bump for interest

With a handy definition of what Social Justice is, and what Social Justice Warriors are, let's take a look at gamers. What even is a "gamer"? A simple, and fundamentally incorrect answer is: "Someone who plays games." Why is that wrong? Because of how gamers came to be. Once upon a time, videogames were not a respected medium. They fell into the hands of a certain class of people, most notably in the United States. Seen as a child's toy more than sophisticated technology, videogames were the refuge of a generation of kids that, generally speaking, didn't have very good options for other things to do. Kids who were unfit to play sports, too socially awkward for normal social events, unpopular, ugly, or who had interests and hobbies that made them outcasts from their age-based peers - to wit: Nerds. From videogames, nerds got an avenue to spend all the massive amounts of free time, mental energy, concentration, and passion that they shared (and share) with non-nerds, but which they were otherwise denied a good outlet to express. From the nerds, the videogame companies got access to their parent's pocketbooks, and over the course of a few decades a massive industry was quietly born. Over this span, a term gradually came into use that described the core demographic of this grassroots community: Gamers. A gamer didn't just play videogames, they were a hardcore videogame enthusiast. Compare and contrast "person who plays videogames" with "gamer" as follows: >"Person who rides a bicycle" and "a cyclist." >"A person who owns a motorcycle" and "a biker." >"A person who drives a car" and "a gear-head." >"A person who likes to dance" and "a dancer." In each case, the difference is a degree of emphasis and importance. A person may own, and enjoy their motorcycle. But it they are not immersed in motorcycle culture, deeply knowledgeable about motorcycles and everything around them, and if they don't present themselves as and take pride in the same, then they are not a "biker." A person who takes a course in First Aid is not a "doctor." A person who rides a bike around the neighborhood once a week is not a "cyclist." A person who merely plays a few videogames every now and then is in no way a gamer. They lack the knowledge, the enthusiasm, the connection to the subculture, with its memes, in-jokes, and obscure knowledge, and most importantly - the raw skill acquired by countless hours of practice and refinement at their chosen games. A gamer is a hard-core videogame enthusiast in the same way a biker is a hard-core motorcycle enthusiast. And much like someone who rides a Honda a few miles every month will be scorned by bikers for calling himself a "biker," gamers tend to scorn casual videogame players who try to call themselves "gamers." They created the label for themselves, they spent the money that built the industry that caters to their needs and wants, and in many cases they endured childhood years of social ostracism in concert with their videogame hobby, as games were not popular among non-gamers until very recently. The title "gamer" is a bit of a battle-scar, worn by people who know unquestioningly that they have earned it. Posers and pretenders are less than welcome, with the moniker "casual gamer" provided for their use instead. A gamer is a social creature, though it is social mostly within the company of other gamers. Some of us are old enough to remember the days of Arcades, which were to the local kids as the local bar was for the adults. The atmosphere was lively and competitive, names, reputations, and nicknames were known around the room, newcomers were hazed and outsiders were largely unwelcome, and your worth as a person was largely determined by two factors: How friendly you were, and how good you were at your game(s) of choice. If you don't think a 19 year old nerd boy can have deep respect for a 13 year old ugly girl, you've never seen what a high-speed "dial-a-combo" mic drop and walking away from the Killer Instinct machine can do to a person. Gamers are not antisocial. They are social with other gamers. Gamers are not disrespectful or mean-spirited - they respect each other, but reserve their scorn for the non-gamer socialites who might intrude on their spaces. Gamers talk trash because in competitive environs, it gives potent release of stress emotions and psychological advantage. Gamers are a little different kind of people. Of course as many of us grow up and grow older, we slowly adjust and get along better with outsiders. Some level of sociability is necessary for maintaining a job or a family, as most gamers go on to do. But it makes the word "gamer" have even more meaning, as it also comes to represent the social and psychological hurdles that we have overcome in our lives. Being a gamer is all about challenges.

