Tetra_Vega Wrote:
Labelling people trying to bring positive change as ``SJW``s so you can continue to spread hate.

Bryden88 Wrote:
If anything I'd say this thread has helped me understand what an SJW is. I've always assumed it was just meant to be an insult to anyone who championed diversity. (That's how I first saw it used, was on another gaming forum when people claimed that Bioware only catered to SJWs and 'their ilk.')

Which is a shame. Social Justice is a good thing. Warriors are also usually pretty awesome. I hate it when shitty groups get cool names lol.

Here's my question to you.

How do you feel about Westboro Baptist Church. Do you feel it is SJWish to try and constantly ruin their mean spirited and nasty protests? What about when say, Anonymous hacks them? Or do you see Westboro as a version of an SJW since they try and force their views on people? (even though it's not really social justice they want.)

Bryden88 Wrote:
So, i skipped most posts, and now I'm'a go on a rant. A ramble if you will.

The term "SJW" is hijacked. First off, the term "SJW" should be a good thing. So for the sake of this rant, consider SJW to be the good thing. A Social Justice Warrior is just that, a champion for social justice.

So on one hand we have the SJWs. They have the need to fight for social justice. Maybe they themselves are women, minorities etc. Maybe they're straight white males who AREN'T assholes and really do have a problem with the way things are. Either way, they're here.

On the other hand we have the bigots. They need no introduction.

Here's the thing. We live in the 21st century. It is not okay for things to stay the same. It is *not* okay for women to be treated like a minority. Women actually outnumber men in the world's population if I remember correctly - not by much - but they do outnumber. Men and women are equal. if you don't like that, fuck off.

We live in the 21st Century. And for the sake of this argument we're only talking about good ol 'Murica. Because in 'Murica, we have the constitution. And this constitution says "all men are created equal." That doesn't mean just the gender. It means the race of humankind. ALL are created equal. That means men, that means women. That means white, black, hispanic, asian, whatever. That means straight, that means gay. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

So why is it a problem when people want that same equality in media representation? Who is it actually going to hurt if we have a black female protagonist in an action movie or in a video game? I personally found Jaqui Briggs to be awesome, and a breath of fresh air - because not only did she not fit into a negative stereotype, she was just a "normal person" in the context of the MK Universe. She wasn't having horns trumpeted about how she was a black woman. She just was there, carrying on the Briggs name. Same with Kung Jin. No horns trumpeting the fact that he's gay. he's just there, doing Kung Jin things, helping save Earthrealm.

So who does this hurt?

Nobody. But this is exactly the problem isn't it? It hurts nobody and yet a group of people act butthurt. Case in point, the whole "Zoe" thing with GamerGate. She made a game. DepressionQuest. And she got it reviewed. And it got a bad review. And people didn't understand it. (Side note: a lady friend of mine did play it, and as someone who experienced trauma growing up and having dealt with depression actually loved the game because *she* could relate to it. Reviews are not facts, they're fucking opinions.)

So because her exboyfriend claims she slept around, suddenly Zoe's a villain. Where's the fucking proof? That's why GamerGate is toxic