Little things that annoy the hell out of you

[Harpuia]

Anti-SJW types making fun of people being "triggered", only to get triggered themselves at something like a butt pose being removed from a game, or a few frames of animation being altered in Skullgirls.

[Squire Grooktook]

Yeah, they're very ignorant of how the development process works. Stuff gets cut all the time. Characters go through changes. Stuff gets rethought for marketing reasons as well as creative vision.

It's just that we're only now getting a slightly larger window into it all. A little information can be a dangerous thing.

[Durandal]

Yeah, they're very ignorant of how the development process works. Stuff gets cut all the time. Characters go through changes. Stuff gets rethought for marketing reasons as well as creative vision.

It's just that we're only now getting a slightly larger window into it all. A little information can be a dangerous thing.

I thought it was the reason for the removal/change that caused all the hubbub.

[Squire Grooktook]

I'm talking generally, so there's no "it". Skullgirls and Overwatch had very good reasons for why their stuff was removed, or rather changed.

My point is that the "reason" is often not as clear-cut as people think. We are looking through tiny little peep holes at these guys making these games. Animations, character designs, weapons, entire stages and worlds get left on the cutting room floor for a variety of reasons. We don't know all the reasons they make the choices they make.

[Skykid]

Anti-SJW types making fun of people being "triggered", only to get triggered themselves at something like a butt pose being removed from a game, or a few frames of animation being altered in Skullgirls.

That's not "triggering", since "anti-SJW types" - which is basically everyone who's not an SJW, don't acknowledge "triggering" as a thing. It's a bogus buzzword for adult babies.

The people you're talking about are just normal folks who don't like something.

[Harpuia]

That's not "triggering", since "anti-SJW types" - which is basically everyone who's not an SJW, don't acknowledge "triggering" as a thing. It's a bogus buzzword for adult babies.

Nah, I think most people just don't care about SJWs. They're not really worth caring about anyways; mostly everything regarding them being some kind of threat to free speech or freedom as we know it is just hyperbole from the opposite side. I used to be passionately anti-SJW and now I consider myself more of a neutral. I know that they're not actually being triggered, it's a joke because the main complaint about SJWs that I see is them whining over insignificant things, even though they do the same pretty frequently.

[Ed Oscuro]

Regardless of what somebody thinks about the made-up terminology "triggered," panic attacks (and the like) are a real thing. One thing that society needs a whole lot less of is diagnosis at a distance.

I couldn't begin to say whether any particular person who is out there claiming to get "triggered" by this or that is for real or how severe their symptoms are, but denying that some people have seemingly irrational phobias and not making a simple concession when it's no skin off your back is precisely the kind of thing I'd expect an "adult baby" to do.

It should be said that this works both ways; the "no gender appropriate bathrooms" crowd has a lot of people who seem to be having a basic reaction to reality, just as some people break out in sweats when they realize that gay people aren't just stock sitcom characters. It also has to be said that the mental health net isn't as good as it ought to be, but "charity starts at home" and I don't see the value in going around deliberately provoking people unless there's a critical principle at stake. So I would say that the anti-gay crowd is going to have to learn to live with things because gay people can't stop being gay. On the other hand I don't think that being requested to do some small thing (it does depend on what the request is) surely isn't stamping out freedom of speech and assembly.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

[Harpuia]

Ey, I've seen that one before. Seems like a really convenient way to dismiss anyone who doesn't share your exact views as an SJW and enforce a "with us or against us" attitude. I love how whenever I bring up that I don't think the evil feminazi SJWs are trying to take our free speech/games/whatever, I get branded as an SJW from the same people who claim to hate the hive-mind mentality that social justice supposedly encourages.

[atheistgod1999]

Last Friday, my school had an assembly about LGBTQ, though really about telling people that bisexuals exist and how to come out as bi. I noticed one thing, though: all 4 speakers were girls (and most of their experiences would only apply to women because a lot had to do with gender roles). Like what, there are no bisexual males? I love how this SJW bullshit ends up being hypocritical.

[Durandal]

Regardless of what somebody thinks about the made-up terminology "triggered," panic attacks (and the like) are a real thing. One thing that society needs a whole lot less of is diagnosis at a distance.

