Yes you can.

Fiction is all about finding shit you like. A product can't be something to everybody. You can't always appeal to one group without alienating another. This is like the first thing every entertainer learns.

I have zero tolerance for this artificial blurring between fiction and reality. It's super transparent when people try to pretend that characters in a video game have agency. A person's taste in entertainment is not an indictment of their underlying personality. Again, Mortal Kombat website. Are we ready to start judging people based on how they respond to fiction? Are we going to apologize to Jack Thompson because now we realize that he was right?





And these are both strawmen. The Zoe Quinn situation in particular was more about the fact that the gaming press in general has no ethics. It's not just about her. The world blew up just as much when Jeff Gerstmann got canned.

Now, some much-needed comic relief for this thread below:

Bigots who love X-Men. Lol. How deliciously ironic, since the X-Men are fictional SJWs.

Actually, no. The X-Men are civil rights activists. The difference is not mere semantics.

Mortal Kombat does not equal intolerant assholes. There's another MK fan site that seems to have the OPPOSITE opinion as this one. They approve of Kung Jin being gay, of Sonya having clothes, and only the minority of users are spouting hate.

Do you want to know why people like me, the "SJWs" are so "annoying?"

Because the people who don't like gays, women, minority ethnicities are assholes about their dislike for those people. Not only do they say "I don't approve," they make personal attacks on the people who do. You want to know why "SJWs" do what they do? Look at the idiots calling gay people "fags" and people slut shaming women while choosing to play as nearly naked special forces agents. Instead of saying "because it's what I like," I'd like to know how Kung Jin being gay, Jacqui being black, or Sonya having clothes actually hurts the enjoyment of the game. Kung Jin being gay doesn't affect his gameplay, Sonya having clothes doesn't make her a lesser character, if anything she's more believable, and yes, Jacqui being black makes sense since she's the daughter of frickin' Jax. Why are these so wrong?

You're going to have to quote actual human beings here because these vague references to anonymous musings about Kung Jin, Sonya, or Jacqui aren't cutting it. If you know of statements raising a stink, provide them. Because, frankly, I don't plan to take your word on faith that somebody's opinion on Kung Jin most definitely implies that they have a problem with gay people. Maybe they just don't like how it was handled in the narrative. Maybe they did see something about it that screamed "agenda." Maybe they don't like the character in general. All perfectly innocent opinions that don't implicate them on a moral level.

Same for Sonya's costumes. Maybe they just kind of liked seeing her side boob and miss that from MK9. Again, it's fiction. It's incredibly dishonest to paint Sonya's costume as a gender relations issue or a moral issue. Sonya is not a living human being. She has no agency. So, as a result, people preferring her to be a certain way are not oppressing her. You may be able to accuse them of being creatively bankrupt or just having dumb ideas but you are not entitled to indict their ethics as a result of their preferences.

Morality exists as a consequence of reality. For example, murder is a capital offense because death is irreversible. When you alter reality (like, say, in a video game) then morality loses its relevance. A person who likes to steal from shops in a video game is not the moral equivalent of someone who steals from real human beings. So it therefore follows that someone who says "I don't think Kung Jin should be gay" is not the moral equivalent of someone who says "I don't think that person over there should be gay."

It all comes down to artists making things they find cool and audiences consuming things they find cool. That's really all there is too it. People make shit that they think is cool and hope other people think is cool. But then you have the SJWs showing up and acting like there's a crime being committed when things they think are cool aren't super common.

And that's the part where SJWs lose me. Why is it worse for some people to not get what they want than for someone like, say, me to not get what I want? If I say I want more unicorns in my games and even get 100,000 signatures in a pro-unicorn petition, if no game publisher obliges then most people will say "tough, go make your own unicorn game" or some variation that doesn't warp it into a social issue. But if someone says they want more non-thin female protagonists then somehow they move to the top of the list? Their desires are more important just based on the type of content they want? You haven't actually established why there's a difference. And, no, just because they're asking for some gender or race themed representation doesn't automatically make it more important. If you're going to say it's more important you have to prove it is. You can't just point at it and say "look, that's an issue" and assume it speaks for itself. It doesn't.

I'm sick of so many people using real world morality as leverage against other people's artistic preferences. They are not related and the only reason people try to pretend they are is to dishonestly bolster their stance that ultimately boils down to "I want fiction with more shit I like." And what's worse, they use this as an opportunity to promote an ends-justifies-the-means paradigm whereby they feel 100% justified condemning people as any brand of evil they see fit so long as it's being done to push for "social justice" even if doing so requires an enormous number of assumptions.



Like this right here. Regardless of how obviously simple you've made your questions, your conclusion reeks of brazen moral myopia. Social justice, real social justice, is concerned about the well-being of all people, even those we disagree with.

