Neogaf's SJWs defeated: Lucky Chloe is coming to Tekken 7 in North America
383 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864397]fyi the whole 'sanius squad' thing is a joke no one in the world actually thinks that it's a serious political group. it's rather a label thrown onto others from weirdos on FP[/QUOTE]
with the way some guys post about them you'd fucking well think they believe it's a legit illuminati or something.
like "sjw", it's a totally meaningless insult used by people who can't actually argue back. if you're gonna call someone an "sjw" then you must have some kind of argument against them to think they're wrong. use that instead you lazy fuckers.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;46862187]Not that I disagree with your overall point on masculinity, but your facts about Valeria Solanas and feminism are a bit off. If you meant to use feminism as the antithesis of masculinity then that's problematic because feminism and femininity aren't exactly synonymous. Unless that wasn't your point and you're just attacking the absurdity of the claim in which case, fair point.
Also, I wasn't too lazy to read. Valeria Solanas was batshit crazy but saying she "was the pioneer of third wave feminism" is flat out wrong. The Wikipedia page you linked as proof says literally nothing about third-wave feminism. Neither does the one on third-wave feminism itself, it actually lists Rebecca Walker. That movement started around the early 90s, after Solanas' death in 88. Her actions and ideas made her a pioneer of [I]radical[/I] feminism, but that isn't the same thing. It irks me that there's a growing misconception and stigma that third-wave feminism just means man-hating and I'd hate to see Solanas get lumped in with that. Third-wave feminism mainly focuses on individuality as opposed to a collective female experience that all women share. It also focuses on female empowerment, which doesn't always mean male disempowerment. The empowerment part is the only real parallel between Solanas and third-wave feminism but she takes it to a radical extent.
(By the way, if anyone's interested Harada's [url=http://www.joystiq.com/2015/01/04/tekken-7-director-reveals-new-fighter-tries-to-clear-up-lucky-c/]unveiled the Saudi Arabian fighter[/url] he spoke of a while back.)[/QUOTE]
Your post makes really good points, and I want to be clear that I was being extreme for the purposes of driving the argument [I]ad absurdum,[/I] that is to wit, that Elliot Rodgers does not represent "masculinity" and if he does then Valeria Solanas represents TWF broadly.
Do not get me wrong. I work, study and speak regularly with people who claim to be feminists and are very noble people. I have no personal grudge against feminism and am happy to receive a more in depth account of what TWF is. However I have also received accounts to the effect that I see absolutely nothing which suggests that TWF and RadFem are free standing developments which exist without one another.
Broadly speaking, I am totally willing to accept that the ideas are not mutually concurrent. However, in what is my experience, the two are often conflated or go together hand-in-hand to the point that they are mutually concurrent. At least to the effect that as far as the layman goes, Solanas is, perhaps not fairly representative of, but definitely a factor of Third Wave Feminism. At least in the same way that Jack Thomson is not a fair representative of Moral Conservativism, but is a sort of graven idol.
[QUOTE=joes33431;46861225]while differential levels of reporting and conviction are definitely factors, you already know that it isn't the only factor, and the discrepancies are pretty big.
i wouldn't consider 'masculinity' the origin point per se but more that masculinity is prone to condone or even require aggressive behavior in both conflict resolution and in pursuit of one's goals. when talking about conflict resolution in general, the cultural expectation, even ideal, is for a male to be "strong" and powerful and unwaiveringly in support of their own goals. it wouldn't be hard to find someone even in american society who would call you a pussy for wanting to sit down and talk about a dispute instead of shouting or coming to blows over it.
one illustrative example and common literary trope is a male protagonist being on a date with someone, wherein some stranger begins to pick on him or his date in an attempt to provoke him into a fight, the result either being the protagonist entering and winning a fight and being a hero or yielding or failing at said fight and being a loser.
not to mention that the end to nearly everything in the massive genre of action is the protagonist killing/humiliating/berating the antagonist or some other enemy.
now, of course, it's media and not an exact reflection of real life, but media provides social scripts and either solidifies or subverts norms with its content, and in the absence of real life interaction, media ends up becoming a basis of reality for some people.
because women are still subtly considered more fragile creatures that are less capable of heinous acts, and it's harder to crush what appears to one to be a ladybug than a roach. this isn't explicit sexism, though, it's just a persistent throwback from attitudes and ideas from an era that is long gone.
men often use methods that more likely ensure death like hanging and firearms, whereas women are more likely to use methods like poisoning that have substantially higher survival rates.
