Such people shouldn't be staff, period. End of argument.

There's enough leftist trash ruining this fandom as it is.

I mean, even cons like MFF have shown for years now that they're violent and discriminatory towards anyone the staff don't want there.

Enough is enough.

If there's one place I won't let it leak into without speaking up, it's our porn galleries.

Just get out.

You've ruined literally every other industry and fandom.

Just let us have this part of it.

(This is directed at NotMeNotYou and other seemingly sjw staff)

> NotMeNotYou
> SJW

This is my favorite thread on the forum.

Die mad about it sweetie. It's not 2016 anymore, labelling people ess jay dubbleyoo and pee see is just meaningless trash only edgy 13 year olds still say :)

Not in over a decade has this site had such gross authoritarianism pushed onto users.

Like really. Maybe the staff are alright in some ways, but idc. There's at least one staffer who abuses their power.

Really, get fucked

gRoSs AutHoTariAnIsm!111

the current iteration of e621 hasn't even existed for a decade yet, and you joined like a week ago... what drugs are you on lmao

still, die mad about it :D

edit: oh he got b& lmao

this thread should probably be locked before someone else comes and starts this shit back up just sayinnn

wiffyflurf said:
A bunch of idiotic crap.

Oh, for god's sake.

BlackLicorice said:
Die mad about it sweetie. It's not 2016 anymore, labelling people ess jay dubbleyoo and pee see is just meaningless trash only edgy 13 year olds still say :)

LOL! Thank you for that.

On another note, someone who claimed to be here for ten years but comments with an account that's a couple of weeks old seems like they're using a sock puppet. Worth checking for alts?

I'm reading these accusations of misconduct, yet I'm seeing no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What exactly has got this user so pissed off anyway?

TwistedLogik said:
I'm reading these accusations of misconduct, yet I'm seeing no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What exactly has got this user so pissed off anyway?

People with brain damage are allowed to use the internet, so you run into a few here and there.

based on their blip, im guessing this is about tiamat5's ban

Apparently the guy is mad that a user named tiamat5 was banned for repeatedly making creepy comments. There seems to be a minority of users who find that ban controversial. They perceive the creepiness of tiamat5's cited comments to be relatively mild, and at least one of the cited comments was upvoted quite a few times.

tiamat5's public record shows 3 negs and a neutral, but going by his forum posts they used to have more negs that were eventually decayed.

Edit: I'm all for healthy conversations about the thresholds of various rules. This thread did not exactly start off like that, and even if it had I would still suggest using one of the other, healthier, creepy comments threads to discuss the matter.

Whine whine.
The concept of anyone on staff being an SJW amuses me, because cheese grater and 9/11 69.

Being an ass in comments gets users blocked.
Know what being blocked doesn't do?
Prevent looking at the site.

wiffyflurf said:
Such people shouldn't be staff, period. End of argument.

There's enough leftist trash ruining this fandom as it is.

I mean, even cons like MFF have shown for years now that they're violent and discriminatory towards anyone the staff don't want there.

Enough is enough.

If there's one place I won't let it leak into without speaking up, it's our porn galleries.

Just get out.

You've ruined literally every other industry and fandom.

Just let us have this part of it.

(This is directed at NotMeNotYou and other seemingly sjw staff)

...
post #1016967

I have noticed that anti-SJWs tend to be banned much more frequently than anyone who might be considered a SJW.

But, the reason for that is pretty clear. The anti-SJWs can't seem to follow the rules, bringing up drama endlessly, abusing other users, and all-in-all failing to act like adults. It's almost as if people who have made opposing the idea of being civil to others a core part of their identity might not be good at being civil to other people. Who knew?

Man. It is pretty gnarly how people are coming in here and talking about their crazy ideas like "treating others with respect" and "worrying about people's feelings." Bizarre!

SnowWolf said:
Man. It is pretty gnarly how people are coming in here and talking about their crazy ideas like "treating others with respect" and "worrying about people's feelings." Bizarre!

man I know right. next thing you know they'll be polite to others and thinking of people other than themselves. so weird huh!

SnowWolf said:
Man. It is pretty gnarly how people are coming in here and talking about their crazy ideas like "treating others with respect" and "worrying about people's feelings." Bizarre!

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
man I know right. next thing you know they'll be polite to others and thinking of people other than themselves. so weird huh!

Dogs and cats, living together. MASS HYSTERIA!

Clawdragons said:
I have noticed that anti-SJWs tend to be banned much more frequently than anyone who might be considered a SJW.

But, the reason for that is pretty clear. The anti-SJWs can't seem to follow the rules, bringing up drama endlessly, abusing other users, and all-in-all failing to act like adults. It's almost as if people who have made opposing the idea of being civil to others a core part of their identity might not be good at being civil to other people. Who knew?

Do you actually believe SJWs have any actual interest in respect and decency?

