"We probably got as much, if not more, from the social justice crowd."
Yeah, I have no problem believing that. If they had their way, every episode of every show would look like My Little Pony... only way more sex in every way shape and form. The absolute worst are the SJW that wants to see more transgenders or whatever in games, but then don't even buy the games. And also, like they say in the interviews, it's difficult to create believable characters if the writer have a hard time relating, and what is then created is instead a stereotype... or this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWh--t4pivo Doing doing doing*.
The problem I have is that for whatever reason, SJW criticism is (rightfully so, one might add) brushed aside as nonsense. But MGTOW criticism is for whatever reason treated with silk gloves as if their malarkey was any less nonsense. Also the hyperbole when discussing SJW criticism. Yes yes, some are insane, but some are just like "You know what I would like in a game (that I will never ever buy or even play, lol games are for fat nerds)? XYZ!" to which the response is "OMG!!! THE AMAZONS WARRIOR TRIBES ARE AT THE GATES TRYING TO TEAR DOWN SOCIETY!!! WRITE 300 PAGES WORTH OF OBNOXIOUS BLOGS AND 100 HOURS WORTH OF VLOGS CIVILY DISCUSSING ARROGANTLY BEATING OUR CHESTS OVER THIS OUTRAGE!!!**"
*Pretending as if I mind. ** Don't believe me? Obviously you missed all the grown ass men (and women who want to be part of if the in-crowd) going apeshit over the new artstyle on some revived 1980:s childrens show called She-Ra.
@DrakeICN Yeah, why should people want to represented in games? PSH, screw that, the very fact that you exist bothers me!
Seriously, this is just childish.
That's not what I am saying though. I think a game can be about a muscular mullet-blonde male whipping succubi on the buttocks. I also think a game can be about a transgender succubi hellbent on overthrowing the mullet-blonde patriarchy. Live and let live. No one is forcing you to by a game you dislike.
I also think players can leave suggestions to gamemakers on what should and should not be included. Ultimately, however, it is the devs that decide what they put in their game. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
I just think it is stupid when people go bananas over games THEY ANYWAY DON'T BUY. Really, this whole debate about which genders and gender roles should and should not be included is just the modern version of the DnD satanic panic. What I am saying is that SJWs are equally silly to MGTOW snowflakes. If you can't agree with that, fine, that is your opinion and I respect it - I just don't want you flinging mud at me for things I did not say, fling mud on me for the things that I do say.
For the purposes of this discussion, it's best to avoid using insulting terms for groups of people. SJW and snowflake are both insults. If we must discuss politics in this thread (and I don't know if it's even on-topic), we should focus on ideas rather than people.
Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism, as well as identity politics. The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments.
The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism. In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one. During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use, and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.
Every word can be used pejoratively. SJW is not an insult. You can use it pejoratively like for example you can use "sect" or even "church" or "pope" pejoratively, you can use "gay" pejoratively but all these words are not insults.
Every word can be used pejoratively. SJW is not an insult. You can use it pejoratively like for example you can use "sect" or even "church" or "pope" pejoratively, you can use "gay" pejoratively but all these words are not insults.
I think calling it an insult is a bit of a stretch, it is more of a label, and some use this label as if it is an insult. That said, I ain't never heard anyone refer to themselves as a SJW. It is a label others glue unto you. So, I think it is not in the same category as church, pope and gay - sect is though, nobody refers to their own ideology / lifestyle as a sect / cult (unless ironically).
@InKal "SJW" has been used as an insult for years now by the alt right to demean people on the left. Google SJW or look at Youtube and see how many instances there are of SJW being used as an insult.
Well one can also Google "I am an sjw" and see how many people self-describe as it.
I'm not saying it isn't used as a pejorative or insult though. That also becomes very clear if you Google said phrase.
Well I did that, and discounting the people saying a more or less convoluted version of "Here is why being called SJW is not a bad thing" or a similar variant thereoff, the number was 0.
@InKal "SJW" has been used as an insult for years now by the alt right to demean people on the left. Google SJW or look at Youtube and see how many instances there are of SJW being used as an insult.
Isn't referring to people on the right as "alt right" an insult? I know many people on the right who would say so. I prefer to not be insulting to anybody and to not be one-sided about it.
@InKal "SJW" has been used as an insult for years now by the alt right to demean people on the left. Google SJW or look at Youtube and see how many instances there are of SJW being used as an insult.
By the "alt right"?
Pretty sure there are a broad swathe of people who use the term who are far from being "alt right"
Anyway, SJW is so yesterday, it's NPC now.
You really need to keep up to date with the various terms people come up with to denigrate those on the other side. In the UK we have "Gammon" currently in vogue, has that reached the US? Or are you sticking with the tried and trusted "Red Neck"?
And as the above illustrates, deciding what is and isn't insulting and telling people not to use the terms they choose is a waste of time. Plus context matters.
