Social Justice Warriors and Assholes: Why They Both Need to Be Ignored · 3:41am Oct 2nd, 2014
Important: This is the first and only post I will make about politics (actually, it's not even about politics really, it's about culture. But culture with clear political undertones, so be forewarned.) I'm saying it because it's something that's been coming up a lot in the past few weeks, and I'd like to have a guideline I can point to for future discussions. If you don't care, please ignore it.
Part one: A conversation
We did it. We’ve gotten rid of pretty much every law or hard rule that would allow people to discriminate based on gender or race, and we’re close to that in terms of sexual orientation, with marriage equality being a pretty unstoppable trend at this point. Further more, almost no one would suggest that someone isn’t worth as much or shouldn’t be allowed to do something just because of their gender or race, and we’re moving in that direction with sexual orientation. Sure, there are a few tricky situations; we have the trigger-happy cops mess, abortion, there will probably be an issue with gay couples and child custody (if one parent is the biological parent), but the reasons we haven’t been able to address those things are that they’re about more than just equality, they’re situations that specifically affect certain combinations of subgroups and have complex moral/ethical/societal causes and effects. I have no doubt that 99% of the people involved in those situations believe in equality, they just have trouble figuring out what equality is.
So let’s just finish up the gay thing, and we can all pack it up and go home, right? Job well done.
Well, not quite yet. Aside from those last problem issues, society didn’t reboot when we figured out the whole equality thing. We have a whole pile of leftover culture here-- tropes, narratives, fashions, ways of treating people-- and a lot of it is stamped “Straight White Males Rule,” despite no one wanting that anymore. No one is stopping the rest of us from using it, and that’s awesome, but women, people of color, and gay people were kind of hoping we could put some of this stuff away, especially when the stamp is really big and tacky, or it seems to have some germs in it that make people catch stupid, or when the culture wasn’t really that into it anyway.
For example, we have this nice narrative where a not-so-cool guy acts patient and nice and gets the girl, usually over some asshole rival. We like that narrative! Good virtues get rewarded! Except that a lot of the time, it makes the girl a prize for the guy being nice to her-- she’s not allowed to prefer a guy with a nice butt over the hero’s personality. She’s not even allowed to prefer a guy who’s really funny in a sarcastic kind of way. She’s there to be with the hero, and that’s where she’ll end up. We end up with this kind of ugly trophy shaped like a girl that’s stamped with “Guys Rule.”
And worse, that’s one of the more germy ones, probably because we like it so much. A lot of guys who are around it catch Nice Guy Syndrome, and become bitter when the girl they’re being nice to ends up with someone else. They even label her and the guy she’s with as the bad guys, despite the fact that neither of them got the script, and she thought she was just going out with the guy who always makes her laugh. Yes, the Girl Shaped Trophy is clearly a problem in the modern world where everyone involved understands that women and men should both be treated as equals.
On the other hand, it is important for women (and people of color, and gay people) to understand that we can’t clear out everything. Some things are important to us as a culture, some things are just too awesome for us to forget about, and some things are going to be meant for men, or white people, or straight people, just like hopefully there will always be things made with women, or people of color, or gay people in mind.
So what do we do with the Girl Shaped Trophy? We have a conversation. A very long conversation, with multiple sides, and solutions we figure out as we go along. We’ve been doing this for years now.
For an example of how that looks, take princesses. Girls in general love princesses. But at some point, some feminists looked at them, and found that most of them were girls who were kind and nice and quiet and did housework until they were rewarded with a prince and crown. That idea sounded kind of tacky and germy, so they talked about it. They wrote essays, magazines published articles, parents discussed the idea… and other people pointed out that these were traditional stories, that little girls loved them, that they’d heard them and turned out fine. The consensus was that we can’t get rid of princesses, but this was something we’d like to remake somehow. So the world's largest manufacturer of princesses noted that, and when they made their next batch of princesses, they made them intelligent and curious and active before they got their prince and crown. And then they started experimenting with leaving out the crown, or even the prince.
And as a culture, we said, “This will work. We can show our kids this, and they love it.” It even retroactively made the older princesses okay, because now they were just a few movies out of dozens, and there’s no reason girls can’t be nice and kind and do housework.
Is everyone happy with this? No. There are still people who have strong opinions on both sides. But as a culture, we found a place where, unless there’s some new side to the issue, we’re pretty happy for now.
We’ve done this with lots of things: girls playing sports, Barbies and fashion dolls, boys and toy guns, diversity on TV shows, cartoon violence, men and personal grooming (metrosexuals), female action movie characters. And in all of these cases, everyone just kind of decides how we’ll treat the thing, or we try things and see how everyone likes them, and sometimes we talk more about it.
These conversations are important, they’re helping us deal with most of human history that disagrees with how we all see things now. We can’t wipe it clean, and we don’t want to. But it’s also weird for us to keep repeating these themes and ideas we disagree with-- very few people, and probably no one reading my blog is actually a misogynist or racist or homophobe. We are mostly good people who want to have fun, but also don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings for no good reason. It’s a tricky place to be, and these conversations are the only way to keep one side or another from being overwhelmed.
Usually the conversation starts with one person pointing to something and say “I’m not comfortable with that.” If no one agrees, it dies there. If some other people do agree, they’ll chime in that yeah, that’s not cool, and bring this to everyone’s attention.
