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

[werepossum]

SNIP
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.

Yeah, I oversimplified. Women get sponsored for a variety of reasons, one of which is their relative scarcity. Girl gamer groups get a lot of press and a lot of male attention, but pure skill and showmanship still sell. My point was that women can get sponsored at a lower skill level because there are fewer of them. Scarcity nearly always adds value, particularly when one can add sex appeal.

When we get an attractive female gamer at the level of Fatal1ty (or whoever is hottest today) and possessing showbiz instincts, she will be a freakin' billionaire. Until then, a female gamer's marketability will be a function of her skill, showmanship, and attractiveness, but I'm guessing still higher than a man's at the same skill level. But I realize that I may still be overvaluing the marketability of female gamers; I may be wrong, and it's certainly arguable either way.

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.

There is no "social justice"; there is only justice and injustice. Everyone should get the rights they deserve as individuals, NOT as groups. One should have the right to marry because that is a right every individual should have, NOT because that is a right gay people deserve. One should given fair access to housing NOT because that is a right black people deserve, but because it is a right every individual deserves. All groups are artificial; there are only people. Which isn't to say that groups like the "Black lives matter" movement are bad or illegitimate, it's just to say that the reason black lives matter has nothing to do with their melanin levels. Boxes are sometimes useful, but we shouldn't live in them.*

As far as "group[ing] a bunch of people together to dehumanize them", I don't do the grouping. They self-identify by insisting on rigid adherence to each particular position and by their behavior. There are many issues on which I agree with them, and others on which I disagree but can respect the opinion of others on their side. In general, I greatly respect liberals and greatly disrespect progressives, and the difference is often far more in tone and tact than in substance. A liberal wants to win the argument and lead those on the other side to the light; a progressive wants to ban the argument and punish those with the temerity to disagree.

*Except, you know, houses. We should totally live in those boxes.

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.

Enemies of liberal ideals? Check.

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

No coloreds allowed? Check.

N-word lover? Check.

All black people are ____. Check.

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.

Yep.

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.

Pretty much, although it's worth remembering that SJWs have not yet enjoyed the kind of power that would allow them to murder without fear of government action. That's a power that the KKK held at various times in many places through the South.

Some truly awesome posts in this thread, dude. I think you (and others) have redeemed this thread. I may even go online and figure out who the fuck is this TotalBisquit character. Combined with my recently learning that PewDPie is a dude and that Gamergate is the person or perhaps people who don't like SJWs, I gonna haz some net cred, dogs!

 

[werepossum]

You keep saying this, do you have any links?

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

Besides BoberFett's links, look at how many comedians will no longer play college campi. The atmosphere has become so toxic, so polluted, that there is a legitimate fear of something being taken out of context and getting them blackballed and boycotted.

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.

Well said. One of the most uncomfortable feelings is when nutjobs adopt the same positions you hold; one can't really say "I support this but don't lump me with these idiots", although one wants to do so. In this case SJWs glom onto some perfectly valid positions, but drive people away from them by being idiots. I don't think either party is going to do any separating though; an idiot who believes in what you believe is a vote, not to mention being easier to fool than the next guy.

 

[Exophase]

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.

Words and phrases aren't always limited to their obvious connotations, they can have a lot of hidden baggage. Especially if they're being used sarcastically.

For a counter to your misogynist example consider how the term MRA is more often than not considered to be synonymous with hateful misgoynistic asshole. To illustrate:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MRA

Do you think that this promotes an idea that men don't deserve rights?

 

[jackstar7]

Words and phrases aren't always limited to their obvious connotations, they can have a lot of hidden baggage. Especially if they're being used sarcastically.

For a counter to your misogynist example consider how the term MRA is more often than not considered to be synonymous with hateful misgoynistic asshole. To illustrate:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MRA

Do you think that this promotes an idea that men don't deserve rights?

Are there rights that men don't have that others enjoy outside of the biological? That's always been my issue with the MRA folks. I don't understand what rights have been taken away, or are otherwise lacking to them.

My outsider experience with the few MRA people I've met is that they simply have a desire to indulge in uncivilized and immature behaviors and not be shamed or otherwise reprimanded for them.