I couldn't begin to say whether any particular person who is out there claiming to get "triggered" by this or that is for real or how severe their symptoms are, but denying that some people have seemingly irrational phobias and not making a simple concession when it's no skin off your back is precisely the kind of thing I'd expect an "adult baby" to do.

It should be said that this works both ways; the "no gender appropriate bathrooms" crowd has a lot of people who seem to be having a basic reaction to reality, just as some people break out in sweats when they realize that gay people aren't just stock sitcom characters. It also has to be said that the mental health net isn't as good as it ought to be, but "charity starts at home" and I don't see the value in going around deliberately provoking people unless there's a critical principle at stake. So I would say that the anti-gay crowd is going to have to learn to live with things because gay people can't stop being gay. On the other hand I don't think that being requested to do some small thing (it does depend on what the request is) surely isn't stamping out freedom of speech and assembly.

Expecting people to find a balance nowadays is too hard. Instead of babying emotionally sensitive people, we should also teach them to stand on their own two legs and defend themselves rather than just having them shut down when triggered. Not that they have to just deal with triggering subjects all the time and deal with it (although in the case of traumatic experiences this can help overcome your fears).

Keep in mind that nowadays most examples of being triggered (as you are more likely to get provoked on the internet by random strangers) tend to happen online where there are plenty of tools of ignoring anything triggering, and most examples of enforcing safe spaces on the net involve heavy-handed moderation trying to prevent anything from being offensive, which mostly extends beyond a warning from the moderators to use less offensive words. The problem is that nobody is able to take trigger warnings seriously due to the overuse of the term, where anything to just dissenting opinions or the way you do your hair is triggering. What also happens is that the average person's internet persona and real-life persona become so intertwined that they have trouble telling the difference between online and IRL etiquettes. On the internet nobody really cares about other people that much as opposed to talking to someone face to face, and the last thing people want to do is give a complete stranger special treatment because something gives them a panic attack. People do tend to treat others with respect, but people do have limited patience.

Okay, you had a traumatic experience in the past, but you should at the very least be able to ignore dumb shit on your monitor, or not use the internet if you are not prepared. While some people do have genuine irrational phobias, one cannot expect everything to be accommodated to avoid those phobias. Like with illnesses, you will inevitably get triggered in your life once, but then you learn from those experiences and get stronger. The safe space solution is a bad one because it deludes you into thinking bad things do not exist or do not affect you, which only disconnects you from reality, making the shock even harder when reality inevitably hits you.
Like autism, I don't understand how it is only in the recent years that the number of emotionally sensitive people rose dramatically. I swear this didn't happen nearly as much ten years ago.

-snip-

Everytime this picture is posted, Socrates' soul gets fragmented into more and more pieces.

That's not "triggering", since "anti-SJW types" - which is basically everyone who's not an SJW, don't acknowledge "triggering" as a thing. It's a bogus buzzword for adult babies.

Nah, I think most people just don't care about SJWs. They're not really worth caring about anyways; mostly everything regarding them being some kind of threat to free speech or freedom as we know it is just hyperbole from the opposite side.

Most of my concern about SJWs stems from the fact that social justice largely affects the new generation (most of which are currently students) whose way of irrational thinking can negatively influence other industries, as they have already begun their entrance in the job market. Perhaps reality will catch up to them as they become another cog in The Machine where ideology and opinion doesn't matter, perhaps not. Unfortunately, examples of what happens when social justice takes a hold in the minds of people in positions of power does not promise a lot of good, and I don't think they should be ignored because of that.

[Ed Oscuro]

Expecting people to find a balance nowadays is too hard. Instead of babying [SNIPPED LIKE A VASECTOMY]

So why even try, right? Full speed to maximum Fuck You, I guess.

The basic issue seems to be that there's some strange belief that the SJW crowd is just on the cusp of enforcing net-wide - or national and international - laws of behavior, because a country with Dolan Trump is obviously a country where that is going to happen. At the second level, there is some kind of slippery-slope belief that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" means that you can't avoid talking about something that somebody needs you not to talk about, because if you don't use your God-Given American Right to make hilarious rape jokes and put tarantulas on people, you're just not being a very good American. Putting aside the strawman version of the trigger warning, what can we learn about the idea?