Once people have heard about it, they present reasons why it’s offensive, or why they think it sets a bad precedent, or sends people the wrong messages. Other people present reasons why it’s important even though it might be offensive, reasons why it’s an exception, or how those wrong messages are mitigated.
And no one notices, but eventually we reach a consensus where we’ve decided to/not to worry about this, and how we’re going to treat the idea. The market takes note and adjusts the products and stories it offers us, and if they match the consensus most people are happy with them. The conversation dies down, unless something changes to open it back up again.
Part two: #NotAllPeople
So, most people are fine with conversation. They can ignore it if they want to, and let people who care about the issues do the talking and listening, and no one minds that. Among the active and useful participants there tend to be two sides:
The people who notice the problems: Often label themselves allies, feminists, civil rights activists, gay rights activists, or even, yes, mens’ rights activists when they’re bringing forth an issue. They either are affected by the problem, or are willing to take the word of the people who are, and are likely to write blogs and articles or comments explaining the problem and why it’s worth addressing, and even how they’d like to see it addressed.
The people who don’t see the problem: These are people who don’t see the problem but are willing to acknowledge that obviously some other people are seeing a problem, and listen to them to try to help figure out what it is and how to solve it. They will probably not agree on a solution, or even how big the problem actually is, but that’s good. We don’t want to dismiss everything that offends someone, there are some things that it’s important to keep as acceptable parts of our culture, and no one is going to go through life and never take offense at something other people are enjoying. People in this group who actually listen and make logical counter-arguments are the force that keeps things in check.
So far, none of these people are a problem. They’re having a conversation, and it might get passionate at times, but everyone involved has reasonable goals that are good for society.
Some people do not have reasonable goals that are good for society, though. We will call these people Assholes and Social Justice Warriors.
Assholes are people who do not want to have a conversation. Not people who don’t want to take part in a conversation, people who don’t want there to even be a conversation. Maybe they are racist, sexist, or homophobic. Maybe they just don’t like change and don’t care how many people are uncomfortable. Maybe they’re members of the group who claim to be offended, and since they personally aren’t offended they don’t want anyone in their group to be offended. Whatever the reason, they have no problem acting like jerks to shut down anyone who might raise an objection.
This ranges from really annoying to harmful to people who are trying to deal with a changing culture. Not having the conversation doesn’t make issues go away, it makes people angry or desperate. It makes people on both sides assume there’s no way to understand what the other side is thinking. It makes groups of people close off from each other, and feel like there are things they’re not welcome to do because of that.
Ways you can recognize Assholes:
1. They do not understand and/or respond to the complaint being made. When someone presents an issue, they will attack everything but the issue-- the personality of the person raising the issue, how attractive they are, how they went about it, the way examples were presented, how much attention they got… but not the actual, specific issues raised.
2. They try to change the discussion to a different issue without explaining how it relates to the first one. If people are talking about an issue they don’t want to talk about, the Asshole will switch the forum or comment thread to a different issue that they do want to talk about. Sometimes it’s a perfectly valid issue, too, one that totally should be raised and talked about, but the only reason to bring it up there is to stop the conversation about the original issue.
This one is a little shaky, because conversations do sometimes shift. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out that the original subject is related to something else, and explaining how that relationship works. But people who obviously have nothing to say about the subject except “look over there!” or “why aren’t we talking about something else?” are Assholes.
3. They gang up on the most vocal people addressing the issue, often on both sides. Obviously they’ll attack people raising the issues, usually with whatever slurs they think will be most annoying or hurtful, in order to get them to drop out of the conversation. But sometimes they’ll even turn on someone who doesn’t think the issue is a big deal, if they actually engage enough to try to address the other side’s arguments.
As bad as the Assholes are, there’s a last group that’s exactly as bad. The Social Justice Warriors. That term is tossed around a lot these days, and often misdirected at feminists or people who are just trying to raise issues. Those are not SJWs.
Real SJWs are packs of rabid bullies who have figured out that if they’re bullying “racists,” “misogynists,” or “homophobes” they can get away with it, and feel good about themselves and their friends. I put those things in quotes because, for some reason, SJWs tend to avoid places where they’d ever run into an actual racist or the rest.
SJWs do not want to have a conversation. They want to have a brawl. Or a witch hunt, complete with someone burning at the stake. Someone has to pay, and anyone who doesn’t side with them sufficiently on the issue is a target.
So how do you tell when you’ve found a real SJW?
1. They start off their interactions with an insulting, slandering, or condescending tone, or take the discussion in that direction (often continuing well past the point merited by the person or group in question.) This includes accusations of racism, sexism, or homophobia, or internalized racism, misogyny, or homophobia, no matter how unwarranted. If they’re called on this, they accuse you of Tone Argument: the idea that oppressed groups shouldn’t have to engage using the rules of their “oppressors” (aka society.)
2. They outright dismiss a group of people as having no possible legitimate complaints or concerns in the conversation. This is where you’ll hear buzz words like mansplaining-- theoretically the idea of a man telling a woman how she should feel about something, but actually mostly used to reject any opinion a man brings up about anything. Racial discussions often fall back on “racism = prejudice + power” to argue that anyone white is automatically racist by this definition (and it’s impossible for a person of color to be racist.) By doing these things, they deny other people who need to be part of the conversation the right to do anything but listen.
3. They draw lines and feel that it’s unacceptable for anyone, no matter their reasons, to want to cross those lines. There’s no room context. There’s no room for personal history, or traditions, or relativity. Everything over the line is offensive, period.
