Neogaf's SJWs defeated: Lucky Chloe is coming to Tekken 7 in North America - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865149]The meaning of misogyny doesn't change from person to person. It doesn't.[/QUOTE] It does for people who believe that sexualization of women in the media is misogyny. Words' interpretation depends on context too. [QUOTE]It might change in 200 years, or 100 years, or 50 years, but right now there is a consistent definition for what misogyny is. The same can't be said of SJW.[/QUOTE] So what? Over use the word will begin to have a single, unified meaning. [QUOTE]They aren't the same thing just because you interpret both as insults.[/QUOTE] I don't interpret both as insults? They both have actual meanings but they're also both inaccurately used as meaningless insults. The problem with your reasoning is that you're confused between misuses of words in baseless accusations and the word's actual meaning. [QUOTE]Good for you.[/QUOTE] Am I supposed to feel glad about that? I'm not the guy who coined that neologism. I merely explained the gist of what I understood the word was supposed to be used for based on what I observed so far. [QUOTE]That's what I mean though, when it isn't corroborated by actual facts. What facts make someone an SJW?[/QUOTE] The fact that they behave in a manner that corresponds to my definition? This is how words work usually.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865199]i literally don't care gamergate sorry. i'm not gonna write an ironman17-level post on it[/QUOTE] sheeeeeeeit massa, you sure showed me

what are you even doing stop sidetracking the thread

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865199]i literally don't care gamergate sorry. i'm not gonna write an ironman17-level post on it[/QUOTE] Don't post about things, then get proven wrong and say "I dont' care" as a response. That's what children do. You are not a child.

[QUOTE=Korova;46865235]Don't post about things, then get proven wrong and say "I dont' care" as a response. That's what children do. You are not a child.[/QUOTE] idk i asked why you brought it in. i didn't make the effort to bring in gamergate specifically

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865220]what are you even doing stop sidetracking the thread[/QUOTE] The only person I see sidetracking the thread is you. I responded to "as long as you can deconstruct someone's logic, you're fine" with "look at gamergate" and you came in with "gamergate is a joke". Take your own advice mate.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46865161]Stop for a second and actually think about what you're writing. You're using baseless generalizations when saying that the only people who use SJW are the ones who do so because they lack proper arguments. It's a denomination, people usually don't make sentences out of simple nouns and actually have something worth saying besides. [B]It's not solely used by dumbasses as a cheap Ad-Hominem.[/B][/QUOTE] But that's the point, isn't it? SJW is meant to be used in a certain way. It's supposed to attack people who are, ostensibly, assholes. Assholes who are using social justice concepts as a way to railroad their own policies. Assholes who use groups they seek to "protect" with their slacktivism as a shield against criticism and then denigrate them as sockpuppets and Uncle Toms when they don't step in line. That's a pretty shitty thing to do. And these people need to be exposed for who they are, because they are hypocritical, spiteful people. But nothing is exposed by simply calling them social justice warriors. On the other hand, SJW can (and has been) attributed to a lot of people who aren't social justice warriors at all. Korova did it with this thread title about the people in the Neogaf thread. Honestly this is probably going to be the last post I make in the topic. I'm tired of fighting over the semantics of internet lingo. The discussion with Crazy Ivan went no where. I suppose there is atleast some common ground between us in what an "SJW" nominally is, but I'll just leave off this topic by saying that maybe the focus should be more on fighting assholes rather than trying to redefine them and in doing so threaten to alienate a lot of people who would otherwise agree with your point of view.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865253]idk i asked why you brought it in. i didn't make the effort to bring in gamergate specifically[/QUOTE] If you bothered to look up the subject, you'd see why it's relevant but "i literally don't care gamergate sorry. i'm not gonna write an ironman17-level post on it"