 

[jackstar7]

There is no "social justice"; there is only justice and injustice. Everyone should get the rights they deserve as individuals, NOT as groups. One should have the right to marry because that is a right every individual should have, NOT because that is a right gay people deserve. One should given fair access to housing NOT because that is a right black people deserve, but because it is a right every individual deserves. All groups are artificial; there are only people. Which isn't to say that groups like the "Black lives matter" movement are bad or illegitimate, it's just to say that the reason black lives matter has nothing to do with their melanin levels. Boxes are sometimes useful, but we shouldn't live in them.*

As far as "group[ing] a bunch of people together to dehumanize them", I don't do the grouping. They self-identify by insisting on rigid adherence to each particular position and by their behavior. There are many issues on which I agree with them, and others on which I disagree but can respect the opinion of others on their side. In general, I greatly respect liberals and greatly disrespect progressives, and the difference is often far more in tone and tact than in substance. A liberal wants to win the argument and lead those on the other side to the light; a progressive wants to ban the argument and punish those with the temerity to disagree.

*Except, you know, houses. We should totally live in those boxes.

Okay, but my definition of social justice is simply that there ought to be justice for all members of society and they certainly shouldn't be limited from rights based on their group. And then the other part of social justice is that people ought to be socially educated (via conversations, or in some cases shaming) about what is acceptable in society. For an arbitrary example, suppose the majority of people decided that spitting was a more that was going to be socially enforced with a "tsk" to anyone that does it. It doesn't actually deny anyone's freedom to spit, but it is effectively poor manners. And then to extrapolate that back out, I think we're just going through a time of all new national and global etiquette. It's poor manners to treat people as "less than" based on some group they are part of rather than on their individual behaviors. But also, people should expect that their behaviors will be judged and ever more harshly if these are the manners that become the convention of the times.

I think the internet and the anonymity therein has brought two things to the forefront: pure honesty -- from those who can voice it without being made a target (which is becoming harder as identity on the internet becomes more concrete) -- and, to put it nicely, tasteless abject tactlessness. I'd love to see more of the first and none of the second, but I have to figure they are quite linked. So then it is up to the discerning of the audience that is the world to perhaps impose a bit more shaming on the latter and more praise for the former. These days, the consensus values seem to be reversed. A pity.

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Atheism+ was really what made me sit up and take notice. Gamergate? Pfft, I honestly couldn't give a damn. I still get to play Witcher 3, even if it's problematic.

But Gamergate got me reading about the whole SJW phenomenon. What SHOULD be a logical, fact driven community was being torn apart intentionally by these people. I started reading about PZ Myers and the FreeThoughtBlogs hugbox, where only "right" thinking is allowed. Atheism+ and the likes of Carrier who sound EXACTLY like intolerant right wingers.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/AtheismPlus2013Transcript.pdf

I call everyone now to pick sides are you with us, or with them; are you now a part of the Atheism+ movement, or are you going to stick with Atheism Less? Then at least we’ll know who to work with. And who to avoid.

Atheism+ is our movement. We will not consider you a part of it, we will not work with you, we will not befriend you. We will heretofore denounce you as the irrational or immoral scum you are. If you reject these values, then you are no longer one of us. And we will now say so, publicly and repeatedly. You are hereby disowned.

Wow. That's from an atheist. Someone who considers himself above religious rhetoric. It's rather frightening, and this same group wants to infect everything with their brand of "justice".

 

[Cerb]

Okay, but my definition of social justice is simply that there ought to be justice for all members of society and they certainly shouldn't be limited from rights based on their group.

And that is a definition of it. Beyond that, it has been generally the concept that groups being treated differently by institutions of society is a problem that cannot always be analyzed, or dealt with, at an individual level, and may even sometimes contradict individual notions of justice for individual (usually in the sense of where one's own rights should end, for the sake of everyone else's). FI, that the rich and connected can get often away with heinous crimes, while the poor may be convicted of crimes they didn't commit; or that someone's quality of health care is usually proportional to their wealth.

