#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[BoberFett]

 

[jackstar7]

I cannot deny the sad reality of that. I just have to wait for shame to find its way into the equation... like when everyone's mom is also playing Halo or whatever...

 

[werepossum]

Wait...what?

I'm truly confused by this.

Whose rights are being denied here? I might be completely out of my depth on the issue, but can you help me out?


Also, the whole point I am making is that using the label of SJW is the same shitty behavior that results in all other de-humanizations that people require to then treat each other like complete assholes. And on top of that, it slanders the very notion of social justice, which apparently is a problem for you...somehow?

I have no idea how you are defining social justice. That seems clear.

Social Justice Warrior is a fairly well-defined theme in the Internet world. It has perhaps seven central components:
1. A radical progressive (as opposed to liberal) viewpoint.
2. Division of everyone into sometimes overlapping groups. (aka Identity politics.)
3. Allocation of rights and guilt based not on individual actions, but on membership in those groups.
4. Vitriolic and prolonged attacks on anyone perceived to not agree with the SJW.
5. Poorly thought-out, often illogical views which must be defended to the death. (aka More heat than light.)
6. Suspicion by virtually everyone except the SJWs that the opinions so viciously promulgated are for the SJW's self-aggrandizement within his or her peer group, and/or for the SJW's own advancement, rather than any particular feeling for the individuals being discussed.
7. A totalitarian viewpoint, so that the SJW is 100% correct on every issue and therefore any opinion diverging in the slightest is 100% wrong.

Differences between SJWs and other left wingers can be stark. SJWs are a subset of progressives in that some people embrace the progressive tag but are really conventional liberals, dedicated to maximizing individual liberty and individual rights. SJWs are the totalitarian, authoritarian subset even among proggies; whether one is right or wrong in any situation can be determined simply by examining the relative individuals' groups. The only way an SJW lets anyone out of their box is to put them into another box. For instance, a white person could escape white privilege by joining up as a SJW, or a black person could be relegated to the Uncle Tom (or worse) group for daring to express literally any opinion other than the official hymnal.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social+justice+warrior

social justice warrior
A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/social-justice-warrior

Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative label applied to bloggers, activists and commentators who are prone to engage in lengthy and hostile debates against others on a range of issues concerning social injustice, identity politics and political correctness. In contrast to the social justice blogosphere at large, the stereotype of a social justice warrior is distinguished by the use of overzealous and self-righteous rhetorics, as well as appealing to emotions over logic.

http://observer.com/2015/06/the-pecking-disorder-social-justice-warriors-gone-wild/

The ordeal of Northwestern University film professor Laura Kipnis, hauled before a campus gender equity tribunal for publishing a critique of academia’s current obsession with sexual misconduct, has brought the backlash against “political correctness” to reliably left-of-center venues such as Vox. But this is only the latest incident in the culture wars over “social justice” that have been wreaking havoc in a wide range of communities—including, but not limited to, universities, the literary world, science fiction fandom and the atheist/skeptic movement. The progressive crusaders driving these wars have been dubbed “social justice warriors,” or “SJWs,” by their Internet foes. Some activists on the left proudly embrace the label, crowing that it says a lot about the other side that it uses “social justice” as a derisive epithet. But in fact, this version of “social justice” is not about social justice at all. It is a cultish, essentially totalitarian ideology deeply inimical—as liberals such as Jonathan Chait warn in New York magazine—to the traditional values of the liberal left, and not just because of the movement’s hostility to freedom of “harmful” speech. At the core of social justice dogma is fixation on identity and “privilege.” Some of this discourse touches on real and clear inequities: for instance, the widespread tendency of police and others to treat African-Americans, especially young and male, as potential lawbreakers. Yet even here, the rhetoric of privilege generates far more heat than light. University of California-Merced sociologist Tanya Bolash-Goza, who accepts the “social justice” left’s view of pervasive structural racism in America, points out that the term “white privilege” turns what should be the norm for all—not being harassed by cops or eyed suspiciously by shop owners—into a special advantage unfairly enjoyed by whites. (Indeed, in its dictionary meaning, “privilege” refers to rights or benefits possessed by the select, not by the majority.) This language speaks not to black betterment but to white guilt. It also erases the fact that the “privilege” extends to many nonwhite groups, such as Asians. Privilege rhetoric offers an absurdly simplistic view of complex social dynamics. A widely cited essay by pro-“social justice” sci-fi writer John Scalzi seeks to explain privilege to geeks by arguing that being a straight white male is akin to playing a video game on “the lowest difficulty setting.” Does the white son of a poor single mother have it easier than the daughter of a wealthy black couple? As a minor afterthought, Mr. Scalzi mentions that “players” in other groups may be better off if they start with more “points” in areas such as wealth. But generally, the “social justice” left strenuously avoids the issue of socioeconomic background, which, despite upward mobility, is surely the most tangible and entrenched form of actual privilege in modern American society. Rather, the focus is on racial, sexual and cultural identities.