Do you believe in trial by jury?

Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Do you believe in beyond a reasonable doubt?

If the answer is no to any of these... then congratulations, you ARE an SJW.

And if you're American, then shame on you.

Well written, I stopped responding because it seemed nothing I brought up was actually addressed.

This is my time to chime in and say "This applies to Canada too"

Definitely! I think what we all need to remember is that justice has to be just. If not then it isn't justice. It's just revenge. And that's my beef with SJWs. Because I don't think they recognize that distinction. Mob justice sure feels good...when you're part of the mob. But what happens when you're the guy the mob is chasing? What about when you're a bystander caught in the flames? Does all the collateral damage get tallied up as acceptable losses because the mission was for "social justice"? Because the goal was "good"?

I can only speak of the American justice system since that's the one I'm familiar with, but I know that the majority of the developed world has justice systems that are designed specifically to account for the fact that a just society has to be suspicious of the prosecuting authority. Not necessarily to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent who may find themselves wrongfully under attack. We can't ignore misconduct of police, prosecutors, and judges just because they happened to fall upon a guilty person. Because one day it may not be a guilty person. And SJWs fancy themselves a prosecuting authority. Therefore they must hold themselves to the same standards we expect of all authority figures.

And I don't believe for a second that these responsibilities stop at government officials. The United States exists on a principle that sovereignty rests with the people. So it is everyone's responsibility to uphold their end of that bargain. Because if they don't then all those cops, prosecutors, and judges are going to grow up not respecting these principles. The oaths they swear will mean nothing. This is not merely a professional responsibility, it's a cultural one. We can't let our desire to punish outweigh our need for fairness.

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."
-Justice George Sutherland

Checkmate!

*cackles maniacly while spinning*



Ka-Tra

You think that means you won?! Ohhhh boy....

Again great post Tony, we do have similar laws currently in place in Canada too.

Of course we all have our fair share to do as well, but SJW's pushing their views down other peoples throats and fighting for something that they have no way of knowing when they've achieved is annoying and ridiculous.

I don't suppose you saw Obama's speech earlier today?



Ka-Tra

I watched it to see what you are talking about...

What's your point?

I don't like SJWs because I don't use the term "SJW" to define this group that you refer to. I don't see anyone who wants equal representation, equal tolerance, and equality in general for people of sex and race to be bad people.

I don't like the self-coined SJWs because they usually consist of people who hate the majority race/sex. A good example are the SJWs that pollute tumblr. Their ideas are less "equality" and more trans is better than cis, colored is better than white, women are better than men.

They say these things to start fights, to make others 'think', except that anyone with a brain can tell that they're just being assholes.

Women = men, white = colored, cis = trans. No one should have power or greater relevance than the other.

Yes, history shows that men tend to dominate positions of power. Yes, colored people have usually gotten it worse. And yes, the LGBT movement, filled with transgendered people, has only recently really begun to take off in terms of attention and social equality.

That doesn't mean they're better. That means times are changing.

Also, just a note, you are literally generalizing people in your own post, something that an actual "SJW" would hate. "Liberal" and "republican" bigots, eh?

Finally, some groups of white people have had injustices performed against them. Ever heard of the irish?

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

That's sorta the point I wanted to make but couldn't find the words.

Wanting equality is not the same as saying that XYZ is better than the majority.

Wanting diversity in games is not the same as saying "Don't do XYZ EVER AGAIN."

I stand by my statements before - I will call out bigots. That's not the same as saying white people are bad, or straight people are bad. I'm straight, I'm white, I'm not bad. I'm just saying, if you don't like someone because they are gay or of a different color, you are thusly an asshole, and IMO assholes don't need to have their interests catered to. We want asshole mentalities gone.That's not being an SJW, that's just saying "I do not tolerate the intolerant."

The burden of change is easy for one person, so long as everybody holds up their share of the load.



Ka-Tra

I like nice people.

I dislike mean people.

Well, there's my view on others summed up in two sentences.

Insightful and good stuff, I certainly agree, and this reminds me of someone I have had to deal with for the past 2 years.



Now that's not entirely true, and even though that is obvious it is worth mentioning.



Now that is on point. Even though they themselves are not exactly equal, their rights certainly should be.

That is a viewpoint that you would actually be somewhat hard pressed to find.

I think everyone is for equality, but the disagreement lies with how to go about implementing that. Obviously there are some people that think a certain race, sex, orientation, etc. is superior to the other but those people are quite obviously uninformed or ignorant, and serve no help in any intelligent discussion.

How is it not true? I'm talking purely in a social and financial sense. If you wanna argue morality or power playing, then don't bother. Morality is subjective, and power playing was not the original intent of this post. Also, I don't mean in practice, I mean by my opinion they are equal, or should be.