4. They look for things to be offended by, and make everything as public and social an issue as possible. “Call-out culture” is the term for this-- if someone says something questionable, or does something questionable, there’s no interest in privately letting them know it, even if it’s clear they’d rush to fix it immediately. No, it has to be publicly announced, so that the other SJWs can admire ones ability to spot anything offensive and participate in tearing it down and shaming whoever committed the offense.
5. They do not want to stop attacking, they want to be offended. Any attempt to calm things down or concede a point, especially if it comes with a qualifier, is dismissed as a fauxpology. They are not reading or responding to any counter-points, no matter how on topic they are, they’re simply repeating the original issue over and over, usually with more harsh judgement on anyone who didn’t readily agree to whatever they said.
Neither Assholes nor SJWs should be acceptable to anyone, on either side of the conversation, even if you might agree with some of their points or reasoning.
It’s not acceptable when it’s Social Justice Warriors attempting to get Stephen Colbert fired over a single joke they decided was racist. It’s not acceptable when it’s Assholes attacking and slandering Anita Sarkeesian for making videos about how women are depicted in games before the videos were even made. It’s not acceptable when sci-fi and fantasy insiders blacklist Will Shetterly or Elizabeth Moon for not being sufficiently liberal or on board with the party line. It’s not acceptable when comic book fans get outraged enough that the Comic Books Resources forums had to be shut down because a Janelle Asselin took issue with how Power Girl was drawn.
And if you read that and found yourself saying “now, wait a minute” to any of those things, you’re part of the problem. Because all of those are attempts to shut down conversations, regardless of the reasons. You can make arguments for or against any of the views those people express, that’s fine, even commendable. But that’s something to do in a conversation, where people will disagree with you and you’ll both present your points. Trying to stop the conversation, or even wanting to stop the conversation, isn’t helping anyone, and it makes you an ass.
If you don’t want to have a conversation, ignore it.
If you want to have the conversation, listen to the other side. Let them explain, and give them the benefit of the doubt. Then present your opinions, and respond directly to their problems. If you disagree, leave it at that: you both made your arguments public, and it’s almost always going to be the public opinion that actually decides things. All the sexist or feminist games in the world can’t succeed if no one wants to play them. If little girls want to be princesses or little boys want to play with guns, no one will stop them. If a character isn’t interesting enough to be worth embarrassing racist tropes, there’s nothing you can do to make him popular. If they are, there’s nothing you can do to keep them from being popular.
So make your arguments, everybody, from every side. Make them intelligently, and politely, and keep the conversation on topic for the forum, or start a blog or forum to talk about different issues. Listen to how people respond. Ask questions. Address flaws. And if it’s pissing you off (and it will piss you off) walk away. This conversation isn’t going to end with the winner deciding the fate of anything, it’s going to sit in the minds of the people who see it play out, and make them consider things. They won’t do/not do anything because you or anyone else told them what to do, but they’ll make up their own minds, and make their own choices, and we’ll reach a consensus.
But you do not get to insult, bully, or shut anyone out of the conversation, no matter whose side you are on.
(applause)
Typical reaction to SJW/Asshole tomfoolery:
Well said.
Well said.
smbc-comics.com/comics/20110223.gif
When attempting to engage in a conversation with one such as this, I find it mildly frustrating that they are determined to press the blame for everything other people have done onto me, while avoiding the responsibility for their own actions at all costs.
Oh shit, I think I was an asshole a few few weeks ago. Damn.
Thank you for opening my eyes, Bookie. (Can I call you Bookie? Is it weird? I'll stop.)
If I'm thinking of the right segment, the fallout over #cancelcolbert was pretty amusing. You get people who become outraged at Stephen briefly bringing back a once off character from 2005. These people in turn cause outrage in others because they're being so offended over what others see as nothing.
Was the character racist? Absolutely. But I feel like this is a good thing. We were never meant to be one homogenous blob of humanity. We come in all shapes, sizes and stereotypes. (look at any BET comedy segment for an example against white males) Poking fun at the stereotypes of ourselves and others is, in my opinion, A sort of celebration of diversity. After all, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist.
Likewise, it hardly seems fair when every video she uploads has her comments disabled. That kills the posts I want to make pointing out the numerous issues she raises pointing things out. (Or, rather, her boyfriend points out, as he wrote a lot of scripts back in the day)
Alright, now that I got that outta my system, good blogpost, Book. I know I hit the asshole button a lot myself, but still.
I don't usually read long blog posts, but this one was worth it.
This needs to be required reading for the Internet.
Nitpick: the ridiculous slogan is "racism is prejudice plus power".
I actually think the term has become this. It's the "political correctness" of the millennial generation: a hunk of duckspeak capable of halting discussion with a single quack. It used to refer to a certain culture of assholes, but noisome reactionaries are so eager to paint all their enemies as being degenerate assholes that they started spraying the term in shotgun rhetoric. So--and this is just my opinion--the term is no longer of use in intelligent discussion. It's been too diluted.
I am reminded of this:
outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Having-Rational-Discussion.jpg
Also, I'm really happy that I don't really have to deal with a lot of Assholes or SJW's in my life. But I appreciate the chance to take a look at what makes them tick—or what seems to, anyway. Thanks for a wonderful blog post!
This blog made me feel better in a lot of ways, thank you.