Gamers, being human like everyone else, are not given to following hard guidelines in their personal relationships. Love, respect, and decency are all present in different measures, for different people, and for different reasons. I may not like you, but I still respect you. I may love you as a person, but disrespect your skills. I may dislike you and disrespect you, but help change your tire in the rain out of a sense of basic human decency. Human decency and love are shown in a similar broad spectrum among gamers as they are in the rest of the population, but respect, and its application, stands out a bit differently. The reason for this is based on the nature of what a videogame fundamentally is: An artificial challenge. Make the jumps with Mario. Solve the puzzles with Link. Grind the levels with Cloud. Farm the drops in your MMO and defeat the boss. Shoot the terrorists with Ghost. Land the jumpshot with Kobe's avatar. Challenges. Videogames challenge memory, mental reflexes, hand-eye coordination, patience, and teamwork. Apart (mostly) from physical fitness, games challenge nearly every aspect of a human being, with each individual game having one or more specialities. Even an ancient and lowly game like Pong or Space Invaders is a feat of hand-eye coordination and mental reflexes, to say nothing of modern masterpieces like Ikaruga. Even story-based games like RPGs, where "the game is a book, with the action being what the player does between turns of the page" require strategic thinking, resource management, and patience as a virtue. Multiplayer Online games require teamwork, communication, and social skills shared among gamers who may be thousands of miles apart. Every game builds upon some skill of the player through use of well-crafted challenges, and it is often how well, and how fairly those challenges are constructed that decides the game's ultimate fate in sales and reputation. Games that provide "unfair" challenges, such as lethal randomness outside the player's control are derided almost as much as so called "walking simulators" that offer no challenge at all by design. Gamers are challenge-seekers, out to slay ever-bigger dragons. And like anyone in the dragon-slaying business, gamers like to share their exploits among their peers. The practical effect of this is that all games, not just those with a competitive mode of play, are competitive games to an extent. I can clear Final Fantasy IX in under 12 hours to get the Excalibur II sword, and I unlocked all the time cheats in Perfect Dark without using cheat codes. Another gamer that has also managed to accomplish those things has my respect. I played Final Fantasy XI Online for many years without ever obtaining a Relic Weapon. I'm jealous of those who did, and consider it to be a challenge that I failed at. FFXI was a cooperative game. Yet the element of competition exists. Competition is much better, however, when rewards are at stake. Certainly bragging rights are a reward of sorts, for the games with the least measurable accomplishments. A minor reward is still a reward. Yet a reward doesn't mean much if it isn't awarded (or claimed) based on merit. If I had used a Gameshark cheat device to unlock the time cheats in Perfect Dark, do I still get to brag about it? I think even the most disinterested person reading this would still answer "no." Instead I dedicated the time, the attention, and the energy to earn the cheats by unlocking them within the rules of the game. It was very hard, and enthusiasts who are knowledgeable about the game will understand that it is hard, and will generally respect the accomplishment. Do you desire the reward? Then follow the rules and earn it. If you cannot, then you are not yet good enough, and may be chided for your failure as a method of encouragement. If you can, then you earn respect for overcoming the challenge. In short, the respect of gamers is based almost entirely on merit. And much like the passages about Social Justice, you may notice a lack of "but"s or "unless"s. Gamers do not generally say >You are respected unless you are black. >You are respected unless you are gay. >You are respected unless you are female. >You are respected unless you don't share my political values. While obvious traits do make for low-hanging fruit when dis-respecting someone as in for failure at a challenge, being a poser or fake, or for having a poor attitude ("You dumb bitch, what were you doing?!" when the girl lets the team down and gets everyone killed) they have never been reasons for disrespecting a person by themselves. Low-hanging fruit for trash-talk and commentary does not belie a more sinister intention. Quite the opposite - they are meant to fuel a deliberate minor vindictiveness, and with it a drive for the failure to redouble themselves and improve their skills. "Git Gud Faggot." Under this structure, gamers built a subculture that thrives as a meritocracy. A person's worth, and they respect they are due, are judged mainly by their accomplishments and skill at games, with personality being a secondary concern and, this is important, no other arbitrary factors apply. Gamers do not care if you are black. Or if you are a woman. Or if you are Jewish. Or if you are ugly. Or if you are a Democrat. Or if you are Ukrainian. Gamers care only if you are any good at challenging games, and if you are a gamer yourself. You are not judged for your baggage (whatever it may be), you are only asked to leave it at the door when entering gamers' spaces. Do this and anyone is, and always has been, welcome.

