Neogaf's SJWs defeated: Lucky Chloe is coming to Tekken 7 in North America
383 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46857530]I know you didn't outright say it. Something funny about text is, subtext, something one can garner from reading your last 6 months of posts where you will, and do, go after people who like things you don't like over such topics as the ones previously mentioned.
People on this website keep acting like their words are only seen in one thread, no, you have as a poster the probability of being viewed across many topics, in your case, you have been viewed by myself in a shit ton of these types of threads always taking the most progressive view possible in the thread. Sometimes, going too far to attack people who like things you don't like over these very reasons.
Sure, you're smart and avoid being banned and being an outright ad hominem poster by choosing your words well, but the implications of your posts are the same.[/QUOTE]
You can't just point to "my history of posts" without any examples as proof that I somehow hate people who watch anime.
[b]I've[/b] watched anime. I've talked about anime on Facepunch before. It's also a community that has a shitload of things to make fun of. I can do both, just like how I can both play video games and make fun of "gamers".
[QUOTE=gudman;46857534]Redpill communities and other pathetic, actually beta places like that are minuscule to have any impact. I don't think they even have any political affiliation at all. They might believe in something the most reactionary right-wing politician might say, but I personally wouldn't expect people like that listen to politicians, or to go out and vote or something. They can't even go out and get a girlfriend for fuck's sake, expecting them to come crawling before them instead.[/QUOTE]
that's a fair enough point, i just wish that folks would recognize that same truth for tumblrites.
[QUOTE=blerb;46854517]All because SJW was in the title.
Why do people on FP oppose the use of it? It's the title most SJWs identify with. Hell, one of the orginal "Gamers Are Dead" article writers called himself a "Social Justice Druid".
I mean, if you're a moderate feminist/SJW who is offended by the negative connotations then I can understand, but otherwise I find it hard to understand the problem.[/QUOTE]
what was once used to purely describe raving lunatics on blogsites is now used to handwave legitimate motion in favor of equality.
the story in the OP is not a 'legitimate motion in favor equality', mind.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46857548]You can't just point to "my history of posts" without any examples as proof that I somehow hate people who watch anime.
[b]I've[/b] watched anime. I've talked about anime on Facepunch before. It's also a community that has a shitload of things to make fun of. I can do both, just like how I can both play video games and make fun of "gamers".[/QUOTE]
I don't think you hate people who watch anime, just you have no problem offending them but you happily make sure people are rebuked when they make fun of a group you "protect"
I don't care if anyones offended about much of anything, but one thing that does somewhat offend me is the blatant and transparent hypocrisy people like yourself are exercising with enjoyment.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46857537]Maybe I just don't get why progressive people who defend everyone they can from being offended feel that it's their perogative to take pot shots at nerds and geek culture because "hey easy target and no one can really defend them because LOL GEEK".[/QUOTE]
I hardly defend everyone from being offended. I think people should watch their words around groups of people who have experienced actual oppression. I also think that nobody is obligated to provide others with a soapbox so "censoring" someone from your website or removing something from a video game based on public outcry is fine as long as it's their own choice to do so.
But I constantly make fun of anime, video games, I make gay jokes, I make fun of "tumblr sjws", I make fun of myself, because I realize that there's a difference between laughing at weaboos and calling transgender people slurs or whatever the latest horribleness on FP is (something I legitimately get upset about). If this was Mass Debate or another venue for actual debate I'd be taking the thread more seriously, but you guys are the ones lashing out and getting offended over what I didn't intend to be anything.
If I did inadvertently hit a trigger, brought you back to memories of childhood bullying or something along those lines, I sincerely apologize. Nobody deserves that.
But I made fun of people fighting for their right to play as a girl dressed up as a cat as though it's the free-speech issue of the century. That's leaps and bounds from bullying people for being a geek, as you seem to suggest.
You should stop now, your posts are only getting worse
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46857576]I hardly defend everyone from being offended. I think people should watch their words around groups of people who have experienced actual oppression. I also think that nobody is obligated to provide others with a soapbox so "censoring" someone from your website or removing something from a video game based on public outcry is fine as long as it's their own choice to do so.
But I constantly make fun of anime, video games, I make gay jokes, I make fun of "tumblr sjws", I make fun of myself, because I realize that there's a difference between laughing at weaboos and calling transgender people slurs (something I legitimately get upset about).[/QUOTE]
I mostly just see you attacking a group of people that in todays culture, are the easiest target that no one dares defend because of nerd culture being something you opt in to, therefore it's fine to lambast those people regardless of the views they do or do not hold.
I defend trans people with a great deal of defensiveness because I have many real life friends who are trans and I don't feel like people should be attacked for that, but I don't defend them from being just offended because who gives a shit if you're offended, it has no meaning. Being oppressed, sure, I'll oppose that, I don't care about being offended though.