 

[Aikouka]

I saw that TotalBiscuit posted an interesting audio blurb a few days ago. Essentially, he's just tired of the constant harassment from people that appear to misconstrue things that he does/says or just purposefully spread falsehoods.

Good points. Women who get paid to play games are getting paid because their employers believe the women's presence will ultimately make them more money than they are paying. This is simple capitalism and is based solely on women's relative scarcity in gaming. If gamers were overwhelmingly female, we would see attractive and personable men being paid to game. Makes me wonder if, as gamer women become more numerous, the desirable group will eventually be the androgynous and/or transgendered. Anybody else remember David Bowie and Lou Reed? When gaming becomes as mixed and as prevalent as music, companies will once again struggle to differentiate themselves with the exotic.

It seems like you're suggesting that women get sponsored because they're the minority in gaming, but I don't think that's true. Women get sponsorships because they're either (a) a part of a team with sponsors, or (b) the sponsors believes that the streamer can help push the brand. Now, you seem to be stating point b, but you seem to suggest that they're a "desirable group" because of the scarcity. Sponsors may want more women on their payroll because of diversity, but the biggest metric should be overall views. At least based up on what I've seen, male streamers still get the most views.

 

[jackstar7]

Social Justice Warrior is a fairly well-defined theme in the Internet world. It has perhaps seven central components:

Okay... but things you didn't address:

What does social justice mean to you?

How are someone's rights denied when others get their rights?

And how is SJW not just another way to group a bunch of people together to dehumanize them? I feel like you just demonstrated that's all it is. There are assholes in the world... this is not news to me.

 

[Exophase]

Okay... but things you didn't address:

What does social justice mean to you?

How are someone's rights denied when others get their rights?

And how is SJW not just another way to group a bunch of people together to dehumanize them? I feel like you just demonstrated that's all it is. There are assholes in the world... this is not news to me.

I think what they're trying to say here is that SJW isn't just a label given to anyone who's passionate about or advocates for social justice. Or at least it isn't supposed to be.

It's a lot like calling someone a "bleeding heart" a few decades ago. That's not generalizing or denigrating a group, that's denigrating specific perceived behaviors and mindsets.

 

[BoberFett]

Okay... but things you didn't address:

What does social justice mean to you?

How are someone's rights denied when others get their rights?

And how is SJW not just another way to group a bunch of people together to dehumanize them? I feel like you just demonstrated that's all it is. There are assholes in the world... this is not news to me.

To me social justice has become all about social justice warriors, because lately it seems impossible to have a discussion about anything related to social justice without a very vocal crowd telling whitey to check their privilege. Even inconsequential things are blown out of proportion. Look at the national news making a fuss over a goddam Twitter fight because some white girl had cornrows.

I'm sorry, but social justice has fallen victim to pop culture and petty assholes. If you don't like that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[jackstar7]

I think what they're trying to say here is that SJW isn't just a label given to anyone who's passionate about or advocates for social justice. Or at least it isn't supposed to be.

It's a lot like calling someone a "bleeding heart" a few decades ago. That's not generalizing or denigrating a group, that's denigrating specific perceived behaviors and mindsets.

I can appreciate that, but I have seen it thrown around rather loosely at anyone with an opposing point of view on the given subject. And people are given that label so that their opinion, evidence, etc. can be quickly dismissed rather than addressed.

It goes both ways in this "debate", but the difference is that when someone on the other side is labeled a misogynist or the like I don't think "Hey, that makes it sound like all misogyny is bad, and that's not true." Whereas, I'd like to see social justice as a concept not dragged through the shit that is this toilet of an issue. Personal preference I suppose.

