Harassment, Abuse, and Apologism: Sanitizing Abuse in Social Justice Spheres

The following article deals with issues of emotional abuse, online harassment, and abuse apologism, and may be upsetting or triggering
Illustration by Milo

In social justice spheres, I’m often quiet about my dissenting views, and for good reason: I’m a very small fish in a large pond. I have very little clout within Internet social justice spheres, let alone my local activist community. But I’m starting to veer towards dangerous waters now, and I think it’s time I speak out about something that’s concerned me for several years.

First off, you might recognize me if you followed the “trigger warning” debate that cropped up earlier this year. I’m the Rutgers University student who wanted to put TW’s on the Great Gatsby and King Lear. I was later sourced by the New York Times for my work, as well as interviewed by Huff Post LIVE and BBC World Service for my activist beliefs.

But, my personal experiences aren’t important right now. What’s important is who I represent in a much larger context: I’m one of those transgender, non-binary, mentally ill, intersectional feminist activists who want to make the world a better and safer place for marginalized identities. I’m a social justice activist, first and foremost.

I first became an intersectional feminist activist after spending time on the feminist internet sphere. I fell in love with social justice, and felt like intersectional feminism confronted many of the questions that my high school education fell short of answering. However, over time, I began to realize that social justice has major problems simmering under the surface. Especially within online activism, social justice often struggles with identifying abuse and harassment directed at others: both outside of the community, and among our own.

Last month, Boston computer scientist Eron Gjoni posted a call out about his former girlfriend, Zoё Quinn, a video game developer and a former inspiration of mine. I read through his call out, and I was taken aback by his ex-girlfriend’s behavior. The more time I read his receipts, the more I realized that Zoё Quinn shows the classic signs of an emotional abuser. Throughout the handful of chat logs Gjoni posted in August, Quinn utilizes lying, half-truths, blame shifting, guilt tripping, isolation from others, withholding of past abusive behaviors, gaslighting, and suicidal threats in order to control Gjoni.

A month later, I began studying Gjoni’s call out for a video series exploring emotional abuse. I began by focusing on two prevalent patterns of abusive behavior found in many emotionally abusive relationships: shifting blame and responsibility for feelings, and withholding information from an abused partner. I was astonished to find nearly 100 examples of Quinn utilizing these two behaviors alone, within a mere snapshot of their entire relationship. Indeed, Quinn’s behavior in Gjoni’s receipts are damning to any abuse survivor.

When Gjoni first came out about his experiences, many people were skeptical of his claims. In fact, misinformation quickly spread about Gjoni. This was further compounded by Zoё Quinn’s post on “terrorism,” which not just sidesteps the abuse allegations completely, but falsely implies that Gjoni was responsible for the sexual harassment that followed her public outing.

This led to many writers smearing Gjoni’s name, calling him “spiteful,” “jilted,” and other various baseless insults. Not just did these claims completely ignore the allegations of emotional abuse found in Gjoni’s post, but they often recklessly painted Gjoni himself as an abuser: shaming him for publicly outing his abusive ex-girlfriend.

Now, why is this relevant to the larger social justice community? We’ve talked about Zoё Quinn to death, right? Shouldn’t Quinn’s abusive behavior remain confined strictly within her relationship with Gjoni? Well, no.

Zoё Quinn’s private behavior distorts her public actions. You see, Quinn framed her life, work, and public image around a dedication to social justice activism. At the very core of Quinn’s career was a desire for inclusivity and visibility for marginalized identities. However, the mere evidence of Quinn’s abusive relationship shatters her work completely. The sheer cruelty of her behavior questions the very activist work that her professional career stood up for. And, in the eyes of an abuse survivor, Quinn’s reputation as a highly accessible public figure makes her abusive behavior extremely dangerous.

In other words, those of us who are survivors must be aware of Zoё Quinn. We must know who Zoё is, and whether her actions are abusive. And if so, we must distance ourselves from Zoё. Survivors are traditionally the very same vulnerable people that an abuser preys on, and our history with abuse leaves us likely to be targeted and abused again. Therefore, we have an obligation to know if a public figure in an extremely accessible industry, the indie video gaming industry, is abusive towards others. Doubly so when abuse survivors are approaching an outed abuser for her twitter, tumblr, advice, private correspondence, recommendations, autograph, and professional funding.

However, Zoё Quinn truly strikes a nerve, because she is not an outlier. Zoё Quinn represents a much larger issue currently going on in social justice: the sanitization of abusive behavior by social justice activists. And that’s what I want to strike at now, after dozens of publications have openly painted her survivor as an abuser. Ultimately, our community’s response to Zoё Quinn has led me to explore how social justice communities operate, and how we often let the wrong people into them.

For a middle-class, able-bodied, and college-educated individual, the entry barrier for joining a social justice community is very low. The requirements are often rather minimal: you must be able to understand systems of oppression. You have to do your homework on identity and identity politics. You need to understand what the patriarchy is, and how it affects people on both an interpersonal scale, as well as a sociocultural scale. You have to understand the ways in which the LGBTQ+ letters are not created equally, and some letters are more likely to receive institutional support (for better or for worse) than others. You have to engage with intersectionality, and understand the ways in which privilege and oppression can exist on different spheres within the same individual. You have to know your 101, and you MUST be able to engage with current events that pertain to social justice.

Understanding oppression is key to becoming a social justice activist. And not just do we pride ourselves on understanding social justice, but the more of an ability to identify and engage with social justice, the more empathetic and compassionate we appear to our fellow activists. If I take my analysis on patriarchy, and I try to bring it into my literature publication, I appear to be a strong ally for equality. If I take my views on trigger warnings, and attempt to inject them into academia, I appear to be someone who cares deeply about the direction that undergraduate academia is heading. If I publicly engage with social justice activism on social media, and proceed to base my entire career on inclusivity for marginalized identities, I appear to be an extraordinary activist. We connect behavior with motive, and we assume that anyone who acts against the reigning sociocultural hegemony must be a fine-hearted and decent person. Because, after all, why would anyone want to feign interest in social justice?

But here’s the problem: understanding and regurgitating social justice rhetoric is very easy for any relatively experienced community member. Our middle-class, able-bodied, college-educated entry level requirements are so basic to social justice’s privileged masses, to the point where introductory knowledge is seen as a sign of severe compassion. Indeed, simply do a little research, and sprinkle in some basic empathy and compassion. Personal growth be damned! Your application of several buzzwords means you must be a bleeding heart intersectional activist.

You see, because our community’s basic standards function on a mixture of middle-class privilege and basic overviews of oppression, social justice rhetoric can be easily exploited by individuals who secretly have ulterior motives for entering activist spheres. You can be an abuser, manipulator, and exploiter behind closed doors: but if you regurgitate the right words, we will think you’re a good person by default. If you work Really Hard(tm) to bring activism into your life, we will immediately give you the benefit of the doubt. And we accept this as an unquestioning, uncritical fact. Because, after all, why would anyone who seems so compassionate want to hurt people?

The truth is, opportunists have a lot to gain within leftist social justice. Progressive spheres often operate with massive power vacuums in the center that can be easily exploited by outsiders looking for control. In fact, this isn’t a particularly recent problem: online abuse in social justice spheres is, in certain ways, a microcosm for the same systems of abuse that have led to academic imperialism among radicals in the States. Allies and activists often find themselves actively engaging in classically engrained Old Boy clubs, which have been purposefully structured for strong, centralized control. And these power dynamics create a fruit ripe for the picking for massive activist support… if you have the right connections, that is.