The way it is often being used, "here," however, is as a new reverse racism movement, but much wider in scope. SJW seems to be the new derogatory term for the vocal political correctness nuts, as many have decided to take on the term social justice to mean redistribution of not merely wealth, but rights, privilege, and oppression.

 

[zinfamous]

We care and we do read them, apparently you do too since you visit this thread so often.

I click on this thread maybe once a week, usually less? I ignore most of the bumps.

But it is fascinating that such a petty issue invented by a bunch of self-hating virgins maintains this momentum. Sometimes you just can't help but to watch.

 

[Spungo]

Are there rights that men don't have that others enjoy outside of the biological? That's always been my issue with the MRA folks. I don't understand what rights have been taken away, or are otherwise lacking to them.

My outsider experience with the few MRA people I've met is that they simply have a desire to indulge in uncivilized and immature behaviors and not be shamed or otherwise reprimanded for them.

I really dove into this MRA and MGTOW culture after seeing my brother get jerked around so many times. Here are some facts:

-According to the CDC, there really is a silent epidemic of spousal abuse against men. Men are significantly more likely to be abused in relationships, both physically and emotionally. There is even a silent epidemic of men being raped in relationships. Yes, raped by women. In order to hide the stats, the government uses the term "forced to penetrate" instead of saying rape. How does the government get away with shit like this? I would be protesting and organizing marches if the government decided "forcefully penetrated" was not rape, so why is "forced to penetrate" not considered rape? TL;DR explaining the numbers. The problem is that men are not allowed to talk about this. Every time the topic is mentioned, feminists shout it down. How dare you question the narrative that all women are victims and all men are horrible people. I'm very thankful god was able to deal with my brother's crazy ex fiance; it was obvious the police and courts didn't give a shit about him. How many shelters exist for abused men? Zero. He couldn't even kick her out of his own house. It was 100% his house, but she would threaten to call the police if he kicked her out. That is what institutionalized hatred of men looks like.

-Roughly 2/3 divorces are initiated by women, and the most common reason is dissatisfaction (not abuse, not cheating). That in itself is fine. Relationships should be voluntary. The problem is that women get full custody of children in about 5/6 cases, and the majority of marriage assets will follow the children. That means there's a 5/6 chance you will lose your house, your car, your dog, and your children if your wife decides to end the marriage, and she can do that any time she wants. If you contest it, all she needs to say is that you sexually abused the children. With absolutely zero evidence, you're completely screwed. You will never see your children again.

-Child support and alimony laws are atrocious. There's no wiggle room on these. Men can be forced to pay 3x their annual salary in child support, and the punishment for not paying is life in jail. This happened to Dave Foley from the show News Radio. video. He had to flee Canada and seek asylum in the US. This only ever happens to men. No court on earth will sentence a woman to life in jail because she can't pay 3x her yearly salary to her ex husband. The government sees men as nothing more than cash generating slaves.

-Men are 9x more likely to be killed while working.

-Men are about 10x more likely to be homeless.

-Almost all lower class jobs like truck driving and done by men.

-Men get much harsher prison sentences for breaking the law. Women can virtually get away with murder. That crazy ex could probably try to kill my brother, and the police would still find a way to press charges against him. Maybe his neck was unlawfully dulling her knife or something. Don't believe me? Here's a case with video evidence of woman trying to murder a police officer with a knife, and she was found not guilty. A white man would get life in jail for that. A black man would probably "shoot himself" in the head, wink wink.

-Female genital mutilation has been illegal in the US since 1996. 19 years later, male genital mutilation is still legal.

-Women still get preferential treatment for entering college even though the majority of college students are women.

-For science jobs, women are about twice as likely to be hired as men. article.

-For several age brackets, the largest killer of men is suicide.

-Almost every portrayal of men in the media is negative. Here's a classic example of propaganda in action: video. If a man commits a crime, the report will say a "man" broke the law. If men are the victims of crime or victims of accidents, they are never called men. They are "workers" or "assets" or "miners". The media never does that to women. It's almost like the old racist joke of referring to a group of black men as "some old farm equipment".
Only using "men" in a negative context is something called neuro-linguistic programming.

-Men are not allowed to talk about any of these issues. Feminists simply hate men. Feminists protest and call in bomb threats when men try to talk about these issues. video.