And I still don't see how making sure someone has rights takes rights away from someone else.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm sorry, but social justice has fallen victim to pop culture and petty assholes. If you don't like that, I'm not sure what to tell you.

That's reasonable. I just get the suspicion that taking social justice and smearing shit all over it was possibly not just a happy byproduct for some dickheads, but actually part of the plan.

 

[BoberFett]

I can appreciate that, but I have seen it thrown around rather loosely at anyone with an opposing point of view on the given subject. And people are given that label so that their opinion, evidence, etc. can be quickly dismissed rather than addressed.

It goes both ways in this "debate", but the difference is that when someone on the other side is labeled a misogynist or the like I don't think "Hey, that makes it sound like all misogyny is bad, and that's not true." Whereas, I'd like to see social justice as a concept not dragged through the shit that is this toilet of an issue. Personal preference I suppose.

And I still don't see how making sure someone has rights takes rights away from someone else.

There is no right to not be offended. These SJWs want to eradicate any speech they don't like. So yes, if these people can establish a right to not be offended than it definitely takes rights away from someone else.

Look at the direction college campuses are going, banning events or speakers just because some people disagree with it. You, as a liberal, should be frightened by that.

 

[BoberFett]

That's reasonable. I just get the suspicion that taking social justice and smearing shit all over it was possibly not just a happy byproduct for some dickheads, but actually part of the plan.

Really? You've been very level-headed for most of this discussion and now you're going to go to the vast right wing conspiracy?

The term Social Justice Warrior came about specifically because these assholes on one side use the term. They're coming straight out of college women's studies courses and loudly proclaiming that they're fighting for social justice, all the while acting like assholes. There's no right wing plot to undermine social justice, this was brought on by the very people who claim to be fighting for social justice.

 

[jackstar7]

There is no right to not be offended. These SJWs want to eradicate any speech they don't like. So yes, if these people can establish a right to not be offended than it definitely takes rights away from someone else.

Look at the direction college campuses are going, banning events or speakers just because some people disagree with it. You, as a liberal, should be frightened by that.

I'd never advocate for a right not to be offended or support anyone that purports to have that goal. BUT that's an impossible goal and those people will accomplish nothing. Never. That's the equivalent to me of just being a drama-queen and wanting an eternal enemy.

So saying that anyone will lose rights to those dummies is REALLY working to exaggerate a threat to freedom. Tempest in a teacup.

Really? You've been very level-headed for most of this discussion and now you're going to go to the vast right wing conspiracy?

The term Social Justice Warrior came about specifically because these assholes on one side use the term. They're coming straight out of college women's studies courses and loudly proclaiming that they're fighting for social justice, all the while acting like assholes. There's no right wing plot to undermine social justice, this was brought on by the very people who claim to be fighting for social justice.

I feel like you're overstating my opinion here. All the definitions showed it as a pejorative, so I don't think anyone wears that label as a badge of honor (without being a fucking moron), and wherever it came from, it's clearly a put-down now. And I see it used regularly far outside the "women's rights/feminist" movement just to put down liberals in general.

I'm not really seeing it as a conspiracy at all. I'm saying that people who want to shit on progressives/liberals/etc. saw a term jump into the zeitgeist and they are going to run with it... forever... or as long as it maintains any value as a pejorative, and part of the reasoning being wanting to continue to slander the notion of social justice because it continues to work against a white male dominated reality. I don't see it as vast or really right-wing though. Just assholes who saw another opportunity and jumped right on it.

I will say that I'm glad we've taken over this thread for this discussion. From what I've read the actual "gamergate" shit was so overblown and preposterous.


EDIT: Side-thought - labeling your opposition as 'warriors' makes your position sound like it has some kind of honor and nobility... and makes it sound like you think you're in an actual war. The unbridled pants-crapping if these tools (again on both sides) were involved in an actual war... it's just punishingly dumb.

 

[Spungo]

Social Justice Warrior is a fairly well-defined theme in the Internet world. It has perhaps seven central components:

In the most simple terms, SJW is this generation's KKK. Losers in the past would blame their personal failures on blacks. Now they blame everything on cis-gendered heterosexual white men.

1. A radical progressive (as opposed to liberal) viewpoint.

Enemies of liberal ideals? Check.

