Sadegh wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Yes, you accept this dogma on faith.

See edit.

proudfootz wrote:Others are rational and skeptical.

9/11 truthers are by definition not rational and skeptical. Honestly I think you'll swallow anything uncritically if it has a suitably left wing orientation.

Again trying to change the topic to 9/11?

Hardly surprising since you seem to be losing this argument, so it's a good time to change the topic.

Your concession is graciously accepted.

And so we see how Anita Sarkeesian has moved on from bilking people with teleseminar scams and handwriting analysis to an equally gullible and certainly more rabidly devoted demographic of suckers: social justice warriors.

Since I have already shown how this is a specious claim, your repeating the refuted claim is meaningless.

Another admission of defeat from you. Thanks!

proudfootz wrote:

How many person-hours do I think I spent on these posts?

Not much.

*Not many.

So we now go from weeks of furious, dedicated trolling to I don't even care that much.

Well played.

Yes, given how long you've trolled this thread on mere faith that internet trolls are trustworthy it would seem that your agenda requires certain assumptions which you uncritically accept. But anything that might mitigate against your faith-based agenda 'isn't worth the time'.

You spend much more time expounding on your unsubstantiated views than finding out whether they have any factual basis.

Which is why any sensible person would hesitate to jump on the bandwagon with you, Internet Aristocrat, Thunderf00t, and Auruni, and any number of internet trolls.

proudfootz wrote:What have your unsubstantiated claims about Sarkeesian or so-called 'SJWs' got to do with 9/11?

At least as much as Aurini's Holocaust denialism has to do with me.

True, you might not be a racist or Holocaust denialist like other prominent anti-social justice warriors.

However, since some of the anti-Sarkeesian attacks are blatantly anti-Semitic, it gives normal people reason to hesitate before jumping on the bandwagon.

Like this...



from the original...



However, Thunderf00t did collaborate with public Holocaust deniers, and you seem to be citing him as a reliable source for matters of fact.

So at least what I am referring to is relevant to this thread.

If you want to discuss 9/11. there is a thread for that.

Hello. I am new here but I just wanted to interject with something from my own experiences.

As someone who has been what you can label an "activist" at times, I move in many activist circles here in New York City and the term "social justice warrior" is sometimes bandied about as a pejorative.

Usually, someone I would describe as a "social justice warrior" is usually relatively young, sheltered, middle class and white. They take on certain causes like racism, sexism, economic inequality and a host of other causes for which I also fight. So far, so good. These traits in and of themselves do not constitute a social justice warrior.

A social justice warrior is a flaming dogmatist. Not only are they convinced of their own righteousness but they are also convinced that anyone who disagrees with them even a little bit is not only wrong, but persona non grata. This includes people with whom they are allied.

I have been a part of many activist groups, some defunct and some still functioning. The defunct ones died because the social justice warriors drove everyone who did not exactly think like them away. There was no compromise or discussion whatsoever when we disagreed with them. Not only did we have to believe what they believed, we had to prioritize those beliefs the way they wanted and discuss those beliefs with acceptable jargon. Just last summer, one of the more promising and powerful coalitions of which I was a part abruptly died when the SJW caused a huge rift over a small issue.

I am smart enough to know I do not know everything and that what I do know is a laughably minute part of this thing we call the universe. That is why I have no problem discussing ideas with people who might disagree with me. There is no discussion with SJW. That is the problem.

I started out years ago by calling those types of people Trotskyists but they (many of whom call themselves communists and Marxists) did not know what that term meant. As a matter of fact, they could not even intelligently discuss Marxism. It was clear that these SJW were spoiled brats who were trying on identities rather than actually doing the messy work of reading, thinking and discussing to arrive at their beliefs, To them, they were "activists" for "social justice". They thought in slogans, which is why they could not tolerate nuance and disagreement.

Unfortunately, my work and politics require me to be around these people more than I would like.

Sorry for the long post.

Here's Anita Sarkeesian shilling for Alex Mandossian:



Now proudfootz is probably going to deny and deny and deny just like he did with Sarkeesian's plagiarism.