Unlike SJW, "alt-right" is actually not primarily a pejorative. While some people have a negative view of the alt-right, the word itself was used by the first people on the alt-right. It's how the alt-right has always described itself; they're the ones who coined the term.
The term "alt-right" was first used in November 2008 by self-described paleoconservative philosopher Paul Gottfried, addressing the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right". This was republished in December under the title "The Decline and Rise of the Alternative Right" in the conservative Taki's Magazine, making this the earliest published usage of the phrase in its current context according to Slate. In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine (one by Patrick J. Ford and the other by Jack Hunter) further discussed the alternative right. Since 2016, the term has been commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.
In other words, it's a term used by the right to describe the right. Contrast this with SJW, which is a term used by the right to describe the left.
You really need to keep up to date with the various terms people come up with to denigrate those on the other side.
No, you really don't. It's not our job making the latest insult stick. But really, this shows where the conservatives priorities lay. Rather than figuring out how laisses faire capitalism can tackle global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation, modern computing and globalization - you know, actual dangers, not phony invented ones like white genocide and the degeneration of society - the "family values" ideology is more concerned about putting children in cages, putting misogynist frat boys in the supreme court and coming up with 101 insults to label their opponents with.
"global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation" are just as real dangers as "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
"global warming, overpopulation and the unemployment created by advanced automation" are just as real dangers as "white genocide and the degeneration of society".
Uh no, they are really not, seeing how the first half is factual and the latter half are just fantasies. It is like saying the theory of evolution is equally valid to the Easter bunny.
the degeneration of society - the "family values" ideology is more concerned about putting children in cages, putting misogynist frat boys in the supreme court and coming up with 101 insults to label their opponents with.
People have been worried about the next generation being degenerate since the days of the ancient Greeks. Horace wrote about the dgenerate morals of the youth of his time. In short, it's an old complaint.
What worries me is how people seem to be dismissing others as if they don't matter simply because of their views. If someone doesn't agree, the other side are "Speshul snowflakes" or "SJWs" or "NPCs" or (insert term of the week here). Tribalism in terms of politics is worse than Tribalism in terms of religion these days, or so it seems from my point of view.
Personally I don't mind being called "SJW", just as I don't mind being called a feminist, anti-racist or other terms I think incorporates empathy, humanity and similar values. Rather it feels like a compliment.
Making SJW an insult makes about as much sense as weaponizing 'nice guy'... which has happened? Really? And its lots of the same people? Is this all just performance art with an ironic bent?
There was definitely a time in my life when I thought feminism was a bad thing and agreed with some of the lighter alt-right positions, but over time I grew up. I changed, became a feminist (ally, and a bad one!), realized how systemically corrupt our countries are (and Canada is really not as bad on most minorities), and embraced cautious love. I'm much happier, and generally healthier. Hateful people imho can't find contentment.
"Nice Guy" has come to mean something beyond the name, of course. A "Nice Guy" is a guy who pretends to be a nice guy, but he's really out for sex. He pretends to be nice so he can get it on. He's nice but expects sex as a payment for acting like he's a nice guy.
Where he trips up is that many women can tell he's not actually interested in them for them, so when they aren't interested and brush the guy off, he complains how women never really want "a nice guy", even when they say they do. No, women don't want a FAKE nice guy who's just there to insert Tab A into Slot B. We want an actual nice guy. Someone who is really interested in us for us, not a reward of sex.
It can also be used to describe a guy that 'plays by the rules' and are decidedly unsuccessful sexually, ie is a 'beta' according to especially toxic misogynists who argue that rubbish like PUA tactics work. The 'nice guy' doesn't get action because he's not 'manly' enough, and is too interested in being 'nice'. This is probably more rare though.
Whenever I see the term SWJ, I take it as the author of the post unable to define what they do not like about something and instead attack a group of ideals instead the subject matter that is being portrayed.
Majority of the time, it is a parroting, almost word for word of a previous post.
It is a lack of communication, or not wanting to communicate as they know their thoughts on the matter to not reform to the expectations of society and fall back to it as it is a way to mask those thoughts.
I personally prefer the term to not be used as it tends to be a stereotype and all answer instead of a real expression on a topic.
It can also be used to describe a guy that 'plays by the rules' and are decidedly unsuccessful sexually, ie is a 'beta' according to especially toxic misogynists who argue that rubbish like PUA tactics. The 'nice guy' doesn't get action because he's not 'manly' enough, and is too interested in being 'nice'. This is probably more rare though.
I think that comes from the male side judging the guy. The guy sees himself as a nice guy (i.e. playing nice), the woman sees a creep out for sex, and other men think he's being a pushover or a doormat. Women don't want either. We want guys who are authentically nice.
You know, let's say a woman wants the guy to help her pick out a dress. Mr. "Nice Guy" fawns all over her. She feels this is slightly to moderately creepy, so she takes a pass afterwards. Whereas a real nice guy says, "Sure. Maybe you can take me out for lunch afterwards." This makes sense to the woman, so she agrees. Real Nice guy tells you which dress he likes best, without being creepy or fawning. Afterwards, and during lunch, he might ask her for a favor in return. "I need a dress shirt for a company event two weeks from now, could you help me pick one out that won't make me look like a clown or my mom's dressing me? I'll repay you with a meal of your choice." She agrees. And hey, it's like a date!
She knows she isn't being asked to put out for him helping her, or her helping him. Success!
Now, without being anymore demanding than, "Mr. Nice Guy", Real Nice Guy may segue his way into dating her. No need for PUA lines or tricks. He isn't being a pussy, or a doormat. Just an actual nice guy.
Yeah. Being nice to people doesn't entitle you to a romantic relationship, and for some people, that's the only reason they bother being nice--which is why some people complain that "nice guys finish last" and lament that they're having less sex than a guy they know who's a bit of a jerk. Some folks are jerks at heart but call themselves "nice guys" out of bitterness. The real "nice guys" are different.
Really, we place too much value on men getting laid. Sex alone doesn't make you happy and it doesn't make you more of a man, nor does having a long sexual history actually make you more appealing to women anyway (in fact, it can be a turn-off) or more respected among men (in fact, it can generate resentment or suspicion just as easily). For basically any relationship with basically any person, the most important thing is that they see you as a good person to be around. Would you spend much time with a jerk if you could help it?
And if we're being honest... jerks don't actually get laid as much. Statistics have shown that the people who have the most sex are the ones in committed relationships, and committed relationships require (you guessed it) being a "nice person" more than anything else. Even if you have no other goals in life besides getting laid, being a jerk is still the wrong way to go.
Gender roles are stupid. They aren't just bad for women, either; male gender roles suck, too. I think a lot of misery and frustration on the part of men is because they expect themselves to live up to some absurd, unrealistic standard of manhood, and they think that if they aren't sleeping with a new woman every other night, or if their muscles or other body parts aren't big enough, they're not "real men."
It's such a superficial thing to strive for. We'd be happier and better off if we focused on more important goals.
You got that right. Sex is probably the only thing on some people's minds. Some see it as their validation that they are a "stud". Some women see it as proof that they are loved. Neither is healthy in the long run.
You write a lot of things I agree to @semiticgod. As an example, I am a monogamous person who absolutely adores relationships (though I've just failed mine, but that's another story). I will not commit to sexual acts without an emotional attraction, which comes before physical attraction for me. Whenever I speak about this, or my lack of "ONS" in the past, both men and women usually look at me with a mixture of surprise, disbelief and ten other similar feelings. I'm not a 10 on the scale, but I look decent enough and have had my share of interests from women, but it's like just because I am male I am supposed to act according to the norm (aka the stereotypical alpha male). Manhood 1.0 is absolute crap and only ends up with emotionally retarded males who cannot handle emotions or more complex relationships. I've been struggling with anger outbursts all my life becuase I was never taught to deal with it in a mature way. Happyness, hornyness and rage were pretty much the three only feelings a man should feel. All the intricate feelings ranging from sadness, to emptyness, to lonelyness etc are replaced by rage, anger and hate.
Screw that, I'm done with that crap. Here's for Men 2.0! I'm joining them and leaving this old shit behind.
Comments
Doing doing doing*.
The problem I have is that for whatever reason, SJW criticism is (rightfully so, one might add) brushed aside as nonsense. But MGTOW criticism is for whatever reason treated with silk gloves as if their malarkey was any less nonsense. Also the hyperbole when discussing SJW criticism. Yes yes, some are insane, but some are just like "You know what I would like in a game (that I will never ever buy or even play, lol games are for fat nerds)? XYZ!" to which the response is "OMG!!! THE AMAZONS WARRIOR TRIBES ARE AT THE GATES TRYING TO TEAR DOWN SOCIETY!!! WRITE 300 PAGES WORTH OF OBNOXIOUS BLOGS AND 100 HOURS WORTH OF VLOGS
CIVILY DISCUSSINGARROGANTLY BEATING OUR CHESTS OVER THIS OUTRAGE!!!**"*Pretending as if I mind.
** Don't believe me? Obviously you missed all the grown ass men (and women who want to be part of if the in-crowd) going apeshit over the new artstyle on some revived 1980:s childrens show called She-Ra.
Seriously, this is just childish.
I also think players can leave suggestions to gamemakers on what should and should not be included. Ultimately, however, it is the devs that decide what they put in their game. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it.
I just think it is stupid when people go bananas over games THEY ANYWAY DON'T BUY. Really, this whole debate about which genders and gender roles should and should not be included is just the modern version of the DnD satanic panic. What I am saying is that SJWs are equally silly to MGTOW snowflakes. If you can't agree with that, fine, that is your opinion and I respect it - I just don't want you flinging mud at me for things I did not say, fling mud on me for the things that I do say.
Haha, great.
The interviews are very enlightening about game development. It seems that being less restrictive gave the best results.
I'm not saying it isn't used as a pejorative or insult though. That also becomes very clear if you Google said phrase.
So, uh, thanks for confirming my point.
By the "alt right"?
Pretty sure there are a broad swathe of people who use the term who are far from being "alt right"
Anyway, SJW is so yesterday, it's NPC now.
You really need to keep up to date with the various terms people come up with to denigrate those on the other side.
In the UK we have "Gammon" currently in vogue, has that reached the US?
Or are you sticking with the tried and trusted "Red Neck"?
And as the above illustrates, deciding what is and isn't insulting and telling people not to use the terms they choose is a waste of time.
Plus context matters.
In other words, it's a term used by the right to describe the right. Contrast this with SJW, which is a term used by the right to describe the left.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5unqYgX0usIC&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=Degenerate+next+generation+ancient+greece&source=bl&ots=F9WbeX4C3q&sig=ebTwyl3jDfRjrp17VQ98hagv9oI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiXl8ansI3eAhXoQ98KHYcdAbEQ6AEwBXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Degenerate next generation ancient greece&f=false
What worries me is how people seem to be dismissing others as if they don't matter simply because of their views. If someone doesn't agree, the other side are "Speshul snowflakes" or "SJWs" or "NPCs" or (insert term of the week here). Tribalism in terms of politics is worse than Tribalism in terms of religion these days, or so it seems from my point of view.
There was definitely a time in my life when I thought feminism was a bad thing and agreed with some of the lighter alt-right positions, but over time I grew up. I changed, became a feminist (ally, and a bad one!), realized how systemically corrupt our countries are (and Canada is really not as bad on most minorities), and embraced cautious love. I'm much happier, and generally healthier. Hateful people imho can't find contentment.
Where he trips up is that many women can tell he's not actually interested in them for them, so when they aren't interested and brush the guy off, he complains how women never really want "a nice guy", even when they say they do. No, women don't want a FAKE nice guy who's just there to insert Tab A into Slot B. We want an actual nice guy. Someone who is really interested in us for us, not a reward of sex.
Majority of the time, it is a parroting, almost word for word of a previous post.
It is a lack of communication, or not wanting to communicate as they know their thoughts on the matter to not reform to the expectations of society and fall back to it as it is a way to mask those thoughts.
I personally prefer the term to not be used as it tends to be a stereotype and all answer instead of a real expression on a topic.
You know, let's say a woman wants the guy to help her pick out a dress. Mr. "Nice Guy" fawns all over her. She feels this is slightly to moderately creepy, so she takes a pass afterwards. Whereas a real nice guy says, "Sure. Maybe you can take me out for lunch afterwards." This makes sense to the woman, so she agrees. Real Nice guy tells you which dress he likes best, without being creepy or fawning. Afterwards, and during lunch, he might ask her for a favor in return. "I need a dress shirt for a company event two weeks from now, could you help me pick one out that won't make me look like a clown or my mom's dressing me? I'll repay you with a meal of your choice." She agrees. And hey, it's like a date!
She knows she isn't being asked to put out for him helping her, or her helping him. Success!
Now, without being anymore demanding than, "Mr. Nice Guy", Real Nice Guy may segue his way into dating her. No need for PUA lines or tricks. He isn't being a pussy, or a doormat. Just an actual nice guy.
Really, we place too much value on men getting laid. Sex alone doesn't make you happy and it doesn't make you more of a man, nor does having a long sexual history actually make you more appealing to women anyway (in fact, it can be a turn-off) or more respected among men (in fact, it can generate resentment or suspicion just as easily). For basically any relationship with basically any person, the most important thing is that they see you as a good person to be around. Would you spend much time with a jerk if you could help it?
And if we're being honest... jerks don't actually get laid as much. Statistics have shown that the people who have the most sex are the ones in committed relationships, and committed relationships require (you guessed it) being a "nice person" more than anything else. Even if you have no other goals in life besides getting laid, being a jerk is still the wrong way to go.
Gender roles are stupid. They aren't just bad for women, either; male gender roles suck, too. I think a lot of misery and frustration on the part of men is because they expect themselves to live up to some absurd, unrealistic standard of manhood, and they think that if they aren't sleeping with a new woman every other night, or if their muscles or other body parts aren't big enough, they're not "real men."
It's such a superficial thing to strive for. We'd be happier and better off if we focused on more important goals.
Screw that, I'm done with that crap. Here's for Men 2.0! I'm joining them and leaving this old shit behind.