Like I said though, I care about the hypocrisy that is demonstrated like it is in these threads. Gamers and geek and nerd culture are easy targets that no one is going to attack you for attacking, so why not go for it, right?
I'm a page late and a dollar short but I want to toss in on this notion that masculinity "causes" violence.
Flatly put, there is no causal connection.
Here, let's look at this person:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas[/url]
Valerie Solanas, for those of you too lazy to read, was the pioneer of third wave feminism. She wrote the [I]SCUM Manifesto[/I] which advocated for a women-dominated society where men would be little more than fissible sexual material.
She stalked, and shot Andy Warhol and was one of the primary causes of his withdrawl from Art making and the public circle.
Can I argue that feminism caused her attacks? She explicitly [I]said[/I] they did. If you hold Elliot Rodger to be a "product of masculinity" then you must also admit that Valerie Solanas' agenda of violence and psycopathy was a "product of feminism."
I doubt anyone wants to commit to such a claim.
By the way if anyone wants to continue this we should probably take it to PMs before we derail the thread and everyone gets banned - if you want a sincere discussion I'll happily partake.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46857576]
If I did inadvertently hit a trigger, brought you back to memories of childhood bullying or something along those lines, I sincerely apologize. Nobody deserves that.
But I made fun of people fighting for their right to play as a girl dressed up as a cat as though it's the free-speech issue of the century. That's leaps and bounds from bullying people for being a geek, as you seem to suggest.[/QUOTE]
See, that's the thing, you did hit a button but I don't care that you did. My whole childhood was wrought with being bullied for being a nerd. Does that matter? No, because I was oppressed for something I chose to do, it's okay to hate people like me or offend me. Personally, I'm not upset to be offended but I just HAVE to wonder where, and how, you justify that hypocrisy to yourself.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;46857615]By the way if anyone wants to continue this we should probably take it to PMs before we derail the thread and everyone gets banned - if you want a sincere discussion I'll happily partake.[/QUOTE]
That's a good idea, I wish you thought of it sooner.
But you did a good job on making this more true than ever.
[quote]so he takes his dump on every SH thread and runs before he has any time to argue more and get banned.[/QUOTE]
Making fun of people fighting against baseless censorship? Typical zeke
i honestly thought zeke was the guy who committed suicide a long time ago.
[QUOTE=ImperialGuard;46857671]i honestly thought zeke was the guy who committed suicide a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
We thought he did (so he got perma'd) but then it turned out he didn't and got a silent unban so for a brief while, everyone was wondering when the hell he crawled out of his grave.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46855582]The type of males that get friendzoned and will follow a female's ideals no matter how wrong they are, in hopes of sex.[/QUOTE]
If you believe any of those exist you need mental help.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46857676]If you believe any of those exist you need mental help.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it's regional but I've seen plenty of dudes being "friends" with women and doing all sorts of nice things to them and running to their help any moment said women text them, in hopes they will get in a romantic relationship or sex.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46857612]I'm a page late and a dollar short but I want to toss in on this notion that masculinity "causes" violence.
Flatly put, there is no causal connection.
Here, let's look at this person:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas[/url]
Valerie Solanas, for those of you too lazy to read, was the pioneer of third wave feminism. She wrote the [I]SCUM Manifesto[/I] which advocated for a women-dominated society where men would be little more than fissible sexual material.
She stalked, and shot Andy Warhol and was one of the primary causes of his withdrawl from Art making and the public circle.
Can I argue that feminism caused her attacks? She explicitly [I]said[/I] they did. If you hold Elliot Rodger to be a "product of masculinity" then you must also admit that Valerie Solanas' agenda of violence and psycopathy was a "product of feminism."
I doubt anyone wants to commit to such a claim.[/QUOTE]
Is it too early to nominate this as the zing of the year?
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46857612]I'm a page late and a dollar short but I want to toss in on this notion that masculinity "causes" violence.
Flatly put, there is no causal connection.
Here, let's look at this person:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas[/url]
Valerie Solanas, for those of you too lazy to read, was the pioneer of third wave feminism. She wrote the [I]SCUM Manifesto[/I] which advocated for a women-dominated society where men would be little more than fissible sexual material.
She stalked, and shot Andy Warhol and was one of the primary causes of his withdrawl from Art making and the public circle.
Can I argue that feminism caused her attacks? She explicitly [I]said[/I] they did. If you hold Elliot Rodger to be a "product of masculinity" then you must also admit that Valerie Solanas' agenda of violence and psycopathy was a "product of feminism."
I doubt anyone wants to commit to such a claim.[/QUOTE]
to talk about special cases like elliott rodger is often not useful for describing broad terms, but surely there is some sociological explanation for the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by men compared to women.
