Poll Are you a SJW? (23 votes)
Yes 17%
No 87%
Are you a SJW? (social justice warrior.) I am not one.
Are you a SJW?
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
Ignorance/=/being unintelligent. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
I didn't say that one needs extensive education to comprehend feminist arguments (nor did I say they were complex), which is why I said "if they had taken some kind of gender studies class, they might not have such a simplistic view of feminist arguments." Taking a gender class or two is not extensive education. From what I've seen, Gamergaters don't have the slightest clue about feminism, which leads one to believe that they are relatively uneducated or didn't have a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you:
Merriam Webster
b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
So from the start of this thread with your attack against Last Ride and Foxhound with you saying they "don't seem to have enough education to properly comprehend feminist arguments." Apparently, enough education for you is taking a gender class or two? You're right that taking a gender class or two is not extensive education, but it is also true that it would not transform these individuals into suddenly comprehending feminist arguments.
Having little knowledge or great knowledge of feminism and feminist theory /=/ someone being relatively uneducated or someone not having a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster says that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence, which is true. It does not say that ignorance=a lack of intelligence. A smart person can be ignorant about certain things. Again, reading comprehension is key.
If one paid attention in gender studies classes, they may not be experts in feminist theory/feminism, but they would probably be able to speak on the issue with more nuance than your average Gamergater.
Educated people typically don't engage with feminist arguments in the "herp derp! They're saying that all men are pigs!" way that Gamergaters do. One can disagree with feminist arguments in an educated fashion. But Gamergate does not engage with the arguments in an educated fashion; instead, they engage in witch hunts and then try to give them moral legitimacy by pretending they're about ethics in journalism.
@GreySeal9 said:
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
Ignorance/=/being unintelligent. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
I didn't say that one needs extensive education to comprehend feminist arguments (nor did I say they were complex), which is why I said "if they had taken some kind of gender studies class, they might not have such a simplistic view of feminist arguments." Taking a gender class or two is not extensive education. From what I've seen, Gamergaters don't have the slightest clue about feminism, which leads one to believe that they are relatively uneducated or didn't have a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you:
Merriam Webster
b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
So from the start of this thread with your attack against Last Ride and Foxhound with you saying they "don't seem to have enough education to properly comprehend feminist arguments." Apparently, enough education for you is taking a gender class or two? You're right that taking a gender class or two is not extensive education, but it is also true that it would not transform these individuals into suddenly comprehending feminist arguments.
Having little knowledge or great knowledge of feminism and feminist theory /=/ someone being relatively uneducated or someone not having a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster says that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence, which is true. It does not say that ignorance=a lack of intelligence. A smart person can be ignorant about certain things. Again, reading comprehension is key.
If one paid attention in gender studies classes, they may not be experts in feminist theory/feminism, but they would probably be able to speak on the issue with more nuance than your average Gamergater.
Educated people typically don't engage with feminist arguments in the "herp derp! They're saying that all men are pigs!" way that Gamergaters do. One can disagree with feminist arguments in an educated fashion. But Gamergate does not engage with the arguments in an educated fashion; instead, they engage in witch hunts and then try to give them moral legitimacy by pretending they're about ethics in journalism.
Wow... that is some true mental gymnastics right there. This is amusing seeing you try to jump through so many hoops. If you wish to play this game, then your reading comprehension is off. You said that ignorance is a lack of knowledge (in your earlier post), even though the definition states that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Therefore, it does not say that ignorance = a lack of knowledge, as you stated earlier. Reading comprehension is key. Either way, you were wrong.
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
Ignorance/=/being unintelligent. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
I didn't say that one needs extensive education to comprehend feminist arguments (nor did I say they were complex), which is why I said "if they had taken some kind of gender studies class, they might not have such a simplistic view of feminist arguments." Taking a gender class or two is not extensive education. From what I've seen, Gamergaters don't have the slightest clue about feminism, which leads one to believe that they are relatively uneducated or didn't have a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you:
Merriam Webster
b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
So from the start of this thread with your attack against Last Ride and Foxhound with you saying they "don't seem to have enough education to properly comprehend feminist arguments." Apparently, enough education for you is taking a gender class or two? You're right that taking a gender class or two is not extensive education, but it is also true that it would not transform these individuals into suddenly comprehending feminist arguments.