See, I always see myself as a feminist. Even if I make rape jokes like mad, drool over a hot female body, and have a sizable memory of porn sites, I am a feminist. I believe that women have equal rights, should not be treated as weak and inerfior beings, and that rape is a horrible thing. Its why I love pony fics so much. Here, as opposed to so many other fic sites dedicated to heroic females, I find more of the girls kicking ass and taking names (really, have you seen the sailor moon fanfiction scene?)
But, recently, thanks to The Roundstable and a certain unnamed tumblr user...I felt kind of down about being one. Like I couldn't be one because of the above and that I saw some of the things being said by a writer I admire and agree with him. (points like what you have said above) and I saw one of the artist's pictures and found it hateful and kind of mean spirited. This was in conjunction to how the writer was basically saying "All bronies are sexists (ok, I counted two reports, but most of the girl writers and artists and fangirls are well loved) mysgonists (again, havent seen that much proof, much the opposite) and clop fanatics (ok, I agree that last one
" While all I saw the artist was being...an asshole and a SWJ without remorse.
I found myself thinking "Am I a bad femist for thinking about that? For being reminded that, with all of what she has said, I have found more evidence to the contrary. That, for those faults, I have this fandom to be more positive than most of the others I have found myself in and far more accepting of women than you might think (look at TGWTG forums and comments to see worse), That you while you should call out stupid, you shouldn't wash the entire fandom with a blanket?" I felt like they were being just as bad by throwing everyone under the bus when there were better ways to do it. I felt like they were just hunting for a fight rather than being involved with the genuine conversation that was being displayed by the other guy.
But, thank you for pointing out the difference. I feel like that, yes, I am still a good feminist even when I see someone going to far one way or the other. That, despite sometimes I find something more wrong in their convo, there is a difference out there, and there is a way to see it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, this feminist is going to check out some raunchy porn
(jking by the way)
I really wish we could upvote blog posts (and/or that Fimfiction Editorial hadn't fallen by the wayside). Bravo.
2500805
Have you read up on some of the harassment she's received? Stuff like rape threats and a video game where the player beats the shit out of her. I'm pretty sure she doesn't allow comments because she doesn't want to put up with even more harassment like that. It's unfortunate you can't have a discussion about these issues in the youtube comments but I don't think that was ever a realistic possibility.
An excellent blog post all around, though I do have a few thoughts on it.
I think in regards to the unfortunate tropes portion, really what it comes down to is context and application. Tropes are a literary tool, and like a real tool, if you go swinging them around willy-nilly, you're going to have problems. Case in point, the "Nice Guy Gets the Girl" trope can be really bad if the girl is just a trophy. But if the girl has agency within the story, then it can be a positive thing that rewards both fictional parties. I will agree that some tropes are a lot easier to use poorly than to use well, but that doesn't necessarily mean the trope is without value anymore than a sledgehammer is harder to swing than a tack hammer.
As for Anita, I will completely admit my incorrectness here, but I was under the impression that the people complaining about the videos before they came out was that they were complaining how, despite earning way more than she asked for on Kickstarter, has still failed to deliver on 6 out of 10 videos and she's now apparently out of money again. Well, that and the deceptive/fraudulent content in some of her videos (*cough*Hitman*cough*), but that's 1) after the videos came out, and 2) pretty damn valid, so I don't think that's what you're talking about. But like I said, I may very well be wrong, in which case I will eat my hat. I became aware of that rat's nest after a lot of the dust had settled already, so I'm inherently looking at it from a certain biased perspective.
2500805
However, if the Assholes didn't apply such blind criticism, I doubt she would disable comments.
Bad behavior just spawns more of itself.
Edit: Also, are you really expecting intelligent discussion in a youtube comments thread? If so, you are going to be disappointed very often.
I think it's good that you posted this--good for me, anyhow. A lot of stuff was piling up for me, and honestly, today, I am pissed off to the max.
Is it ok to call it "mansplaining" if that's what it is? Specifically if it's directed AT me from someone who knows I'm female and adds, "simmer down?" Or can I just decide that someone who does that is an Asshole?
I think "racism" and "sexism" are tossed around a lot in a way that's confusing, mixing the concept of "institutionalized racism/sexism" with "way in which individual person was discriminated against because of sex/race/whatever." Accusing someone of being a racist/sexist usually ends nowhere good. You see this all the time: someone says something incredibly awful, and then someone says "so-and-so is a racist," and someone else says "why so-and-so is a lovely person and hasn't got a racist bone in his/her body!" and it moves everything away from the original point, which is that something awful got said.
THIS. I wish we could get away from the scorched-earth politics of shutting someone down. It's not enough anymore for someone to say something bad, say they're sorry, and then not do it again. Someone's entire career as a media commenter or whatever has to come to an end, forever, and the signs have to go up saying "YOU'LL NEVER WORK IN THIS TOWN AGAIN." And then everyone chooses up sides and a "win" for "them" becomes a "loss" for "us," no matter how benign the actual thing is. It's stupid.
2500810 You're right. That's more or less exactly what's happened, and it has the ironic consequence of creating what it claims to hate. Label enough people "feminazis" or "Social Justice Warriors," even if they aren't, and some of them will start to think "well, screw it. I'm getting this label anyway, so I might as well go whole hog."
2500810
Fixed.
And I do agree about "Social Justice Warrior," but it's such a useful term, and otherwise I'd just have to call them "Other Assholes." So I made sure to make my definition clear there, and I'll probably keep using it while knowing that I have to explain myself.