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46865261]But that's the point, isn't it? SJW is meant to be used in a certain way. It's supposed to attack people who are, ostensibly, assholes. Assholes who are using social justice concepts as a way to railroad their own policies. Assholes who use groups they seek to "protect" with their slacktivism as a shield against criticism and then denigrate them as sockpuppets and Uncle Toms when they don't step in line. That's a pretty shitty thing to do. And these people need to be exposed for who they are, because they are hypocritical, spiteful people. But nothing is exposed by simply calling them social justice warriors.[/QUOTE] SJW is supposed to be a way of referring to them, it's not used as an argument. Why are you acting like it is? Do we have to throw the words "bigot" and "racist" to the bin because simply blurting them out doesn't make you win an argument? When people use "SJW" it isn't the sole word in their entire sentence: It is usually followed by a statement which in some cases can make us understand or fight them better, something which we can't use a simple "asshole" for because it doesn't apply to all assholes. That you fail to understand that eludes me. [QUOTE]On the other hand, SJW can (and has been) attributed to a lot of people who aren't social justice warriors at all. Korova did it with this thread title about the people in the Neogaf thread.[/QUOTE] Just like a lot of other words in the lexicon. Do you think lying and deforming the truth is uncommon? More importantly, do you think such misuses justify abandoning a term despite it having a specific meaning? A lot of people refer to mass as "weight". Does that mean we should abandon " weight" as a term? [QUOTE]Honestly this is probably going to be the last post I make in the topic. I'm tired of fighting over the semantics of internet lingo. The discussion with Crazy Ivan went no where. I suppose there is atleast some common ground between us in what an "SJW" nominally is, but I'll just leave off this topic by saying that maybe the focus should be more on fighting assholes rather than trying to redefine them and in doing so threaten to alienate a lot of people who would otherwise agree with your point of view.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it would have been a more interesting discussion if you didn't go by the dumb assumption that the sole use of SJW is Ad-Hominem attacks. These people are assholes, but they have characteristics that the average asshole don't share. What's wrong with trying to be more specific?

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;46865191]please don't talk about things you don't know anything about, and refuse to do research on oh wait it's ownederd that's your MO[/QUOTE] instead of insulting him why don't you explain it? [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Korova;46865168]And see how that has worked out for #GamerGate. Look at a random exchange between someone who is anti-gamergate and pro-gamergate on Twitter. The narrative that the media and the "progressives" have built is what matters. Logic doesn't matter to these people or the media.[/QUOTE] what does this even mean? can you provide examples? I dont understand. I think it's kind of a stretch to claim that some people ignore ignore - and then to not provide any examples.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46864524]So I'd like to respond to this with three points. The first is that you do not sufficiently explain the phenomena I outlined (injustice and suicide success) [I]with[/I] masculinity. You explain them with salient effects of your conception of masculinity. That is, you do not dismiss the issue that compounds may be the driving causes, such as the feminine identity (which I would argue is totally freestanding of a masculine identity) and idiomatic differences in problem solving.[/quote] i never meant to suggest that masculinity was the source of these causes, i was more just identifying why they occur. i guess i missed the rhetorical point at the time i was responding. if your point was purely 'there are other variables involved', that's entirely fair, but it's entirely possible that the aggression associated with masculine behavior is significant among those variables. [QUOTE]Second, I'd like to focus on this quote, Totally citation needed.[/QUOTE] [url]https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/cohn_amy_m_200505_ms.pdf[/url] (page 27) [url]http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018840130646[/url] [url]http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/20/2/82[/url] [quote]You are exposing the fact you yourself have a conception of masculinity that I have not agreed to. In fact, if my conception of Masculinity was drawn from certain media, say, [I]The Rifleman[/I] or [I]The Lone Ranger[/I] I would think that violence wasn't at all an acceptable solution. I would think a masculine figure should be [I]prepared[/I] and [I]equipped[/I] for violence, but only as a last resort, and as a thoroughly bad sort of thing to do. That is, that violence, even rote physicality, is the sort of thing bandits get up to, not [I]real men.[/I] If you're arguing that say, [B]Rambo[/B] is the driving masculine ideal, that doesn't seem to be a fair argument. You're saddling me with an assertion when there's a massive body of alternative material and media. If there's all this media then why am I not allowed to appeal to say, [I]Ponderosa,[/I] where the oldest son in the family is a oily chested, pretty and smiling cityboy who is quicker with his words than with his gun? Why can't I claim him as my masculine figure? He's strong, he solves problems, he'll resort to violence if he needs, but he won't if he can, and he spends long days busting his back doing the sort of robust outdoors work that a "masculine" man wouldn't let a woman do, out of sheer nobless oblige. I can keep going with these alternate "masculine" identities. I can illustrate lots of literary and film examples. If it comes down to "pound for pound" and leans on some "majority of" argument, I'm totally not convinced that there is a media blitz on defining the man. If there was, then let's go back to the late 70's and early 80's, when disco was in full effect. I have zero doubt that anyone who watched John Travolta waltz around in a white leisure suit to funky music would call him "masculine" but for his time he was the epitome, as pushed by the media.[/quote] although you might have a different concept of masculinity than I, the evidence above shows that those who self-identify as masculine end up demonstrating higher levels of aggression compared to those that do not. [QUOTE]Third and finally, you're totally overloading your argument with hedging and weasle words which mean you can't be wrong. That's just not fair. Let me run a similar argument by you,[/QUOTE] i didn't realize that it was uncouth to use them; i aimed to capture nuance, not evade being proven wrong. my bad. i'll be sure to be more direct with my phrasing. [quote]See how I was able to play mad-libs with what should be the defining statement of your argument, for pretty much the same sentimental value? Feel free to say "Masculinity causes violence" and be prepared to demonstrate it outright. But I will stick to my guns on the grounds that such a particular notion of masculinity is so narrow that it fails to account for so many other cases of "masculinity" and is no longer a convincing argument. Your issue instead might be with certain cultures, certain group values, or certain ideals, but it is not with some broad notion of masculinity, so there is no reason to wage war on it.[/QUOTE] i never aimed to suggest that we wage a war on masculinity, and obviously it isn't the only factor. not to mention that the culturally-accepted definition of masculinity can change, and is changing, to be less conducive to aggression. that's the kind of change that i want, personally, not a destruction of the entire concept. i should have made more clear why i was responding: i don't think that such aggression is the only factor, or even the most important factor, i was just simply aiming to discuss the issue and suggest that it very well [I]might[/I] be an important factor among the rest.

