Some answers may have been merged – ie, where I’ve been given the same link/article/answer multiple times, I will just include link with a note of how many people answered with this in the format: [article](x5)
Some answers may not be included if they misunderstood the question – they may instead have moved to ‘bonus’ as a section. Will highlight if that is the case.
People are anon if they didn’t explictly say “call me x”. Email me again if you want to change that 🙂Anon referencing consistent within this topic, but not with others.
1. Define what you mean by SJW (Social Justice Warrior).
Anon12: “When I think SJW, I think of those who use the false pretence of advocating for, say, equality, minorities, and other movements to push their doctored agenda. This is one of the reasons that, while my opinions align closely with the basics of feminism (I mean, who doesn’t want equality for women), I dare not use the term due to its toxicity, the attempts of feminists to make everything a feminist problem which only dilutes the cause, and the fact that it’s been co-opted by said SJWs when, if anything, they are everything they say they are against.”
Anon13: “I will be very rigid with my definition here. A “social justice warrior” is one of the people we see in SRS (r/ShitRedditSays) and Tumblr groups, and as [name removed] says, I consider them sort of like a “hivemind”. They are the particular brand of social justice slacktivists who, coming from a certain position they consider “oppressed”, will identify what they feel is bringing them down as some sort of -ist or -ism, and chalk it down to ingrained, inner urges of people in a certain group, painting them with a brush wide enough to cover the Sahara and the Gobi twelve times over. Let’s say this group is the patriarchy — whether I believe they exist or not has no bearing on the point I will make. I do not deny that men have had a stronger pull in many walks of life, like business, and films, and video games, for the last few decades, because that is true, and I similarly agree that women’s rights in the workplace should be protected and equalized wherever they are not up to par. However, I feel that the idea espoused by the so-called SJW is far too radical: bring down an entire class and make them the Low (let’s work off Orwell’s definition a la 1984: the High, the Middle, and the Low) while they themselves become the High. It’s a vicious cycle, because by their definition they are the Low and the patriarchy is the High. Nothing will change.
Furthermore, what tends to happen in these “social justice” cliques (I use air quotes, because I believe that many if not all of these groups essentially undermine real social justice or change as opposed to promulgating it), is that should someone step out of line, or they come across someone who makes an innocent comment that they spin in their perception, they come down with a barrage of ostracism, TWs (real or otherwise imagined), and the like. That person doesn’t agree with our beliefs, what a shitlord. Block them on Twitter and downvote all their Reddit posts and unfollow them on Tumblr, et cetera, et cetera. I believe it is this kind of devilish social engineering that allows them to have an echo chamber, and as a result, a rather unusual worldview, to say the absolute nicest.”
Anon14: “SJW is a derogatory term for a very specific type of political activist. It describes a person who, in the pursuit of greater equality between genders and among races, is willing to ignore empirical evidence that does not support their beliefs; a person who absolutely refuses to listen to any dissenting opinion, instead shouting the dissenter down, intentionally misrepresenting the dissenter’s opinion in order to discredit it, or ignoring the dissenter entirely; a person who feels that is their duty to decide what is and isn’t offensive to minorities, despite what the minorities they ostensibly represent actually have to say on the topic; a person who, when members of these minority groups happen to disagree with them, portrays them as weak-minded, weak-willed, brainwashed, and unable to decide for themselves what is right and wrong; a person who, while crusading against stereotypes, is willing to paint an entire demographic with a very broad brush as rapists, misogynists, and other hurtful and serious accusations.”
Anon15: “Someone who have created themself an identity as defender of those they see as “weaker” (in SJW words: more oppressed)”
Anon16: “I feel that SJW is a label used by people who don’t want to think too hard about social issues to dismiss people who are particularily interested in discussing social issues. I don’t use that label myself. Though i understand the kind of frustration that might cause other people to use it.”
Anon17: “Someone who sees problems in the way we interact with each other and fights to stop that”
2. Do you agree with this statement: “Being Anti-Corruption and Anti-SJW are hand in hand.” If so, why? If not, why not?
Anon12: “No. While the two certainly overlap in the case of GamerGate (seeing as it is SJW’s who are showing signs of corruption)”
Anon13: “Absolutely not. I do not imagine for a second that the threats perpetrated against Quinn, Sarkeesian, Hernandez, et al. can be handwaved off, because for one they tweet on the #GamerGate tag and we cannot police everything, so they have basis in denouncing the harassment that comes out of what I believe is a movement with actual merit and consequences for journalistic integrity. However, to attack SJWs as the problem here is missing the mark a little. #GamerGate, as a general whole, dislikes people like Chris Plante, Luke Plunkett, Ben Kuchera, Leigh Alexander, and Zoe Quinn, but the movement only happens to involve them, because they did something bad, and not because of anything like gender. Likewise, the attacks from SJWs and the resulting backlash from 4chan et al. mostly happen because it was the SJWs, they specifically, who stepped up to the plate of defense for the journalists. It might help that #GamerGate dislikes the SJW worldview, however. So essentially, it’s a cruel “us vs. them” argument I’d rather not have.”
Anon14: “I do not agree with that statement. The issue here is that the “SJW crowd” is a group with a specific political agenda. Many if not most gaming journalists in positions of power, including those on the GameJournoPros mailing list, all consider themselves supporters of this political agenda. This creates a problem when products that do or do not support their agenda are given more or less positive or negative coverage or reviewed differently, and when individuals trying to break into the industry, whether as journalists themselves or as developers, are pressured to change their beliefs to conform to the majority or become ostracized from the community. However, this problem is not specific to the SJW crowd. If ANY political entity or agenda had a monopoly over gaming journalism, it would be just as bad. What is needed is diversity of opinion among journalists and reporting that reflects a broad range of beliefs and ideals.”
Anon15: “No, people who aren’t SJW can also be corrupt and SJW is not a synonym for corrupt. Not to be said that SJW can’t possibly be corrupt.”
Anon16: “Since i don’t feel SJW has any actual substance beyond being a dismissive label, i don’t see why it necessarily needs to go hand in hand with any serious agenda. There is, however, a complication related to the fact that corruption is an actual real thing and people who do corruption are known to employ every trick in the book to protect their interests. In our current situation, many of journalists that appear to be genuinely corrupt (as in more interested in pursuing their own agenda than in serving the consumer) also just happened to be women. So they, in a very obvious move, co-opted the notion of feminism to work as their shield. Their dishonest and insincere co-option of feminism, however, results in them exhibiting the very kind of behaviour that would lead multiple people to label them SJW.
So TLDR: you don’t need to have any particular stance on actual notions of justice from social point of view to address journalistic corruption. The fact that SJW label is now tied to journalistic corruption is merely a local phenomenon and should not be indiciative of any structural alignment between journalistic corruption and the notion of justice from social point of view.”
Anon17: “No. Corruption is a group who are taking advantage of a system for their own gain. Social Justice Warriors literally just see an issue and in fact try to fix it. What we have here is when people are using Social Justice as a means to cover up Corruption. By trying to make it look like victims and assholes, Corruption has successfully blinded individuals from targeting them and instead targeting eachother. And in this Case, Social Justice Warriors and Video Game Enthusiasts.”