2500868
I totally agree about the tropes. That's why we need the conversation, just like we did with the idea of "princess." If no one realizes it's offensive, it won't change, but it's not something we as a culture want to trash. So we talk about it to find the lines.
With regards to Anita, the point is that whether or not those things are true, what do they have with the actual subject of "Tropes vs. Women in Games"? What you have there is people being "angry" about her finances, one of many examples she used, and her production schedule... and none of it addresses the points she's trying to start a conversation about. They aren't interested in having a conversation about the issues raised by her videos, but they're really loud about everything else... sounds like Assholes.
2500873
I have had exactly the same question. My solution was to try to explain to them that they were doing <the concept of mansplaining> without using the word, so I didn't look like I was trying to shut down the conversation. But it really depends on how much you care about how they think of you-- if you don't care, then call a spade a spade.
I kinda wish you talked about some of the more out-there claims that SJWs make, such as how learning another language is "cultural appropriation" and should be stopped at once (no joke).
Back when gamergate started, I was feeling pretty frustrated. Left and right, I was feeling like I was being attacked for something I enjoy on my off time; something I don't get nearly the amount of time I want to put into it. There was one thing that came out that finally crossed a line for me. Something that I felt I had to respond to. So I left a comment. Sort of a rant, really. I wanted to get my opinion out though, because I felt that my viewpoints were valid enough to warrant speaking up in this one time. I didn't curse, I was pretty respectful to the people that posted the article. It was a pretty tame comment that expressed my opinion.
Later on, someone replies, and they go after me, saying how I'm strawmanning because I offered my opinion, and that my side is actively hating on them, so that my specific opinion is invalidated because of the actions of others. I then get told that I can't have an opinion because I didn't cite concrete proof of my viewpoints, nor provide links or anything of the sort. So I respond to the person, telling them that I *do* correct people that spew hate when it's not welcome, and that I didn't offer "proof" because I just wanted to express my opinion (I mean, it's an OPINION. If it needs to be backed up with proof and evidence, then it'd be facts, and I wasn't trying to prove anything, just give my opinion on the matter). I tell him that, if he is interested in learning the facts that my position was based on, that he could go look at some links that I provided for him.
He gets back to me, basically saying that I'm not doing enough, no matter what I do, and that my "proof" isn't good enough because it didn't meet *his* standards. Then he told me I couldn't reply to him again unless I had irrefutable proof before I expressed an opinion, and that I had to become basically the internet morality police (this all stemmed from the fact that someone said the word 'fuck', and that offended him).
This sort of thing is pretty frustrating to me. I want to have conversations about this, but people are being like "you can have conversations as long as you agree with me." And that sets a bad precedent.
2500889 Of course, if someone is talking to me like that, tells me what's what, and adds "simmer down," then really he's the one shutting down conversation. I don't think the words "simmer down" are normally directed at males over the age of, say, twelve or less.
2500890
Ah! But you did have a conversation about it. Sort of. That guy sounds like a jerk, but unless he was a comment deleting jerk, your opinion is out there, just as valid as you laid it out for people other than him to consider.
And of course, you can always express your opinion on your own blog, and discuss it with people there.
For as long as that post was, it went by rather quickly. It was fairly concise and simply put.
Thank you for your one and only blog on this kind of subject. If there had to be only one, I'm glad it was like this.
2500904
I've considered it. But that event, along with just silently observing, has put me off from talking with people about it. Even on my own blog, I don't feel like I'd be able to freely express myself, nor get a tangible discussion going. This has actually been the first time since the aforementioned comments that I've talked with anyone about it outside my close friends.
I must be completely oblivious, because I hadn't heard of any of those things until this exact moment.
But a very good post, regardless.
2500914
Essentially, He was taking a stab at the Redskins' owner opening some "original americans" fund to quell sayings of the Redskins' name being offensive. Stephen colbert brought back Ching-Chong Ding-Dong. A one time character from 2005, and he jokingly made Ching-Chong Ding-Dong's Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals. it's pretty funny in context.
A fake twitter account, run by Comedy Central, sent out a tweet about the fake foundation without context, starting outrage. People got mad at stephen, and started #cancelcolbert. people in turn, got mad at the SJWs who were getting upset, thus causing a bit of a "twitstorm".
Here's a bit of a summary from the man himself. Done in typical Colbert style.
I'm absolutely fascinated by the whole phenomenon of Tumblr and SJWs. At times they seem to have a bit of sense and direction, other times they just seem to want to be mad at everything.
2500832 Enjoy your porn, and I mean that sincerely.
I think we're probably talking about the same writer, and I know that what's really fueling being upset about it for me is that I love his writing and was personally inspired by it, and I am gutted that he might be gone. And it really makes it difficult to separate everything out, including unwise or dumb or even offensive behavior, which is something few people seem interested in doing anyway. The artist and the author and a few other bloggers and completely unrelated controversies from years back get piled into one gigantic oil-soaked pyre, while everyone stands around lighting matches.
Unfortunately, negative comments and behavior DO register more strongly than positive ones, and I think that's true for everyone, with the result that twenty or a hundred pleasant or harmless people are completed overshadowed by one or two Assholes. This is why it's really important to call attention to positive behavior, because too often it's invisible.
2500873
The scorched-earth policy is valid when dealing with someone who is actually a bigot. Because as a society, we have decided that being a bigot is not acceptable. If a person regularly calls women c***, losing his job is to be expected. Donald Sterling's lifetime ban from the NBA is unsurprising. He stepped outside the borders that society has agreed upon, and was slapped down for it.