I'm not promoting an Internet-wide standard where you have to fill out a questionnaire opting in to everything that could hurt somebody. All the same, you do have to opt in to "unsafe" Google searches, from which it is naturally quite easy to find oneself in all kinds of company! I don't recall cries of "censorship" or riots about that. As far as I'm concerned, the "trigger warning" is just a more refined way to make it personally useful: "Hey, if you would be so nice, here's how not to be a dick to me." Google's version (and most websites') is just "here's what Queen Victoria wouldn't like, so we made a checkbox for it...I guess." It's good for many people (children, in particular) that these options are there, but it's not a replacement for people sticking up for themselves. Ironic that the "Freedom!" crowd fails to get that this is fundamentally about deciding your own limits, even if only at the moment.

All-or-nothing is not a useful attitude here. I'd expect to find different standards for posting on a site for people to talk about their pet spiders, as opposed to one for people who are arachnophobes. Call me crazy if you'd like, but I don't think it's any of your damn business what timetable the people who are scared of spiders have for "getting over" their phobia, if indeed they even find it possible. Phobias and other issues people are likely to want to avoid can have real repercussions for them, and you're just an idiot if you think you're doing anybody a favor by forcing the issue.

There's a cheap irony here: Society At Large already got the "trigger" standards they want in: On the one hand we have dumb fart, gay, and triggering jokes on one hand - and on the other we have a few crumbs thrown towards people who don't enjoy the finer points of life, like Google's safe search, not to mention the actual censorship happening as a result of the "no lewds" rule in place since time immemorial, because lord knows the Queen won't have it! It's funny to watch the anti-SWJ crowd's eyes cross when somebody asks for a personal dispensation - "somebody doesn't like wot I like?" Yet, this is where some people need help the most, and you know what? They don't need your blessing to put that information out there; it's their life.

The issue about "triggers" in the current discussion isn't censorship; the issue is that we're all being told that what's good for everybody should obviously be good for anybody, all the time; no matter that the view is obviously painfully wrong. Your claim that most "triggering" happens on the 'net is far from proven, but it's also incredibly irrelevant: I think you know what reaction you'd get if you ran into a rape survivor's conference and yelled that the rape bus was coming through. Sniggering comedians at work are a problem a lot of people find helps their day as much as a headache. This is about the real world and, indeed, "triggering," and miracle technological fixes are totally irrelevant here.

Who the hell appointed random Internet strangers to be guardians, at that? Do you go and tell people who ask about wheat to "just get over it?" Should gay people "just go straight?" The fact that some people can get over a phobia or other mental issue isn't at issue; they've got to deal with it and so it's their timetable, not yours or mine.

So the point isn't that some nasty anti-Freedom group is out there forcing you to do things you don't want, coming into your house and dictating your behavior. Rather it's more like telling somebody that they're wrong to be an individual. And yes, thinking about this doesn't strike me as very difficult. Don't be a jerk to somebody who's going through a rough patch.

[Skykid]

Last Friday, my school had an assembly about LGBTQ, though really about telling people that bisexuals exist and how to come out as bi. I noticed one thing, though: all 4 speakers were girls (and most of their experiences would only apply to women because a lot had to do with gender roles). Like what, there are no bisexual males? I love how this SJW bullshit ends up being hypocritical.

Your school sounds really fucked up. You should transfer.

[Durandal]

Expecting people to find a balance nowadays is too hard. Instead of babying [SNIPPED LIKE A VASECTOMY]

So why even try, right? Full speed to maximum Fuck You, I guess.

The basic issue seems to be that there's some strange belief that the SJW crowd is just on the cusp of enforcing net-wide - or national and international - laws of behavior, because a country with Dolan Trump is obviously a country where that is going to happen. At the second level, there is some kind of slippery-slope belief that "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" means that you can't avoid talking about something that somebody needs you not to talk about, because if you don't use your God-Given American Right to make hilarious rape jokes and put tarantulas on people, you're just not being a very good American. Putting aside the strawman version of the trigger warning, what can we learn about the idea?