Which brings us to the final revelation, and how this all relates to #GamerGate. I remember in the early days of #GG, after the people at large had dropped their interest in the initial scandal around Zoe Quinn in favor of pursuing the members of the games media responsible for the various "Gamers Are Dead" articles and the vitriol coming from our own videogames press. I was active on the Twitter front at that time, which mostly consisted of a combination of three duties. >Search Twitter timelines for evidence that journalists were in improper relationships. >Archive and provide that evidence to the #GG hubs for dissemination. >Publicly press members of the journalism community for fair reporting of the issue, chiding those who refused. There were thousands of us active at that time performing similar tasks, and I'll wager that most who were there remember when the SJWs started appearing. The media had tried turning #GG's concerns and complaints about their practices and relationships into a narrative about anti-feminism, based entirely on the fact that Zoe Quinn, who had ignited the earliest part of the scandal, was a self-branded feminist. It didn't occur to me until weeks later that this narrative, which had appeared absurd on its face to gamers angry at Kotaku, was a deliberate and calculated act. And so, lead by the games media's clarion call, the SJWs leapt to defense against the horde of angry gamers pounding on the media's door. At first we thought they were mistaken, which gave way quickly to a conclusion that they were outright crazy. Criticism of a male journalist's writing was met with accusations of "misogyny" bellowed from a thousand Tumblr rooftops. Our targets - Ben Kuchera, Phil Fish, Leigh Alexander, and others who included only a nominal number of women, were being represented as a sort of holocaust concentration camp of defenseless women, held hostage by #GamerGate and needing to be liberated by the SJWs and their allies. "Driven from their homes" was a line so ridiculous that I am convinced that I will still remember it as an old man in the nursing home. I drove a professional journalist from her home by complaining that her reporting on an issue was terrible. The current date is April 4th, 2016, and as far as I am aware, no evidence has ever been provided of any credible threat made to these media-mogul "victims." But the hue and cry was sent, and the SJWs answered. As we would later come to know, it was partly because many of the interlopers in the games media were self-admitted SJWs themselves. The wolves, having slipped up and angered the farmer, had howled for their pack. Far gone were the days of games media staunchly defending us from the likes of Jack Thompson. Now we were being offered up on the altar of their SJW ideology by those whom we had long admired as allies. The betrayal was ultimate and the anger was real. But gamers do so love a challenge. Taking on the media itself, nearly omnipotent, in what seemed to amount to the biggest and most complex MMORPG of all time seemed like fun. Especially since we were already "dead" according to them, and so had absolutely nothing to lose. War to the knife and knife to the hilt. A chorus of a quarter-million gamers around the globe yelled "Bring it on." The resulting World War Web called #GamerGate brought huge numbers of gamers face to face with SJWs on the Internet. Previously contained to insulated communities like 4chan and Tumblr, the two groups immediately found a whole lot to dislike about one another. SJWs, believing that equality of outcomes should be enforced regardless of merit, found their perfect counterparts in gamers. The latter had been living in a decades-long competitive meritocracy that seemed Utopian when compared to the rest of the Internet at large, while the SJWs were largely confined to smaller circles and a some key positions in media and academia, and were unaccustomed to the brash honesty and uncompromising judgement that gamers were quick to voice. Social media sites like Twitter, long ruled by SJWs who used them as platforms to spread their message, found themselves invaded by armies of loud, trash-talking gamers with mountains of evidence and lessons in deductive reasoning and arguing under their belts, who countered, remanded, and revealed flaws in their every word. It was a #Triggering of Biblical proportions, and quickly revealed that the SJW and the Gamer are almost diametrically opposed, with the latter having a large advantage. The SJW values conformity to ideals, regardless of accomplishments. The Gamer values accomplishments, with complete indifference to ideals. The SJW metes out rewards and punishments based on a person's willingness to conform. Gamers do not mete out rewards or punishments, leaving individuals to earn them themselves. The SJW believes in enforcing equal outcomes regardless of merit. The Gamer believes that outcomes are determined by merit. The SJW judges people based on disagreement. The Gamer judges disagreement based on ideas and does not judge people. The SJW believes that all communities must be made to conform to their ideals. The Gamer believes that individual communities should sort themselves out and be left alone. The SJW believes that videogames are now "art", and that "all art is political." Gamers have always known that videogames are art, but that art only has to be beautiful in what it conveys. The SJW excludes others who do not conform. Gamers include anyone, if only they have the skills. The SJW interprets everything through a political lens. The Gamer excludes politics from their judgement almost entirely. The SJW demands silence from opponents. The Gamer demands all have the right to speak. The SJW shames and harasses behind their real name, for credit with their peers. The Gamer bears it anonymously, is unaffected, and does not do it in return. The SJW believes "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets." The gamer believes in fair play, and using power legitimately earned to solve a challenge. The SJW hates challenge and fears failure. The Gamer revels in challenge and never quits. Heads and tails of a coin were never such perfect opposites.

