It's not about feelings, it is about the immense embarassing stupidity of this term, and all the implicits of its usage. You should seriously consider starting to think about it.

How is it stupid? Just saying it's stupid is not good enough. Does the term imply something that is not true? Not at all. And even if I use "SJW" with the word "warrior" as sarcasm, I still don't see the big deal. So people have no good reason to see someone as "stupid" for using "SJW" and no good reason to bully that someone.

Once you look at the facts, tone down the emotionality of the issue, ignore the propaganda clamor of the Hatred devs and strike the fictional enemy concept of imbeciles out of the equation, a number of sensible explanations to the puzzle suddenly appear.

They do have technical means, they have banned commandos in Germany already, they have banned Hotline Miami 2 in Australia already, those are the 2 countries that "would" have been affected here. They have also banned said Commandos games AFTER people already had bought them from aforemented country.

They aren't even region locking it on Desura, nor on their site (steam code bought there can be redeemed on steam in affected countries, as mentioned earlier). So even if gog REALLY couldn't do region locking it clearly wouldn't be a problem either.

But fuck the actual facts, let's go back to calling us all imbeciles, that gives more power to your unbiased intellectually superior argument, eh Vainamoinen?

It is stupid the exact same way as other epithets used by ultraconservatives (the already mentionned "human-rightist", "third world-ist", "politically correct" or "bleeding heart", etc) to try to disqualify any discourse that push them back in the cave where they belong. It is a desperate admission of backwardness. It is sucessful the very same way as "politically correct" is succesful or, in a different way, this systematic assumption of "offense" whenever being criticized or ridiculed. It allows one to feel super cool about his primitive stance, to revendicate it as some sort of daring rebellious ballsy anti-authoritarianism (while, ironically enough, it's most often itself a defense of the most normative, hierarchical, traditionalism), and to dismiss criticisms through the direct reversal of very values they are based on (the values themselves become the stigmatized element of the criticized critique : as soon as "social justice" -or "feminism", or "solidarity", etc- is designated as a drive, the discourse gets disqualified).

Words do not come alone, nor do they pop up without a history. Words carry representations. When a speaker qualifies his critics as "offended", he reveals a whole worldview with pre-set positions and motives (basically "my truth hurts, therefore they react with antagonism"), a worldview so far from reality that it ridicules the speakers in the eyes of all those who aren't precisely seeking such a narrative to avoid introspection. When a speaker borrows "politically correct" or "sjw" or other flagwords from cornered reactionary troglodytes, he shows his lack of awareness of the actual stakes and debates that are hijacking the matter. It's basically (knowingly or unknowingly) aligning oneself on a specific frontline, which is recognisable by the terms , concepts and phrasings exchanged. It is, consciously or not, endorsing the framing of the discussion in a specific way, that serves only to establish a false rhetorical opposition (and support a false narrative) which is the only angle through which the most backward fringe of our society can entrench itself.

In practice, the "sjw" term is used as a defense line against all sort of societal progress or issue awareness. It is used against antiracists when migration issues are at stake (with the stigmatisation of refugees or foreigners in general), it is used against feminists whenever implicit gender-asymetrical differences are poiinted out, it is used against social services whenever a question of global solidarity is raised against the right of solipsist greed. It can be, and is being, used to cheaply disqualify as irrelevant absolutely any legitimate social struggle. "Sjw" doesn't say anything, it doesn't define any threshold of legitimate or illegitimate social critique, it's is only a general label used indifferently against any progressive current.

The more it is being used, in more contexts, the more it imposes itself (like "politically correct") as a reflex argument (a reflex rhetorical tool) that warrants no questionning. It comes with a whole false obviousness of background "social critique is often a mere self-serving caprice", that, because of this "obviousness" can be actualized in any convenient context ("this is just an exemple of it"). With the same thoughtlessness as "oh here come more offended people" (implementing the readymade narratives of "people get hurt by the truth" or "people have no humour" that are just handily omnipresent in the back of one's head) and "oh this is political correctness again" (readily accessible to the brainless who just believe we live in a p.c. oppression and don't realise the multiplicity of speeches that would be currently transgressing it, in particulat the very present and very vocal ones who complain about it).