Why is it so often assumed that in order to combat political correctness one has to be as abrasive and rude as possible? If I can assume that's because all anti-SJWs are loud, abrasive, edgy Trump supporters, would I be wrong in assuming all SJWs are over-emotionally sensitive hippies disconnected from reality? If you can politely ask someone to be more mindful of what they are saying because it might be uncomfortable to you, then the other should also have the equal right to ask you to not restrict his personal freedom so much.

I'm not promoting an Internet-wide standard where you have to fill out a questionnaire opting in to everything that could hurt somebody. All the same, you do have to opt in to "unsafe" Google searches, from which it is naturally quite easy to find oneself in all kinds of company! I don't recall cries of "censorship" or riots about that. As far as I'm concerned, the "trigger warning" is just a more refined way to make it personally useful: "Hey, if you would be so nice, here's how not to be a dick to me." Google's version (and most websites') is just "here's what Queen Victoria wouldn't like, so we made a checkbox for it...I guess." It's good for many people (children, in particular) that these options are there, but it's not a replacement for people sticking up for themselves. Ironic that the "Freedom!" crowd fails to get that this is fundamentally about deciding your own limits, even if only at the moment.

I am not sure where you are getting the idea how people concerned about their freedoms are supposed to give a shit about what content filters others use. Does it affect them? Most people just put trigger warnings in their bio nowadays.

All-or-nothing is not a useful attitude here. I'd expect to find different standards for posting on a site for people to talk about their pet spiders, as opposed to one for people who are arachnophobes. Call me crazy if you'd like, but I don't think it's any of your damn business what timetable the people who are scared of spiders have for "getting over" their phobia, if indeed they even find it possible. Phobias and other issues people are likely to want to avoid can have real repercussions for them, and you're just an idiot if you think you're doing anybody a favor by forcing the issue.

Like a fear for swimming, it is possible to 'get over it' by getting used to it. This obviously doesn't go for everything, but in most cases trying doesn't hurt. And you're hearing that from a person who gets incredibly uncomfortable around fucking balloons (No seriously, those things are like fucking mines). I could just ask everyone to please take their balloons elsewhere during a party, but I don't want to spoil the mood because something makes me uncomfortable. But if I constantly lived in fear of balloons, the times where I inevitably would have to make contact with balloons would be even more shocking to me. If someone was constantly teasing me with balloons, I'd be more likely to tell them to fuck off rather than enter a state of catatonia.
In this case, who is the selfish one? The person who wants to kill himself and holds no regard for the consequence of his suicide to the people around him, or the people around him who don't want him to kill himself because it'd ruin their day, just so he has to keep living a pointless life of suffering?

There's a cheap irony here: Society At Large already got the "trigger" standards they want in: On the one hand we have dumb fart, gay, and triggering jokes on one hand - and on the other we have a few crumbs thrown towards people who don't enjoy the finer points of life, like Google's safe search, not to mention the actual censorship happening as a result of the "no lewds" rule in place since time immemorial, because lord knows the Queen won't have it! It's funny to watch the anti-SWJ crowd's eyes cross when somebody asks for a personal dispensation - "somebody doesn't like wot I like?" Yet, this is where some people need help the most, and you know what? They don't need your blessing to put that information out there; it's their life.

Society had standards for what's acceptable and what isn't for decades, partly because we do not want to expose our children to all of that filth out there. At the very least, most censorship that was in place didn't affect your possibility to have a rational discussion about most topics, whereas now that ability is starting to get hindered because the amount of topics and just words that are considered triggering is rising dramatically where any discussion about anything remotely sensitive has become a minefield of triggers. Nobody wants shmups.system11 to become the SHMUPs section of NeoGAF, either. It's easy to just leave a small forum if you don't like it, but it's not as easy for social media and larger gathering places.

The issue about "triggers" in the current discussion isn't censorship; the issue is that we're all being told that what's good for everybody should obviously be good for anybody, all the time; no matter that the view is obviously painfully wrong. Your claim that most "triggering" happens on the 'net is far from proven, but it's also incredibly irrelevant: I think you know what reaction you'd get if you ran into a rape survivor's conference and yelled that the rape bus was coming through. Sniggering comedians at work are a problem a lot of people find helps their day as much as a headache. This is about the real world and, indeed, "triggering," and miracle technological fixes are totally irrelevant here.