[Expand Post]

This is why we win. Why people like Christina Hoff Sommers waited for decades for someone like us to come along. This is why we are, in small part, the last hope of our hobby and maybe of the Internet at large. SJWs fancy themselves as heroes in their own story. And we are the Final Boss of the Internet, as we always have been. The conclusion of this battle was fated from the beginning. They're going to get a good look at the Game Over screen every time they face us. And no matter how many times they load their file, hoping for change, the Final Boss will be there, waiting for them. Game on.

tl;dr, social justice is just a euphemism for Stalinism.

>>321116 >Gamers do not generally say >You are respected unless you are black. >You are respected unless you are gay. >You are respected unless you are female. >You are respected unless you don't share my political values. >Gamers do not care if you are black. >Or if you are a woman. >Or if you are Jewish. >Or if you are ugly. >Or if you are a Democrat. >Or if you are Ukrainian. BowNigger.txt gamergate.txt /pol/.txt do you even read what your fellow "gamers" write on this board or do you just ignore it

"Social Justice" means "I have no idea what communism is but I'm all for it!"

>>321152 >Can't Handle The Bantz: The Post Also >bownigger.txt Have you even read it? Because this it how it ends, with a show of respect: >And there it is. I don’t even know what it was. Some chance slash or poke in all of the rolling and jumping around and his lifeless avatar, with all his racist stabs and underhand duplicity, goes tumbling to the floor vanquished by the guy who even in the face of all of that, played by the ‘rules’. Only one health point remains but I win. >I’m a fucking hero. A real one. >A beep and a server message: Wanker has disconnected. >I can only dream of the howls of anguish so far away. >My next opponent spawns. And bows. A chat icon appears. >“Awesome” he types.

Vid related

>>321152 Also >>Or if you are Ukrainian. Butthurt hohol detected.

>>321164 "Gamers" do not all fall under the perfect depiction your propaganda is pretending they do, just like anyone else you can find large numbers of assholes who call themselves gamers. See: Gamergate.

>>321168 What I don't understand is why people who >are apparently disgusted with every aspect of of the game industry and insist that it needs to be "fixed" >who have no knowledge or respect for the history of the medium >who show nothing but scorn towards gamers and shame them at every opportunity >who seem to be irritated of every single aspect of the gaming culture …insist on worming their way into the hobby that they apparently hate and feel ashamed to be a part of? It's a bit like going to restaurant, criticizing the decor, complaining about the quality of the food, mouthing off to the waiter, calling the chef a racist homophobe, clogging the fucking toilet on your way out AND THEN getting gravely offended when someone suggests that you probably shouldn't come back here anymore? At some point, shouldn't you just accept that maybe, gaming is just not for you?

>>321100 >The fly in the ointment is an implicit but unanswered question. That question is, briefly: Who is deciding what is morally upright and good in this context? Our moral betters, of course. They know what what's righteous, they know what god wants, and they know they can do no wrong because god is on their side. What word they use to refer to "god" changes, but the attitude and tactics don't. >>321169 What I really don't understand is how those same people manage to get jobs as video game critics or in the industry.

>>321170 >What I really don't understand is how those same people manage to get jobs as video game critics or in the industry. Nepotism, corruption, socjus.

>>321169 I have nothing but respect for the medium itself. It just so happens I happen to share it with a group of creepy nerds like you people. Here's the thing: you are more than allowed to criticize something you love. You are more than allowed to expect more of something you love. If you can't accept that whatsoever, then you and I will never be able to see eye to eye on anything. I'll just be an SJW/SHILL to you, and you will still be an angry nerd who feels threatened by changes of any sort to his vidya, especially changes towards what panties a fictional twelve-year-old is wearing.

>>321100 >>321112 >>321116 >>321122 Acid, fam, did you honestly write this all in one night?

>>321175 >who feels threatened by changes of any sort to his vidya Censorship in all forms must be opposed.

>>321180 I do actually agree that we should allow creepy shit in videogames, they act like birth control and prevent the people who enjoy that garbage from breeding.

>>321144 Liberty Prime is my spirit animal, for the record. MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT! And yes, I wrote this stuff off the cuff.

>>321182 Who gets to decide what's "creepy shit"? Are homos and other SJW degenerates "creepy shit"?

>>321100 >>321112 >>321116 >>321122 the fuck did this come from? You rarely redpost, then this book out of nowhere. Are you feeling religious about this lately?

>>321112 >If you don't think a 19 year old nerd boy can have deep respect for a 13 year old ugly girl, you've never seen what a high-speed "dial-a-combo" mic drop and walking away from the Killer Instinct machine can do to a person. is this an admission that you are actually a woman and played Fulgore?