In and of itself, radicalizing institutions from the inside isn’t a bad thing – no, in fact, this is a very successful tactic. However, many activists become lost on the way. They abandon their radical positions for the power dynamics that these institutions inherently exist on. They bite into the fruit that they originally aimed to destroy. Instead of demolishing the institutions, why not just join them and try to benefit from them? Why not forward your own liberation, while remaining radio silent on the plight of others? We don’t simply bite into that fruit: we devour it. And we grow fat on the gains. And so the abusive power dynamic of institutional nepotism continues, on and on…

So why do I bring this up? We have a problem with exploitation and manipulation in social justice. We have a problem with people who say good things, but don’t really mean it. They act in bad faith, and put their desire for personal gain – whether professional or not – above others. In other words, we have a problem with abusers gaining the power to abuse by enabling the very institutions they were attempting to dismantle.

And because so many people equate actions with personal compassion, we begin to sanitize our community’s wrongdoings. We assume that anyone fighting the good fight can be given a little leeway for unhealthy actions. Who cares if a white male equates video gamers with “ISIS with Steam accounts?” Who cares if you call someone a “scummy neckbeard with Cheetos,” because the concerns behind those insults are all in good faith, huh? Who cares if a critically acclaimed writer tells a fan “I hope you die,” because, hey, they’re fighting the good fight – right? And if a powerful forum owner and feminist ally decides to enter the discussion, does it really matter if he openly mocks a non-feminist woman’s genitals? He simply meant to fight misogyny with misogyny, right?

No. This is wrong. This is inherently wrong, because we end up minimizing the collateral damage that we ultimately do. We encourage hurtful behavior that perpetuates online harassment and makes public discourse feel unsafe. And we ignore the intersectional ramifications of our actions in the process. Death is an intersectional issue. ISIS is an intersectional issue. Using misogyny to sexually harass non-feminist women still perpetuates violence against women. Many of these insults further oppressive structures through weaponization. Jokes about “neckbeards” and “fat gamers,” for instance, promote body-negativity and shame individuals for their physical appearance. Comparing gamers to ISIS massively trivializes the terrorist organization, and minimizes the violent abuse perpetuated at their hands. And openly mocking a woman’s genitalia inherently furthers sexual harassment, regardless of the views or beliefs behind the male ally’s actions. We end up encouraging the abuse and oppression around us by engaging in this sort of commentary, and we end up using these attacks as an ad hominem against good faith discussions.

Why has it come to this? Where is our desire for intersectionality and compassion? Why do we refuse to check ourselves when our fellow activists actively defend abusive behavior? Too many social activists are more than happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk it when called to act. What kind of activism does that leave us with? As the saying goes, our feminism must be intersectional, or it will be bullshit; abuse and harassment is, inherently, no exception.

This is not fighting the good fight. This is not positive. This is not liberation. This is oppressive. It promotes oppressive hegemonies that exist regardless of intent. It promotes online harassment, which is a form of abuse regardless of its motivation. Hateful vitriol can be weaponized against regressives in ways that are still hurtful. Abuse is abuse, regardless of whether loaded sociocultural dynamics further compound the abuse. You can defend intersectional feminism, and still do so in an inflammatory and inappropriate way. You do not get a free pass just because feminist liberation is a vital part of 21st century activism. Weaponizing oppression through harassment sets a hurtful precedent for our future activist spheres, because it actively sanitizes abuse in the eyes of the larger community. We must learn instead to view abuse and harassment as a serious concern in and of itself, which has no room in any social justice activist sphere.

This month has been a nightmare for anyone who is concerned about harassment in social justice spheres. Doubly so for any feminist activists engaged in the intersectional ramifications of emotional abuse. There are massive, frightening issues with how video game industry workers are enabling an emotional abuser in video gaming. There are enormous red flags for abuse survivors, in which “intersectional” communities actively downplay abuse, and see certain forms of abuse and harassment as justified when required. The ends justify the means for some. And we forget that the means must always justify the ends in social justice, lest we create the very same power dynamics we aimed to demolish.

We are reaching a critical breaking point for many social justice activists. We are constantly fracturing from one another, across various lines. These are discussions that we must have in our safe spaces, because we are deeply hurting ourselves when our interactions are based on fear, anxiety, and abuse.

We must begin to have these discussions, and we must have them in good faith – lest we threaten the very concept of solidarity that our intersectional feminist communities strive for in their creation.


Anastasia Wythe
Anastasia Wythe is a transgender woman and feminist games writer. She first hit international attention after writing "Trigger warnings needed in classroom" for the Daily Targum, a trigger warning activist piece which was later cited in New Republic, The Guardian, and the New York Times for challenging contemporary disability accommodations in academia. She currently writes for Gamemoir as the website's LGBT + Gender columnist, and has been on the BBC World Service, HuffPost LIVE, and Al Jazeera's The Stream to discuss trigger warnings. Anastasia uses she/her pronouns. You can follow her on Twitter, @SpaceDoctorPhD
  • Guest

    One of

  • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

    Serious question. At what point do criticism, sarcasm or exasperated “ugh, she is such an idiot” claims become harassment or abuse?

    • botenana

      For who? Normal people or the people outlined in this article?

      • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

        Anybody. For me, for example. I am totally judgmental and say tons of inappropriate stuff and call people idiots. See: My Husband Needs to See Your Boobs. Does that negate the SJ work I do outside of that?

        • David

          That’s my problem with a lot of the twitter stuff and social media. Harassment should be when one person continually insults someone or bothers someone after they are asked to stop. Not when someone criticizes or disagrees with you which is what I’m seeing from SJWs on twitter. Even a single insult shouldn’t be considered harassment.

          Harassment is currently being used as a buzzword to deflect from criticism or issues and so people can claim victimhood. Or in ZQ’s case used to gain media attention.

          Two anonymous guys made one comment each on a forum for depressed people criticizing ZQ and her game Depression Quest. They were mean comments, but it was a forum ZQ was never on. She hears about it and posts an image of the comments on twitter and claims harassment. Journalists also reported on her claims without even looking into the issue. As soon as people heard about harassment they began attacking the people on that forum calling them awful things. I saw some of the comments from a mod or admin defending himself against the attacks. How can people take advantage of people like that? Both ZQ and the journalists involved deserve to be criticized for that.

          • colleen prinssen

            that is why we have a bully epedemic

        • courier69

          Too complicated question for a definitive answer. You might as well ask “how many is too many” in terms of alcohol.

          People have different thresholds before considering something as abusive. And in my opinion, this threshold has dropped dramatically since the age of social media, which somehow created a state of hypersensitivity. The more extreme people are the problems here (“the ‘ugh she is such an idiot’ people)

          some people nowadays have thresholds so small as to consider disagreement as an attack on character. Then you have people (like me) who won’t consider it harassment until they are walking home with a limp and a black eye (legit harassment by legal terms). Of course, I’m sure the “truth” is somewhere in the middle.

          ofc, context matters a lot as well (sarcasm, mostly). I’ve had friends call me things that would offend me if coming from a stranger. I’m sure there is some truth in this for everyone.