It was like pulling teeth just to get him to admit that she in fact taken the LP footage without attribution, before switching to "b-b-b-but that's actually fair use!"

proudfootz wrote:However, since some of the anti-Sarkeesian attacks are blatantly anti-Semitic, it gives normal people reason to hesitate before jumping on the bandwagon.

I really don't give a shit if somebody made Le Happy Merchant pictures of Anita Sarkeesian. That doesn't change the fact that she's a liar, plagiarist and con artist.

ps according to this standard you should think twice about jumping on the bandwagon that has fucking Alex Jones on it

proudfootz wrote:However, Thunderf00t did collaborate with public Holocaust deniers

Who? Aurini? When? I don't think he was ever a friend or "collaborator" with him.

proudfootz wrote:and you seem to be citing him as a reliable source for matters of fact

Why yes, because the content of his videos is by and large very factual. I take issue with his "volcano god" theology and some claims he made about the Lanchester laws of combat but he is an accomplished scientist with very substantial knowledge, unlike some of the shit-for-brains fucks that started filling up the skeptic community and growing in it like a malignant tumor circa Elevatorgate—which is why fears about SJWs then going on to ruin video games are hardly paranoid—and most of the things he says are on point.

I don't see why saying that would be an issue, like he's some kind of batshit 9/11 truther.

Nietzschean wrote:Hello. I am new here but I just wanted to interject with something from my own experiences.

As someone who has been what you can label an "activist" at times, I move in many activist circles here in New York City and the term "social justice warrior" is sometimes bandied about as a pejorative.

Usually, someone I would describe as a "social justice warrior" is usually relatively young, sheltered, middle class and white. They take on certain causes like racism, sexism, economic inequality and a host of other causes for which I also fight. So far, so good. These traits in and of themselves do not constitute a social justice warrior.

A social justice warrior is a flaming dogmatist. Not only are they convinced of their own righteousness but they are also convinced that anyone who disagrees with them even a little bit is not only wrong, but persona non grata. This includes people with whom they are allied.

I have been a part of many activist groups, some defunct and some still functioning. The defunct ones died because the social justice warriors drove everyone who did not exactly think like them away. There was no compromise or discussion whatsoever when we disagreed with them. Not only did we have to believe what they believed, we had to prioritize those beliefs the way they wanted and discuss those beliefs with acceptable jargon. Just last summer, one of the more promising and powerful coalitions of which I was a part abruptly died when the SJW caused a huge rift over a small issue.

I am smart enough to know I do not know everything and that what I do know is a laughably minute part of this thing we call the universe. That is why I have no problem discussing ideas with people who might disagree with me. There is no discussion with SJW. That is the problem.

I started out years ago by calling those types of people Trotskyists but they (many of whom call themselves communists and Marxists) did not know what that term meant. As a matter of fact, they could not even intelligently discuss Marxism. It was clear that these SJW were spoiled brats who were trying on identities rather than actually doing the messy work of reading, thinking and discussing to arrive at their beliefs, To them, they were "activists" for "social justice". They thought in slogans, which is why they could not tolerate nuance and disagreement.

Unfortunately, my work and politics require me to be around these people more than I would like.

Sorry for the long post.

Excellent post and welcome to our little corner of the net.

Nietzschean wrote:Hello. I am new here but I just wanted to interject with something from my own experiences.

As someone who has been what you can label an "activist" at times, I move in many activist circles here in New York City and the term "social justice warrior" is sometimes bandied about as a pejorative.

Usually, someone I would describe as a "social justice warrior" is usually relatively young, sheltered, middle class and white. They take on certain causes like racism, sexism, economic inequality and a host of other causes for which I also fight. So far, so good. These traits in and of themselves do not constitute a social justice warrior.

A social justice warrior is a flaming dogmatist. Not only are they convinced of their own righteousness but they are also convinced that anyone who disagrees with them even a little bit is not only wrong, but persona non grata. This includes people with whom they are allied.

