Support NeoGAF

[cubicle47b]

Elaborate please.

I don't think many people are picking up causes just to be an asshole to people. It's just that they start treating people who either disagree or who are ignorant on the issue as others and start being assholes to them. It's zealotry.

 

[kirblar]

Elaborate please.

You see this on the left and on the right- people who enjoy being on a moral high horse, engaging in lots of virtue signalling while making sure to jump all over anyone who makes the slightest "mistake" (real or otherwise.)

 

[QuantumZebra]

QFT


Like honestly who's supposed to be offended by being called such, is there anything wrong advocating for Social Justice?

This right here.

Only someone who is terribly regressive/prejudiced/backwards in their thinking would try to color being a "social justice warrior" as a bad thing, and/or use it in a derogatory manner.

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

I get insulted, myself. I'm a social justice rogue, thank you very much!

 

[The Elite]

Then they're not really part of what is considered MRA.

I wouldn't want to touch that MRA term with a ten foot pole. It has become the buzz term that represents horrible and despicable human beings. There are definite men's issues that could use an advocacy or support group but, nah, "Men's Rights Activist" has become an umbrella term for the lowest of the low of men. It just needs to be abandoned for anything that could be deemed positive.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I fancy myself a social justice ranger of late, though I suppose that makes abbreviations more complicated

EDIT: My view on MRAs is that there are things that an MRA could theoretically do that would justify it, but only so much as there are things with respect to corruption in gaming that a GamerGate member could do. If you want to address these problems in these spheres, there's no reason to associate with either group.

 

[entremet]

Feminists want equality for women, which includes being on even ground in all relationships, personal or legal.

Also, a lot of the troubles men have in family court are because of toxic masculinity, laws written by old men. The idea that only the man can be a provider, the idea that men can't be affectionate and parenting to their kids, are rooted in laws written by men, raised in eras where toxic masculinity was EVEN MORE prevalent.

This is why I'm male and identify as feminist. The fight is still on; in the US alone, women are still considered defacto property of men and their husbands in many states.

Sidenote: everything that gives women more autonomy and power ONLY HELPS men as a natural result.

MRAs are more interested in the status quo remaining installed, and can only seem to talk about fighting women whenever a women's issue is brought up with "buwuddabout". Meanwhile, tons of threads go by on GAF and elsewhere on men being abused, and guess what, you never see self proclaimed MRAs fucking standing up for men there. It's always feminists.

I don't disagree with you. And my argument isn't about self identification, but about real advocacy for issues pertaining to men.

I do think there are specific issues that advocacy could help and that's not currently happening from feminists groups--and that's fine. Feminist groups have their properties.

 

[plagiarize]

I hear this all the time, but I don't buy it. NOW doesn't have any major platform relating to issues that specifically men face. Even the National Partnership for Women & Families addresses men only in broad strokes: their work and family section talks about greater leave, but its images only discuss maternal leave. Men just aren't their focus (and I understand why, and don't really even think that's a bad thing.) But at some point I feel like this argument that "men's rights organizations shouldn't exist, feminism is for equal rights" is like saying "why's there an NAACP?"

If men don't feel like current women's organizations address their needs specifically, then it makes sense for them to form their own organizations. I wish them good luck though, as you have the mindset expressed that "men's rights" is just code for "women haters unite."

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

Taking one issue off both sides of the seesaw, just further favors things towards men.

If I have a balance scale and I have 2 things on the 'unfair against men' side and 20 things on the 'unfair against women' side... you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of men.

Take one thing off of both sides and you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 19 in favor of men. which gives them *more* advantage overall.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

Also, a lot of the troubles men have in family court are because of toxic masculinity, laws written by old men. The idea that only the man can be a provider, the idea that men can't be affectionate and parenting to their kids, are rooted in laws written by men, raised in eras where toxic masculinity was EVEN MORE prevalent.

The law that's had the biggest impact this this regard. Was actually initiated by an old feminist women.

It has thankfully been gradually replaced in most states in America but a lot of it's impact, effects and inequalities are still felt today.

 

[DragonSworne]

bae
shortie
Hipster

 

[kirblar]

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

There has to be a named fallacy for this. People's lives and experiences are not statistics, and no one should have to wait in line because they're deemed "less important."

 

[smokeandmirrors]

triggered jokes were never funny either. it's also easy to glean what a person is really like if they use 'triggered' or 'sjw' or 'cuck' and ignore them

 

[A Link to the Past]

Sure. I agree regarding attitudes and the academic stuff.