It's truly amazing how much society hates men. Once you see the pattern, you notice it everywhere.

 

[BoberFett]

I click on this thread maybe once a week, usually less? I ignore most of the bumps.

But it is fascinating that such a petty issue invented by a bunch of self-hating virgins maintains this momentum. Sometimes you just can't help but to watch.

Your reading comprehension is failing you.

 

[jackstar7]

Hmm. Some of this is anecdotal, but I appreciate the articles and more general information.

I do come away thinking that it is then up to men to be more careful about who they get into a relationship with. I waited until I was late 30s to get married because I had experiences dating crazy and didn't want to make that my life. I'm not sure what leads other guys to either want that crazy or to be oblivious to it, but I think it presents itself rather clearly most of the time, so it is avoidable... or I am just naive and think that because I have been fortunate that my experiences are proof of it being possible... I admit that I could just be on the lucky end of the spectrum.

Also, some of this sounds like paranoia. I acknowledge the stats you're posting, but men being more prone to suicide... I'm not sure what that has to do with "rights" or what is supposed to be done about it. What if that's just an evolutionary defect in men? To me, I don't see a correlation to anything because suicide is just a phenomenon that affects both sexes. One being more prone doesn't tell me anything.

I appreciate your effort here on my behalf. I hope you don't mind continuing on with it.

 

[jackstar7]

Thinking more about it, this definitely feels like a "sins of the father being visited upon the sons" situation. I mean if women are abusing societal power I'd have to put money down that it is because this is the first time they actually had any leverage. It doesn't excuse disgusting awfulness in those situations where power is abused, but it does seem a lot like comeuppance, no?

 

[BoberFett]

Also, some of this sounds like paranoia. I acknowledge the stats you're posting, but men being more prone to suicide... I'm not sure what that has to do with "rights" or what is supposed to be done about it. What if that's just an evolutionary defect in men? To me, I don't see a correlation to anything because suicide is just a phenomenon that affects both sexes. One being more prone doesn't tell me anything.

Women get resources thrown at them. Shelters, support, etc. There are exactly zero men's shelters in this country, and they're not allowed in the same shelters as women, for unfortunately obvious reasons. Men with problems are essentially told to piss off, and any public discussion of men needing more resources by Men's Rights Advocates has bomb threats called in on it by feminists. You know, those feminists that say feminism is for everyone.

And it's telling that you think proclivity to suicide is just some physical defect in men that we should just shrug our shoulders about and move on. If you said that ANY problem that women had was just a defect and that there's nothing that can be done about it, you'd have the fury of a thousand feminists coming down upon you.

The problem is that discussion isn't even allowed. Men have problems? #MaleTearsAreDelicious

Feminism and by extension social justice is a toxic movement.

 

[BoberFett]

Thinking more about it, this definitely feels like a "sins of the father being visited upon the sons" situation. I mean if women are abusing societal power I'd have to put money down that it is because this is the first time they actually had any leverage. It doesn't excuse disgusting awfulness in those situations where power is abused, but it does seem a lot like comeuppance, no?

Then feminists shouldn't be surprised when men fight back. If they want an eternal war of the sexes, that's what they'll get.

 

[MrPickins]

Women get resources thrown at them. Shelters, support, etc. There are exactly zero men's shelters in this country, and they're not allowed in the same shelters as women, for unfortunately obvious reasons. Men with problems are essentially told to piss off, and any public discussion of men needing more resources by Men's Rights Advocates has bomb threats called in on it by feminists. You know, those feminists that say feminism is for everyone.

And it's telling that you think proclivity to suicide is just some physical defect in men that we should just shrug our shoulders about and move on. If you said that ANY problem that women had was just a defect and that there's nothing that can be done about it, you'd have the fury of a thousand feminists coming down upon you.

The problem is that discussion isn't even allowed. Men have problems? #MaleTearsAreDelicious

Feminism and by extension social justice is a toxic movement.

You can't equate all feminists to the SJW's any more than I can say that Cliven Bundy's "militia" represents all Republicans.

Then feminists shouldn't be surprised when men fight back. If they want an eternal war of the sexes, that's what they'll get.