I have been a part of many activist groups, some defunct and some still functioning. The defunct ones died because the social justice warriors drove everyone who did not exactly think like them away. There was no compromise or discussion whatsoever when we disagreed with them. Not only did we have to believe what they believed, we had to prioritize those beliefs the way they wanted and discuss those beliefs with acceptable jargon. Just last summer, one of the more promising and powerful coalitions of which I was a part abruptly died when the SJW caused a huge rift over a small issue.

I am smart enough to know I do not know everything and that what I do know is a laughably minute part of this thing we call the universe. That is why I have no problem discussing ideas with people who might disagree with me. There is no discussion with SJW. That is the problem.

I started out years ago by calling those types of people Trotskyists but they (many of whom call themselves communists and Marxists) did not know what that term meant. As a matter of fact, they could not even intelligently discuss Marxism. It was clear that these SJW were spoiled brats who were trying on identities rather than actually doing the messy work of reading, thinking and discussing to arrive at their beliefs, To them, they were "activists" for "social justice". They thought in slogans, which is why they could not tolerate nuance and disagreement.

Unfortunately, my work and politics require me to be around these people more than I would like.

Sorry for the long post.

No problem.

People trying to use 'social justice warrior' as a pejorative seem to have an issue with social justice per se. See Sadegh attacking 'the left' as if that was the source of the problem.

It's a rather vaguely defined term, and generally seems to come down to the subjective opinion of the person slinging it around.

If some specific person is mistaken or wrong on a particular point, clearly that individual can be corrected on that point.

To indict a whole class of persons (vaguely defined) on the basis of the perceived failings of a few is rather going overboard.

Look at the video example in the OP: the fellow calling himself 'Internet Aristocrat' is clearly wrong and most likely making shit up as he goes along. Clearly the perspective of Internet Aristocrat is not only based on pure fantasy, but not nuanced in the least.

What sort of discussion could anyone hope to have with anyone so divorced from reality?

Does this mean everyone who has a grudge against the vaguely defined class 'SJWs' is a liar and a buffoon? Of course not!

But sensible people will hesitate before committing themselves to a cause that embraces such fuckwittery.

Sadegh wrote:

proudfootz wrote:However, since some of the anti-Sarkeesian attacks are blatantly anti-Semitic, it gives normal people reason to hesitate before jumping on the bandwagon.

I really don't give a shit if somebody made Le Happy Merchant pictures of Anita Sarkeesian. That doesn't change the fact that she's a liar, plagiarist and con artist.

But these are not 'facts' - they are interpretations which normal and sane people have every reason to doubt.

ps according to this standard you should think twice about jumping on the bandwagon that has fucking Alex Jones on it

Alex Jones is anti-GamerGate Trolling?

Maybe he's not completely nutty as commonly supposed!

proudfootz wrote:However, Thunderf00t did collaborate with public Holocaust deniers

Who? Aurini? When? I don't think he was ever a friend or "collaborator" with him.

You didn't watch the video, then?

Thunderf00l agreed to appear in their anti-feminist video production.

proudfootz wrote:and you seem to be citing him as a reliable source for matters of fact

Why yes, because the content of his videos is by and large very factual. I take issue with his "volcano god" theology and some claims he made about the Lanchester laws of combat but he is an accomplished scientist with very substantial knowledge...

...and his knowledge pertaining to the areas of social science are what?

I suspect Sarkeesian's credentials in this area beat ot Thunderf00t's by a country mile.

...unlike some of the shit-for-brains fucks that started filling up the skeptic community and growing in it like a malignant tumor circa Elevatorgate—which is why fears about SJWs then going on to ruin video games are hardly paranoid—and most of the things he says are on point.

How are these fantasy 'SJWs' going to infiltrate your home and substitute some sub-par game for the one you own?

Are they like ninjas, getting in and out without your noticing? Or more like spooky ghosts who can walk through walls?

I don't see why saying that would be an issue, like he's some kind of batshit 9/11 truther.

Still trying to shift the conversation to 9/11?

There's a thread for that.

Sadegh wrote:Now proudfootz is probably going to deny and deny and deny just like he did with Sarkeesian's plagiarism.

It was like pulling teeth just to get him to admit that she in fact taken the LP footage without attribution, before switching to "b-b-b-but that's actually fair use!"