[QUOTE=joes33431;46865360] words [/QUOTE] To which, I totally agree. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your post.

[QUOTE=woolio1;46853600]I feel like I'm missing something. Female characters have been a staple of fighting games for decades. What was so different about this one? It's obviously not skimpiness, it's not minority, it's not oversexualization... I can't rationalize this.[/QUOTE] It's the fact, that she doesn't fit in with the rest of the cast. It's essentially a loli. What I hope though, is that the angry military butch lesbian as he called her, will also be a part of the cast.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;46865369]It's essentially a loli.[/QUOTE] what Are we looking at the same character design?

[QUOTE=wraithcat;46865369]It's the fact, that she doesn't fit in with the rest of the cast. It's essentially a loli. What I hope though, is that the angry military butch lesbian as he called her, will also be a part of the cast.[/QUOTE] sorry, i havent done much research on this, but how is this loli? she looks like she's like mid 20s, and she has normal boobs. loli is the sexual representation of children, no?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46865378]sorry, i havent done much research on this, but how is this loli? she looks like she's like mid 20s, and she has normal boobs. loli is the sexual representation of children, no?[/QUOTE] And besides, this is the series that has a bipedal bear, a half man half jaguar, and a ninja with a glowing green sword fighting a man with eraser hair. A blonde weeaboo doesn't seem too out of place.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46865337]instead of insulting him why don't you explain it? [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] what does this even mean? can you provide examples? I dont understand. I think it's kind of a stretch to claim that some people ignore ignore - and then to not provide any examples.[/QUOTE] Do I really need to link to examples of anti-GamerGate ignoring the entire point of GamerGate and saying it's about sexism and misogyny? Like I said, go on Twitter. Look up TotalBiscuit and see the response he got when speaking out about the subject. He got called a woman hater, a misogynist, people asked him "don't you have cancer? Aren't you supposed to die already?" Look at the harassment that pro-GamerGate people get on a daily basis. Look at the media reports that insist that the whole thing is about misogyny and sexism despite #NotYourShield being created to address that very point. There's been like five months of this shit so there's plenty of material. [url]http://gamergateharassment.tumblr.com/[/url] [url]http://www.vice.com/read/calm-down-gamergate-283[/url] [url]http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579[/url] [url]http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/12/8558320/gawker-discusses-cost-gamergate[/url] [url]http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/10/24/gamergate_targets_gawker_online_misogyny_levels_up.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Korova;46865168]And see how that has worked out for #GamerGate. Look at a random exchange between someone who is anti-gamergate and pro-gamergate on Twitter. The narrative that the media and the "progressives" have built is what matters. Logic doesn't matter to these people or the media.[/QUOTE] Mate, not everyone is as up to date on internet drama as you seem to think, personally i still know very little about whatever gamergate was supposed to be, and whenever i ask someone/try to look it up, i get unhelpfully biased results.