        • Shield

          Okay quick way to check:
          Does this action entrap, harm, dehumanize or discredit a person as a whole for my own personal gain?
          Have I continued to do it beyond the expiration date of discussion, with the malicious intent of harming dehumanizing, entrapping, harming and discrediting a person as a whole , for personal gain, and ONLY that intent?

          3 Has the person reached the stage where they have asked me to stop and ceased calling attention to it?

          If you answer yes to two then yeah it harassment, but if its one your are probably safe, even though you may need to think about your actions a bit more. All three is a definite yes, but the first two are subjective (see caveat below)

          There is a caveat or two.

          1 if your reasoning for the continued discussion past the date doesn’t hold water, even if it exists, you probably are harassing. such as “For the great good I am calling this person names,” Yeah that is not a valid reason. On the other hand “Both I and my other half in this argument feel that their is something to be gained from continued discussion, even if he is an idiot” Or “I am attempting to point this action out as a legitimate argument for my movement. And they are an idiot”
          2 Talking past each-other invalidates this and is a good reason to stop. If the other person is so incensed and so are you that talking is starting to get confusing, its a good time to stop, apologize and walk away.
          3 Strawmanning, godwins lawing, the current isis comparisons, and intentional debate fallacies add invisible yeses to this. While they themselves do not inherently mean harassment, they are indicative of someone who doesn’t want to have a real discussion.

          • Shield

            4. Trolling is trolling. Its harassment only if it breaks the above third question. Generally trolling is not for personal gain, doesn’t have a point, but once someone stops responding it should stop or it becomes harassment.

        • colleen prinssen

          that is your problem, “idiot” is abelistic. you need less hurtful words. like “absurd fool”, or “sillyhead.” :0

    • Jane doe

      Depends, for a regular human its when it affects you regular life but if you are a internet personality then your life is already affected by it so its hard to say

    • Horse

      For some it appears that any critique of their disgusting behaviour is harassment.

    • 5ulman

      The start.Absolutely no criticism is permissable. It is categorised as misogynistic.

    • Paul Johnson

      When it becomes an ad-hominem, or “to-the-man” attack. “She is such an idiot,” for example, is an ad-hominem attack. “She’s acting idiotically,” however, is not. The difference is stark in reality, but only slight at its face.

      The difference is one attacks the person, their very identity (which suggests they are intrinsically bad, and unfixable), the other their ideas or behavior (which is something that can be addressed).

    • colleen prinssen

      all of it, all the time, from the very second you think it.

  • Fatherless

    It doesn’t matter who’s in power, they’ll eventually become corrupted by it, and do the same shit as anyone else. So perhaps instead of worrying about who has power, maybe focus on limiting the harm those with power can do? Perhaps someday you’ll realize that this unfortunate tendency of human nature is universal, and categories of birth are irrelevant. Maybe some day you’ll see that what you call privileged groups are only temporary in the broad reach of history, but what remains constant is human nature, and our species’ tendency to descend into tribal factionalism, ends-justify-the-means retributionism, and abuse of power by elites. Working towards a solution you’d realize that no system is perfect, and it’s simply a matter of choosing the least bad alternative. I offer you the current system as an alternative. Please design something better, but please do account for human nature.

    • wordsIVue

      Well said. The naive ignorance or wilful ignoring of human nature is the cause of much corruption, perversion and disaster. It leads to sentimental idealism, impractical utopianism, and an attempt to create social systems that are unfeasible and can only be maintained through hypocrisy and pretence, and finally collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

  • David

    This is just my opinion and experiences with social justice, but it comes off as an extremist group to me. Almost cultish in nature. Three other women have come out telling their stories of ZQ as well and no one cares. She still gets sympathy. I’ve grown up around someone who was highly manipulated and lied constantly. Those people are very dangerous. They can ruin careers and turn friends and family against each other if they are smart enough.

    There also seems a radical feminist element to the social justice crusade. Based on the hatred of “straight white males” and the talk of “rape culture” and the irrational defense of women even if they deserve to be criticized or are abusive themselves. A lot of men are to blame. They see a woman in trouble and they can’t wait to protect them and be a hero. Meanwhile, if a man was in a similar position they wouldn’t care. Can you imagine if the roles were reversed in this situation? ZQ would be praised as a courageous hero for daring to speak out against her abusive, cheating bf.

    It seems like people only care about patting themselves on the back for doing something good instead of treating people equally no matter what. That’s why there are so many double standards and hypocrisies coming from the SJ people.

    And Philip you’re right to be scared of speaking out. I’ve seen how they turn on each other even if you disagree with 1 or 2 things. I know they trash talk and turn people against each other by trash talking someone behind their back. Look at Eron he is a very strong SJ supporter but they turned on him so easily for speaking out against his abuser.

    • dodoking

      there is social justice and there is “social justice warrior” I believe them to be 2 different things. even the online SJW are different from the real SJW who are actual activists. this is simply from my observation.

      I personally would prefer to there just be justice no other words added on to it

      • Grey

        That is an excuse every group tries when those in their group have brought shame on them. It’s an attempt to rebrand that always fails. It’s a church creating a new denomination, not because of differences in belief, but to try to sever themselves in the eyes of those outside “we’re not them, we’re different”. Well that’s fine. Except you can’t hide from them. You must address them, you must fight them, and you must win against them. They give you a bad name, so you must show in actions, not word, that you do not approve, are not like them, do not agree with what they are doing, and are actually better than them.

        When it comes to this kind of conflict you can’t ignore it or hide from it, and you can’t just relabel everyone to show you’re not with them. You have to prove it. You have to show, not tell, that you are not with them.

        • akulkis

          This is why even most women hate feminism.

      • Matthew Lane

        They aren’t…. That’s like saying there are conspiracy theories & conspiracy theorists & I think these are different things. Just like conspiracy theories are what conspiracy theorists believe in, social justice is what social justice warriors believe in & just like 99% of conspiracy theories its bullshit stupid people cling to to feel important, special, in the know & one of the good guys.

        Because actually being a positive change is harder than sitting around inventing problems that don’t exist & then blaming a secret cabal of shadowy super-villains for stopping you from not being able to fix the problems you just invented.

        Conspiracy theorists have the New World Order & Feminists have “The Patriarchy” & they are both equally fictional.

        • akulkis

          In light of Rothchild’s boast, “Let me control a nation’s currency, and I control that nation,” and then check out the ethnicity of the major banks and bankers (including old Rothchild himself) around the world.. and then do the same thing for the odd group of non-Chinese who surrounded Mao… and who all of those non-Russians were around Lenin (hint: 285 of them all came from the Lower East Side of Brooklyn), and especially in the top echelon of the Cheka (the most murderous police force ever, until Pol Pot)….

          Always behind the scenes, destroying nations from within.

      • Cylux

        Generally when you park a qualifying word in front of the word Justice, it stops being justice and starts being something else. ‘Social justice’ included.
        My own observations of ‘social justice’ leads me to believe that the end goal is to give formerly ‘oppressed’ groups the chance at being the oppressor for a change, while also being smug and righteous about it.

        • Grey

          I guess you could say that it turns justice into revenge.