But feminist groups do actual advocacy not just research and most of that advocacy is centered on woman's issues. And I'm totally fine with that. That's a territory that needs to exists.

But actually advocacy for men's issues needs to happen too and feminists aren't doing anything there. Not because they don't want, but because they have enough work with women's issues.

Real feminist progress didn't just happen on the academic side, but in real advocacy.

It's all rather unfortunate, as there are very real problems to address, but the mantle was taken up as a form of anti-feminism as opposed to promoting men in certain respects. Hopefully MRAs will be crushed under boots until they are figurative dust so that actual men's rights can be addressed by people who actually care

bae
shortie
Hipster

Bae, please.

triggered jokes were never funny either. it's also easy to glean what a person is really like if they use 'triggered' or 'sjw' or 'cuck' and ignore them

Yuuup. If I've never seen you post on NeoGAF before and I see you unironically use those terms, I immediately ignore.

 

[entremet]

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

Taking one issue off both sides of the seesaw, just further favors things towards men.

If I have a balance scale and I have 2 things on the 'unfair against men' side and 20 things on the 'unfair against women' side... you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of men.

Take one thing off of both sides and you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 19 in favor of men. which gives them *more* advantage overall.

I don't see as a pie that only has limited slices. Suicide, as an example, effects a lot of men disportionately. Not to mention veterans suffering PSTD, of which many are mostly men.

And that effects women too. They're losing fathers, husbands, boyfriends, sons, brothers. We got look at things more ecologically, as part of a whole.

 

[The Elite]

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

Taking one issue off both sides of the seesaw, just further favors things towards men.

If I have a balance scale and I have 2 things on the 'unfair against men' side and 20 things on the 'unfair against women' side... you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of men.

Take one thing off of both sides and you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 19 in favor of men. which gives them *more* advantage overall.

I don't think there is any problem with dealing with those handful of men's issues while dealing with the multitude of women's issues. I think we can tackle both and dealing with a women's issue shouldn't hinder men and vice versa.

There is no scale.

Some of these issues will take decades to resolve.

An educated society should be able to come up with solutions that serve the best interests of everyone.

An educated society...

 

[Vampire On Titus]

triggered jokes were never funny either. it's also easy to glean what a person is really like if they use 'triggered' or 'sjw' or 'cuck' and ignore them

What are you trying to say about my peeps Ethan and Hila Klein?

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

I don't think many people are picking up causes just to be an asshole to people. It's just that they start treating people who either disagree or who are ignorant on the issue as others and start being assholes to them. It's zealotry.

But you already have a word for that.

You see this on the left and on the right- people who enjoy being on a moral high horse, engaging in lots of virtue signalling while making sure to jump all over anyone who makes the slightest "mistake" (real or otherwise.)

But why SJW just call them dicks.

This right here.

Only someone who is terribly regressive/prejudiced/backwards in their thinking would try to color being a "social justice warrior" as a bad thing, and/or use it in a derogatory manner.

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

Good one.

 

[cubicle47b]

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

Taking one issue off both sides of the seesaw, just further favors things towards men.

If I have a balance scale and I have 2 things on the 'unfair against men' side and 20 things on the 'unfair against women' side... you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of men.

Take one thing off of both sides and you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 19 in favor of men. which gives them *more* advantage overall.

This assumes we can only address one issue at a time and injustices are against groups rather than individuals.

 

[plagiarize]

There has to be a named fallacy for this. People's lives and experiences are not statistics.

There's nothing false about it. You aren't moving towards equality if you're solving problems on both sides when there is already a huge imbalance in place.

Yes some individuals get more screwed over than others, on both sides. But if the problem we're trying to solve is gender inequality, we aren't doing anything to solve the issue by tackling problems from both ends.

If we solve problems on both sides at the same rate, we don't start working on the real problem until we reach the point where men have no disadvantages and women still have plenty... and only then do we start truly moving towards equality.

 

[Fuchsdh]

We can talk about the handful of issues that unfairly hinder men, once the huge pile of issues that unfairly hinder women is down to the same size.

Taking one issue off both sides of the seesaw, just further favors things towards men.

If I have a balance scale and I have 2 things on the 'unfair against men' side and 20 things on the 'unfair against women' side... you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 10 in favor of men.

Take one thing off of both sides and you are looking at a ratio of 1 to 19 in favor of men. which gives them *more* advantage overall.