totalbiscuit is a piece of shit but no one deserves that kind of hazing

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865462]totalbiscuit is a piece of shit but no one deserves that kind of hazing[/QUOTE] Why is he a piece of shit? Because of what he said two years ago and has since apologized for?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864635]lmao 'misogynist' is a word that's actually rooted in the english language, 'sjw' came about as a insult to deride people[/QUOTE] Nope. It was coined by people like Arthur Chu who still uses it on a regular basis; ala Zoe Quinn calling herself the "khaleesi of sjws" unironically. Not quite sure how you missed it but FP isn't the only forum on the internet, and whether the term is a joke to you is actually irrelevant in general context, which last I checked you weren't elected by the earth to be the arbiter of.

[QUOTE=27X;46865474]Nope. It was coined by people like Arthur Chu who still uses it on a regular basis; ala Zoe Quinn calling herself the "khaleesi of sjws" unironically. Not quite sure how you missed it but FP isn't the only forum on the internet, and whether the term is a joke to you is actually irrelevant in general context, which last I checked you weren't elected by the earth to be the arbiter of.[/QUOTE] Source? Whenever I hear SJW it's pretty much always derogatory or ironic, even people who others would consider to be SJWs don't generally call themselves SJWs. Obviously there are some exceptions though.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46865558]Source? Whenever I hear SJW it's pretty much always derogative or ironic, even people who others would consider to be SJWs don't generally call themselves SJWs. Obviously there are some exceptions though.[/QUOTE] I do want to point out, from the earlier Misogynist/SJW discussion, that Misogynist is also derogatory. I've never heard the phrase, "What an AWESOME misogynist!," or "My boss is such a great misogynist, he's paying me a tenth less than a man!"

yeah misogynist is a negative word, but it's an important one too. if you're misogynist then that's something you need to resolve

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865663]yeah misogynist is a negative word, but it's an important one too. if you're misogynist then that's something you need to resolve[/QUOTE] Being a misogynist is something that is clinically diagnosed by a therapist across a couple month's worth of appointments. Not some dickhead on Tumblr/Twitter based on something you said in less than 160 characters.

[QUOTE=Korova;46865709]Being a misogynist is something that is clinically diagnosed by a therapist across a couple month's worth of appointments. Not some dickhead on Tumblr/Twitter based on something you said in less than 160 characters.[/QUOTE] what does tumblr/twitter have to do with this lol also i've never seen anyone being branded a racist or misogynist by clinical appointment so i have no idea where u got that idea from

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;46863441]Max was just an shitposting feminist, not a sjw[/QUOTE] So he was a SJW? Thats what SJW, a "progressive" shitposter. [editline]5th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;46865663]yeah misogynist is a negative word, but it's an important one too. if you're misogynist then that's something you need to resolve[/QUOTE] You are right its important. Thats why you shouldnt be the type of person who throws it around because someone shits on a dumbass person who happens to be a women.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46865663]yeah misogynist is a negative word, but it's an important one too. if you're misogynist then that's something you need to resolve[/QUOTE] It's the case with SJWs too.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;46858041]alex jones told me that sjws are poisoning the water supply with fluoride seriously can we ban people who talk about straw 'sjws'. no actually idenitifes w/ that label and every time something like this happens, the thread gets bogged down[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=_Axel;46864807]Before we go any further: You do concede that those types of people actually exist now, right? Because that was the main bone of contention so far. Do we agree on that at least?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ownederd;46864819]them using a label no one else actually uses? sure. do they actually effect anything important? no[/QUOTE] Arguing for the sake of arguing. Nice.

i have no idea how you managed to translate that from that but alright i wouldn't ever do devil's advocate because that's a dick move