227: Wow, this thing went seriously off-topic. I suppose I'll dip my toe in if only to say that "SJW" seem to have been primarily used around here to differentiate between those actually interested in equality and the shark-types who piggyback off of well-meaning people and causes to turn a profit. The term seems to have widened to include people who buy into the same ideology of said sharks and thus diluted it a bit, but I don't think it's
necessarily malicious.
Vainamoinen: It's necessarily malicious and you've already given a good handful of reasons why! I've supplied another handful in this very thread already – "SJW" has such a massively widened meaning that it essentially only means "people whose opinions I don't want to listen to". In its most acceptable variant, it is entirely meaningless.
One of the very few things Brasas has made clear in this thread is that social justice in itself, as the major part of the term, isn't the problem; and as I have made clear countless times, the gamergater supporters are fighting
for their own kind of social justice (which just happens to make shitty stories, shitty games and, among many other things, shitty forums).
What some people perceive as the actual problem with "SJW" is in fact half of what identifies gamergate supporters. I won't dig up the longer post on the matter, as I'm too sick and tired right now, but it was probably two or three months ago in the gamergate thread. It hasn't helped waking people up, unsurprisingly (by default, it wasn't understood).
"SJW" is a malicious term, created as such and used almost, if not entirely exclusively in a derogatory sense on this forum. And that usage really isn't debatable, in my opinion - particularly not by the people active in said crappiest thread on the forum, who are repeating it like broken records, definitely in its vilest possible interpretation! That we are now debating a possible
positive interpretation and meaning is therefore doubly insulting. It's the aforementioned level 0.0 of the discussion that we are rapidly approaching again, quite purposefully so.
The off topic direction the thread has veered into is of course intentional. The only meaning fixed about "SJW" is the insult; by questioning that, we are questioning that simply unacceptable insults are routinely hurled at random people instead of talking about the factual fascists and abusers in the gamergate thread.
Just the usual smoke screen.
Everyone has their own meanings that may or may not completely overlap but may be similar. I use it as a semi-derogatory term like people use the word ''bastard'' in trash talking. Other people have more serious meanings and others just treat it like as a substitute for a place of origin tag like ''goon'' or ''redditor''. I don't see the fuzz here. You called yourself that a few months ago. Like, what exactly is the problem here as far as personal attacking goes? Is ''SJW'' worse than ''rapist'' or ''racist''?
Anyhow, the internet meaning roughly bring ''people who believe in radical change in social systems and media in favor inclusiveness and what ideas they percieve as inclusive'' isn't very offensive, right?
Well, if you see social justice as an organized movement within a society to create and perpetuate changes in a field, all activism is social justice. As a tangent, I trust by ''shitty stories'' you mean stories that don't align with your ideology, correct?
I didn't read your post, but you may have confused fact based activism which gamergate does and assumption based activism of radical social justice and then went on to claim both do take it up to too high above 11 so gg is not good. Well, when people try to enforce rules based on subjective factors, other people tend to try to debunk them. Is it really hard to hold a debate if you believe that your side also has facts? Because I've seen neither facts nor debate and just claims as to the nature of gg.
As to it being used in the vilest interpretation on the gg thread, no. You interpret the word as highly insulting irrespective of the meaning others are using it in. The nature in which they say it and you interpret it is different, but you still insist its some ultra-offensive term because you claim some ''worst possible interpretation'' is used. What do you understand this interpretation to be and is it similar to mine I typed a few lines above? And about non escalating discussions; please break into self awareness. You have been on the same thing for the last three posts without even a chance of giving word on any other topic anyone has brought up. Do see that at least?
I don't know, you say SJW is the vilest insult alive then call everyone opposed to your views racist and sexist and ultra right wing. Then you claim while you can call people all that in the name of questioning ''factual fascists'' and ''abusers'', them calling you an improperly defined and openly frequently differently interpreted word some sort of hate crime.
And what concept do you have of ''abuse''? You're thin skinned, just admit it. Also of fascists. It means ultra authoritarian. So either you interpret debunking dogmas and demanding for their removal as authoritarian or you don't know what it means.
Finally, some sort of ''smokescreen''? Lol do you even understand you taking this to that level is like ggers claiming there is a leftist marxist conspiracy to take over the world? You're attaching meaning to facts that you feel are somehow linked. Don't get yourself in the tin foil hat territory.