Not quite true. Many people are against equality due to various reasons, like experience, their own morals, social pressure, upbringing etc.

For implementation, it's hard to determine. For instance, we would need to start by removing "trans" from the DSM as a mental illness. Another thing would be how to define trans.

If you've ever heard of the Otherkin movement, it sounds like satire, but at the least, these people do have some belief that they are another species, real or not, entirely.

Along with that, there's the problem of male vs female bathrooms and the like. If a trans girl goes into the female bathroom, the women might be afraid. An example in the news is the Planet Fitness or whatever gym having that issue. While they settled it by kicking out the anti-trans party, it still leaves the question of how do we determine who's lying and who's not.

Oh... Okay, well if you are talking purely in a social and financial sense, yes they should be considered equal. EX. obviously women shouldn't get paid less to do the same job as a man.

I mean in other terms, even though they tend to overlap. For example, men have higher rates of testosterone, testosterone stimulates muscle growth, therefore men are generally stronger than women. There are differences, and they are relevant in many cases. In my opinion, it actually starts to blur lines. Because men are normally stronger than women, it is more likely they will get into jobs that are more physically demanding. Jobs that are more physically demanding tend to pay better. Because of things like this, we can often see stats that are misleading, making us think we live an "unequal" world, even if we actually don't.

I am not saying that we live in an "equal" world, but to me it seems obvious that the vast majority of people understand that a human is a human, and we should be treated somewhat equally.

It also gets confusing when you consider that males and females even have drastic differences in their brains. Because of this, does it make sense to treat everyone equal?

Again, socially I think everyone should be equal, but is that still true when you consider that people truly are different?

I would argue yes, to an extent. I think a better word to use would be opportunity. Make sure everyone has equal opportunities. Even this is hard to control for, and put into practice. But I think it is what we should be aiming for, and in Canada I would argue we are quite close and/or there.



Yes, I know some people are against equality. But as I said, they normally stick out like a sore thumb and identify themselves quite clearly as unhelpful and ignorant early in a discussion.



Eesh, Yes, this is quite obviously incorrect. Personally I find it embarrassing that as a society we haven't changed that already and/or still rely on it.



No, I haven't heard of otherkin before now, but wikipedia gave me basically the same lowdown you did : They think they are inhuman. I don't really get your point though .

When it comes to who is lying and who is not, all we can really go on is the evidence. I am not sure if you are referring about the liars as the trans people or the people who would be afraid in the female bathroom, but either way that is a sticky situation. Businesses cannot be expected to make a specific bathroom for trans people, but the trans people have to have a bathroom to go to. I think the onus is on the people "afraid in the bathroom". They are the ones that must come to terms with this person identifying as a women. And unless this trans person is peeking into the stalls and being obviously intrusive,(in which case they should probably kick that person out of the store) I don't see any other practical way problems like this can be solved.

I think it's safer to say morality is context sensitive. That's why folks like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn piss a lot of people off. Because what's happening is people are getting seriously pissed off when they find themselves getting chastised and finger wagged by individuals who happen to have a platform but aren't really all that morally superior. It's like when a politician get a reputation for talking about family values but then gets caught with a hooker. Glass houses, first stone, and all that, ya know?

It reminds me of the whole "check your privilege" movement. It's bullshit because it really only exists to pick fights with people. It doesn't actually say anything revolutionary, either. Everyone will readily admit the underlying meaning is accurate, namely that there are benefits to conformity with the surrounding environment. That's a super simple concept everyone already acknowledges exists. But its been repackaged in the most confrontational way possible with needlessly belittling undertones. Yet when people get pissed off, SJWs act like they've uncovered something sinister. "Oh, that guy won't check his privilege. He must be racist." No, shithead, he just got pissed at your smug self-righteous attitude.

If SJWs were half as interested in actual solutions as they were in picking fights then they probably would have accomplished something by now.

I quote this because I am 100% in agreement.

I agree with most of your post, but do have a comment with your context sensitive statement.

In a general idea, morals are subjective.

Context implies fluidity, which is still subjective.

So, my statement is still valid. The difference is how we go about it.

Yep, agree with most everything said. I think you are right, you guys are saying the same thing but in different ways.

The difference, as Tony pointed out, is that saying it is context sensitive is safer. Probably because of the way people interpret it. Many people hear "Morality is subjective" and think "Oh so I can do whatever I want then" which is completely flawed but it happens.

When you say it is context sensitive, you are saying yes, there are some things that are right and wrong, but those can change depending on the context. When you say morality is subjective, people often infer that whatever they think is moral, becomes moral. Again this is clearly flawed, but I think it is what we can avoid by saying context-sensitive morality instead of subjective morality.