Having little knowledge or great knowledge of feminism and feminist theory /=/ someone being relatively uneducated or someone not having a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster says that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence, which is true. It does not say that ignorance=a lack of intelligence. A smart person can be ignorant about certain things. Again, reading comprehension is key.
If one paid attention in gender studies classes, they may not be experts in feminist theory/feminism, but they would probably be able to speak on the issue with more nuance than your average Gamergater.
Educated people typically don't engage with feminist arguments in the "herp derp! They're saying that all men are pigs!" way that Gamergaters do. One can disagree with feminist arguments in an educated fashion. But Gamergate does not engage with the arguments in an educated fashion; instead, they engage in witch hunts and then try to give them moral legitimacy by pretending they're about ethics in journalism.
Wow... that is some true mental gymnastics right there. This is amusing seeing you try to jump through so many hoops. If you wish to play this game, then your reading comprehension is off. You said that ignorance is a lack of knowledge (in your earlier post), even though the definition states that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Therefore, it does not say that ignorance = a lack of knowledge, as you stated earlier. Reading comprehension is key. Either way, you were wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what it says. From the dictionary definition: "lacking knowledge or information"
Unintelligent people tend to be ignorant because they typically lack intellectual curiosity and as a result, don't seek out information/knowledge. But a smart person can be ignorant as well simply by lacking information.
I was trying to say that Gamergaters are ignorant rather than stupid, but if you really want to believe that I'm saying Gamergaters are just straight up dumb, it's no skin off my back lol.
@GreySeal9 said:
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
@StrifeDelivery said:
@GreySeal9 said:
Ignorance/=/being unintelligent. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
I didn't say that one needs extensive education to comprehend feminist arguments (nor did I say they were complex), which is why I said "if they had taken some kind of gender studies class, they might not have such a simplistic view of feminist arguments." Taking a gender class or two is not extensive education. From what I've seen, Gamergaters don't have the slightest clue about feminism, which leads one to believe that they are relatively uneducated or didn't have a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you:
Merriam Webster
b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
So from the start of this thread with your attack against Last Ride and Foxhound with you saying they "don't seem to have enough education to properly comprehend feminist arguments." Apparently, enough education for you is taking a gender class or two? You're right that taking a gender class or two is not extensive education, but it is also true that it would not transform these individuals into suddenly comprehending feminist arguments.
Having little knowledge or great knowledge of feminism and feminist theory /=/ someone being relatively uneducated or someone not having a well-rounded education.
Merriam Webster says that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence, which is true. It does not say that ignorance=a lack of intelligence. A smart person can be ignorant about certain things. Again, reading comprehension is key.
If one paid attention in gender studies classes, they may not be experts in feminist theory/feminism, but they would probably be able to speak on the issue with more nuance than your average Gamergater.
Educated people typically don't engage with feminist arguments in the "herp derp! They're saying that all men are pigs!" way that Gamergaters do. One can disagree with feminist arguments in an educated fashion. But Gamergate does not engage with the arguments in an educated fashion; instead, they engage in witch hunts and then try to give them moral legitimacy by pretending they're about ethics in journalism.
Wow... that is some true mental gymnastics right there. This is amusing seeing you try to jump through so many hoops. If you wish to play this game, then your reading comprehension is off. You said that ignorance is a lack of knowledge (in your earlier post), even though the definition states that ignorance can result from/show a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Therefore, it does not say that ignorance = a lack of knowledge, as you stated earlier. Reading comprehension is key. Either way, you were wrong.
Actually, that's exactly what it says. From the dictionary definition: "lacking knowledge or information"
Unintelligent people tend to be ignorant because they typically lack intellectual curiosity and as a result, don't seek out information/knowledge. But a smart person can be ignorant as well simply by lacking information.