        • Nettacki

          Eron Gjoni (you know, Zoe’s ex?) would disagree with you on there. SJ is a good and worthwhile thing, in that in the right hands it could be a good way to raise awareness of social issues in ways that make us think a little differently. It’s just that a lot of the people on there (as well as the people on the other side) get caught up in sticking with a narrow set of views that leads to condemning anyone that doesn’t fit within their biases.


        • colleen prinssen

          exactly. “hey let someone else have the toy for a change”

      • colleen prinssen

        well you know, “not all Esjaydubbas”

    • Keepe811
    • vintermann

      “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed in this situation? ZQ would be praised as a courageous hero for daring to speak out against her abusive, cheating bf.”

      There are some people, who call themselves intersectional feminists like the OP, who would say that’s completely different and you’re the enemy/a traitor for even bringing up this totally false equivalence. Even if you’re technically right, you’re wrong for pointing it out. We are at war, and you’re giving aid and comfort to the enemy!

      If you doubt that people saying such things exist, take a look at Scott Alexander’s posts about the #stopclymer debacle, and in particular the discussions with Arthur Chu: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/14/living-by-the-sword/

      This needs to go. SJWs needs to throw “Rules for radicals” into the trash bin, in particular rule 5, 9, 10 and 12 which are irreparably dishonest and abusive. And Arthur Chu needs to learn that “only winning is important” may be an acceptable attitude in Jeopardy, but it isn’t in real life.

      • akulkis

        Don’t worry. When the left gets the knock-down-drag-out kill-the-opposition fight that they’ve been itching for since the 1920’s, people like Arthur Chu are going to be the ones singled out for… special high intensity treatment… and probably finished off with being drawn and quartered.

        The left knows how to run their mouths, and move paper. The anti-leftists aren’t nearly as violent as the leftists claim — in fact, less violent than leftist — but if widespread violence breaks out, the anti-leftists are well trained in how to carry out violence so quickly and efficiently, that most SJW’s will be suffering lethal injuries before they even realize they are under attack.

        Why? Because very few leftists join the military, and the combat arms units are composed almost 100% of anti-leftists.

        People like Chu should be careful of what they wish for.

        • vintermann

          Idiot. More than he is left, or right, that guy is a climber. A power seeker. Your pathetic weapons training isn’t going to stop power seekers, at the very worst you’re going to kill a few people, justifying a crackdown on people like you (maximally construed, of course).

          Chu is a brazen examples of someone with no principles. But few people are loyal to principles, most people divide their loyalties to a tribe of some sort, and if you think the tribe called “the police” or “the military” is remotely on your side, you’re delusional.

          Chu’s going down, but it’ll be his own. No, he won’t be drawn and quartered, he’ll just get the Hugo Schwyzer treatment, or the treatment he so eagerly dealt out to Charles Clymer. Do read SSC’s whale cancer post… and remember, your own little militia movement has whale cancer issues too.

    • Andrejovich Dietrich

      After interacting with a number of these…people this is my boil out. They are neverendingly complaining about how victimized they are, but yet exhibit more of a bully personality than a victim. They are predominantly college kids, and frankly exactly how much experience with being victimized could they have at that point. They are extremely rude, and antagonistic. If you disagree with them they will shout names and try to push an undeserved intellectual superiority over you.

      Which I find rather humorous being I have 2 degrees completed and over 30 years of experience in the workforce as compared to their meager sheltered lives. I have been married and divorced with 2 College age children I am paying for. And in interacting with these SJWs I am further amused by the fact that those horrible men they rail on about are more likely than not footing their College bill.

      They also don’t respond well to the realities of life as they exist outside of their precious text books.

      Heres the boil out…They are spoiled entitled little princesses who are clueless about the offenses they are so pissed off about.

      • akulkis

        They are neverendingly complaining about how victimized they are, but yet exhibit more of a bully personality than a victim.

        The typical BPD accuses even while initiating an attack.

      • colleen prinssen

        why do you think there is so much anti sjw on tumblr and twitter? now when I see a social justice what ever, I think “you are the people who say the worst thing in the world is that James Bond will never be a 90 year old, Desi woman with dwarfism, Down Syndrome, epilepsy, and be polyromantic omnisexual transfluidaeroflux moosekin right?”

    • Matthew Lane

      “This is just my opinion and experiences with social justice, but it comes off as an extremist group to me. Almost cultish in nature.”

      Its worse than a cult, its moral busy bodies & to quote C.S Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      Never forget that there is a direct line between the social justice warriors we have today pushing contemporary nonsense like “gender theory” & the social justice warriors of the 40’s thru 70’s who would get together to brutalise black men in America who had the temerity to date white women.

      Social justice is a misnomer, its not social or justice its anti-social injustice.

      • akulkis

        The Democratic Party changes masks, but it never changes in essence.

    • akulkis

      There’s a reason that the most accurate term for such men is less like “white knights” and more like “TOOLS”

  • EqualityEd

    It’s time to face the reality that you’re intersectional feminsm is little more than a scheme to keep white women aided by white men on top of the social justice hierarchy because they have the power and influence to exploit it and the ideology being advanced make it quite easy for them to do so. It was broken out the gate and not because of ‘whiteness’ but because identity trumps all else.

    This approach doesn’t look at peoples needs but rather what group they belong to. That means privileged people from some “marginalized identity” can easily get over playing the role of victim that can feel entitled to whatever radical authoritarian measures to make them feel in control. This isn’t social justice.

    We need to get off identity for a while and get back to the issues of class. Those with the most identity issues like Black & Native men are barely on the intersectional feminist radar because they are male. Sadly we’ve seen far too many young leftist indoctrinated into a scheme that was set up to deliver power back to privileged whites who’ve embraced it to empower themselves. Before now these people would have been shunned for speaking on behalf of marginal people but now they can bully those same people into silence with barely a whisper from the leftist sworn to defend them.

    • http://iadagraca.com/ BasedWolf

      I see a lot of feminism lately and wage gap crap but it must be centered on white women.

      Cause the wage gap between say black women to black men is over 90% last week according to bls.gov

      But white women to white men is around 81%.

      But black men to white men is about 75%.

      In fact white women make more than ALL MINORITIES (once again last week)

      To me it just looks like white women are mad they don’t make as much as white men everyone else be dammed.

      • PF-C

        The wage gap with white females was shown to be mostly rooted in job choice. Actual figure was between “4.8 and 7.1 percent”; but the study did not account for health insurance. http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf
        It’s a pretty good statistical read.

        • http://iadagraca.com/ BasedWolf

          I’m sure there’s lots of variables for all of this.

          I just find the complaints strange

          • PF-C

            Oh I know, there are just a certain subsection of the populace who infiltrate a group, then steer it towards their own agendas. This usually causes death for the group. Occupy was a victim of this, and Feminism is becoming a victim of it. Because as she said, the barriers for entry are low, and chance for power vacuum high, more of these hateful people have been able to enter it.

            I fear this will happen to gamergate. One person already attempted it.

          • http://iadagraca.com/ BasedWolf

            A lot of people view not assigning leaders or structure would prevent that and I hope they’re right.

            It prevents detractors from having any sort of foothold, and people can be “removed” a will if some one makes a mistake.

            No individual being in a position of verifiable importance gives no one power. And let’s no one be a target.

            I think the idea has merit but it seems like a new concept of unorganized organization. Is there history for this?