What happened to telling someone they are not being funny? Or just telling the mods someone is being an all-round jackass? Or filing a complaint at HR? Nobody should care about your umpteenth terrible rape joke or commentary about Jews doing 9/11, but you can't magically stop all people from being assholes. At most you can pretend they don't exist, like other people in a public bathroom.

Who the hell appointed random Internet strangers to be guardians, at that? Do you go and tell people who ask about wheat to "just get over it?" Should gay people "just go straight?" The fact that some people can get over a phobia or other mental issue isn't at issue; they've got to deal with it and so it's their timetable, not yours or mine.

If you come into a new community, as you disregard all etiquette, standards and norms in place, and just expect me to give you, a complete newbie, some kind of special treatment even though you stand out like a sore thumb, why should I? Human decency? What humans consider 'decent' differs between each community. Not every forum will be really nice to everyone else. Am I the rude one here for not treating the new guy like a king who just barged into a discussion? I can be helpful, but there's a limit to how much shit I'm going to put up with. Sure, asking someone to be less rude is okay, but asking me to not discuss a game because that game triggers you? If you were a more experienced respectable member, then I would have considered it, but someone who has no intentions of adapting to the community won't receive a lot of respect from other community members. Like a creditfeeder who thinks euroshmups are the best thing evar!!!1! and thinks CAVE games are for no-life nerds won't receive a lot of respect here from the rest.

So the point isn't that some nasty anti-Freedom group is out there forcing you to do things you don't want, coming into your house and dictating your behavior. Rather it's more like telling somebody that they're wrong to be an individual. And yes, thinking about this doesn't strike me as very difficult. Don't be a jerk to somebody who's going through a rough patch.

I am not going to pretend that a lot of anti-SJWs aren't 1488'er young adults who are being offensive for the sake of being offensive as a protest against overly politically correct institutions, but then I also ask of you to not pretend that by allowing these trigger warnings to run unchecked, that the possibility of communities ending up like college campuses such as Mizzou does not exist, and that you at the very least acknowledge the possibility for abuse as a result because of the over-saturation of trigger warnings, Ed Oscuro.

[Blinge]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

What also annoys me is remembering something embarrassing I did 10 years ago and still cringing about it.

[atheistgod1999]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

That's nothing; I live in the metropolitan area Gamergate started.

["Triggered" is] a bogus buzzword for adult babies.

[Durandal]

A Sniper Rifle from UT99 in the hands of a überpro can easily break the game on maps like Facing Worlds, it's not even funny. The killing potential of a sniper rifle exceeds nearly every other weapon. Trying to cross the passage? Get sniped. Trying to return the flag? Get sniped. Trying to counter-snipe? Get sniped. Trying to find out where he is with a guided Redeemer? Get your missile sniped. Trying to avoid bullets on servers with triple jump and grapple hook mutators? Get sniped. Trying to defend the flag in your base? Get sniped. Trying to camp on top of the enemy base? Get sniped. It's pretty easy to score headshots due to the ridiculous head hitboxes. The Shock Rifle should be the go-to mid-range hitscan weapon, not the Sniper Rifle.

What also annoys me is remembering something embarrassing I did 10 years ago and still cringing about it.

I am so glad that all records of my embarrassing childhood ban-evading mischief went under with the forum in question after the admin couldn't afford to pay the server bills no longer. Not everyone has that luxury, but it taught me to not leave footprints all over the internet.

[mamboFoxtrot]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

Is this the outcome that system11 tried to warn us of when he closed that Social Justice Bullshit thread a couple years ago?

[Ed Oscuro]

@ Durandal: Just to be brief, here's a number of claims you seem to be making as I skim through your wall of text in defense of people you yourself call assholes, let me know if I've missed something important or have you wrong:

- Social justice leads to bad things.
- The most vocal and abrasive people are the leaders and we should fight them...and also they represent the majority of people with social justice concerns.
This is a pretty common viewpoint throughout politics and even general life, but it's fundamentally a mistake to think this. There are a lot of people who share social justice concerns with others, but they do things in a positive way. Because they aren't causing problems, they don't get in the news ("no news is good news"). Likewise, it's a logical error to believe that because somebody is a Chomsky follower, Marxist, or "SJW" that their actual arguments are wrong. As you yourself admit, one can be an ass but still be right. Of course, it's also a mistake to think that these people will always be unpleasant.