2. Division of everyone into sometimes overlapping groups. (aka Identity politics.)

I sure hate those Mexicans who are also Jewish. Check.

3. Allocation of rights and guilt based not on individual actions, but on membership in those groups.

No coloreds allowed? Check.

4. Vitriolic and prolonged attacks on anyone perceived to not agree with the SJW.

N-word lover? Check.

5. Poorly thought-out, often illogical views which must be defended to the death. (aka More heat than light.)

All black people are ____. Check.

6. Suspicion by virtually everyone except the SJWs that the opinions so viciously promulgated are for the SJW's self-aggrandizement within his or her peer group, and/or for the SJW's own advancement, rather than any particular feeling for the individuals being discussed.

I'm not sure if this applies to the KKK. I wouldn't be surprised if some KKK members were completely phoning it in, and they only went to the meetings because it was a social event. We know for a fact that a lot of men are only SJWs because it's their only opportunity to talk to women, which is actually quite sad. I think the video was already posted here, but there was a video on youtube where the SJW community was destroying itself with accusations of sexual harassment from the male members.

7. A totalitarian viewpoint, so that the SJW is 100% correct on every issue and therefore any opinion diverging in the slightest is 100% wrong.

Yep.

SJWs are the totalitarian, authoritarian subset even among proggies; whether one is right or wrong in any situation can be determined simply by examining the relative individuals' groups. The only way an SJW lets anyone out of their box is to put them into another box. For instance, a white person could escape white privilege by joining up as a SJW, or a black person could be relegated to the Uncle Tom (or worse) group for daring to express literally any opinion other than the official hymnal.

Disregarding opinions of black people just because they're black? Yep.


As someone posted before, check the subreddit Stormfront or Social Justice Warrior. That's everything anyone needs to know about SJW culture.

 

[BoberFett]

I'd never advocate for a right not to be offended or support anyone that purports to have that goal. BUT that's an impossible goal and those people will accomplish nothing. Never. That's the equivalent to me of just being a drama-queen and wanting an eternal enemy.

So saying that anyone will lose rights to those dummies is REALLY working to exaggerate a threat to freedom. Tempest in a teacup.

Except that it's not an impossible goal. Again, see modern college campuses where free speech IS being shut down, and these special snowflakes who are now entering the world will expect the same out of society-at-large.

I'll be happy to be proven wrong in 20 or 30 years, but right now I feel legitimately concerned about the future of free speech in this country.

I feel like you're overstating my opinion here. All the definitions showed it as a pejorative, so I don't think anyone wears that label as a badge of honor (without being a fucking moron), and wherever it came from, it's clearly a put-down now. And I see it used regularly far outside the "women's rights/feminist" movement just to put down liberals in general.

A US representative proudly wears the SJW label.

https://www.google.com/search?q=proud+to+be+an+sjw&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I will agree that even the term SJW is now often being thrown around flippantly by anyone who wants to insult someone who could be considered "liberal" by some meaning of the word. I don't like that either, I only use it to describe a specific kind of person. Typically the kind that uses the word "problematic" in every other sentence. Still, there's no real definitive definition for "liberal" or "conversative", and those are used pejoratively all the time too. Nobody is immune from this behavior.

I'm not really seeing it as a conspiracy at all. I'm saying that people who want to shit on progressives/liberals/etc. saw a term jump into the zeitgeist and they are going to run with it... forever... or as long as it maintains any value as a pejorative, and part of the reasoning being wanting to continue to slander the notion of social justice because it continues to work against a white male dominated reality. I don't see it as vast or really right-wing though. Just assholes who saw another opportunity and jumped right on it.

I will say that I'm glad we've taken over this thread for this discussion. From what I've read the actual "gamergate" shit was so overblown and preposterous.

Fair enough. But in politics, it's all about labeling and slandering. Everyone does it to everyone else. Social justice isn't the first casualty and it won't be the last.

EDIT: Side-thought - labeling your opposition as 'warriors' makes your position sound like it has some kind of honor and nobility... and makes it sound like you think you're in an actual war. The unbridled pants-crapping if these tools (again on both sides) were involved in an actual war... it's just punishingly dumb.

Calling them Warriors is mockery. Again, that happens to everyone. Even if the Tea Party first call themselves Teabaggers, it's now using to mock the Tea Party. It happens.