I never denied Sarkeesian made fair use of internet footage - why you feel obliged to lie about this is a matter only you could explain.

Similarly, your use of internet videos, gifs, and images without attribution put you on par with Sarkeesian.

If she is a plagiarist, then you are every bit as much a plagiarist as she is.



Hoist on your own petard much?

proudfootz wrote:But these are not 'facts' - they are interpretations which normal and sane people have every reason to doubt.

These terms are pretty well operationalized for most purposes.

If you say you don't like video games, on video, and then later talk about how much you love them to drum up money for a Kickstarter, you are a liar.

If you take footage and other media, erase the signature in at least one instance, and then include them in your own work (and make money from it) without attribution, you are a plagiarist.

Finally, if you are involved in shilling for multilevel marketing or handwriting analysis, you are a con artist.

proudfootz wrote:Alex Jones is anti-GamerGate Trolling?

No. He, like you, is a 9/11 truther.

proudfootz wrote:Thunderf00l agreed to appear in their anti-feminist video production.

Wow, he agreed to be interviewed? That's about as consummate a collaboration as Michael Shermer appearing to be in Expelled. Or a Western journalist interviewing a member of the Taliban.

proudfootz wrote:...and his knowledge pertaining to the areas of social science are what?

I don't consider critical theory horseshit to be science at all, to say nothing of social science in particular.

proudfootz wrote:How are these fantasy 'SJWs' going to infiltrate your home and substitute some sub-par game for the one you own?

As mentioned earlier, I think they are toxic to future game development, as demonstrated by e.g. Depression Quest.

Skinny Puppy wrote: Excellent post and welcome to our little corner of the net.

Thank you! Good to be here.

proudfootz wrote:
It's a rather vaguely defined term, and generally seems to come down to the subjective opinion of the person slinging it around.

Totally

And that video from the OP is just using the term SJW to attack various boogeymen with whom he has a problem. I am just about tired of the trope that the youth of today are somehow more spoiled and less engaged than other generations. No generation is worse than the baby boomers who took everything for themselves and left the rest of us to fight over the scraps.

While today's generation might have some problems (and every group as nebulous as a "generation" of people will have some problems, not the least of which is what constitutes a "generation"), there is evidence to suggest that they are also more socially conscious and less selfish than their predecessors.

Older people seem to forget that baby boomers grew up in an America that was on top of the world with a booming and equitable economy (at least somewhat more equitable than today) and that every generation since the 1970s has been getting less and less of the American pie.

And I say this as a 36-year-old white man.

proudfootz wrote:I never denied Sarkeesian made fair use of internet footage

But that's the problem: she didn't.

proudfootz wrote:Similarly, your use of internet videos, gifs, and images without attribution

When you link to a video it's obvious who made it, and it can't be construed as passing off the video as your own work. That's not plagiarism. Go and find me some legal source where linking a fucking video was ever treated as plagiarism.

It should be noted that, per proudfootz' standards, handing someone a copy of a book is literally fucking plagiarism.

Sadegh wrote:

proudfootz wrote:But these are not 'facts' - they are interpretations which normal and sane people have every reason to doubt.

These terms are pretty well operationalized for most purposes.

If you say you don't like video games, on video, and then later talk about how much you love them to drum up money for a Kickstarter, you are a liar.

If you take footage and other media, erase the signature in at least one instance, and then include them in your own work (and make money from it) without attribution, you are a plagiarist.

Finally, if you are involved in shilling for multilevel marketing or handwriting analysis, you are a con artist.

Yes, any hostile person can interpret the facts in the hostile manner you've done here.

So fucking what?

proudfootz wrote:Alex Jones is anti-GamerGate Trolling?

No. He, like you, is a 9/11 truther.

So you admit your Alex Jones reference is a total Red Herring?

Well, that may be the first honest thing you've posted thus far!

proudfootz wrote:Thunderf00l agreed to appear in their anti-feminist video production.

Wow, he agreed to be interviewed? That's about as consummate a collaboration as Michael Shermer appearing to be in Expelled. Or a Western journalist interviewing a member of the Taliban.