It is certainly something worth discussing though.

See.... here's where I do find the whole "anti-SJW" thing annoying.

I'm not saying this is you Tony, but this is how it comes across.

I feel like most people who bash SJWs end up being intolerant themselves.

Maybe they're racist. (In the case of the county I live in... oh my god the racists bashing people in Baltimore despite the fact the general populace in my county are heroin injecting redneck klan asshats.)

Maybe they're sexist. Or they have no problem with objectification. Maybe they want their women to look more like sexual objects and have no interest in them being more like a real character.

Maybe they're a homophobe or someone who for whatever reason just doesn't like gay people, and so Kung Jin makes them creeped out because whatever.

In my experience, people who "bash" on SJWs tend to be guilty of the negative behavior that the SJWs like to point out. It's hard to take it seriously, because quite frankly it SHOULD be pointed out.

But honestly, the fervent truly self righteous types you refer to as SJWs (I still say the actual definition of social justice warrior is someone who actually does fight for it. MLK IMO was a REAL SJW for instance) wouldn't exist like that if you didn't have 4chan assholes attacking people and ddoxing them and sending death threats.

It's kind of like the city I know oh so well. A cycle of bullshit between two sides.

Or maybe you just like to judge people who disagree with you, which is how your post sounds. No chance that there are actual problems with the modus operandi of SJWs (which includes heavy use of doxxing, far more than 4chan has ever done, so your point about them has no leg to stand on), nope, everyone who stands against us is a bigot.

Your experience doesn't mean much outside of the SJW thought bubble. Put simply, everyone experiences society differently. What you determine to be true isn't what someone else might. Not everyone will agree with you when you cry racism, sexism, or homophobia... and that doesn't make them wrong. I don't know how to put it any more clearly than that.

I'm an "anti-SJW" because SJWs don't actually stand for equality, which goes against my morals as an egalitarian. SJWs are only out for themselves and seek to phase out all forms of dissent against their banner. It starts with whining until they're appeased, and the second they get any sort of pull the thought policing begins. Thankfully the general SJW logic is laughable at best, mostly because they're incompatible with facts and reason, otherwise we would really be in trouble.

No, you like to think that people who bash SJWs end up being intolerant themselves. Because that's easier. That fits the narrative. It saves everyone the trouble of having to think. "Oh, he's criticizing SJWs so he probably is intolerant." No need to actually face the criticism on its own merits. Just write off the person who's giving it.



See, this is what I mean. The deflecting. It's so easy to point fingers, isn't it? We're not talking about racists. We're talking about SJWs. But here you are dancing around the criticism on the basis that some people are racist. It's a form of ad hominem, actually. Rather than attacking the arguments themselves you'd rather attack the people bringing them. In this case, you're not even attacking the person making the argument. You're attacking a completely anonymous random assortment of people who you think would likely bring the argument. "I'm not going to address your criticisms of SJWs because some people I know of who criticize SJWs are intolerant." That's silly and you know it.



I don't have any interest in playing semantics. MLK was an activist. "SJW" started as a pejorative against a certain type of faux activist.
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/social-justice-warrior

And those "fervent truly self righteous types"? They are not doing good. This is the key point I'm trying to get across. A person doesn't become a good guy just by virtue that they fight bad guys. You don't get to bypass your own moral and ethical responsibilities just because your goal is to punish someone you've deemed "bad." You don't get to be free from scrutiny just because your goal is "good." To say "those fervent self righteous types wouldn't exist if not for these other bad folks here!" is completely unhelpful to anyone. Who wins under those circumstances? Is this the "they made me do it!" defense? How is any of this "social justice"?

I'm going to quote directly from an image from the link above: The difference between an 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.

If that's the definition of an SJW than I definitely don't fit that.

You can't deny that the people that are the "opposite" of the SJW aren't just as bad though.

I am talking about the 4Chan people who DOX say, Felicia Day's information because she spoke out against GamerGate. Yes, the "keyboard super offended people" get annoying. So do the people who make it their mission to offend everyone. And not in a hysterical way. In a mean spirited bullying kind of way.

I want to point something out though. It's evident on several of the threads about Kung Jin being gay.

Some people like to accuse others of being SJW purely because they are okay and like Kung Jin being gay. Some people accuse others of being SJWs because they're defending that decision, and some people accuse others of being SJWs just because they're outspoken against things like bigotry. And no, bigotry is NOT subjective.

If you're gay, and I treat you like shit because you're gay, I'm a bigot. And yes, you have every right to call me a bigot. Other people who witness me being a bigot have every right to call me that.

If I'm black, you find out, and so you belittle me and accuse me of being a thug and some such, you're a racist. There's no grey area there.

It's not being an SJW to point these things out.