 

[jackstar7]

With an assumption that the internet will continue on, I think free speech will be preserved.

I think enough people are raised in reality that the hyper-sensitive will just fall to the wayside when they can't hold down jobs without drama and bullshit and there are "normal" people ready to just grab all of it and appreciate it.

 

[BoberFett]

Let's hope.

Thanks for the quality discussion Jackstar.

 

[jackstar7]

Let's hope.

Thanks for the quality discussion Jackstar.

Right back at you, sir. Appreciated.

 

[Spungo]

With an assumption that the internet will continue on, I think free speech will be preserved.

You're a lot more optimistic than me. As a fan of history, I just see too many examples of people wanting tyranny. Everyone always thinks their dictator is the best. Using SJWs as an example, a lot of them truly think rape trials should be guilty until proven innocent. Some of them go as far as saying men are guilty just because they're men. Story: student suspended because he looks like a rapist.

I have strong feelings about this kind of behavior because I'm Jewish. We've all seen this happen before. People being kicked out of organizations, being shunned, their businesses smashed; all of it because they were the wrong religion. Black men in the US can relate to this as well. A white woman could have a black man killed without a trial just by saying he touched her. That's the kind of power nobody should have. We know it will be abused, but abusing the system and witch hunting is exactly what social justice warriors want. In the past, they were the ones throwing bricks through the windows of Jewish shops. They were the ones hanging black men from trees. Now they are the ones banging pots and pans outside of some guy's house because a woman claims he raped her. After it was conclusively proven that she was conspiring to have him thrown in jail for life using fake accusations, she claimed it was art, and SJWs still supported her. The term Social Justice Warrior is supposed to be an ironic joke because social justice is the last thing they care about. If they actually wanted social justice, they would put pressure on police and the government to arrest that woman and have her charged with conspiracy.

I think enough people are raised in reality that the hyper-sensitive will just fall to the wayside when they can't hold down jobs without drama and bullshit and there are "normal" people ready to just grab all of it and appreciate it.

It has been getting worse for the past 30 years. What makes you think it will get better any time soon? Groups like the KKK only disappeared when white people started trashing then and making fun of them. SJWs will only go away if those of us who call ourselves liberals call them out and take a hard stand against them. They think they represent liberals and democrats, but they don't. They're a fringe minority that needs to be relentlessly mocked. IMO, conservatives need to start doing this with their nutjubs as well. Creationist retards think they represent all of conservative politics simply because other conservatives refuse to call them out and laugh at them.

 

[BoberFett]

Great post Spungo, and that's the source of my dismay as well. It's starting now on college campuses, and someday those young adults will be our politicians. It's scary to think about.

 

[MrPickins]

Great post Spungo, and that's the source of my dismay as well. It's starting now on college campuses, and someday those young adults will be our politicians. It's scary to think about.

You keep saying this, do you have any links?

(Not saying it isn't happening, just that I haven't really heard about it.)

 

[jackstar7]

It has been getting worse for the past 30 years. What makes you think it will get better any time soon? Groups like the KKK only disappeared when white people started trashing then and making fun of them. SJWs will only go away if those of us who call ourselves liberals call them out and take a hard stand against them. They think they represent liberals and democrats, but they don't. They're a fringe minority that needs to be relentlessly mocked. IMO, conservatives need to start doing this with their nutjubs as well. Creationist retards think they represent all of conservative politics simply because other conservatives refuse to call them out and laugh at them.

Here's the thing about this. People have to be able to make a clear separation of the idiots from the ideals of their cause. They cloak themselves in the ideals of equality and justice and there needs to be clear distinction between those fucking tools and the people who have an idea of societal improvement that's mature and sensible.

Too much of this issue (and politics in general) has turned into team sports. I'm not sure how to deprogram people from that shallow and immature mindset, but I'm open to ideas. I do it on a very small level among a group of folks who table-top game together... but it's hard to extrapolate those lessons out to civilization so that people take the right things seriously and not just try to be on a winning team.

 

[BoberFett]

You keep saying this, do you have any links?

(Not saying it isn't happening, just that I haven't really heard about it.)