Poe's Law to the max

>>321228 #GamerGate is at a turning-point, to use WWII as a metaphor: our "Stalingrad" is over, the SJW warmachine has been repelled and, we are now changing from a defensive to offensive stance, and are on the road to Berlin. A bit of introspection would be wise to avoid mission-creep.

>>321100 Nice Dubdubs Nigger i ain't reading that while Sober, i will need to be at least partially inebriated to be able to process all that info

>>321122 >SJWs fancy themselves as heroes in their own story. And we are the Final Boss of the Internet, as we always have been. The conclusion of this battle was fated from the beginning. They're going to get a good look at the Game Over screen every time they face us. And no matter how many times they load their file, hoping for change, the Final Boss will be there, waiting for them. Is it intentional that you implied they can only beat us by becoming us? >>321168 >See: Gamergate. See it? I'm soaking in it! Although oddly, you provided an example after first, correctly, pointing out that assholes infest everything. Funny, that.

>>321228 I used to be known for writing stuff like this once upon a time. I deliberately refrain from doing it here because this board belongs to you guys and isn't my personal blog. It just occurred to me the other night that gamers and SJWs are basically polar opposites and almost perfect natural enemies, and by the time I got done extrapolating on how and why in my head it felt like something maybe worth posting. For the record, I agree with >>321246 We're over the hump. And despite the massive casualties on both sides, we're finally off the defensive leg we were on since 2014. The tide has turned, so lets make sure it keeps increasing.

>>321334 You're good people, Acid. Just thought you should know.

>>321336 A true redpilled /pol/ack tbh

>>321340 >>321336 no blacks tho

>>321100 >Leaving that for a moment, I'd like to address the concept of "justice" in the more common and less dictionary sense. Generally speaking, "justice" is understood to mean "equality of outcome." Lawfag here. The above is wrong. Justice is not equality of outcome. That's not in any terms it's original, unoriginal, formal or informal meaning. Justice, even as an abstract concept (out of a specific concrete case in which it's easier to be defined and "delivered") does by no mean imply or necessarily result in equality of outcome. Actually, equal outcome can be unjust in a number of cases. Social justice is just a different, more easily marketed term for material equality or equality of outcome (which are in good part marxist principles), a form of arbitrary distributive justice. Justice can be conceived in many different forms, and of them are more limited than the original idealistic concept of justice. That goes to formal justice, or equality under the law, equal treatment under the law, equality of opportunities; That goes to material justice, or social justice, or material equality, or equality of outcome; That goes to equity (fairness, rectitude - not the finance term, but the legal principle of equity) which is a form of distributive justice in which there's no general point to start from to solve a problem or conflict, and each case deserves it's own particular solution, which is almost never a balanced solution to both parties; And so on. Social justice as a concept is just an adapted form of marxist distribution of wealth that doesn't conflict with a democratic-capitalist society on principle - but that does conflict with it in practice, a lot. It's a platform to name leaders who'll be in charge of redistributing unfair treatment to those they conceive as more deserving of unfair treatment, instead of solving the cause of the problems of unfairness to begin with. Redistribution is a good synonym to it. Forced redistribution as a matter of fact, is a better synonym expression. Achieving power so you can redistribute unfair treatment is the best translation of the concept into practice. It's what's attempted in Bolivarian Venezuela, Maoist China, Stalinist-Leninist USSR, and so on. It's a failed concept, because history has showed it doesn't translate that well into practice, exactly because the moment there is a party (any person or group of people) in power to dictate the terms of equality of outcome (that is never unconditioned) there is already the seed of inequality right there - at the very least that one group in power, which will always be above the rest. In GG's case, gamers are just the adopters of meritocratic justice, or in other terms, formal justice, equality of opportunities, equal treatment under the law. It's the only practical platform to deliver proper justice. It's realistic, it doesn't buy the fiction that everyone is absolutely equal and deserve identical treatment, and allows oneself to define the terms in which society will treat him, by his own merit - while organizing society so that at the very least everyone gets the equal chance to try. The problem is that we don't live either in a reality in which there is material or formal justice. Even formal justice, that is more realistic, wasn't executed right anywhere to this day and is a work in progress. The closer there is to it is welfare Europe, especially scandinavian Europe. But even there, they are currently disfiguring it into material justice welfare and putting it's developments all to waste. But all history has to show demonstrates that better than doing a sistematic revolution of welfare and adopting material justice as norm, the best alternative is always to evolve formal justice to it's next stage. Make social infrastructure better (basically education and health, maybe also social security if you already achieved the form of a very productive society as a whole that can withstand that cost) and let each individual search their own happiness without guaranteeing anyone their own success, instead of artificially improving each own's life regardless of age, social behavior, etc., just because they inherently deserve it as human beings, so as to erase social differences. These will always exist, even in these artificial solutions, and in this case they will be even more unfair, because they will be forcefully implemented and individual agency forfeited.