- Avoiding things that provoke somebody's issues is not helping them with their mental health problems.
Lots of people don't like prison rape or fart jokes, yelling in libraries, and people with failing memories generally don't like their families reminding them of it all the time. Are those beliefs signs of a mental illness? More relevantly, some people will not enjoy things that we might not immediately understand as being problematic to them. Not only are you unlikely to treat anybody's mental illness by being willfully ignorant about the actual issue, but a lot of things that may be called "triggering" won't actually be "fixed." What do you think happens when somebody chats with a psychologist about stress? They aren't given a pill (in most cases - that'd require a psychiatrist anyway, which isn't necessary in simple cases). Do you think that they are told "Dennis, you put an end to this stress right now, you hear me?" No, they're told something more like "here's some strategies you can use to reduce your ambient stress level, so you can tolerate new stresses better, and to avoid stressful situations."

Your brilliant plan that everybody should stop worrying and learn to love whatever sets them off would mean that most mental health treatment plans couldn't work.

- You can't stop people from being jerks.
I really don't understand how you come to this conclusion; a lot of real progress has come about due to people attempting the impossible. There's also no reason to tolerate people being jerks when you know it's coming (I'd especially think that market libertarians and social darwinists should appreciate this intimately - you're fired!). But this line of thinking misses the point: When somebody asks for a harmless special consideration, like "please don't make jokes about people falling into pavement at the 9/11 anniversary event," or even "I lost a brother at the WTC, please don't joke about that around me," what on earth are you thinking saying that being considerate after being asked is a standard of behavior we shouldn't strive for? That's called the naturalistic fallacy: "Because something happens, it's natural, and therefore it's okay." No, it's because there's always a risk that we need to have some way of dealing with it! I already have said that stuff happens; the point isn't to outlaw everything, but saying "stop being a jerk or you're outta here" seems like a pretty sensible defense mechanism. You don't need to prove that no big red buttons will ever be pushed before you can warn people about them and set some rules.

[trap15]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

Pretty fucking much.

[Strikers1945guy]

SJW's

[null1024]

Classic MacOS creator/file codes are the worst.
It makes sense when files don't have to be opened by multiple kinds of programs, or rarely do, and you don't need to import shit from a not-Mac ever.
actually, the entire thing makes sense really early on in the machine's life, it's a relatively elegant solution when files really only opened with one program

when they get stripped/the file gets imported from a not-Mac, you end up having to go look up the owner code in ResEdit, hope to god you know the file type code [ideally it's obvious like "JPEG" or almost obvious like "GIFf", or whatever program you're trying to open the file in doesn't care and looks inside the data fork to see what type it is], and then go look for your file in the ResEdit open dialog box [ideally, it's on your desktop, but the desktop on MacOS is another issue I have with when working with multiple disks]
like, I love ResEdit and it probably should have been included with every single Mac as part of the standard install, but I have to go dig through and look for the file again and shit, and this sort of thing really should just be in the Get Info dialog, even if hidden by a key command [like a lot of more advanced Mac features]

Also, creator codes are really annoying when the image I exported from Photoshop re-opens in Photoshop [which takes ages to open] instead of my standard image viewer.
there's all kind of dropper utilities that you can use to change file types and creator codes and shit, but it really shouldn't be such a pain overall, I need to go remember to install nShell so I can write a little dropper script to do the most common ones for me [eg, set type to GIFf, set creator to whatever my image viewer is]

The resource fork is another thing I have a problem with, but there's no nice solution to it, and it was a pretty nice idea when introduced, it was just hilariously incompatible with every other filesystem.
there's nothing quite as dumb as needing to have a working copy of Stuffit to extract the copy of Stuffit you downloaded since the entirety of all Mac applications is in the resource fork [code, dialogs, icons, nearly everything really]

So glad OSX streamlined this shit and respected extensions.

on a vaguely related note, HFS is the worst filesystem in use ever

[Lord Satori]

but it taught me to not leave footprints all over the internet.

