You know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people; one can be honestly passionate about Social Justice, and just oblivious (or place less emphasis) on other issues (our justice system puts a heavier penalty on Murder than Rape; I would do it the other way around. But that lies with my priorities, which can & are different than the next guys).

Ergo, the problem isn't so much "Social Justice Warriors"; they can actually be a good thing, acting as a moral compass.

The problem is with "Social Justice Profiteers"; people that USE social justice as a means to profit personally, whether financially or socially. For them the cause is not important, merely how it can benefit them, whether in supported stance amongst their peer group (you believe the "right" things), extra clicks to articles (clickbait revenue), or direct contribution to Patreons and KS projects (i.e. the REAL money).

I think of them as Social Justice Hipsters and Posers.

Social Justice Trolls, because that is what they are doing, trolling the conversation.

Troll is well enough ! They are not entitled to a fancier moniker, since they are just trolling using justice and social equity as an alibi for their appalling behaviour and bullying !

As I asserted in a different conversation, I think the most important thing to point out is that there can be such a thing as a shitty activist, and at this time, there are plenty of them, regardless of the label. After that, the best thing to do is to hold them accountable for their role in the conversation; Consultant-Gate is a great example of that in action.

Quote from: NovastarYou know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people...

I agree. #Gamergate would have been much more effective if it hadn't muddled the message with unclear terms like that. Social justice is a good thing. Shilling, scamming, posing, overreacting and overreaching are not.

Quote from: JamesV;791783Consultant-Gate is a great example of that in action.

So did we mostly win that? I stopped paying attention, sorry.

Quote from: Novastar;791734You know, the more I think about it, the less I like the term "Social Justice Warrior" to describe these people

I like it because it fits with how they see themselves, and isn't inherently derogatory. 'Social Justice Profiteer' would be like calling a Tea Partier a 'Teabagger' - it's just an insult.

If 'SJW' now has a derogatory implication (it does!) it's because of the actual behaviour of the SJWs. I think that's a good thing.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;791789I agree. #Gamergate would have been much more effective if it hadn't muddled the message with unclear terms like that. Social justice is a good thing. Shilling, scamming, posing, overreacting and overreaching are not.



So did we mostly win that? I stopped paying attention, sorry.

Mostly, and I think that things may have been different if it hadn't have been for the willingness for people to document as much of the conversation as possible, ask questions, and demand evidence. It was assertive without being abusive, and persistent, and I think that was the best possible way to handle it; let the hyperbole of the extremists discredit themselves.

The message of gamergate is quite clear.  They are sick and tired of social justice warrior gaming journalists.  They are sick of the gaming press accusing their customers of being women hating pigs.  They are sick of the double standards that the gaming press applies on people, but never apply on themselves.  Gamergate is just fed up on the social justice crowd and the corrupt gaming press.

The only reason the message looks muddy is because anti-gamergate crowd want to keep it muddy.  It is really their only defense as they don't have a leg to stand on morally and ethically speaking.

Quote from: Snowman0147;791627To think if liberals had done the wise thing and snip out the cancer this shit would had never been a damn issue.

Neither "side" of "liberals" or "conservatives" can control the conversation of small groups on the internet. And that's a good thing. As much as the parties shit themselves when anyone "goes off message", that is kinda the whole point of freedom of speech.

For better or worse, the "cancer" must be allowed to exist if the rest of us are to enjoy true freedom of speech, not just carefully curated echo chambers.

I do not agree with the SJW or the Teabaggers, but I defend their right to spank it until it breaks off...and also for them to post their thoughts on the interwebs.

Maybe I am wrong, but I have not seen any notable effect offline in the real world of the supposedly massive online memes and controversies.

With all the LoLcats and Squee pics, you'd think every animal shelter should be empty by now.

Again, maybe I am wrong and I would be happy to click links to articles you have that shows the offline effects of these SJW or other online movements.

Quote from: Spinachcat;791877Neither "side" of "liberals" or "conservatives" can control the conversation of small groups on the internet. And that's a good thing. As much as the parties shit themselves when anyone "goes off message", that is kinda the whole point of freedom of speech.

Except they have been fairly effective at stifling the free speech of people that don't toe their line. Reddit is a major online speech forum, getting shunted off that is the online equivalent of being told you're free to protest all you want, just do it outside the city limits.

Quote from: dragoner;791748Social Justice Trolls, because that is what they are doing, trolling the conversation.

I like the terms "Outrage Brigade" (plural) and "Outrage Addicts" (singular).

I think Bart Simpson may have been correct, Gen Xers needed a Vietnam to even them out and perhaps the Millennials need something a bit stronger.  Its a pity neither of them have gotten either to date.

;p

Quote from: Spinachcat;791877Again, maybe I am wrong and I would be happy to click links to articles you have that shows the offline effects of these SJW or other online movements.

Hey Novastar do you have that pic of the death threat syringe that a guy recieved?  Spinachcat want to see evidence.

Quote from: apparition13;791880Except they have been fairly effective at stifling the free speech of people that don't toe their line. Reddit is a major online speech forum, getting shunted off that is the online equivalent of being told you're free to protest all you want, just do it outside the city limits.

I disagree. Reddit isn't a public square. It's a corporate website. I don't expect a for-profit company to defend free speech if that speech could endanger profits.

And as we've seen with RPG.net, strict moderation only leads to people abandoning that forum for others with less moderation. If Reddit squelches too many voices, then those voices (and readers) will go elsewhere.

Quote from: Snowman0147;791903Hey Novastar do you have that pic of the death threat syringe that a guy recieved?  Spinachcat want to see evidence.

I've heard about it. But just like a random jackass sending "anthrax" dust in the mail isn't a national wave of terror, I don't see how the various threats, doxxing, phone calls to employers, etc by represents more than jackassery, thuggery and cyberbullying by a few shitheads, not an offline movement that affects the masses, or even a notable segment of the population.

I am also not seeing Blizzard, EA, Nintendo, etc feeling the need to say "because of (GG or anti-GG) we are now doing XYZ instead of ABC" - but maybe I am just unaware. If so, I am happy to read links.