>>321100 >The entire ideology down to the definitions that make up the name is self-referential and totally exclusionary. You're either with them, and thus meritorious, good, and morally upright, or you are not with them, and thus not morally upright Just to add, this is not exclusive to SJWs. Any belief that deems itself the exclusive source of good morality (which's any sort of "messianic" belief) will attract the kind of people that thinks anything is valid when trying to implement those ideas, machiavellian people who'll turn a blind eye to their own peers' faults in benefit of the supreme good they search for. SJWs aren't the only ones to behave like this sadly, and we live in times in which this kind of behavior and mindset spreads rapidly and easily, more than ever before, bar a few historic periods.

>>321112 >Once upon a time, videogames were not a respected medium. They fell into the hands of a certain class of people, most notably in the United States. Seen as a child's toy more than sophisticated technology, videogames were the refuge of a generation of kids that, generally speaking, didn't have very good options for other things to do. Kids who were unfit to play sports, too socially awkward for normal social events, unpopular, ugly, or who had interests and hobbies that made them outcasts from their age-based peers - to wit: Nerds. I also disagree with this. This is a topic more important than it seems to be relating to how GG grew absurdly and fast to then dwindle continuously. Gamers aren't all nerds who chose to play games because of a lack of options to entertain themselves. The greateast portions of people I know who played games and do still play games weren't and aren't socially introspective. This is a misconception that is fomented in some more harcore niches online. It's also a misconception that the most hardcore gamers are the bulk of the audience in terms of $ - the fact is that men in general are the top spenders in gaming's traditional genres and especially the AAA scene. That means all ranges of men gamers, from the most hardcore to the most casual, passing through all sorts of layers of grey inbetween. For most of this top spenders, it was just another venue of entertainment to add to the list, even as a kid. Anyway, gamer is indeed "someone who play games". And GG was at it's best when using this line against the libelling media. The strongest moment of GG was when pushing this notion as a defense against the media's claims that "gamers don't have to be your audience anymore". It was what drew the numbers, and as any political platform, popular support and acception is crucial to determine it's impact. How did the early Jim's (IA at the time) videos on GG manage to get a couple million views? And a landslide of "likes" instead of being disapproved in general? And the absurd numbers of tweets against media for some months? Because it attracted the attention of people who played games, not just the tiny portion of the most hardcore gamers, who invest so much time in games as to be aware online of almost every event that happens in the community at large. It drew attention to all other kinds of people who just happens to identify with the hobby of playing games. I don't know why GG detracted from that view, and when the "muh PR" front became what it is, but the fact is that GG was at it's best when communicating aptly to the general audience of gamers despite the media's attempt to silence it, mostly using social media, and using the media's lies and corruption (information, not just pov) as the argument, in a surprisingly patient manner. It was a slow and organic change, one that transformed GG from an expanding platform of information to a diminishing bunker of more productive people. At least this was the objective. What actually happened was the lost of a good portion of the more active people, which were already working in GG's previous m.o. (under the radar of almost everyone else), while the pressure on the remaining people raised as the group dwindled - and fights for importance inside that more easily indentifieble group began (mostly by ayys). And it could only decrease in numbers the moment it stopped being an information vehicle to all sorts of gamers first, activism second, to being a chaotically organized platform to a specific set of gamers. All you describe in your concluding post is valid, but it only applies to the sect of gamers that remained truthful to GG as it changed and morphed from a more open platform to a more strict and organized group of people with specific objectives in mind.

Imo, the evolution of GG is valid, and it surprised me how it endured, but it wasn't the best outcome unfortunately. It allowed itself to fall into the kafkatrap laid before it, assuming with time the identity the media gave it instead of brushing it aside as a false depiction of who's the real audience and focusing discussion on the real issue - the corruption and lies, and not on the ad hominem against the audience, which's a different discussion. In other words, in this specific topic, it went from "if you renounce gamers, you renounce everyone who plays your games", to then focus on corruption, to "we are gamers, we are alive", which lead to a discussion about who are gamers, who are these people on GG, who are everyone else, etc. And I do know that "we are gamers, we are alive" was already coined as a first response, is a good response, and was initially used by just about anyone - it just contained within it the limiting sign that came to reality and lead to a meaning of a small group of "actual gamers" who are alive and well and will give them a headache for their corruption, though at the same time becoming itself incapable of expanding or of substituting it's human resources with new people at a healthy rate. Pics just to illustrate the dominating mindset at the time, which still exists, but is not as prevalent as before the ID acception.