[url]http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-08-20/why-do-more-men-commit-suicide[/url]
the problem, as I mentioned, is not the word or the concept of masculinity itself but instead the aggressive behavior that masculinity might mandate, and the punishments that some men might face from their peers for not being masculine enough. after all, the expectation and requirement of 'masculinity' has been an origin point of many a men being marginalized if not attacked in the past for being too 'feminine'. thankfully, that time period is in some if not most ways behind us.[/QUOTE]
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.
Second, I'd like to focus on this quote,
[quote]
but more that masculinity is prone to condone or even require aggressive behavior in both conflict resolution and in pursuit of one's goals
[/quote]
Totally citation needed. 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.
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]
is not the word or the concept of [B]phloober[/B] itself but instead the [B]phloobish[/B] behavior that [B]dancing[/B] might mandate, and the punishments that some [B]aristocrats[/B] might face from their peers for not being [B]phloobish[/B] enough. after all, the expectation and requirement of '[B]phloob[/B]' has been an origin point of many a[I]n[/I] [B]aristocrat[/B] being marginalized if not attacked in the past for being too '[B]common[/B]'.
[/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=hexpunK;46864427]with the way some guys post about them you'd fucking well think they believe it's a legit illuminati or something.
like "sjw", it's a totally meaningless insult used by people who can't actually argue back. if you're gonna call someone an "sjw" then you must have some kind of argument against them to think they're wrong. use that instead you lazy fuckers.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people use it to refer to a certain kind of person. It's not solely a go-to insult for shitposters who can't be arsed to argue properly.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46863767]i didn't even know no-dachi but tpain isn't even that bad rofl[/QUOTE]
Well if tpain wasn't 'even that bad' then nodachi was the most brilliant poster there ever was. By which I mean, nah, tpain was absolutely terrible. I remember pages upon pages upon pages of him jumping around deflecting arguments thrown by multiple people at the same time like he was fucking Neo.
Tpain was pretty amusing though. A head and a half above other shitposters.
It's kind of like "misogynist", it's a very concrete term which has a specific definition, but it's been used quite loosely by people in some parts of the internet as a way to ad-hominem people they disagree with. That doesn't mean actual misogynists don't exist.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;46864425]Max was [I]usually[/I] okay and quite on the ball, but people never liked him because he was a terrible mod.[/QUOTE]
He just couldn't stop making condescending shitposts in the corruption in game journalism thread, though.
It ended up being his downfall.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864617]It's kind of like "misogynist", it's a very concrete term which has a specific definition, but it's been used quite loosely by people in some parts of the internet as a way to ad-hominem people they disagree with. That doesn't mean actual misogynists don't exist.[/QUOTE]
lmao
'misogynist' is a word that's actually rooted in the english language, 'sjw' came about as a insult to deride people
[QUOTE=hexpunK;46864427]with the way some guys post about them you'd fucking well think they believe it's a legit illuminati or something.
like "sjw", it's a totally meaningless insult used by people who can't actually argue back. if you're gonna call someone an "sjw" then you must have some kind of argument against them to think they're wrong. use that instead you lazy fuckers.[/QUOTE]
There're things that are just so fucking retarded that it becomes impossible to argue with. Like Maxes' "lmao this guy just pointed a gun at some other guy, that cop shouldn't have shot him". Or generally anything that starts or ends with "lmao" or "lol". Arguing with that is impossible, might as well just throw an insult that way.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864594]A lot of people use it to refer to a certain kind of person. It's not solely a go-to insult for shitposters who can't be arsed to argue properly.[/QUOTE]
I think that certain kind of person being someone with an extreme "Us vs Them" mindset where everything that upsets them is part of the same enemy and who either defends rediculous hypocrisy in people in thier clique only to throw them under the bus when they don't toe the line.
[QUOTE=27X;46864319]The Sanius Sqad literally identified as "sjws, lol", and you apparently have never seen tumblr or twitter.[/QUOTE]
No, I haven't, because I don't go looking for tweets or tumblr pages specifically to piss myself off. You should try it.
[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]
It was coined as a way to mock people who try or pretend to further social justice in a vitriolic and hateful manner, why do you think "warrior" is part of the term?
Besides, why should it make any difference? Do more recent denominations abide by rules that older ones don't? Isn't a word capable of changing meaning overtime?