          • Fatherless

            Yes, there is a history. Study how libertarians, classical liberals, and skeptics favor rational argument over identity politics / post modern discourse and you will have what you need to know to keep a movement from degenerating.

            I think Edmund Burke also studied the difference between the American and French Revolutions, and you can see the difference between principled self restraint versus mob rule.

          • akulkis

            Which is why Burke supported Thomas Paine’s pamphlateering for the American War of Independence [example: Common Sense, and “These are the times which try mean’s souls….], but was utterly disgusted with Paine’s pamphlateering for the French Revolution [The Rights of Man is Marxism before Marx was even born…and to the same extent, advocates abolition of liberty under the guise of preserving it.]

          • Michael Horsman

            feminism is the culprit not the victim when it comes to group infiltration by hateful people.

          • akulkis

            Modern feminism was started by hateful women.

            For example, Betty Friedan was a chronic spouse-abuser, both physically and emotionally.

        • akulkis

          Correct. When controlled for educationn and years worked, women actually earn $1.05 compared to a man working the same job with the same level of education and the same years of experience. AND the man actually shows up to work on time, every day, and doesn’t have “oh, my XXXX hurts so I can’t work, or I have to go home early” “This box is too heavy” or all of the other thousands of reasons they come up with for NOT DOING THEIR JOB while ..as noted above.. GETTING PAID MORE for supposedly doing the same work… but actually doing a hell of a lot less of it.

      • Cylux

        Most of feminism is based on fallacies of composition so it shouldn’t really come as too big a shock.

        • http://iadagraca.com/ BasedWolf

          Yeah, but you’d think the media would have some better perspective.

          Is everyone suddenly supposed to win with this favoritism going on? Or are minorities so small a market for them, and there’s so few activism going on by these minorities that it’s not worth reporting about them.

        • akulkis

          Her: “Your grandpa oppressed my grandma, so you owe me stuff, because I’m a her granddaughter”

          Me: “And by the same token, your grandpa oppressed my grandma, and I’m her grandchild, so by the same token, YOU OWE ME, you conniving, lying, manipulative whore.”

    • courier69

      Yeah, I kinda agree with you here. Call me an insensitive jerk, but why the hell should I care about your “oppresion” when you’re making 6+ figures?

      “Money can’t buy happiness, but I’d rather cry in a Ferrari”

      Wanna know how to solve this “SJW crisis”? Teach children critical thinking and how to identify bias; teach them to actually question information instead of taking it at face value. Give financial aid to the k-12 schools that are in less privileged areas so that they can accomplish this.

      A slow approach, but the results will make itself obvious in the next 2 decades.

    • akulkis

      ALL socialist movements are actually about wiping out free markets and replacing it with a feudalistic system with the rich safely, and PERMANENTLY on top.

      Check out Zoe Quinn’s real name Chelsea van Valkenburg … Her family has been in the financial sector for CENTURIES.

    • colleen prinssen

      i am just amused that they found enemies within the walls. without thinking it’s all rouge bullies looming looking for prey like hungry carnivorous animals looking for a disabled animal to eat

  • defjam101

    I commend your willingness to proffer an unpopular opinion in the face of a literal blockade of widespread misinformation, bad faith, and anger. I wish I could say your insightful words will circulate the internet and prompt a golden age of discussion and understanding. I really do.

    Unfortunately, in these dark times, the more likely scenario is somebody on Tumblr branding you a deeply problematic crypto-patriarchal slut-shaming non-ally and telling their friends to spread the word. These friends will tell their friends, those friends will tell their friends’ friends, who then post the article on Reddit under an inflammatory headline, and so on and so on until every discussion you have begins with a 45-minute preamble in which you establish that you do not support Nazism, eating babies, or Ron Paul.

    Prepare to be everything at once: a misogynist, a feminist, a neckbeard, a Gater, an SJW, an MRA — the list goes on. All of these things are True Facts™ about your worldview kept on file by informed internet personnel so they know how to properly respond to your concerns without actually listening to your concerns.

    Anyway, excellent article. Let’s hope some good comes of it.


    • http://iadagraca.com/ BasedWolf

      Well the Tumblr thing already happened a little

      • Shield

        Stupid, badly thought out knee jerk opinions tend to travel faster than well reasoned weighty arguments I guess. Too bad :C

    • Keepe811

      Effects of Feminism On Men: https://vimeo.com/107815754

      • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

        You’re an idiot.

        • Len Firewood

          Ideology not good whether feminist or masculinist so I agree with you.

          • Matthew Lane

            well he did post stuff from manhood academy, that should have been your first clue to the users idiocy.

          • Len Firewood

            Oh yes of course – it was that fact that prompted my comment.

        • Paul Johnson

          If you want to point out idiotic behavior, point out idiotic behavior. But keep it to the behavior, not the man, lest you become the very thing the author is writing about.

          Or just call me a slime-bucket for hurting your feelings — I don’t really care.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            Only an idiot would advertise such a provocative and insulting video. But that whole “hurt my feelings” part was pure entertainment. Thanks for that.

          • Paul Johnson

            “Only an idiot…”
            Debatable. But you’re clearly the subject of Philip’s article.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink


          • defjam101

            Regardless of your stance on modern feminism, the linked video is clearly not trying to spark any sort of reasonable discussion. The existence of SJWs and radfems does not give us free license to produce equally divisive, inflammatory content and expect a “reasoned” response. It’s dishonest and counterproductive.

          • Paul Johnson

            No doubt. Manhood Academy is a joke — rejects from the MRM, PUAs, MGTOWs, Feminists, other SJWs, and pretty much anyone with a brain.

            I’ve seen them “debate” before. My only beef was with a response which contained only, “You’re an idiot.”

            I wasn’t expecting a reasoned debate, but I was expecting, and probably errantly so, for feminists and SJWs to at least be careful about leaving comments that are 100% ad-hom and 0% argument on an article that is about SJW abuse.

        • Keepe811
          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            Mad about your chasing me across the internet to make sure your many complicated feelings are heard? No, just sad for you. Tsk tsk.

          • Keepe811

            you STILL mad u ugly stupid kunt? LOLOL!

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            You got me, bud. I’m still mad.

          • Keepe811

            u STILL mad stupid kunt? LOL!

    • Kevin MacAfee

      I, personally, support the eating of Ron Paul.

      • defjam101

        Tastes like freedom.

      • akulkis


    • colleen prinssen

      moreso in the fear of being braned a meniminst apologenic troll hater

  • Yonan

    Great post. You mention a lot of what has been pushing me away from the left lately. When the extremists on “my side” make me ashamed and look just as bad as Westboro Baptists they really need to sort their shit. Gamergate is not anti-feminist, it’s anti-corruption and as you say there’s nepotism and power abuse at the core of it as people who want to do good get mislead by those with something to gain.

    • Stephen J. Weir

      what really irks me is that people like zoe quinn DO profit from this! they get to continue being terrible people and hiding behind their gender and their politics to avoid blame, and try to deflect claims of conspiracy with sarcasm, despite the fact that it’s very likely that SOMETHING is going on. it’s insane, and it makes a lot of SJWs look really naive and dumb for doing all the dirty work for people who gain from this nepotism, corruption, and general fucked-up-ness

    • Seymour Butts

      Yes, It’s very frightening to see people who claim to be liberal questioning the value of having free speech and calling for stricter government control of the internet. I have identified as a feminist for many years but in the last few months I have just become completely disillusioned with these people. They don’t represent anything of value anymore. What they do isn’t real activism when there is a racially (and class) motivated police state that is only the most visible arm of an oppressive governmental and political elite.