>>321100 I've no interest in reading your entire essay, but to define social justice in an easy way you just have to consider it in the context of social injustice. Social injustice is where a society isn't just, or fair, or correct, or morally upright, etc. For example only allowing some people to vote or have the right to free speech. I was driving down the highway and some idiot rented a billboard for Muhammad. It said something along the lines of >Muhammad believed in: >-Equality >-Women's Rights >-Social Justice Muhammad obviously wasn't advocating SJWs, he was advocating a just society where people are equal and are treated fairly. Of course, social justice warriors are something totally different. Your definition has SJWs being "warriors that uphold social justice" but a better definition is "warriors that wield social justice as a weapon". Social justice is just an easy banner to get people to rally behind. Which seems like it'd be a better rallying call? >I'm trying to make vidya more equal and fair to minorities and women, support my patreon or >I'm trying to push my gender politics into vidya, support my patreon

>>321376 >he was advocating a just society where people are equal and are treated fairly. really nigga? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/women-worth-less.aspx

>>321122 >It didn't occur to me until weeks later that this narrative . . . was a deliberate and calculated act. Not just deliberate and calculated, but previously implemented - by the time GG started sjs had already been at it in other areas, using the same tactics. By 2014 Sad Puppies was in it's 2nd year, comics had also been targeted -both using the very same narrative. (Insert other examples . . .) >The SJW interprets everything through a political lens. pic related

>>321361 fucking lawyers.

>>321176 He likely wrote in beforehand notepad or microsoft word

Actually, I think they stole the term 'social justice'. AFAIK, it was first really used by christian missionaries in Latin/South America and specifically referred to attempting to right unequal distribution of resources like food and wealth in those places. So it was about poverty. This recent crop of PC-police that we now call SJWs stole the term and reappropriated it into their gender/race/whatever. As someone raised by Jesuits who pioneered and lived by the term, I mad.

>>321519 I remember reading about "social justice" on ed when it meant trying to scam scammers. Somebody sold a laptop that was just a 3-ring binder with random key caps glued on and scribbled on with sharpie. This was circa 2007 or 8.

>>321100 oh, I didn't know you liked Popful Mail too!

Justice is justice. It is complete, taking everything into account already. Social Justice is justice filtered trough single lens, like a horse with blinders, forever failing to see the bigger picture. As such, it fails to be justice, because you cannot remove anything from justice and it still remaining justice.

A "Social Justice Advocate" is somebody who makes sure that the rights of minorities are respected by the majority. In light of that, we lost Normies as soon as we decided to label our opponents "Social Justice Warriors," because Normies are predisposed to thinking Social Justice is a noble cause.

>>324039 >In light of that, we lost Normies as soon as we decided to label our opponents "Social Justice Warriors," because Normies are predisposed to thinking Social Justice is a noble cause. Wat.jpg More normies are waking up to the fact that SocJus is neither social or just, amply demonstrated by their actions and behaviors, and SJW is a pretty accurate label for people who either become violent, threaten violence on other people who do not kowtow to their narratives. The more AIDSSkrillex, Trigglypuffs, red paint smearing #BLM disrupters act out and become the representative face of SocJus in muh current year, the more normies realize they want nothing to do with a cannibal cult.

Good quote in this (it's not a long read) -kind of where it began - 'The Personal Is Political'. https://greylining.com/2015/05/01/hitch-on-the-origin-of-social-justice-warriors/

Social Injustice Whoriors is a better term for these False Men. They are going t o kill us anyway and don't you think we all know it. What a rotten trip. Did you ever see "Food of the Gods"? >Great night for flying. Look out down there!

>>321387 >Implying Christianity and Judiasm don't have similar bullshit in their "holy books" Get with the [current year]. All organized religions are corrupt.

>>324520 >Social Injustice Whoriors Kek

>>324520 >Social Injustice Whoriors That sounds like a lame astroturf name cooked up by SJWs themselves, to try to deflect the fact that more people are starting to recognize what SocialJusticeWarriors really are. Are you worried or something, maybe a socialjustice worrier? :^)

>>324044 >>324044 This. Plus, if you ever really need to hammer it home using pre-existing normie associations, go where Vavra went, trace it back to the periodical.