This seems like a horrifying way of going about addressing ills in our society. "Sorry, blacks still face discrimination, so we can't get to the anti-semitism until Tuesday..."

The whole point is that injustice is injustice, and that true equality is the goal. Fyre and Lui above are arguing that making positive steps for women's equality would help address equality in general. If you can't do that without saying "fuck men" then feminism would be a lie.

There has to be a named fallacy for this. People's lives and experiences are not statistics, and no one should have to wait in line because they're deemed "less important."

It’s just “whataboutism” wrapped up in a bizarre cloak.

 

[kirblar]

But why SJW just call them dicks.

It's a recognizable enough pattern that people wanted something to call them to distinguish them from people who are actually well-intentioned and doing things for healthy reasons.

I'm all on board the Diablo 1->Diablo 2 name change from Warrior to Paladin as an attempt at reclamation.

 

[cubicle47b]

But you already have a word for that.

Right. I think the word is counter-productive.

 

[FyreWulff]

The law that's had the biggest impact this this regard. Was actually initiated by an old feminist women.

It has thankfully been gradually replaced in most states in America but a lot of it's impact, effects and inequalities are still felt today.

The US had laws on the books well before someone in another country, that we were fully separated from at that point, pushed for some laws.

Women wouldn't be allowed to vote in the US for another ~40 years since that law. The first woman allowed to serve in Congress wasn't until 1916.

So congrats, you found the one incorrect feminist

" Caroline stated: "The natural position of woman is inferiority to man. Amen! That is a thing of God's appointing, not of man's devising. I believe it sincerely, as part of my religion. I never pretended to the wild and ridiculous doctrine of equality.""

that influenced laws in one country.

It's basically this argument:

 

[LiquidSword]

I think the reason SJW is a pejorative when logically it is not is because the people using it don't believe that these societal problems exist for women or minorities. They believe they are the victim and women are using their vaginas and minorities are using their skin color to cry misogyny and racism and get some kind of benefit that they aren't.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Here are two problems I find with people who legitimately care about male's rights (this is not referring to anyone here):

1. They reject the idea of toxic masculinity; basically, through either ignorance or misinformation, they assume it goes to mean that masculinity is toxic, as opposed to simply that boys and men are pressured into exuding negative aspects of masculinity (violence, sexual aggression, etc.), and anyone who doesn't is a cuck or gay.

2. They reject the idea of a patriarchy; because really, it's a big part of why a lot of men's problems exist. Patriarchy says that women can't work in the military or work dangerous jobs - thus, men die more often. Patriarchy says that women take care of kids - thus, men don't get custody when they should. Patriarchy says that men are strong and shouldn't take help from anyone - thus, men don't get treatment for mental illness.

 

[Lo_Fi]

By removing gendered distinctions with toys were actually going back.

"Going back" for businesses making money? Or society as a whole? Marketers realized they could market toys specifically to boys and girls and make more money. Previously if a family with a boy and a girl bought 1 toy for them to share, now they "have to" buy 2 separate toys. Better for making money, yes, but imo I think it is shitty to those kids who just wanna play with the other genders' toys without being made fun of.

 

[Henkka]

This right here.

Only someone who is terribly regressive/prejudiced/backwards in their thinking would try to color being a "social justice warrior" as a bad thing, and/or use it in a derogatory manner.

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

I think you're misunderstanding the term... It doesn't mean that social justice is bad or that fighting for social justice is bad.

It should be used for people who use social justice as a platform to bully others and put themselves on a pedestal, nothing else. But it has definitely become diluted, and used too often. I don't personally use it, even if I think it might be useful to have a catch-all for the radical far-left.

 

[plagiarize]

This assumes we can only address one issue at a time and injustices are against groups rather than individuals.

MRA are purposefully distracting the conversation *away* from women's rights as much as possible. That's pretty much the point of them. They want to see equal resources used to combat men's problems as are used to combat women's problems.

And of course it doesn't assume we can only address one issue at a time.

The quickest way to reach equality, is to focus on the disadvantages women have, until things threaten to swing back the other way.

MRAs whole tactic is to hijack any and all conversations about women's rights.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Social Justice Warrior is mouthful so whenever someone actually says it out loud (very rarely is it said sincerely) it comes off awkward.

Need better marketers.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

It's a recognizable enough pattern that people wanted something to call them to distinguish them from people who are actually well-intentioned and doing things for healthy reasons.