However, it is not acceptable to apply that policy to someone who is merely insensitive, ill-informed or who would correct their behavior if only asked.
I do think that there are issues right now with the lack of social consensus with regards to gay rights. If someone openly opposed interracial marriage today, they would face severe consequences. However, because a significant portion of our population does not support gay rights, people find it harder to speak up with the same stridency they would on other issues.
2500862
2500872
You mean things that have happened to every E-celeb ever? Plus, which came first, closed comments or harassment? This is very much a chicken and egg scenario. Plus, considering how much of a blatant shyster she is, I don't have that much sympathy. But that's a topic I won't touch on here, since this is Book's time to shine.
2500942 The second death threats or rape threats come into it, it's done. I don't care what the argument was about or who started it or who's also had rape or death threats. They have no place anywhere, ever, at all.
2500935 Basically, yeah. It has to be incredibly outrageous or prolonged. I'm not weeping into my tea over Donald Sterling, although I also quit being interested in it after a day or two and wished the LA Times would cover something else.
2500942
I really don't follow this debate at all. The last summery I got from someone I trust was that neither side is squeaky clean.
However, the fact that other people also get harassed does not excuse her harassment. That is a horribly weak argument.
Again, youtube comments are always pretty worthless.
2500942
It's actually not. The harassment started before she even finished the kickstarter, so before the videos were posted. And she's active on all the regular social media forums so it's not like she's unavailable for comment if it actually addresses the subject matter.
And the question of her moral character has nothing to do with the issues she raises. Though as I understand it, as of two weeks ago, no one who had actually donated money to her was accusing her of anything.
2500889 I sort of see where you're going with those, but at the same time, I think they still have some validity. Using manufactured footage and unattributed footage is bad form at best, fraudulently dishonest at worst. Unfortunately, Sarkeesian is so integral and wrapped in the "Video Games & Women Tropes" conversation, it's hard to separate the two. Which is kind of why I think the finances one is a somewhat valid claim to make. It's not that I don't think this shouldn't be discussed, I just don't think she should be the one discussing them. Or at the very least, people shouldn't be funding her to discuss them given her track record. I will agree that there are people who are trying to use the finances thing to shut down the whole discussion and they are Assholes, but at the same time, I still think it's a valid tool to use to assess Sarkeesian herself.
2500961
Provided you can address a question within 140 characters, and provided she will answer it, sure, I guess. Or, like most honest criticism of her, it will get buried under 6 gorillion worthless tweets.
I disagree. When your moral character is questionable, it ruins any credibility you have. And considering she's been caught multiple times lying, not crediting sources and statistics, and downright twisting things to fit agendas, yes, I think it does affect how she's able to properly address issues.
Edit: That said, I'll bow out now before I turn this into a manifesto as to why she's a thorn on actually resolving women's issues in the gaming industry.
"The consensus was that we can’t get rid of princesses, but this was something we’d like to remake somehow."
This is problem number one with the whole Change thing: the belief that stories older than the languages they're told in can just be casually rewritten to suit whatever modern trend we've decided to embrace this week.
Some of these stories are in our blood and in the land itself. And however lacking they are in uplift, vision and breadth of mind, we're not going to be rid of them in some glorious march of mynkind.
And now that I've dated myself with century-old conservatism, I'll show myself out...
The thing is, I think you're meaning out a very important category of people who are also involved in this whole thing, and who end up causing a lot of the problems we face.
It isn't the social justice warriors. It isn't the assholes. It is the Well Meaning Idiots.
These are people whose hearts are in the right place, but whose brains are not. They're worried about the cost of health care, but don't understand why drugs cost so much money to produced. They're worried about pollution, but think that a part per billion of a toxin is going to kill you. They're worried about the environment, and want to stop people from cutting down any trees. They're worried about women in video games, but obsess over Grand Theft Auto.
The problem is that these people don't know any better. They see the world in black and white, and shades of gray confuse and frighten them. And given that the world is full of shades of gray - of people who have differing opinions - they have to group people up to make sense of things, even though those groupings make no sense.
Fortunately, those groupings tend to have less to do with sex and race than they once did, but nowadays we see the "liberals" and the "Democrats" and the "conservatives" and the "Republicans" and the "tea party" and the "libertarians" and the "evangelical Christians" and whatever other groups you want to have, and while in some ways those lines are better, in others they're worse because they tend to create echo chambers with these folks, and a lot of these people can easily end up isolated and, frankly, it is a lot easier to demonize other people and tell people that they are evilbadwrong and the Well Meaning Idiots believe it. Worse, they get that impression even if you don't think that the person is evilbadwrong.
I'm sure you saw my fun post about disempowerment, and about a story which involved it. Some folks decided that that meant that, because I mentioned the world misogyny somewhere in the post, I was calling these people misogynists. But they're not. Almost all misogyny is subconscious at best, and in most cases, it isn't even misogyny at all - either you're seeing things (which we all do, including myself, in the case of the art) or there are unfortunate implications which aren't meant to be there, but which people perceive as being present, and it bugs them.
And the problem here is that Anita Sarkeesian is basically wandering in and doing exactly this, except on a massive scale. She is, fundamentally, telling a lot of people that they're misogynists, as far as the people she is talking about perceive. And this is not only angering the Assholes and the Social Justice Warriors (and do note that some of the SJW types - the MRA types - get very angry at her, even though they don't get along with the other SJWs) but also the well-meaning idiots and even the ordinary folks. It is a really sensitive subject matter.