True feminists are interested in equality, not a war between sexes.

(This is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because that is the literal definition of feminism).

 

[jackstar7]

Women get resources thrown at them. Shelters, support, etc. There are exactly zero men's shelters in this country, and they're not allowed in the same shelters as women, for unfortunately obvious reasons. Men with problems are essentially told to piss off, and any public discussion of men needing more resources by Men's Rights Advocates has bomb threats called in on it by feminists. You know, those feminists that say feminism is for everyone.

And it's telling that you think proclivity to suicide is just some physical defect in men that we should just shrug our shoulders about and move on. If you said that ANY problem that women had was just a defect and that there's nothing that can be done about it, you'd have the fury of a thousand feminists coming down upon you.

The problem is that discussion isn't even allowed. Men have problems? #MaleTearsAreDelicious

Feminism and by extension social justice is a toxic movement.

This all seems too hostile and counter-productive.

I mean... we know why women have shelters right? That came about due to the way in which they were treated over generations and that infrastructure of support was needed and slowly came to exist. If domestic abuse swings the other way dramatically, I'm sure shelters will exist for men. Considering abuse of men was simply labeled as "hen-pecked" for so long, I think it's going to take time for the validity of that phenomenon to take hold. But a big part of that problem is machismo and ego that tell guys that not being able to handle their women or family completely demeans them in the myopic view of society.

But in my experience, the people I know having issues with their exes and support and the like all had preexisting psychological issues that likely contributed to their situation. So if men want their pain to be treated with some dignity, it might serve them well to start recognizing the long-standing validity of psychological study and introspection and analysis.

Little by little shit keeps happening showing how important psychological study is. Maybe a shift will happen to take it more seriously and start addressing our individual and collective problems...

 

[jackstar7]

Then feminists shouldn't be surprised when men fight back. If they want an eternal war of the sexes, that's what they'll get.

It matters how you fight though. You don't gain respect without actually behaving with dignity.

 

[fskimospy]

Women get resources thrown at them. Shelters, support, etc. There are exactly zero men's shelters in this country, and they're not allowed in the same shelters as women, for unfortunately obvious reasons. Men with problems are essentially told to piss off, and any public discussion of men needing more resources by Men's Rights Advocates has bomb threats called in on it by feminists. You know, those feminists that say feminism is for everyone.

Can you offer some examples of this?

Feminism and by extension social justice is a toxic movement.

Wut.

 

[jackstar7]

Baby and bath water.

 

[thraashman]

Women get resources thrown at them. Shelters, support, etc. There are exactly zero men's shelters in this country, and they're not allowed in the same shelters as women, for unfortunately obvious reasons. Men with problems are essentially told to piss off, and any public discussion of men needing more resources by Men's Rights Advocates has bomb threats called in on it by feminists. You know, those feminists that say feminism is for everyone.

It's amusing how easy it is to prove your retarded as fuck ass wrong.
http://www.allsaints.us/MensNightShelter
http://www.druidhillspresbyterian.org/?page_id=1369
http://stjudeatlanta.net/mens-shelter
http://hopegospelmission.org/shelters/mens.php

I'll stop before I post all of the 23 million results on Google for "men's shelter". Glad to see you put the same thought and effort into fact checking this statement as you do into every post you make, exactly zero.

 

[jackstar7]

It's amusing how easy it is to prove your retarded as fuck ass wrong.

Any chance you can change your tone? Posting the list would have been plenty.

We're trying to have a discussion here.

 

[MrPickins]

Any chance you can change your tone? Posting the list would have been plenty.

We're trying to have a discussion here.

You know you're in P&N and not Discussion Club, right?

 

[werepossum]

Okay, but my definition of social justice is simply that there ought to be justice for all members of society and they certainly shouldn't be limited from rights based on their group. And then the other part of social justice is that people ought to be socially educated (via conversations, or in some cases shaming) about what is acceptable in society. For an arbitrary example, suppose the majority of people decided that spitting was a more that was going to be socially enforced with a "tsk" to anyone that does it. It doesn't actually deny anyone's freedom to spit, but it is effectively poor manners. And then to extrapolate that back out, I think we're just going through a time of all new national and global etiquette. It's poor manners to treat people as "less than" based on some group they are part of rather than on their individual behaviors. But also, people should expect that their behaviors will be judged and ever more harshly if these are the manners that become the convention of the times.