[QUOTE=Crimor;46857836]Is it too early to nominate this as the zing of the year?[/QUOTE]
Solid as fuck
[QUOTE=joes33431;46857551]what was once used to purely describe raving lunatics on blogsites is now used to handwave legitimate motion in favor of equality.
the story in the OP is not a 'legitimate motion in favor equality', mind.[/QUOTE]
Since when? On all the forums and websites I use it's still only used on the crazies. I never hear about actual figures who do things for equality be called SJW.
[QUOTE=joes33431;46857865]to talk about special cases like elliott rodger is often not useful for describing broad terms, but surely there is some sociological explanation for the disproportionate amount of violent crime committed by men compared to women.[/QUOTE]
There sure may be, but also bear in mind that, there are certain inequalities to consider when talking about a broad social picture and how we understand and record violence.
For instance, women tend to serve shorter prison terms and on some accounts have a lower chance of being convicted.
Men tend to commit suicide more successfully and more often than women do.
When we blow things out to a broad sociological picture, we introduce a lot of compounds to the experiment and there is very little that gives us a way to causally illustrate that Masculinity causes Violence.
Does masculinity explain why women are treated preferentially in the justice system, albeit implicitly? Does masculinity explain why men are more likely to take their own lives, and that they're more able to?
Masculinity may be a factor. Analogously the concept of [I]Loco[/I] certainly is a factor for violent crime in Barrio culture, where gradual escalation and self one-upping leads to an individual committing casual acts of violence to reinforce an image of unpredictability and freedom.
However it's just not clear to me that "masculine" culture is a driving cause unless you either define Masculinity so broadly that it may be synonymous with "human condition" or so narrowly that you're effectively ONLY pointing to cases like Elliot.
Masculinity may be the cause at the end of the day, for some certain value of the word. However I am nowhere near convinced, even weakly, that it is the smoking gun of our society. At best it's another beatboard like comic books, rock music and videogames.
Is anyone seriously surprised?
Harada was joking about the western audience with that skin head muscle man thing. He barely speaks English yet I was able to pick up his sarcasm through text.
I'm really struggling to see the connection to EVIL SJWs too, because most discussions (on twitter at least) about Chloe are flooded by gators on Twitter complaining about invisible SJWs.
It's almost like SJW is just a buzzword used to describe people the poster doesn't like instead of it being a term of any actual significance.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;46857997]Is anyone seriously surprised?
Harada was joking about the western audience with that skin head muscle man thing. He barely speaks English yet I was able to pick up his sarcasm through text.
I'm really struggling to see the connection to EVIL SJWs too, because most discussions (on twitter at least) about Chloe are flooded by gators on Twitter complaining about invisible SJWs.[/QUOTE]
Most of the "sjws" were on neogaf, the shithole that it is.
[QUOTE=Crimor;46858016]Most of the "sjws" were on neogaf, the shithole that it is.[/QUOTE]
Neogaf is a shithole but it ain't because of the SJW illuminati.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46858021]Neogaf is a shithole but it ain't because of the SJW illuminati.[/QUOTE]
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=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'[/QUOTE]
What a good idea that would be, banning people for opinions.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46858021]Neogaf is a shithole but it ain't because of the SJW illuminati.[/QUOTE]
Shitholes attract shitbirds :v:
[QUOTE=Xubs;46858068]when did I complain about SJWs? I complained about idiocy and hypocrisy, which is exactly what you're exhibiting.[/QUOTE]
tell me i'm being an idiot tells me nothing fyi
[QUOTE=blerb;46854517]All because SJW was in the title.
Why do people on FP oppose the use of it? It's the title most SJWs identify with. Hell, one of the orginal "Gamers Are Dead" article writers called himself a "Social Justice Druid".
I mean, if you're a moderate feminist/SJW who is offended by the negative connotations then I can understand, but otherwise I find it hard to understand the problem.[/QUOTE]
Tbh im sick of seeing it because its gotten to the point where its a boogie-man phrase that has lost all real meaning.
Are you a moderate feminist?, you're a SJW.
Do you dislike a violent video game for whatever reason?, You're SJW.
Do you hold literally any opinion on transgender stuff other than "haha i identify as a dolphin!"?, you're a SJW.
Do you hold a progressive opinion that i disagree with?, you're a SJW.
Whats all this stuff about gay rights? , you must be some sort of SJW.
You complained on a forum because you didn't think the anime style of a character fit in a fighting game (or whatever)?, you must be one of those SJWs!.
Like, i just saw someone claim "Friendzoned beta males!" were part of the SJW crowd a few pages back, and yet not even a month ago the latest Borderlands game was getting shit for pandering to SJWs, because it made a joke about that very same stereotype.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