      I think that most of these bloggers who are very new to the game are basically just using their college degrees for the only thing they’re good for, mediasocalblogging and are parlaying the trends of the day into careers. How much time these ‘activists’ spend writing about the best fashion choices. I get the distinct feeling that they were the ones who in 2010 said that they didn’t consider themselves feminists but how that it’s a cool thing to do have changed their tune.

    • vintermann

      > When the extremists on “my side” make me ashamed

      I could never understand this thinking. You are you, they are them. If you invest your identity so heavily into one group that you’re ashamed when THEY do something bad that YOU don’t, then you need to break free. That goes whether you are on the left or the right.

  • Horse

    Social justice is and the SJW crowd are beyond redemption. In all my years i have never seen more racist,sexist and disgusting shit than by what is written by SJW’s. Zoe is a fucking terrible person that uses any chance she gets to act terribly as a human and thinks her gender and ideology exempts her from critique. If you act like a disgusting person irl and on the internet you will be called out regardless of gender,race or creed. Using these things as a shield is a fucking joke. If i said and did terrible things ide fucking expect a backlash. This victim mentallity bullshit is a fucking joke.

    • vanessa ray

      There is no bigger victim mentality than in gamergate.

      • trivialCipher

        That’s because people are being fired and upcoming developers are getting their careers ruined through slandering articles if they dare make somebody’s breasts too big or not portray a gay character the right way.

        I agree that there’s a victim mentality. But the difference is actually being a victim. SJWs aren’t getting fired for being bigots. They’re being encouraged.

        • colleen prinssen

          that is why I troll those people and tell they their work is not good enough

          “oh cute game, but why is the girl ablebodied and white? you looser, try harder or give up”

          “cool, some feminists made a damsel in distress game, now how are you differnt from all the rest?”

          “you are making a Depresson Quest sequal about a sex worker? I sure hope they are nonwhite, disabled, poor, elderly, have BPD, deformed, a conjoined twins”

          “cute dog for your interactive book-game, but is the dog supposed to be Latinx? does the dog’s gender identidy and sexual orientation and race have any thing to do with the game’s plot?”

      • Len Firewood

        You got it backwards – they are refusing to be bullied and victimised by those who think they hold all the cards and power. In the old days whoever controlled the MSM had the last word because the person in the street had no right of reply – the old mentality of control by new would be MSM hasn’t realised that it is trying to bully that can now fight back. What you are witnessing is the bully being taught a very painfull lesson and unless they learn it fast the lesson will continue and the bully’s will lose THEIR jobs.

        • akulkis

          When the companies the SJW’s work for start losing massive amounts of money (BMW and Intel advertising dollars recently pulled from all publications associated with Gawker), it’s not just a case of “losing their jobs” — it’s a case of being the reason that their employer no longer even exists!

      • Matthew Lane

        Actually gamergate is the LACK of victimhood, the refusal to be a victim of ideological bigotry.

      • Andrejovich Dietrich

        Except the professional victim movement of the past 100 years

  • Wrathful

    For an essay this long, it kept my attention until the end. I must commend the author for this piece. This was thought-provoking and intellectual observation on this phenomenon. Essential read for just about anyone I feel.

  • Topgeartony

    Wow this is really well written. I’m not really for social justice. But you make really strong points.

    It’s not hard to take a step back and really examine all the evidence.

    • vanessa ray

      You’re not for social justice? What?!

      • Topgeartony

        Not what it’s been morphed into. No.

        • vanessa ray

          Please tell me what it’s morphed into?

          • Guest

            An excuse for narcissists to publicly harass and disparage others, knowing they can hide behind the veneer of “doing the right thing” when called out?

          • Gregg Braddoch

            Ironic how similar this is to religion.

          • defjam101

            An excuse for narcissists to publicly harass and disparage others, knowing they can hide behind the veneer of “fighting for social justice” when called out?

          • Topgeartony

            I really wish I could put it into written words. But I’m much to inept. I would implore you to search it up as I’d just make an ass out of myself. I’ve been thinking how to best describe it over the last few days. Sorry. You have every right to believe I’ve just copped-out of this. And’ I’m ok with that.

          • supergeek2004

            I can’t precisly put what @topgeartony is trying to say into words, either, however, I _can_ give you practically the only word you’ll really need to research who these people are, what they want to do, how they really act, and what these people’s goals really are:


            For the uninitiated, Atheism+ was/is basically the so-called “SJW’s” attempt to co-opt and effectively “take over” the atheist/skeptic movement. They claimed to be about “Atheism PLUS Humanism, Atheism PLUS feminism, Atheism PLUS social justice,” but, in practice, it turned out to be mostly — if not entirely — about an extremist, radical, borderline misandristic version of sex-negative “feminism.” They attempted to take over the atheist/skeptic movement from the inside and literally blacklist, ban, and/or bully everyone who disagreed with them entirely out of the movement, especially via labeling any such disagreement/criticism as “misogynistc” and any such disagreers/critics as “misogynists who hate women,” whether the charge was true or not. (Sound familiar?) They also took advantage of any sympathy they could get, all but openly misrepresenting facts and spreading agregious falsehoods in the process. (Again, sound familiar?) There was *DEFINITELY* some profiteering involved as well, very much of the flavor that Zoë Quinn is now engaging in (and Anita Sarkeesian before that). (Tho I don’t think there were any actual death threats or misogynistc comments involved, tho, outside of the ironic jokes left on any of Rebecca Watson’s videos on the topic, of course.)

            Now, we’re talking about the atheist/skeptic community here — a group which values their ability to see through bullshit above almost all else — so their attempts eventually backfired utterly and completely, effectively relegating them to something of a tiny/splinter group within the atheist/skeptic movement, but not before causing a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE schism within the movement (sound familiar?), attracting some VERY bad press in the MSM containing an almost countless number of false allegations and outright misrepresentations to intentionally denigrate the rest of the movement whilst simultaneously propping up themselves within that movement (again, sound familiar?), utterly tanking the female attendance of atheist/skeptic/freethought conferences (which had been increasing every year PRIOR to when all of this started in 2011), (again, sound familiar?) etc., damage from which the atheist/skeptic community is STILL trying to heal. In fact, they are STILL getting coverage in the MSM along the lines of “the skeptic community is a deeply misogynist community which hates women,” (sound familiar?) even 2+ years later, no matter how untrue that continues to be.

            In fact, if you’ve ever seen anybody recently talk about @thunderf00t’s videos about “Feminism poisons Atheism” or “Feminism poisons everything” in relation to #gamergate, they actually came from within this very context [of Atheism+ et al. attempting to co-opt and takeover the atheist/skeptic movement]. This, I believe, is also where @fenfreq’s observation that much of the “hate” (read: criticism) she got came from “people who consider themselves atheists” — because they had to deal with this type of divisive, offensive, sexist, and misrepresentational BS for the past few years.

