters with a large fan base not because of their looks but specifically their personalities, to skimpy tight clothing wearing female objects. She doesn't talk about the characteristics of these people, she ignores the large female fan base of all these characters (people who find these characters empowering, people who like that they are very sexual because it allows the female to have a power fantasy) and instead laments that they are nothing but "sex objects." Instead of looking into why males and females are portrayed the way they are in video games, relevant to the fantasies and aesthetics gamers generally have and why this is, she complains that advertising, notorious for it's use of sex or implied sex, uses implied sexuality to advertise it's games. Like for real, lady?
Also can I point out, that in order to show why Anita is not well liked, I had to have an entire discussion revolving around women's and men's butts. I mean I know there's many butt people of varying sexualities, but doesn't this strike anyone else as rather inane?
So....no videos of Anita inciting any violence. Just that you find her annoying and wrong. And you still think she deserves the treatment she gets?
I rest my damn case.
I rest my damn case.
No one in this topic said she incited violence. The only mention of violence against people I could find in this topic was a generalized off hand comment, and it wasn't about Anita Sarkeesian.
Your post is a strawman to avoid the fact that she is beyond wrong, she is so horribly and consistently wrong that it's pretty clear that she is lying. Consistently making up stuff.
Further your strawman is lumping legitimate criticism in with things that are over the line (like death threats ect). This supports my statement earlier that her followers take all critique as "harassment".
You talked about playground politics earlier. Honestly part of that is projection on her supporter's side. While there surely are people who go over the line (like with anything), that going over the line isn't limited to any one side.
We are not "finding her wrong" in a subjective sense, it's that everyone who's ever played the game knows that she's wrong. If you want a real discussion on it, we can go and break it down part by part like @SomeRandom did. Either the statements Anita said are true or not, and discussing those points/statements is where the conversation should be if we want to discuss her legitimacy as me and many others see a very glaring pattern of her being horribly wrong about very obvious parts of the video games. Mistakes that only someone who's never played the games wouldn't notice.
These are not small mistakes either, they are so wrong that it entirely refutes her points by directly contradicting her statements. There are only two conclusions about her that can really be drawn from that fact; in either case she is lying about her "intense research", but in one she does so out of laziness and presuming she's right without looking any further in every instance and just wanting to see the problems, and in the other she cares not at all that she's wrong and knows she's wrong. The latter is more characteristic of a con artist, the former is more characteristic of a zealous religious person.
The only way my paragraph could be wrong is if I and others are wrong about what we saw and experienced in the video games we played. That's why a real discussion would be to try to refute the points instead of just dismissing all critique as sexist, childish, or by creating strawmen or whatever other. You can rant all day about those who are using the same tactics as you have been, but I haven't seen that on either mine or @SomeRandom 's part.
Last edited:
That depends on what you mean by the treatment she gets...
Does she deserve to be called out for being a liar, for stealing the work of others, for being a con artist and a sexist? Does she deserve to be ostracized by the gaming community for these faults? Yes.
Does she deserve death and/or rape threats, no. Very few people have that coming.