And there's a long history of people being jerks to gamers. Beyond the fact that it is frequently a hobby which introverts enjoy, and which many bullied people can retreat to because it keeps them away from the world, there has been a long history of people blaming video games for social ills and attacking video games and video gamers. There was the whole stupidity over Mortal Kombat back in the day. In the late 1990s people blamed school shootings on people playing first person shooters like DOOM and QUAKE. Then there was the whole debacle with Jack Thompson, a conservative SJW type who filed so many frivolous lawsuits that he was eventually disbarred and who spent many, many years screaming at gamers about how evil they all were and how video games were training people for murder, despite the murder rate plummeting like a rock.
So when you have someone like Anita Sarkeesian blunder in, and start complaining about stuff - stuff which people actually know to be wrong, because they've played the games that she's complaining about - they automatically assume that she's Jack Thompson again. And some of the folks here clearly ARE Jack Thompsons, and as we all know, it is guilt by association, and thus people end up shutting down the conversation because they don't think that there is a conversation to begin with - they just see it as yet another SJW attack. Meanwhile, the well-meaning idiots who are worried about these things see this, and think that everyone in the gaming community is an Asshole, and treat them as such.
And this is ultimately how a lot of this stuff goes. It isn't malice - it is stupidity. They don't cite bad examples or wrong examples because they're evil, but because they don't know any better.
This is not unique to the gaming community. Look at Ferguson - we had people protesting over a black kid getting shot by a cop, but the black kid in question had just committed a strong-arm robbery and beat up the cop in question. Will we ever know if the cop was in the right in shooting him? Probably not, but "unarmed black youth gunned down by cop" is a lot less gray than "robbery suspect gunned down by injured cop". The media popularized the "unarmed black youth gunned down by cop" story without doing proper fact-checking because it matched the narrative they wanted to talk about and were worried about, and because the cops were staying mum about it (probably because the cops were worried if they mentioned he was a suspect in a strongarm robbery, and it wasn't the same guy, they'd be accused of randomly gunning down black men in the streets just because there was a robbery nearby and all the black people look the same to them. There was no winning there). When you pick out a very bad example to advocate for, you make people think you're a SJW or an Asshole, even if you're not.
People want there to be a clear line, but oftentimes there isn't. The world is a confusing place, no one is in charge, and issues are not always clear-cut. And most people don't know any better. And very few people perceive their own categorization correctly - and those who agree with them will always tell them that they're in the category of the people who are standing up for what is right, no matter which category they belong in.
2500903
"Simmer down" sounds generically midwestern to me. I haven't heard the phrase since moving to the west coast, but where I grew up, it was used on angry people of any age. Mostly it was used on men. It means, "anger won't help you make your point, so you should be less angry about this." It's not inherently sexist, although it is snotty and can be sexist. For instance, some people believe that anger never helps a woman. That's just wrong. If one of those tells you to simmer down, they really are telling you to shut up and stop talking.
Hopefully, everyone you've met who used the phrase "simmer down" on you really meant to say, "Please restate your points in a more respectful manner." This being the internet, and given what you're saying about it being used as a capstone to someone telling you what to think, there's not much cause for hope.
2500999 Doesn't AJ tell people to simmer down? Damn it, now I'm gonna be checking the script wiki so I can make a gif of that...
2500990
From the trends, it appears to be less remaking and more making different stories
2500980
These are valid points to address. Not how she spends her money.
That being said, they are points. For a conversation. Where people can, for example, find sources for statistics and decide if they believe them. Or find out there aren't sources and decide if it matters to her argument. This is not a court of law, or a scientific paper, it's a conversation. You have to explain things past "she didn't cite statistics." (But, not here, because the specifics of that are off topic.)
What is on topic, for you and 2500977 , is needing to reread the post again, because this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Ms. Blank wanted our culture to have a conversation about women and video games. She made some videos about it, presenting some overall themes with multiple examples. This is what the discussion is about. Those videos, staring Ms. Blank. You can disagree with them, you can argue that they're incorrect, or even lies. And other people can argue that you're missing the point, and try to explain the point better, or use different, cited statistics.
The culture doesn't care about Ms. Blank's real name. It doesn't care about anything about her, not her finances, or her production schedule. In 50 years, no one will remember Ms Blanks name. All they will care about is what ever happened to that box of video games that some people out there think are stamped "Stuff For Guys," so they want to change them, and other people want to keep.
Ms. Blank does not get to decide that, and you do not get to decide that. Who gets to decide that is the culture as a whole, as we eventually agree on how we'll treat the issue.
Now if you want to talk about this actual subject, I suggest finding a better forum for it. If you want to talk more about Ms. Blank, there is no better forum for it, because she doesn't matter to the culture, and unless you know her personally she doesn't matter to you.
2500990
Well, when they don't get rewritten, they instead get forgotten. Most of Grimms' Fairy Tales have been forgotten. Those that still exist have all undergone changes to make them more acceptable to modern audiences.
Edit:
2500993
I'm not really going to get into this, but I will say that seeing everything as shades of grey is just as big a trap as seeing everything in black and white.