This is the exact reason I stay away from Facebook. I know myself well enough to know that it wouldn't end well.

[Blinge]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

That's nothing; I live in the metropolitan area Gamergate started.

You are part of the problem, child.

Last Friday, my school had an assembly about LGBTQ, though really about telling people that bisexuals exist and how to come out as bi. I noticed one thing, though: all 4 speakers were girls (and most of their experiences would only apply to women because a lot had to do with gender roles). Like what, there are no bisexual males? I love how this SJW bullshit ends up being hypocritical.

Explain what's hypocritical about this.

Maybe there aren't any gay/bi dudes that want to talk to the whole school.

[Stevens]

What annoys me is how every thread is the gamergate thread.

That's nothing; I live in the metropolitan area Gamergate started.

You are part of the problem, child.

Last Friday, my school had an assembly about LGBTQ, though really about telling people that bisexuals exist and how to come out as bi. I noticed one thing, though: all 4 speakers were girls (and most of their experiences would only apply to women because a lot had to do with gender roles). Like what, there are no bisexual males? I love how this SJW bullshit ends up being hypocritical.

Explain what's hypocritical about this.

Maybe there aren't any gay/bi dudes that want to talk to the whole school.

I've taught 8th grade for 14 years (it's awesome btw) and in that time I would say girls are more likely than boys to come forward at that age. Not saying boys haven't, but girls are quite a bit more likely.

[Satan]

I would very much like to see a world without bullying, but I hate these cunts and I don't want to see morbidly obese models either.

[Ed Oscuro]

I ran across this article earlier, and didn't get a chance to look through it until after my post - it says something that I suspected:

The main problem with SJWs isn't anything to do with SJWs at all, it's people in positions of power who are spineless and willing to put up with shit just to make their lives easier, or throwing a hissy fit to protest Title IX policies. So, you not only have a girl abusing 'PC culture' but you also have some guys trying to throw out a black professor for 'creating an environment hostile to whites.'

It's pretty damn easy to just turn off your brain and post image macros instead of learning that SJWs are also responsible for pushing many innovations that could even help get rid of this blame culture, like the restorative justice movement. I'm sure that people who consider themselves anti-SJW might have some good ideas, but I've always had the impression they spend most of their time spinning wheels against the supposed SJW menace.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

^I probably already mentioned this in between image macros somewhere, but we really all should be learning to separate the concept of Social Justice from the SJW.

Also, it amuses me thinking how we might apply Restorative Justice to some of the gamergate talking points. I might have to bump the containment thread!

[atheistgod1999]

we really all should be learning to separate the concept of Social Justice from the SJW

I already have. Feminism was fine back when women actually had fewer rights and there was a lot more sexism. Same goes for other races. The thing is, that really hasn't been an issue in western first-world countries lately (to the best of my knowledge). I can't even think of any cases in media made after ~1990 where women were portrayed as inferior in any way to men (almost always the other way around), and yet it's apparently still a huge issue, which I think is extremely hypocritical because if women can't get hurt in media at all, even if men can, that just implies that they're weaker, which I thought they didn't want.

This whole trend actually made Star Wars VII extremely predictable for me:

Spoiler

Despite me knowing nothing about the plot before watching, I never felt any tension at any point in the movie due to the protagonist being a woman, which in today's media, is basically enabling God-Mode for them. I knew she wouldn't get hurt even the slightest, and that she'd be an expert at the force from the very start.

I know SJWs are about more than just this, but this is really what I've mainly thought about.

[Shepardus]

Well in the case of The Force Awakens, that would have been pretty predictable even if Rey were a guy. It's just Plot Armor. I thought Rey and Finn were fine - it's obvious the writers were very much into the whole "strong female character" and "strong black character" thing, but I don't think it was obnoxious about it, and it was well within reason for a Star Wars film. Luke wasn't as quick to pick up the Force, but he too was defying death and pulling off one-in-a-million feats in ways only protagonists can, even in A New Hope.