Read Spungo's link. That's one example.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/18/the-death-of-free-speech-on-college-camp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/colleges-restrict-free-speech-fire-report_n_4633542.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/feigning-free-speech-on-campus.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/how-the-pc-police-threaten-free-speech.html

Stop being microaggressive.

http://time.com/32618/microaggression-is-the-new-racism-on-campus/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/...the-most-qualified-person-should-get-the-job/

Internet hate mob gets student expelled:

https://www.thefire.org/texas-christian-university-tramples-students-rights/

Uh oh, there are unacceptable words at the University of Michigan. Uttering them could probably be considered hate speech. They're only suggestions for now, but these things have a way of becoming rules.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/09/university-of-michigan-spends-16000-tell

The idea that words which hurt people's feelings should be banned is growing in popularity.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-goldberg/2014/12/college-students-asking-for-censorship-is-a-thing/


The ACLU is taking a stand on it, apparently it's enough of a problem for them to talk about it.

https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus

Many will just say "They're only banning hate speech", but unless you can define hate speech narrowly, banning "hate speech" is problematic. (Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek) SJWs tend to define hate speech as the words of any who disagrees with them.

Student A: "I disagree that there's a rape culture."

Student B: "Stop with your misogynist hate speech, shitlord."

 

[MrPickins]

Read Spungo's link. That's one example.

http://reason.com/archives/2015/03/18/the-death-of-free-speech-on-college-camp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/colleges-restrict-free-speech-fire-report_n_4633542.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/opinion/feigning-free-speech-on-campus.html?_r=0

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/09/how-the-pc-police-threaten-free-speech.html

Stop being microaggressive.

http://time.com/32618/microaggression-is-the-new-racism-on-campus/

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/...the-most-qualified-person-should-get-the-job/

Internet hate mob gets student expelled:

https://www.thefire.org/texas-christian-university-tramples-students-rights/

Uh oh, there are unacceptable words at the University of Michigan. Uttering them could probably be considered hate speech. They're only suggestions for now, but these things have a way of becoming rules.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/09/university-of-michigan-spends-16000-tell

The idea that words which hurt people's feelings should be banned is growing in popularity.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-goldberg/2014/12/college-students-asking-for-censorship-is-a-thing/

The ACLU is taking a stand on it, apparently it's enough of a problem for them to talk about it.

https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus

Many will just say "They're only banning hate speech", but unless you can define hate speech narrowly, banning "hate speech" is problematic. (Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek) SJWs tend to define hate speech as the words of any who disagrees with them.

Student A: "I disagree that there's a rape culture."

Student B: "Stop with your misogynist hate speech, shitlord."

Wow, I asked for a few links, not an entire bibliography!

Thanks, though. I'll peruse them as I have time.

I will say, my university experience was much different, but I graduated in '10 (went back to school late).

 

[Spungo]

I will say, my university experience was much different, but I graduated in '10 (went back to school late).

It's amazing how quickly things change these days. The internet really did change the world.

I remember youtube having a very tightly knit atheist community, and we were fighting against the creationist community. Creationism seemed to be a big deal at the time. That's how guys like Thunderf00t and Aron Ra became popular. Laci Green (gogreen18) and Rebecca Watson (skepchick) were on the atheist team at the time. Everyone was friendly, and it was great. Then feminism infected the atheist community. A guy named Richard Carrier started something called Atheism+, which was atheism plus feminism. The community was split, everyone forgot that creationism was a thing, and it turned into a battle between feminists and the majority of the atheist community. Thunderf00t and The Amazing Atheist are against feminists. Laci Green and Rebecca Watson are feminists. Guys like Sargon of Akkad and TL;DR are becoming popular as anti-feminists. It also seems like Christians and atheists are joining forces to fight against feminism. Who saw that coming? Who knows what will happen in the future. Youtube is absolute proof that South Park was right about atheism. Leaving religion will not stop any of the bad things attributed to religion. People just find a way to divide themselves further and continue fighting.

10 years from now, nobody will remember that we were once arguing about "rape culture" or whatever. Maybe animal rights could be the next big thing. People who have pets vs people who don't have pets. The numbers seem large enough for that to make sense, and people have very strong opinions about animals.

 

[jackstar7]

The ACLU is taking a stand on it, apparently it's enough of a problem for them to talk about it.

https://www.aclu.org/hate-speech-campus

There's one more reason to support the ACLU.