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864617]It's kind of like "misogynist", it's a very concrete term which has a specific definition, but it's been used quite loosely by people in some parts of the internet as a way to ad-hominem people they disagree with. That doesn't mean actual misogynists don't exist.[/QUOTE]
Quoting for emphasis, and to expand on what I think pretty much nails the idea.
The internet's a big place.
No lie, it's also a place which promotes black&white, us-v-them, battlefield mentalities. Not necessarily in a bad way, because that can be healthy in the same way competition can be. But it can also be destructive the same way competition can be. It's one thing to find out who the fastest runner is in a race, but it's another when the runners are trying to sabotage eachother before the race.
At one time, both terms "misogyny" and "SJW" had pretty limited meanings. Pushing aside the "misogyny had a root as actual language" bullshit for a moment, the person who coined each word probably had a pretty narrow case in mind when they put them forward.
However the battlefield mentality totally meant that those words needed to be expanded in scope in order to solidify what each side has in mind for victory and how to fight towards it. Soon it grew out into a short hand for right wingers and leftists.
Both sides are at fault for misuse of the term.
The best any person can do is to admit when they've wrongly branded someone and to retract. A word only has meaning when it is used meaningfully. "Nazi" loses meaning if Stalin was also a "Nazi."
The doesn't mean the words can't be used hyperbolicly to illustrate ideas. As in the title of this thread, because people threw up a whinefest over the Anime girl, they could (humorously) be called SJWs. However as milk'n'cooki pointed out (in a more abrasive and dickish way) there's very little that sets them apart from say, /v/, in a fundamental sense.
Addition:
[quote]
if you can find valid use for the term 'sjw' then share it, otherwise it's on the same level as people purposely going to tumblr to look for posts to piss themselves off with
[/quote]
I will totally stick my oar in and give my totally original, self-contained conception of what "SJW" means. I am not speaking for anyone else, but some people might agree with me. Others however may have a broader or more narrow idea of what an SJW is.
An SJW is a person who is so totally concerned with a nebulous idea of justice, fairness or equality that they overlook the practical meaning of those ideals, and will willingly commit to patently absurd ideas in the name of their "justice" crusade/to suit their agenda which is itself often self serving (IE: Mayonnaise is a gender.) There are tons of examples which illustrate this sort of person. Implicitly this person has very little critical insight, and fails to inspect the internal workings of their ideas, instead finding some loosely defined fault with whatever they choose to target.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46864699]It was coined as a way to mock people who try or pretend to further social justice in a vitriolic and hateful manner, why do you think "warrior" is part of the term?
Besides, why should it make any difference? Do more recent denominations abide by rules that older ones don't? Isn't a word capable of changing meaning overtime?[/QUOTE]
if you can find valid use for the term 'sjw' then share it, otherwise it's on the same level as people purposely going to tumblr to look for posts to piss themselves off with
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864737]if you can find valid use for the term 'sjw' then share it, otherwise it's on the same level as people purposely going to tumblr to look for posts to piss themselves off with[/QUOTE]
Well, no problem. It's not too big of a task, literally just had to click on the previous page to get it:
[QUOTE=_Axel;46858431]Well shit if that's the actual definition then I must be one heck of a SJW.
I don't think it is, though, nor have I seen it used with such a broad meaning on the internet much. I think it's a spot on denomination for a certain kind of persons, specifically people who care more about appearing "politically correct" and "progressive" rather than actually helping society to go further. More precisely, the kind who blissfully engage in hypocritical behavior regarding these topics and prefer to see opponents as boogeymen rather than engaging in rational debate.
Here's a quote from another thread about why I think it's a fitting title for them:
[QUOTE]That's a pretty fitting denomination, I think. It's as pure an oxymoron as it gets; you don't spread tolerance by waging war, you do so by being civil and by proving your point through rational debate. Why do you think the most well-known and successful social movements are non-violent ones? Because it's more efficient to make people tolerant towards you by showing your humanity than by hurting and humiliating them.
These people are a travesty to social progress, they adopt a scapegoat mentality not because it actually further their pretended goal, but because it strengthen their cultish structure. No genuinely progressive people would identify as that.[/QUOTE]
If you want to prove the validity of an ideology, you have to stay critical towards it, not hold every of its aspects as some sorts of holy scriptures.