The entire point of the term AFAICS is that SJWs give lip service to "respect" and "decency" because it makes it easier to get away with behaving like an authoritarian thug. Take a look at the comments on some posts about Reggie, for example. Are these really people who are interested in something that would actually be respectful and decent, or is respect and decency just a pretext to ignore all contextual information and condescendingly berate the people you have identified as wrongdoers?

If you're talking about people interested in actually improving social conditions, who aren't authoritarians, they are by definition not SJWs.

I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization of anti-SJWs -- it's logical that they would have the same character as SJWs -- , but the implication that SJWs have interest in being civil is wrong.

Clawdragons said:
I have noticed that anti-SJWs tend to be banned much more frequently than anyone who might be considered a SJW.

But, the reason for that is pretty clear. The anti-SJWs can't seem to follow the rules, bringing up drama endlessly, abusing other users, and all-in-all failing to act like adults. It's almost as if people who have made opposing the idea of being civil to others a core part of their identity might not be good at being civil to other people. Who knew?

It's almost as if there is a causal relationship or something.

savageorange said:
Do you actually believe SJWs have any actual interest in respect and decency?

The entire point of the term AFAICS is that SJWs give lip service to "respect" and "decency" because it makes it easier to get away with behaving like an authoritarian thug. Take a look at the comments on some posts about Reggie, for example. Are these really people who are interested in something that would actually be respectful and decent, or is respect and decency just a pretext to ignore all contextual information and condescendingly berate the people you have identified as wrongdoers?

If you're talking about people interested in actually improving social conditions, who aren't authoritarians, they are by definition not SJWs.

I don't necessarily disagree with your characterization of anti-SJWs -- it's logical that they would have the same character as SJWs -- , but the implication that SJWs have interest in being civil is wrong.

I'm sure if you keep saying that enough, people will believe you.

But since people only really use "SJW" whenever they are mad about being told that they actually have to give a shit about boundaries, I wouldn't expect that to happen soon.

savageorange said:
If you're talking about people interested in actually improving social conditions, who aren't authoritarians, they are by definition not SJWs.

The problem is that the 'anti-SJW' group has taken to calling everyone they don't like SJWs. I was called an SJW on fcebook the other day by one of my uncles friends because I expresed concern about my disabled friend's foodstamps and the government shut down.

The word SJW has lost it's meaning. it's used as a weapon against a large group of people, as a way of removing their credibility.

It's kind of like how all millenials are whining children who can't take care of themselves -- yet most of us are in our late 20's/early 30's, not fumbling post-college graduates. It's all to make us look liek we are incompetent and worthy of being dismissed.

"SJW" are not rational. so you can ignore what they say. They want to take your phone from you because it was made in china, and don't like wearing jewelry because they don't like capitalism. How silly. /s

SJW used to mean something else, but it's very different in meaning these days, y'know?

Can we just close this thread before it careens into an even bigger mess?

SnowWolf said:
The problem is that the 'anti-SJW' group has taken to calling everyone they don't like SJWs. I was called an SJW on fcebook the other day by one of my uncles friends because I expresed concern about my disabled friend's foodstamps and the government shut down.

The word SJW has lost it's meaning. it's used as a weapon against a large group of people, as a way of removing their credibility.

It's kind of like how all millenials are whining children who can't take care of themselves -- yet most of us are in our late 20's/early 30's, not fumbling post-college graduates. It's all to make us look liek we are incompetent and worthy of being dismissed.

"SJW" are not rational. so you can ignore what they say. They want to take your phone from you because it was made in china, and don't like wearing jewelry because they don't like capitalism. How silly. /s

SJW used to mean something else, but it's very different in meaning these days, y'know?

I remember when "SJW" meant its literal meaning, you know, someone who fights for social justice. And I think we can assume that would include "improving social conditions"

SnowWolf said:
The problem is that the 'anti-SJW' group has taken to calling everyone they don't like SJWs. I was called an SJW on fcebook the other day by one of my uncles friends because I expresed concern about my disabled friend's foodstamps and the government shut down.

This is certainly misuse of the term IMO.
But terms are generally misused, so it doesn't seem obviously correct to conclude that ideologically-motivated use of the term SJW should be the sole determinant of 'SJW's definition. The term 'trap' provides a reasonable parallel here in that it IS used as a slur by some people, but it is NOT used only as a slur (and someone who insists the latter use is the same as the former use is liable to get labeled an SJW).

LoneWolf343 said:
I'm sure if you keep saying that enough, people will
believe you.

Not the point. That is not a game I'm interested in playing.

But since people only really use "SJW" whenever they are mad about being told that they actually have to give a shit about boundaries, I wouldn't expect that to happen soon.

People do do that, but claiming that that is the only way in which it is used is disingenuous. You could make the same argument about political affiliation; the labels mean *something* more than just a way to insult a party you are opposed to, and if you insist that that is all they are, then you are needlessly politicizing things and inviting unnecessary conflict.