            It’s actually somewhat fascinating what they did with the little bit of power they were either able to acquire or create for themselves. Just take a look at the Atheism+ forums on their website. These forums are practically a museum of fanaticism, a place where disagreement or criticism — in ANY WAY — will get one banned. It was actually fairly hilarious when one of the forefront members of the skeptic community, Matt Dillihunty, got tired of hearing people criticize A+ and especially their forums — which he, in good faith, believed were complaints which had no merit — so he created a sock account to hide his identity and pretend that he wasn’t a large player within the movement, went onto their forums, and very lightly and politely criticized them on a very small point/issue as an experiment to see how they would treat him. He expected to be treated with nothing but politeness and consideration, but what he got instead was hate, vitriol, condescension, and a banishment to their — and I’m not making this name up — “Reeducation Board.” He then revealed who he _really_ was, got nothing but laughs and “I don’t believe you, you liar”s, before logging in to his *actual* account to confirm it, at which point the mods all went O_O while the regular members went, “Wait, who?” When the mods — who had all been in the movement for a while and so knew who Dillihunty was, how big of a person within the movement Dillihunty was, and how much of an ally Dillihunty had always been to the A+ crowd — basically all defended him against the regular members, who had NO idea who he was because they’d, for the most part, neither participated nor paid any attention to the larger skeptic/atheist movement outside of A+, they nearly revolted and wanted him to be banned as a result. It was a very illustrative and painfully hilarious experience.

      • colleen prinssen

        we are talking about the new social justice, in which I am a raceist if I hire Eddy Murphy to voice a cartoon ape for my movie, or if I tell casting director “white people only to voice the apes”. then I am raceist.

        as well as other nonsence. I am sure #stinkshaming is going to be a big thing in social justice soon

  • dustin geels

    So wtf do I call you because you just called out the exact people we call social justice warriors.

    I might think trigger warnings are stupid , the partriarky isn’t real and white privilege is the starts of a new holocaust . But I can clearly see you aren’t a complete jackass like the people who abuse me all the time. So what do I call you?

    • PF-C

      Likely feminist or egalitarian. Social Justice Warriors refer to a small community within feminism, that are slowly killing it like cancer.

      Things like headmates, extremist ableism, “transfat”, and other tumblr nonsense like that CancelColbert, and ElevatorGate debacles.

      • Seymour Butts

        ‘like cancer’

        damn, what a great analogy, because it’s so true!

        They are literal intellectual runoff. It’s watered down from the original message, and then reformatted for maximizing clicks and outrage (because outrage= more circlejerk echo chamber)

        true feminist out

  • Eliah Ryan

    While I don’t agree with all of your politics I do recognize that your politics in action isn’t what it was supposed to be in theory.

    You need to see this from your our perspective, we have had this seemingly hate filled movement forced onto us from the top down telling us we are scum and should be ashamed for breathing, we had the same thing ten years ago from the puritanical right wing and we fought them off as hard as we are now fighting the left wing.

    We have no problem with politics in gaming, I loved Bioshock, but this is is enforced politics and it has created a culture of fear among those who disagree, because anyone who disagrees gets blacklisted, this was never a grass roots movement, it is a coup.

  • Queldan_WoW

    Whelp. I’ve been drawn here in the wake of the GamerGate (as a pro-, actually), not really knowing what I’d find.

    And I think I found a sister. It’s an evocative moment when you can swap out “social justice” with “GamerGate” and realize that, why, yes, there is a similar problem. (I’d argue my version is still in the burgeoning stages, but that’s neither here nor there, and nothing to the issue of it existing in the first place).

    This message here is important. It is important because it reminds us that behind the harrassement thrown at GG, there are genuine defenders of the weak and downtrodden whose names are dragged in the mud through no fault of their own.

    But also, GG must always remember what it’s about: corruption and power structures that are abused for the few’s benefits. In a way, at our best, we are actually closer to “pure” social justice than we think – we want to remove an undue influence that attempts to step on a group of people for their own gain.

    And we must remember that those “few”, while pretending to shield social justice, are actually using social justice as the shield of their own powerbase.

    When this is all over, I can only wish social justice will be able to go forward again. If everything goes right, I hope I can find more friends there without being guilt-tripped.

    To quote myself, speaking of “the few”: “I won’t oppose you because of your creed, your gender, your religion, your sexuality or what have you. I oppose you because you’re a threat to humanity’s well-being. The rest is window dressing.”

    • confused

      “sibling” is a frequently used word for brother or sister, which doesn’t have gendered implications. not trying to be sassy, i’ve just noticed that people can get flustered and forget common gender neutral words, when dealing with genders that are unusual to them, and sometimes like to be helped out

  • http://www.goodgamers.us AneiDoru

    This is why Social Justice =/= SJW, there ARE good people who like social justice, you, for example.

    • Grey

      It’s too late for that I’m afraid. Those same good people let this grow and fester, turning a blind eye or not ever considering it even could exist. So when it finally grew too big for them to not notice it was already to ingrained to stop. It’s like a cancer. If Social Justice advocates had gotten checked or looked into the likelihood they had of it happening they could have stood a chance. At worst they would have had to sever a limb to cut it out. It’s too late though. There is not enough left to cut off and say “no, see, this is the real social justice, they’re not with us”, no. That ship sailed about 6 years ago. It may have been growing even longer than that. Trying to delay its fate now will only be a life of agony.

      Social Justice might have been flawed to begin with, a set of ideas that focused on all the wrong things to address the problems it cared for, shaped in such a way as to allow this kind of fate too easily.

      There are good people. But many of them have been shunned for speaking dissent, others corrupted or broken by fear of being shunned and shamed. The few good remaining are in a safe part that has only stayed good by turning a blind eye to the bad or pretending it was this distant separate thing that could be ignored.

  • yutt

    Philip Wythe thanks for this article. You display the thoughtful compassion so many others only pay lip-service to.

    The thing is, when the entire basis of this movement is supposed to be about protecting the abused, the ostracized, the shamed, the weak – why are you the first to do so? Why did the *entire movement* immediately blame and attack a victim of abuse?

    This is more than a problem with a specific incident Philip. This is getting to the core of the entire problem. When you start categorizing human beings by superficial traits and claiming certain ones are either more or less privileged, you have already begun effectively demonizing entire sections of humanity for simply existing.

    Why can’t we judge abuse, privilege, and justice on a case-by-case and individual basis, rather than trying to make sweeping generalizations?

    How can we claim that wealthy upper class women with Master’s Degrees are less privileged than an impoverished white man who grew up with an alcoholic and physically abusive mother?

    It makes no sense. It isn’t compassionate. It isn’t empathy. It is simple bigotry.

  • terfa

    Thank you so much for this article. It’s extremely well written on a tough topic, and a brave piece at this time.

    I joined twitter only a year or so ago, and on twitter I found a feminist journalist who had just written something n Huffpo that I enjoyed. I thanked her for the article, and all hell broke lose.

    You see, she was at that time being shunned for perceived sins against social justice, and I watched as she was attacked with sneers and taunts near constantly for days. By engaging with her I learned that I was a TERF, and her attackers told Suey Park and others to stop following me. Which they did.

    That was the welcome a young feminist had to twitter, that was my baptism by fire learning about the social justice crew. They knew nothing about me, were angry if I misgendered them (not out of malice), but labelled me “white” every time I spoke (I’m not.)