I'm all on board the Diablo 1->Diablo 2 name change from Warrior to Paladin as an attempt at reclamation.

People started using SJW to distinguish eligible complaints about modern society from people being dicks in the process?

Also I was like 7 when I played Diablo 2 and I only ever played Mage and Amazon. So no clue what that means.

 

[PSqueak]

The latest silly term I've seen on Twitter is "Brogressive", apparently labeling a person who identifies as progressive, but does not act on it.

Don't ask me which camp invented it. I want no part in this silly online trench warfare, where categorizing people into friend and foe based on crude keyword detection trumps actual conversation.

First time ever i see the word "Brogressive" but i have seen a bit of the word "bro" used like that, some people calling lazy, inefficient, bare-minimum-to-get-it-done coding described as "Brogramming".

But "Brogressive" sounds like an unneccesarily gendered version of "Slacktivist".

 

[kirblar]

People started using SJW to distinguish eligible complaints about modern society from people being dicks in the process?

Also I was like 7 when I played Diablo 2 and I only ever played Mage and Amazon. So no clue what that means.

Correct. It was initially used only to refer to the a-hole subset, it originated among left-leaning groups.

Warrior was a class in D1, Paladin was in D2 (along w/ Barbarian.)

 

[A Link to the Past]

People started using SJW to distinguish eligible complaints about modern society from people being dicks in the process?

Also I was like 7 when I played Diablo 2 and I only ever played Mage and Amazon. So no clue what that means.

Diablo 1 had a Warrior class, but this was replaced by the Paladin in Diablo 2. IIRC, Paladin had a lot more variety as far as magic goes.

 

[entremet]

"Going back" for businesses making money? Or society as a whole? Marketers realized they could market toys specifically to boys and girls and make more money. Previously if a family with a boy and a girl bought 1 toy for them to share, now they "have to" buy 2 separate toys. Better for making money, yes, but imo I think it is shitty to those kids who just wanna play with the other genders' toys without being made fun of.

Before modern marketing techniques I meant.

But yes marketers figured out gendering toys was extremely profitable, so they kept doing it until it became culturally ingrained.

This is a good critique of capitalism. Capitalism is focused on growth with little concern on consequences.

 

[cubicle47b]

The quickest way to reach equality, is to focus on the disadvantages women have, until things threaten to swing back the other way.

I just fundamentally disagree with this.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

But "Brogressive" sounds like an unneccesarily gendered version of "Slacktivist".

Probably derived from something like "macktivists," who are real and assholes.

I just fundamentally disagree with this.

allhousesmatter.jpg

 

[plagiarize]

This seems like a horrifying way of going about addressing ills in our society. "Sorry, blacks still face discrimination, so we can't get to the anti-semitism until Tuesday..."

The whole point is that injustice is injustice, and that true equality is the goal. Fyre and Lui above are arguing that making positive steps for women's equality would help address equality in general. If you can't do that without saying "fuck men" then feminism would be a lie.

I'm not saying fuck men. If solving an inequality for women also solves a problem men are having, I have no issues with that. I see how what I wrote could come across that way...

but we absolutely need to avoid letting men dictate *which* inequalities are removed first in any way that is being done to their own benefit.

I'm saying 'lets not worry about men just yet' until we start getting to a point where women don't have it measurably much worse.

 

[harriet the spy]

Kamorra's post went poof! I do agree with one of his points (namely that americans progressive can have a somewhat american-centric view about social issues). But, hey. It's an american forum, with a probable (?) american plurality.

This right here.

Only someone who is terribly regressive/prejudiced/backwards in their thinking would try to color being a "social justice warrior" as a bad thing, and/or use it in a derogatory manner.

Whenever people call me a SJW I just say "Thanks! I try."

While I completely agree with you at a high level (as in SJW being a reverse dog whistle), it's fairly obvious that people who use the term mean it ironically (as in, they think they believe in social justice, but that "SJW" are just draping themselves with the words if that makes any sense). And on the topic, I have to say that while I agree with them on nearly everything, social progressives on GAF have a tendency to set up crazy straw men.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I think you're misunderstanding the term... It doesn't mean that social justice is bad or that fighting for social justice is bad.

It should be used for people who use social justice as a platform to bully others and put themselves on a pedestal, nothing else. But it has definitely become diluted, and used too often. I don't personally use it, even if I think it might be useful to have a catch-all for the radical far-left.

Using SJW to classify people who want to bully others is bullshit.

People who want to bully others are assholes, no matter what views they are espousing.

 

[entremet]

I'm not saying fuck men. If solving an inequality for women also solves a problem men are having, I have no issues with that. I see how what I wrote could come across that way...

but we absolutely need to avoid letting men dictate *which* inequalities are removed first in any way that is being done to their own benefit.

I'm saying 'lets not worry about men just yet' until we start getting to a point where women don't have it measurably much worse.

The world is much more complex than this, though.

It's not just about gender but class, race, and others aspects. This is way too simplistic of thinking regarding social justice.

For example, black men are doing leagues worse than black women in terms of economic outcomes. Does focusing on black men worsen black women? And that's just that rubric. There are many other permutations.

See how flawed your reasoning is since you're too focused on binaries?

Much of modern feminism has been focused on middle class white men versus middle class white women. It's a very limiting ways of looking thing.

 

[cubicle47b]

allhousesmatter.jpg

Now you're just being an asshole.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It seems like a lot of people have a real problem understanding what the use of term warrior signifies. From much earlier time on the internet the term "flame war" was what a discussion on a place like usenet was called when it devolved into what looked like two groups of nutcases just going all out on each other. Repeat offenders in this sort of pointless drivel could be called things like flame warriors or keyboard warriors. If you want to imagine what this sort of person looks like imagine a much younger Totalbiscuit furiously typing about about the balance of a multilplayer game he only played for 2 hours.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Now you're just being an asshole.

It's the argument you're presenting.

Tell us why you fundamentally disagree.

 

[Familienoberhauptvogel]

Correct. It was initially used only to refer to the a-hole subset, it originated among left-leaning groups.

Warrior was a class in D1, Paladin was in D2 (along w/ Barbarian.)

Diablo 1 had a Warrior class, but this was replaced by the Paladin in Diablo 2. IIRC, Paladin had a lot more variety as far as magic goes.

I gathered as much but then I don't get the comparison.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I gathered as much but then I don't get the comparison.

People are joking that we should call people Social Justice Paladins :v

 

[kirblar]

I gathered as much but then I don't get the comparison if that's the case.

It was just a reference to Diablo (since both classes were in that game) about how we need a new term because the original term (SJW) has been co-opted by conservatives to mean "any progressive".

 

[plagiarize]

The world is much more complex than this, though.

It's not just about gender but class, race, and others aspects. This is way too simplistic of thinking regarding social justice.

For example, black men are doing leagues worse than black women in terms of economic outcomes. Does focusing on black men worsen black women?

See how flawed your reasoning is since you're too focused on binaries?

That's not analogous. Black men aren't doing worse than black women because of all the wonderful laws and social attitudes towards black women that are holding black men down.

Black men and black women are doing worse than the average American. Black women just aren't doing *as* badly.

With men and women for the most part (acknowledging other genders exist) you're talking about a binary, either or situation. Solve a problem men have, you further tip the balance away from women. Solve a problem women have, you tip the balance more towards equality.

 

[FLEABttn]

First time ever i see the word "Brogressive" but i have seen a bit of the word "bro" used like that, some people calling lazy, inefficient, bare-minimum-to-get-it-done coding described as "Brogramming".

But "Brogressive" sounds like an unneccesarily gendered version of "Slacktivist".

It's a person who wants the benefits generally espoused by progressives that would directly benefit them as white males (universal healthcare, "free" college, legal weed) but are highly suspicious of or against things that benefit women and minorities (third wave feminism gender equality, pay gaps, how police conduct themselves with regards to minorities, structural racism/sexism).

 

[studyguy]

brogressive sounds like some weird parody born out of someone watching too much south park and taking it too seriously.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

The US had laws on the books well before someone in another country, that we were fully separated from at that point, pushed for some laws.

Women wouldn't be allowed to vote in the US for another ~40 years since that law. The first woman allowed to serve in Congress wasn't until 1916.

So congrats, you found the one incorrect feminist

That's not really the point. Quantity doesn't matter and I'm not trying to frame this as adversarial. Regardless of who or how many; the effects of this legal principle are still felt to this day. The whole reason I brought up that the person who initiated it was a Feminist was an attempt to highlight that you can be wrong no matter the label.

Which is why I don't disparage the moderate voices in the Men's or Father's rights advocacy movements. Who don't hate women and are only looking to resolve issues that mean something to them. Regardless of if you think those moderate voices exist or not.