I think the internet and the anonymity therein has brought two things to the forefront: pure honesty -- from those who can voice it without being made a target (which is becoming harder as identity on the internet becomes more concrete) -- and, to put it nicely, tasteless abject tactlessness. I'd love to see more of the first and none of the second, but I have to figure they are quite linked. So then it is up to the discerning of the audience that is the world to perhaps impose a bit more shaming on the latter and more praise for the former. These days, the consensus values seem to be reversed. A pity.

But the Social Justice Movement is the antithesis of "justice for all members of society and they certainly shouldn't be limited from rights based on their group". It is rights based solely on group ID.

And that is a definition of it. Beyond that, it has been generally the concept that groups being treated differently by institutions of society is a problem that cannot always be analyzed, or dealt with, at an individual level, and may even sometimes contradict individual notions of justice for individual (usually in the sense of where one's own rights should end, for the sake of everyone else's). FI, that the rich and connected can get often away with heinous crimes, while the poor may be convicted of crimes they didn't commit; or that someone's quality of health care is usually proportional to their wealth.

The way it is often being used, "here," however, is as a new reverse racism movement, but much wider in scope. SJW seems to be the new derogatory term for the vocal political correctness nuts, as many have decided to take on the term social justice to mean redistribution of not merely wealth, but rights, privilege, and oppression.

That is correct. SJW is a derogatory term only because the actions of those who label themselves as SJWs and/or identify with that movement have made it toxic.

Thinking more about it, this definitely feels like a "sins of the father being visited upon the sons" situation. I mean if women are abusing societal power I'd have to put money down that it is because this is the first time they actually had any leverage. It doesn't excuse disgusting awfulness in those situations where power is abused, but it does seem a lot like comeuppance, no?

Women are abusing societal power because that's what people do. Women have always done so, just as have men. It's only that the weapons available are somewhat sexually differentiated. There are very few men's shelters because men are very seldom truly battered. We briefly had a neighbor who continually cried about his wife beating him up. A husband who has been beaten up by his wife tends to look very, very different than a wife who has been beaten up by her husband. A battered woman seldom has to tell you she has been battered. It's wrong in either case, but the damage and the danger are (on average) vastly different. That doesn't help you if you are the odd husband who is truly damaged and endangered, but it explains the huge difference in societal allocation of assets, legal protections and privileges.

 

[werepossum]

You can't equate all feminists to the SJW's any more than I can say that Cliven Bundy's "militia" represents all Republicans.

True feminists are interested in equality, not a war between sexes.

(This is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, because that is the literal definition of feminism).

While I agree that one can't equate all feminists to the SJWs, I believe the internal war for control of mainstream feminism is pretty much over and Paglia's branch lost. These days there seems to be much more concern about changing the rules to accommodate all women than to fight against arbitrary discrimination. Case in point, fighting not just to allow women to become firefighters if they can pass the tests but to eliminate the requirement for carrying someone in favor of only requiring the firefighter to drag that person by her ankles. The difference between being carried down four flights of metal and concrete stairs and being dragged by one's ankles down four flights of metal and concrete stairs is pretty damned dramatic to the person whose brains begin leaking out around the second floor.

 

[jackstar7]

While I agree that one can't equate all feminists to the SJWs, I believe the internal war for control of mainstream feminism is pretty much over and Paglia's branch lost. These days there seems to be much more concern about changing the rules to accommodate all women than to fight against arbitrary discrimination. Case in point, fighting not just to allow women to become firefighters if they can pass the tests but to eliminate the requirement for carrying someone in favor of only requiring the firefighter to drag that person by her ankles. The difference between being carried down four flights of metal and concrete stairs and being dragged by one's ankles down four flights of metal and concrete stairs is pretty damned dramatic to the person whose brains begin leaking out around the second floor.

Okay, can you source this, please?

I agree that would be detrimental, but I'd like to know where not to live.