Yes, if you had bothered to watch the video linked to upthread, you'd know it was more than that.

We 'll have to give you a pass on this for 'dishonesty' but still ding you for 'blithering ignorance'.

proudfootz wrote:...and his knowledge pertaining to the areas of social science are what?

I don't consider critical theory horseshit to be science at all, to say nothing of social science in particular.

Good to know your own personal uncredentialed opinion.

Thanks for that!

proudfootz wrote:How are these fantasy 'SJWs' going to infiltrate your home and substitute some sub-par game for the one you own?

As mentioned earlier, I think they are toxic to future game development, as demonstrated by e.g. Depression Quest.

I see. So no threat at all.

Nietzschean wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote: Excellent post and welcome to our little corner of the net.

Thank you! Good to be here.

proudfootz wrote:
It's a rather vaguely defined term, and generally seems to come down to the subjective opinion of the person slinging it around.

Totally

And that video from the OP is just using the term SJW to attack various boogeymen with whom he has a problem. I am just about tired of the trope that the youth of today are somehow more spoiled and less engaged than other generations. No generation is worse than the baby boomers who took everything for themselves and left the rest of us to fight over the scraps.

While today's generation might have some problems (and every group as nebulous as a "generation" of people will have some problems, not the least of which is what constitutes a "generation"), there is evidence to suggest that they are also more socially conscious and less selfish than their predecessors.

Older people seem to forget that baby boomers grew up in an America that was on top of the world with a booming and equitable economy (at least somewhat more equitable than today) and that every generation since the 1970s has been getting less and less of the American pie.

And I say this as a 36-year-old white man.

I quite agree the notion that 'today's generation' is uniquely bad seems a tired threadbare trope that should have gone out of fashion a thousand years ago.

proudfootz wrote:Yes, any hostile person can interpret the facts in the hostile manner you've done here.

"Hostile" isn't the right word. "Accurate" is.

proudfootz wrote:So you admit your Alx Jones reference is a total Red Herring?

I admit that "b-b-b-but you should look at the people on the bandwagon you're jumping on!!!" is advice you should follow.

proudfootz wrote:Yes, if you had bothered to watch the video linked to upthread, you'd know it was more than that.

Give me the Cliff Notes version.

proudfootz wrote:Good to know your own personal uncredentialed opinion.

What science is it exactly that Anita Sarsleazian knows so much about?

proudfootz wrote:I see. So no threat at all.

If SJWs are kept ineffectual, yes.

Sadegh wrote:

proudfootz wrote:I never denied Sarkeesian made fair use of internet footage

But that's the problem: she didn't.

proudfootz wrote:Similarly, your use of internet videos, gifs, and images without attribution

When you link to a video it's obvious who made it, and it can't be construed as passing off the video as your own work. That's not plagiarism. Go and find me some legal source where linking a fucking video was ever treated as plagiarism.

Of course, since you never showed that Sarkeesian 'passed' any of the game video clips in question off as her own gameplay, your argument goes exactly nowhere.

Your ability to misconstrue things fully noted. But your idiotic mistakes are yours, not Sarkeesian's fault.

Sadegh wrote:It should be noted that, per proudfootz' standards, handing someone a copy of a book is literally fucking plagiarism.

You are the one touting an overly broad concept of plagiarism.

But then, it's clear why you'd rather attack a strawman version of my arguments than what I actually post.

proudfootz wrote:Of course, since you never showed that Sarkeesian 'passed' any of the game video clips in question off as her own gameplay, your argument goes exactly nowhere.

I wonder whether "b-b-b-but I didn't say those excerpts were mine!" would hold up in court.

Sadegh wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Of course, since you never showed that Sarkeesian 'passed' any of the game video clips in question off as her own gameplay, your argument goes exactly nowhere.

I wonder whether "b-b-b-but I didn't say those excerpts were mine!" would hold up in court.

Since it would never come to court, as it is only an internet controversy started by internet drama-lovers, we'll never know!

The numerous real or alleged death threats against Sarkeesian didn't come to court either so I guess I can dismiss those too.

Apparently it's not plagiarism if you suffer no legal penalty.