I was trying to say that Gamergaters are ignorant rather than stupid, but if you really want to believe that I'm saying Gamergaters are just straight up dumb, it's no skin off my back lol.
Back and forth, all you seem to do is constantly flip-flop. Here, I'll give you a rundown to show you how sad your argument has been:
1) You claim that ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence.
2) I show you a definition that proves you wrong (resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence)
3) You then claim that resulting from a lack of intelligence does not equal a lack of intelligence
4) Using your logic against you, I then show you how your definition of ignorance being lack of knowledge was wrong since, according to you, resulting from or showing lack of knowledge does not equal lack of knowledge, and thus, you were wrong.
5) Then, you find a different definition to use to avoid admitting you were wrong.
Truly remarkable Grey Seal. You're almost like a politician, you would be a great candidate.
I truly don't care what you think about Gamergaters. It seems you are quick to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, calling them uneducated and/or unintelligent. All you can do is do trivial word games, just to prove some inane point of your misplaced smug superiority. You can't dismiss people's arguments, so you merely attack the individual, even mocking a person because English isn't his native language. What a waste of time this was. If I wanted to deal with someone this frustrating, I would talk with thegerg.
@GreySeal9 said:
@GreySeal9 said:
Funnily enough, @The_Last_Ride, Jeff Gerstmann doesn't want anything to do with you guys.
"Despite my name often being attached to the conspiratorial "gate" suffix, I've never been a big fan of the term. So when "GamerGate" rose up to cover over a campaign of harassment with a veneer of concern for the ethics of games journalism, it more or less set off every single disgust alarm I have. Though I'm sure some good people have been roped into this mess under this guise, the ethical concern portion of all this is largely a farce, a fallacy."
lol. Funny how he's saying EXACTLY the same thing as I am.
Also, The_Last_Ride, why do suppose that Jeff Gerstmann doesn't want anything to do with your oh so noble movement?
You're again moving the goal post
I don't believe in social justice. It is trying to make everything equal and it will never be. Things start out equal but the ending isn't and trying to make it so isn't right. Individual choices and decisions alter the out come as to who succeeds and who doesn't.
@JimB said:
I don't believe in social justice. It is trying to make everything equal and it will never be. Things start out equal but the ending isn't and trying to make it so isn't right. Individual choices and decisions alter the out come as to who succeeds and who doesn't.
There will always be crime so should we get rid of the law?
Even if it will never happen don't you think equality is something people should work towards?
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Just because there's more than there has been before doesn't mean that there's enough.
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Not being oppressed isn't the same as stuff being equal m8. This much should be obvious to you.
@Aljosa23 said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Not being oppressed isn't the same as stuff being equal m8. This much should be obvious to you.
Females can vote, they can get education, they can get any job they want. You can make a case that in some jobs they make less and that's total bs if they do. but most women work less and tend to be more away from work then men. Men tend to work more and have more full time jobs compared to women, that's even obvious here
@The_Last_Ride said:
@Aljosa23 said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Not being oppressed isn't the same as stuff being equal m8. This much should be obvious to you.
Females can vote, they can get education, they can get any job they want. You can make a case that in some jobs they make less and that's total bs if they do. but most women work less and tend to be more away from work then men. Men tend to work more and have more full time jobs compared to women, that's even obvious here
Perhaps we need to look at this another angle Last Ride. I think we need to ask what else needs to be done to make men and women equal. If they can actually list out certain points, I think that way will make it easier to prove or disprove their argument vs. people listing off the great advances women have had over the last 50-100 years in hopes that is what they meant.
Bottom line is: If men and women aren't equal, what isn't equal between them?
@StrifeDelivery said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@Aljosa23 said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Not being oppressed isn't the same as stuff being equal m8. This much should be obvious to you.
Females can vote, they can get education, they can get any job they want. You can make a case that in some jobs they make less and that's total bs if they do. but most women work less and tend to be more away from work then men. Men tend to work more and have more full time jobs compared to women, that's even obvious here
Perhaps we need to look at this another angle Last Ride. I think we need to ask what else needs to be done to make men and women equal. If they can actually list out certain points, I think that way will make it easier to prove or disprove their argument vs. people listing off the great advances women have had over the last 50-100 years in hopes that is what they meant.