2500999 Interesting point of view. I hadn't considered a regional element. Of course, saying "simmer down" to a lady is going to have an unfortunate overtone of "and get back to the kitchen." Usually, I've found that it isn't helpful to say some variant of "calm down" or "quit being angry" to angry people. It just seems to make them angrier. It's sort of cheesy to say things like "wow, I can see you must feel pretty angry right now"--very dime-store shrink--but I don't care if it's cheesy as long as it works.
And of course, it's entirely possible we're dealing with an Equal Opportunity Internet Blowhard who likes shutting everyone down, regardless of age, sex, creed or color.
Wisdom.
That's all I have. This is wise, well-said, even-tempered, and fair and if it is found by the wrong people it will set this place on fire. I wish you luck, Bookplayer, and I wish you even more that you won't need it.
2500990
The stories are old. And they've gotten to this worthy age specifically by being rewritten again and again and again, always to suit a new mood, or a new time, or a new hero. All fiction is fanfiction, and all telling is retelling.
Don't think of it as hills being eroded. Think of it as layers of deposits forming over geological time, creating new stone.
Consider, it is this new approach to princesshood, say, that gave us our pony princesses with their vast cosmic powers and occasional adventures. And hardly a prince to be seen, too. And it is both good and quite princessy. Best of both worlds.
2500990
I was referring to remaking the trope, rather than the stories. Which has been done successfully, so that now we expect Princesses like Celestia and Twilight, or Anna and Elsa, to display different, positive qualities for girls.
I'm generally a fan of Bettleheim and the theory that fairy tales should be changed as little as possible because they've developed the way they have for reasons, but luckily there are thousands of years and cultures worth of takes on fairy tales, not to mention stories that arrived relatively recently like Anderson's fairy tales, and you can find almost any kind of female role model in there somewhere.
2501007
"Who gets to decide that is the culture as a whole"
Am I the only one who finds that idea disturbing? Because the mechanism of action isn't friendly people making up their minds through rational discourse. The actors are Tipper Gore and Barbara Bush and Fredric Wertham and Anthony Comstock and the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice.
And when people like that get society to give them a billy club by spewing lies that poison public discourse and marginalize the opposition as political undesirables, they use it.
You want us to fend off illiberal attacks with the tools of liberalism. And I understand the appeal of a society where we could do that. But in practice it's like fending off a tiger with a rubber mallet.
2501013
Yeah. I think I understand. "Calm down" is a tricky sentiment because people abuse the hell out of it. The "and go the fuck away" twist is not that sexist. It's more like the only reason some people say "calm down" is so that the person they're talking to will vanish from their minds and stop being a problem to them. It's Asshole Stage Magic, and the person they're trying to make disappear is you. Or me. I've been there too. It's unlikely I've been there on the same issues, but I've been there nonetheless.
I wish there was a safe way to ask someone to calm down and make their points in a more reasonable tone. There doesn't seem to be.
2501028
You can find it as scary as you want, there literally is no other way to do things. Never has been, never will be. You can't legislate how people think or what they'll accept, they have to be convinced based on whatever will convince them. And the average of that will be what we allow/support as a culture.
And yeah, this has led to every Very Bad Thing a culture has ever supported, and every triumph over those things, so make of that what you will.
2501018
2501017
That's true. But I think we can make an important distinction.
In healthy, organic change, a mother tells her child a slightly different story than her mother told her. Because the times have changed, or because the family herds sheep instead of goats, or because the old words just don't rhyme quite right, the funny way people speak these days.
The "story" isn't one set of words bound in some book. It's a million slightly different stories that live in people's heads and on their tongues, never "changing", because people always told it this way, right?
But does the new Change belong to the people who hear the stories?
When some egotistical physician takes the real stories away from the people who tell them, and chains them to bits of paper, and takes his scalpel to them to make them "moral", "authoritative", "safe for impressionable women and children"?
When some committee of gray-faced, gray-uniformed apparatchiks vivisects stories to ensure the "salvation of the young mind and the freeing of it from the noxious reactionary beliefs of their parents"?
Maybe even when a corporation hires a visionary to revitalize a stale, firmly licensed and copyrighted story, and maximize its toyetic appeal?
I'm not sure where that line is crossed. But I know it's there, and in the last hundred years we've blindly pranced across it far too many times. So my default response to "let's change these stories!" is cautious pessimism at the motivations of the people who'll take charge. Especially when some of the most vocal are Qualified Academics.
Which admittedly is my default response to pretty much everything...
2501071
To be fair to the past century and the present one, never in the history of humanity has so much changed so quickly. Technology really did a number on culture.
Which is not to say that I don't deeply value tradition, I just understand why it's left so many people so confused about things.
2501007
Exactly. And I'd prefer to have a discussion with someone who actually knew about both women and video games. Anita does not, having stated before that she's had no interest in the medium before. Compare that to some women who have been playing video games ever since they were children. Who's opinion do you think would hold more merit?
Edit: 'Before' not meaning ever, or now. Maybe she does like video games now, but I'd still say a women's opinion who has played video games since childhood has more weight.
2501085
You don't get to decide who is or isn't part of the discussion. And Ms Blank's history doesn't matter, Ms Blank has no history, and doesn't care who Anita is. Either people think her points are valid or they don't.
If her points are valid, it doesn't matter if she's psychic and has never even seen a game, people will agree.
If her points are not valid, it doesn't matter if she invented games, people will disagree.
And, once again, you don't get to decide if her points are valid in the end, culture does. So you'd better look at her points and argue against them on the basis of the actual points, if you want to be part of the conversation that's relevant to what will happen to games.