"Sjw" is (like many over-used rhetorical keywords) a wool thread that drags a whole ball behind it. Often on purpose ("i defend this game's presence on gog because it is my fight against the political oppression ...that forbid me to say that muslims are terrorists / women are bad drivers / jews are greedy / foreigners are ruining our race / etc") and sometimes by naivety ("i defend this game's presence on gog because it is so cool to fight for freedom against an oppressive enemy on a matter that is relevant to me, let's join this cool crowd who is defending these values of freedom and pointing at that oppression for so long"). But it's a specific bandwagon, on specific rails, fueled by a specific manipulative rhetoric, that (quite deliberately) englobe a specific lot of things. And when you join a bandwagon and start chanting their slogans without paying any attention to the words, their history, and their echos, you just show how prone you are to being drafted in dubious badass-sounding movements.

Words mean more than what they mean, and adopting them is not innocent. Because of how language and cognition works.

I called "the SJW" the enemy concept of imbeciles, and I stand by that. I have not met a person going "the SJW this the SJW that" who did not appear to suffer from serious brain damage.

If in that quote "us" happens to mean "the people who think that SJW means anything", then yes of course, that's what I call them.

The Commandos region locks in Germany are the only known to date if I'm not mistaken. It makes sense for GOG to not acquire games for distribution that will likely have to be region locked eventually, and it's obvious that the locking technology used for Commandos isn't without its loopholes, as is usually the case in DRM free distribution. Unless they want to do it the Valve way – i.e. preemptive region locks, actual self censorship – they have to tread very carefully.

From a legal standpoint, GOG makes themselves vulnerable with newer games likely to be banned and that's that. The argument that they'd risk a lot stands.

The people who think 'fictional enemy' = control freaks enforcing the ban of everything they consider 'bad'. The typical use of SJW is not gonna cut it, I surely wouldn't want to exclude all the religious nuts, radical right, conservative bullshit, or any other enforced categorical imperative from the list, that would be discriminative, I'm a lover of equality after all. It's just that when it comes to gaming, radical left/thought police took over Thompson's when it comes to arguing violence and morality, but we shouldn't forget their teachers.

And of course I don't think those groups are fictional at all, nor is their influence.

And again, the moment you resorted to insults and namecalling is the moment you lost not just the argument, but the right to debate.
Um, as I mentioned before, Hotline Miami 2 day1 release day1 region ban, scroll down if you have to.

Should they ban everything that is deemed inappropriate in North Korea, or that ISIS didn't approve of? Should anything any freak government in this world dislikes be censored/removed/rejected to be on the safe side?

GOG already enforces region locks. They're not selling it because they don't want to and that's fine.
Why? It's none of your business. You're free to boycott them or whatever just as they're free to not tell anyone.
+1

Uh...because it's not a word? It's an acronym.

An acronym that's become a lazy catchall for a certain segment to throw down on anyone who 'hurtz their feelz', but an acronym nonetheless.

And we have returned to our regularly scheduled program of...whatever the hell this is.

Edit: I think there's no point in trying to classify this. Any attempt to return to sanity and to explain the etymology of "social justice warriors" or "censorship" is futile in the least. I'm sure someone will just see "SJW" and assume I am probably supporting whatever it is they stand for. Nebulous definitions are fun for all.

My conclusion is that if we end up with Hatred as a result of all these moaning "free speech advocates" with twisted panties, we should get HuniePop.

*sigh*
Why are such great posts wasted on this topic?

I thought communism and socialism were frowned upon in America?

The irony of these words being used as a conclusion to a self-serving "All who dare disagree are conservatard troglodytes!" post was not lost on me.

1. Provided they didn't sell it because of the violence. Which I kind of doubt.

2. Yeah they did. They had the game locked in Germany and Australia on Steam, hoping to drum up some added controversy and making the game seem much more "hardcore" than it actually is.

3. I do have a taste for such games. The gore, the merrier. If you know what I mean. That being said, Hatred is utter, pseudo-edgy cringe-inducing, terribly-handling shit. And it's not even THAT violent. I mean, the fucking iso perspective prevents you from seeing all the juicy details and the execution cinematics get old really fast. Might be worth picking up at a sale for $5 or less, but at full price, you'll feel cheated. Try The Punisher instead, at least the people who made that one got creative with their sadism (interrogate people by smashing window frames on their throats or putting them into woodchippers legs first).

The first thing that came into my mind when clicking the link was "Holy shit! Night Dive/Retroism strikes again!". :P

edit: Oh god, the tags for this! Psychological Horror, Classic, Gore, Survival Horror, Dating Sim, Walking Simulator... My sides!

Oh, this obscene game... For the love of God, those animals are stark naked!

Sweeet Hooome Alabama!