Bottom line is: If men and women aren't equal, what isn't equal between them?
Exactly, i could make a case that men get royally screwed in custody cases and divorces. I am sure there are instances women get screwed over by the justice system. But women are not being constantly oppressed by this fucking patriarchy
@The_Last_Ride said:
@StrifeDelivery said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@Aljosa23 said:
@The_Last_Ride said:
@toast_burner: that's not what he said. There has never been more equality than there is today. Saying women are somehow oppressed is total bs
Not being oppressed isn't the same as stuff being equal m8. This much should be obvious to you.
Females can vote, they can get education, they can get any job they want. You can make a case that in some jobs they make less and that's total bs if they do. but most women work less and tend to be more away from work then men. Men tend to work more and have more full time jobs compared to women, that's even obvious here
Perhaps we need to look at this another angle Last Ride. I think we need to ask what else needs to be done to make men and women equal. If they can actually list out certain points, I think that way will make it easier to prove or disprove their argument vs. people listing off the great advances women have had over the last 50-100 years in hopes that is what they meant.
Bottom line is: If men and women aren't equal, what isn't equal between them?
Exactly, i could make a case that men get royally screwed in custody cases and divorces. I am sure there are instances women get screwed over by the justice system. But women are not being constantly oppressed by this fucking patriarchy
Sure, but women are as you say actually a lot better positioned than men. Not to mention that EU is now working on a new law which contains that there have to be at least 40-50% women in boardrooms and high profiled jobs, which is just ridiculous.
Im in the I don't care...you're a gay/lesbian/transexual/female gamer ...to me you are just a gamer. Do I care about how women are being potray in games sort of yes & no -> context. :P
@Jacanuk: that stuff is already here, and that is total bs
The initial question isn't a very good one - "social justice warrior" is a disparaging term used to describe fanatical social justice activists by those who disagree with them, based on that I don't think many people would choose to describe themselves as one. The people the term refers to probably have their own description for their beliefs.
Still, I'm not a fan of them. From what I've seen there are plenty of self-described social justice activists who are reasonable, moderate and open-minded (though I still don't necessarily agree with them). There are also plenty who are arrogant, hateful, hypocritical and spiteful, who abuse their outspoken beliefs on issues like sexism as a shield from legitimate criticism (by saying anyone who disagrees with them must be a sexist). Not to mention vocal people in the media who talk a lot about social justice but leave me thoroughly unconvinced that they really care about it and aren't just using it as a means to promote their careers, to portray themselves in a better light or to hide the fact that they are still nasty people.
Caring about social issues isn't a bad thing, but there is no single right way to go about this, no single set of ideas that is unconditionally right. That seems to be something that has gotten completely lost and now anyone who criticises modern feminism/social justice is painted as a bigot automatically. There are many factions of feminism (some of which outright hate eachother, like those who disagree on whether or not transsexual women count as 'real women'), none of them are right or wrong. Everyone who follows them is just somebody with an opinion and an ideology they support, and criticising their ideology doesn't mean you can't support an opposing ideology that still shares the same goals. No matter how good or bad your beliefs and ideologies are, if you become fanatical about them and start forcing them on others as word of law rather than arguing for them as opinions, you piss a lot of people off. That's exactly what the 'social justice warriors' have been doing and I'm not surprised people are starting to openly challenge them. Frankly I think it couldn't have come soon enough.
white teenagers engaging in social justice on the internet
lol
@BossPerson said:
white teenagers engaging in social justice on the internet
lol
It's not just white mate teenagers mate
I wouldn't consider myself to be a sjw, but others may disagree. I'm very vocal about lgbtqa+ rights (wow a trans person being pro-lgbtqa+ who would've thought).
Though my aim whenever I get into debates/discussions is to simply give some insight on some of the issues that are present. I don't really expect anyone to change their opinion(s).
Also, it's not like my life revolves around getting into those kind of debates. Ain't no one got time for that.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment