By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - SJW: Most Abused Term Ever?

I would like to see a surge of SRW's protesting the state of society. Social RESPONSIBILITY Warriors. They could go through neighborhoods smashing out the windows of irresponsible 'parents' who breed without any ability to pay for or emotionally raise a child. These warriors could rifle through the cupboards of SNAP recipients making sure that the taxpayers money isn't wasted on Doritos and Coke, as well as searching for illegal drugs in those homes. You know, doing something that will actually make society a better place for everyone from the top on down.



Around the Network
contestgamer said:
StuOhQ said:

Way overused to begin with... how is it a bad thing, secondly?

Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK were all undoubtedly SWJs and some of histories most important figures. The real question is, what kind of person has no interest in social justice and equality?

Oligarchs, tyrants, and fascists are the only types I can think of and (as much as the left often paints the right that way) there are very few human beings that really fall into those categories.

Meaning... pretty much only 15 year olds and mental 15 year olds, who just came off reading Ayn Rand, actually fall into that category - with the exception of a few third-world dictators.

The problem with social justice is that it hurts those groups in power. Social justice for women for example hurt all men, because prior to womens liberization men had a total control over society, it's economy, it's political and social direction, the raising of their children and the behavior of their wives and female employees in their environment. Nobody likes to lose power and by propagating equality you're qually hurting the group which benefits from that inequality. And that group isn't always a small minority, it can in fact be a pluarity like it was in the case of white males. Personally as someone of a minority racial group I'm for most forms of equality, however I can understand the resentment of those that once used to be in power and are now losing it. Equality may have helped me (in the U.S) but I'm not blind to the fact that it hurt others that previously had dominion.

Bullshit. It doesn't hurt all men, in fact we can gain a lit more views and perceptions otherwise put to the back through equality. It only hurts those treating women unfairly in the first place.



VGPolyglot said:
contestgamer said:

The problem with social justice is that it hurts those groups in power. Social justice for women for example hurt all men, because prior to womens liberization men had a total control over society, it's economy, it's political and social direction, the raising of their children and the behavior of their wives and female employees in their environment. Nobody likes to lose power and by propagating equality you're qually hurting the group which benefits from that inequality. And that group isn't always a small minority, it can in fact be a pluarity like it was in the case of white males. Personally as someone of a minority racial group I'm for most forms of equality, however I can understand the resentment of those that once used to be in power and are now losing it. Equality may have helped me (in the U.S) but I'm not blind to the fact that it hurt others that previously had dominion.

Bullshit. It doesn't hurt all men, in fact we can gain a lit more views and perceptions otherwise put to the back through equality. It only hurts those treating women unfairly in the first place.

 

Views and perceptions arent tangible. Economic and sexual supremacy is. You're trading material, primal benefits that all animals are born with which keep the lights on and feed desires for intangibles that dont. It hurts virtually all men - however living in the current generation you wouldn't know it since you never got to experience what it was like to have social and political supremacy in the first place. There are no tangible benefits of equality for men, because by virtue of having been the dominant group in virtually all avenues of western (and non western) culture you can only attain equality by erasing that dominance.



StuOhQ said:

Way overused to begin with... how is it a bad thing, secondly?

Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK were all undoubtedly SWJs and some of histories most important figures. The real question is, what kind of person has no interest in social justice and equality?

Oligarchs, tyrants, and fascists are the only types I can think of and (as much as the left often paints the right that way) there are very few human beings that really fall into those categories.

Meaning... pretty much only 15 year olds and mental 15 year olds, who just came off reading Ayn Rand, actually fall into that category - with the exception of a few third-world dictators.

You're misundering the meaning of SJW if you're equating it to Ghandi or MLK. You're basically insulting them by comparing them to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian or Micheal Moore. I'm all for people being treated as equals in every sense of that saying but I'm not okay with SJWs pushing things like culture appropriation or that black people can't be racist.  That kind of shit is regressive. 



contestgamer said:
VGPolyglot said:

Bullshit. It doesn't hurt all men, in fact we can gain a lit more views and perceptions otherwise put to the back through equality. It only hurts those treating women unfairly in the first place.

 

Views and perceptions arent tangible. Economic and sexual supremacy is. You're trading material, primal benefits that all animals are born with which keep the lights on and feed desires for intangibles that dont. It hurts virtually all men - however living in the current generation you wouldn't know it since you never got to experience what it was like to have social and political supremacy in the first place. There are no tangible benefits of equality for men, because by virtue of having been the dominant group in virtually all avenues of western (and non western) culture you can only attain equality by erasing that dominance.

It doesn't hurt virtually all men, because not all men are on equal standing. Of course, like always though, a class issue turns into a race, sex, etc. issue to avoid tackling the real issues.



Around the Network

You have a few these days one is the obvious Nazi vs SJW argument. In which the political right are seen as nazi's and left is either a Library or a SJW. I am a liberal thus a nazi in this discussion. You also have the feminism duscussion in which you are either a feminazi or a sexist or a rapist and thus s supporter of the patriarchy or rape culture. I am an egalitarianist thus I am a man's right supporter of the patriarchy according to.the internet. Anyways the internet is unsensored and people's opinions are more extreme on the internet than elsewhere because of the animosity the internet provides. Thus words like SJW, Rape which is appearently looking at a girl these days (mental rape), or not having the right political colour or at the right side of ghe feminist discussion will undoubtedly give you a label on the internet. But the most abused one of them all is white privelege which is pretty much complaining about racism while being racist.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Aeolus451 said:
StuOhQ said:

Way overused to begin with... how is it a bad thing, secondly?

Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK were all undoubtedly SWJs and some of histories most important figures. The real question is, what kind of person has no interest in social justice and equality?

Oligarchs, tyrants, and fascists are the only types I can think of and (as much as the left often paints the right that way) there are very few human beings that really fall into those categories.

Meaning... pretty much only 15 year olds and mental 15 year olds, who just came off reading Ayn Rand, actually fall into that category - with the exception of a few third-world dictators.

You're misundering the meaning of SJW if you're equating it to Ghandi or MLK. You're basically insulting them by comparing them to the likes of Anita Sarkeesian or Micheal Moore. I'm all for people being treated as equals in every sense of that saying but I'm not okay with SJWs pushing things like culture appropriation or that black people can't be racist.  That kind of shit is regressive. 

Whitr privelege is one if the most racist popular things produced by SJW. Surely that's not what Jezus intended by treating people as equals. Nor anything which will be approved by MLK since he wanted black and white to live among eachother and connect eith eachother as equal and not to act passive aggressive towards eachother behind a monitor.

 

Same goes for comparing 1st wave feminists with 3rd wave feminism in the western world not liking the entire idea of equalitarinism and are offended by people who think that sex should be entire irrelevant on how to treat any human being. Which makes you a mans right activist these days. A fun example of that is a British politician who wanted to introduce a man's day to talk about problems man face in today's society, higher dropout rates, suicide counts etc. The mere idea was offending for a clearly feminist politician which just laughed at the man as if he where a moron. I think most first wave feminist would litteraly be ashamed of this woman as for the picture this movement creates about man being all inherently potential myogenic sexists and all man being the enemy of  woman and feminism in general.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=737U7YbMqOI



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

And when you're in the middle you think everyone's crazy.



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

ArchangelMadzz said:
And when you're in the middle you think everyone's crazy.

Nah the extremes just stand out more and get more attention but it is surely not the general opinion of people. But normal is boring and extreme is intresting that's just the way the internet and media works. Why else wouldn't we hear anything nice about Russia or other things some people and media don't agree with. Because extremes and an us vs them mentality (black/white) is far more intresting for people than the grey and boring matter which lies closest to the truth.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

ArchangelMadzz said:
And when you're in the middle you think everyone's crazy.

I'm in the far left, and it makes me want to pull my hair out sometimes, the people that know that there are things that are wrong, but are too weary to accept far left ideals