>>325094 >Then, as now, Social Justice was fascist and anti-Semitic

Interesting read on propaganda, 'social control' and such - http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/08/how-to-escape-the-age-of-mass-delusion/ chive - https://archive.is/DO7M7

ICYMI I'll dump these here as well - Cue voiceover: 'Just when you thought it was safe to go into the workshop . . .' http://esjp.org/ http://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/abs/10.2200/S00117ED1V01Y200805ETS007 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=engineering+and+social+justice&t=hf&ia=web

If you think of "Social Justice" as "justice on a social level", that to me cannot be justice at all. If justice is done with groups instead of individuals, you end up punishing the innocent for the benefit of bystanders. And I think socjus is that meaning of social justice, you can tell from the identity politics and collectivism. I remember that 'group rights' thing in Canada that Lauren Southern talked about. It's all "women" and "pocs" and never "people" or "individuals". And when it is "people", it's "trans people". As if the justice you deserve depends on the demographic group you're part of. They have their ways of justifying it, "systemic bias" or "power structures" or whatever. Then, to solve that bias they just introduce more bias. They treat people unequally in the interest of treating people equally. It's fundamentally Orwellian. So I have an issue with the actions of the people, but I also have an issue with the concept itself.

>>326808 >As if the justice you deserve depends on the demographic group you're part of. All snowflakes are equal, some snowflakes are more equal than others. :^)

What if we murdered SJWs?

>>326818 That's not going to work, dumbass. They'll just end up with martyrs whose deaths they'll exploit. Haven't you seem what those BLM terrorists would do whenever there's news that a black thug dies to a cop or a white guy?

>>326818 Oh look, I'm batting a thousand playing "Spot the Bullbaiter!" Nice slide.

>>326824 If you wouldn't do something stupid and get caught, why not just kill SJWs? Wouldn't that solve all our problems?

>>326832 …You just don't get it, do you? "Killing SJWs" is too good for them.

>>326834 Who cares about them? I want what's good for us.

>>326818 >>326824 >>326832 >>326834 Muh screenshots. Look! LOOK!

>>326836 Grow up. I'm being serious. Why not kill them if you can get away with it?

>>326856 >Grow up. Movieblob you have diabeetus. Go to a doctor already.

>>326856 >"Grow up" >says the amoral teenage edgelord Here's some advice from an oldfag, kid: leave 8chan and go back to school. Seriously. And by "school" I'm referring to a proper education, not some liberal degree that won't even give you the necessary skills to flip burgers, pour coffee or sweep floors. Resist the call of activism, learn valuable live skills and become a proper, productive member of society. Or even become your own and be a leader of a team of builders, whatever. Leave the fighting to the "losers" and shitlords. The dead gamers have nothing else to lose.

All I hear is the sound of zero arguments against killing an SJW as long as you make sure not to get caught, which is what I expected. You faggots will only wish you had the balls to take real action for our anniversary. I pity you.

>>326874 >our anniversary. >our You will never get your 10bux back.

>>326874 Here you go a gold star to post on the fridge mum must be so proud of her little soldier

>>326818 Not happening, goon filth.

Posting here - more on the sj mentality. Following the election, great post by Portuguese-American, female-immigrant-minority and one of the lady leaders of Sad Puppies 4, Sarah Hoyt - I mean post by cis white male, privileged, Trump supporting, MRA, capitalist, alt-right, gender-traitor Sarah Hoyt - clearly male - she's called 'Sarah'. https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/11/12/terrorists/ Munchausens - basically faking illness (physical or mental) for attention/benefit even though you're not ill. By proxy - on behalf of someone else - in the sjws case on behalf of 'the oppressed', 'minorities' etc, without any real regard for those oppressed, minorities etc. In effect they say they represent minorities but don't listen to their actual concerns - sjws putting their own agenda first. Munchausen by proxy is a great description - and as mentioned in the link 'Trumphausen by proxy'. In the run up to the election, the lefty media and snowflakes themselves, built up this image of Trump/Republicans as some (imagined) all powerful, doom-bringing evil and effectively now have to face that cos Trump won - hence why they think they'll all be deported or sent to camps or something. Snowflakes have created this 'monster' and they now have to deal with it - it's just that it's all in their heads.

>>321100 I thought the science was settled - http://patri-archie-comics.tumblr.com/post/143444629842/lolz-they-say-social-justice-as-if-its-a-bad