The bottom line is that the character type definitely does exist IRL -- the character of self-appointed commissars or Knight Templars -- and people will refer to it by some term or another. If you don't like 'SJW', there are plenty of other terms for it. 'White knight' is another one that seems to be popular.

As one who is professionally acquainted with this field, it's funny (and simultaneously tragic) to read a pair (so far) of amateurs railing on about white knights and social justice warriors when they know literally zilch about the issues.

ok but why be a social justice warrior when you can be a social justice warlock or a social justice witch uwu

BlackLicorice said:
ok but why be a social justice warrior when you can be a social justice warlock or a social justice witch uwu

Social Justice Druid ♡

jokes on you nerds i'm a social justice weightlifter

savageorange said:
This is certainly misuse of the term IMO.
But terms are generally misused, so it doesn't seem obviously correct to conclude that ideologically-motivated use of the term SJW should be the sole determinant of 'SJW's definition. The term 'trap' provides a reasonable parallel here in that it IS used as a slur by some people, but it is NOT used only as a slur (and someone who insists the latter use is the same as the former use is liable to get labeled an SJW).

Not the point. That is not a game I'm interested in playing.

People do do that, but claiming that that is the only way in which it is used is disingenuous. You could make the same argument about political affiliation; the labels mean *something* more than just a way to insult a party you are opposed to, and if you insist that that is all they are, then you are needlessly politicizing things and inviting unnecessary conflict.

The bottom line is that the character type definitely does exist IRL -- the character of self-appointed commissars or Knight Templars -- and people will refer to it by some term or another. If you don't like 'SJW', there are plenty of other terms for it. 'White knight' is another one that seems to be popular.

I'm sure "Social Justice Warrior" had a purely positive connotation at some point, because there's certainly been no shortage of social injustice around the world, and this certainly includes the United States.

I feel like there's been an increasing trend over the past 15 years of associating terms and meanings with their most aggressive, extremist, virulent meanings. In the case of "SJWs", it shifted towards the people who go well out of their way to seek out perceived injustices, and then to exaggerate them or otherwise try to draw attention to them. I mean when someone blows up over actions that are today called "microaggressions", apparently because we ran out of real aggressions to chase after. I feel like I can remember a day when someone could discuss an encounter with unhinged extremism and garner some degree of sympathy for enduring a backlash disproportionate to the offense.

I blame the World Wide Web, of course. The internet arrived in force, and since then it seems like everything has been trending towards perfect thought viruses, where every word associated with anything is associated with its most disgusting elements. Because with some rough 6 billion people potentially on camera at any given point, sooner or later, everything becomes associated with a disgusting person in some way. And then there are the ones who are sociopathic enough to deliberately appeal to extremism, because it serves some purpose of theirs.

I know it's senselessly nihilist to outright declare "humans are simply assholes", which is why I prefer more eastern philosophies on the matter: People are complicated, and come with both good and bad in some measure. Life comes with both good and bad. I like that, because I like the associated idea that inner harmony, peace of mind and spirit, is still achievable, in spite of our internal and external conflicts.

So okay, I've had my rambling two cents. Probably best if I go back into lerk mode.

CCoyote said:
As one who is professionally acquainted with this field, it's funny (and simultaneously tragic) to read a pair (so far) of amateurs railing on about white knights and social justice warriors when they know literally zilch about the issues.

Who is that?

If you're including me, note that I explicitly don't care about whatever "issues" within the context of this discussion; the observation of a general human character type is not attached to any particular ideology. Commissars come in all sorts of flavours (social justice, religion or anti-religion, environmentalism, etc), but they are still commissars.

Do not assume I have sympathies with OP, OP is silly generic flailing. Anti-anti-sjw flailing, which you seem to be doing here in the presumption I'm an anti-sjw, is also silly.

ikdind said:
I blame the World Wide Web, of course. The internet arrived in force, and since then it seems like everything has been trending towards perfect thought viruses, where every word associated with anything is associated with its most disgusting elements. Because with some rough 6 billion people potentially on camera at any given point, sooner or later, everything becomes associated with a disgusting person in some way. And then there are the ones who are sociopathic enough to deliberately appeal to extremism, because it serves some purpose of theirs.

Seems pretty true to me, although I'd be inclined to attribute a bit more to repeated interaction between commercial media and the internet. They have the most clear motivation to optimize clickbaitiness IMO.

savageorange said:
If you're including me, note that I explicitly don't care about whatever "issues" within the context of this discussion...

You don't say.

savageorange said:
Do not assume I have sympathies with OP, OP is silly generic flailing. Anti-anti-sjw flailing, which you seem to be doing here in the presumption I'm an anti-sjw, is also silly.

"I just wanna say that you're... just a... a real articulate fella." ―Judy Hopps

i cant breath

send help

i am ding

🍿🐀