All in all, to me the SJW title represents the bad seeds who are actually detrimental towards social progression by misinforming people about what it means rather than your average social justice supporter they should learn a thing or two from.[/QUOTE]
yeah you're talking about a fringe minority no one cares about. stop giving them so much attention
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864766]yeah you're talking about a fringe minority no one cares about. stop giving them so much attention[/QUOTE]
Yes, ignoring aggressive fringe minorities has never backfired, now has it
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864766]yeah you're talking about a fringe minority no one cares about. stop giving them so much attention[/QUOTE]
You don't care about them. Perhaps I do because they have an actual negative influence on how people perceive social justice? Or because they are able to disguise hateful behavior as something that's progressive and good for society.
The moment you'll stop assuming everybody think like you do, you'll understand a lot of concepts that were alien to you before.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864800]they literally have no effect on actual progress. please cite an example of them actually effecting stuff[/QUOTE]
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=_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]
them using a label no one else actually uses? sure. do they actually effect anything important? no
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864819]them using a label no one else actually uses? sure.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand what you mean by that. Could you clarify?
The SJW label is something people use to refer to these types. It's not necessarily a label they identify as.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;46853538]I sort of wish they would just add a giant burly guy with a disgustingly revealing jockstrap that literally reaches the floor as he swings it around as a weapon, just to point out how stupid this shit was.[/QUOTE]
I'm about 7 pages late, but I'd like to point out we had something even better in Tekken 4
[IMG]http://puu.sh/e7WLV/42cdea5e4e.png[/IMG]
*Not shown: The fact it actually rides up his ass like a thong
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864819]them using a label no one else actually uses? sure. do they actually effect anything important? no[/QUOTE]
I hate to pull the #GG card, but loud assholes that are actually deserving of the SJW title did carve themselves a slice in game journalism
Fuck, just look at the shitstorm that resulted in something as simple as Totalbiscuit retweeting a charity.
Such things are not [I]important[/I], sure, but it's still disruptive, annoying behavior that shouldn't be allowed to snowball out of control.
blame those people for being assholes tho? it's that simple
As for your other request, a good example would be the recent uproar against popular youtuber TotalBiscuit for tweeting about a charity aiming to help disabled video game enthusiasts. People accused him of enabling harassment and endangering the "safe space" status the charity is supposed to have, because of the mere fact that a part of TB's huge fanbase supports GG. Not only is that a stupid reaction, it's also detrimental towards the charity's goal because it alienates a rather sizable amount of people who would have been inclined to donate otherwise.
[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;46864706]
I will totally stick my oar in and give my totally original, self-contained conception of what "SJW" means. I am not speaking for anyone else, but some people might agree with me. Others however may have a broader or more narrow idea of what an SJW is.[/QUOTE]
An important part of language is that it remains consistent and if you have to post a disclaimer that your definition "doesn't speak for anyone else" and only "some people" might agree, with degrees of of how broad or narrow the exact definition is, then it's a useless piece of lexicon. Nobody has to include that before being answering the definition of the word sky, or train, or even other pejoratives. Especially not misogyny, in which the definition has actually changed extremely little relative to the hundreds (thousands?) of years it's been a part of Western European language.
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864920]blame those people for being assholes tho? it's that simple[/QUOTE]
It's what we do, actually. It's even more specific to refer to them as SJWs, though, and it tells a lot more about their behavior than a mere "asshole".
[QUOTE=Ownederd;46864920]blame those people for being assholes tho? it's that simple[/QUOTE]
It goes a litle beyond that when such people can hide behind the "BUT WE ARE PROGRESSIVES" facade they use to justify being assholes, and the broader public will believe them with little to no doubts.
if a person is a jerk, then they're a jerk. there's no need to apply weird internet lingo to it and do a bunch of roundabout stuff to justify it
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46864924]An important part of language is that it remains consistent and if you have to post a disclaimer that your definition "doesn't speak for anyone else" and only "some people" might agree, with degrees of of how broad or narrow the exact definition is, then it's a useless piece of lexicon. Nobody has to include that before being answering the definition of the word sky, or train, or even other pejoratives. Especially not misogyny, in which the definition has actually changed extremely little relative to the hundreds (thousands?) of years it's been a part of Western European language.[/QUOTE]
The meaning of "misogyny" stray rather far from its original meaning if you ask the most radical AGGers, though.
Besides, the rules you set here don't apply to most of linguistics. A lot of words have changed meaning overtime and it's due to people interpreting them in slightly different ways over the span of generations. Why can't the same hold true for SJW?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