    When I heard about the ZQ story, I dug up the blog post with the chat logs. They show a clear pattern of emotional abuse, it was triggering for me having experienced that sort of abuse first hand. Now I’m watching the same people who labelled me as soon as I arrived on twitter defend her, and attack people who discuss gamergate. Theres even people who co-opt the gamergate “movement” if you will, to try and push their own agendas within it. I suddenly understand why occupy wall street failed. It refused to recognise abusers within the group.

    Thank you for this brave article.

  • Ohone

    Look at social justice warrior Jim Jones and the members of his cult that had positions of responsibility and power who bullied and abused the people that dissented – all white.

    Not much has changed in the world of social justice.

    There are some good videos that go into the manipulative and language tricks that Anita Sarcheezian uses in her propaganda on youtube.

  • Falcus

    There’s a major difference between actual, real social justice activists and dirty people trying to lever social justice to defend themselves from the wrongdoings they do.
    “So you call me a slut for cheating on my bf with 5 people? that’s misogyny!”.

    Also, SJWs aka radical feminists are a niche minority inside the feminist movement.
    They are like the tea party of conservatives, an extremist group that forces political agendas through shady means.

    Please don’t confuse SJWs with actual feminists or actual liberals.
    Social feminists, liberal feminists and liberals in general distance themselves from radical feminists.

    • Paul Johnson

      It’s easy to confuse those radical feminists with “actual” feminists when “actual” feminists don’t do anything to distinguish themselves from the radicals. They let “radicals” run the show without so much as a peep.

      From the outside, it looks like two arms of the same beast. On the one hand, you have the hateful dynamo that pushes the agenda, and the other the apologists that just say, “Well, we’re not all like that.”

      If 10% of the effort “actual” feminists put into apologia were put, instead, into criticism of the “radicals,” it would be a lot more believable.

  • Luka

    Wow defending the XXXX seam to be a past trend now she becomes the target? HA.
    I wonder how long before academia reacts teh same way gamers have?

    • Paul Johnson

      Not long now.

  • Varus

    I would also like to throw my opinion into the void of the comment section.

    First, I liked this article. I recognized some of those quotes you used because I have been around enough to have seen them when they were first posted. Citing of some of the other abusive behavior would have been nice, but I don’t think that is the point you meant to make.

    I see some saying it is a few dangerous people among many good, and I would agree in some ways. But I would also say those bad apples move themselves into positions of power, they make things about them to gain influence and money, but then they begin influencing how others work. Those nice people working for social justice are used as a hate mob to throw at any one individual who speaks out, whether they actually did something bad or not.

    Again and again I see males demonized for the actions of the few of them, cis people accused of being oppressors simply for being cis, and for some reason everything including polite comments being labeled as abuse to shut dissenting opinions up.

    Even worse I see straight up, provable lies being spread as fact. People saying things that I have then gone and checked from source material and not found. Yet others take it as gospel. It is becoming more important to claim something than to have any way to back it up as long as you are on the “right” side.

  • Shield

    Former Social Justice Warrior / abuse survivor who broke from the movement.

    First off great piece. I am glad you are thinking critically of your movement and also that you wish to “Walk the walk”. I fully support this and believe that people like you will do wonders for the movement even if I will never return to it. I hope you can bring balance back to what at its heart is a super important thing to discuss.

    That being said and with all the respect I can give, I wonder at your wording. Calling someone a regressive is a best a mild jab at worse.not helpful. As someone who has sworn off Social justice and is instead attempting to bring about equality through my own actions and leading by example I feel that to call me regressive seems hurtful and turns me off to having a discussion with you about things I find.overkill, (see paragraph below ). I understand and even accept that the term comes from the idea that its the opposite of PROgressive but it also carries heavy connotations. Still it is one word that you probably used in good faith, so no harm no foul, Just want to help you see things from other people prospective.

    That being said you have reminded me why I supported Social Justice in the first place. While I may not line up with the movement now, I do hold the ideals that kept me in the movements to heart. While I may find that Triggerwarnings unnecessary in most cases, and excuses for censorship in most, I can appreciate the point of them and applaud you for using them as a way to speak your mind with out fear of causing pain. While I may find the actions of people who defend ZQ’s actions onerous to my own moral code I can appreciate sex positivism and the right of people to choose what to do with their own bodies.
    While radicalization in my opinion rarely does more than cause more pain , I DO appreciate that you want to change the structure from the inside out rather than tearing it down. I appreciate that you and others like you are being sensible about this movement and aren’t in it for personal power.

    So in short, Thank you. It is good to see that people who are sane and intelligent are out there and that we can have a good discussion once this kerfuffle quiets down. It heartens me that one day I may be able to agree with the movement again someday.

  • PF-C

    I truly do disagree with your sentiments on Social Justice and Critical Theory, but I applaud you for grasping the current issues within Social Justice. Online communities have created environments where worth as a person is defined as popularity, not on the merit of your words or ideas. These people who fake their views, lie about their entire personality; we cannot abide them. Their dishonesty lets them perpetuate a view of themselves as constant victims under assault from the rest of the world. It is appalling behavior.

    Note I am not against equality, we only disagree on how to achieve it, I identify as a left libertarian.

    • Shield

      ^my thoughts for the tl;dr crowd

  • psymin

    Thank you so much for posting this. As an abuse survivor this issue resonates with me immensely.

    It is a breath of fresh air to hear your words state this issue properly.

  • Huh?

    That was a very interesting and well-written article, and I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head with how necessary it is to avoid becoming that which we fight against.

    It seems weird to me, though, that you’re so willing to demonize Quinn’s taking advantage of her social justice position, but to seemingly not recognize Gjoni as having done much the same thing in publicly outing her.

    Why should it be okay to attack public figures in such a manner, and why are his methods above criticism?

    This is just taking the ‘by any means necessary’ type of approach that you’re denouncing in the worst of the Social Justice movement, and using it against those people instead, which is the exact kind of thing you’re warning us against.

    • Huh?

      Either everyone should should be able to be criticized for their decisions, or no one should. Both Quinn and Gjoni have done things that people find morally reprehensible.

      • defjam101

        Gjoni hasn’t been criticized for his decisions, though. He’s been publicly and repeatedly slandered for doing something no one would have objected to in the slightest had Zoe and Eron’s positions been reversed.

        Acknowledging this is not the same thing as saying Eron did nothing wrong.

    • botenana

      Gjoni did what everyone has a right to do: Come forward with a story about their experiences.

      Frankly, I don’t find what he did morally reprehensible in any way. I read it as the actions of a victim who is trying to become a survivor and, frankly, who was tired of being painted as the bad guy when they didn’t do anything wrong.

  • 5ulman

    An honest read, Philip, and you’ve come tantalisingly close to recognising the problem, but never quite confronting it.’Social Justice’, the very premise, is flawed. It is authoritarian. It is malignant self-interest hiding under altruism. It is founded on groupthink and shaming outsiders.There is justice, or injustice.

  • Andrew ‘Wolfie’ Woolford

    See, I know this is only tangentially related to the issue currently occurring in the gaming world at the moment, but those within who are defending her as if she’s some paragon of wonder and all out virtue disgust me. She’s an abuser and these people are *enabling* that.

  • garvanLI

    Social Justice as it currently exists is a structure that allows the Patriarchy to promote narcissists to oppress others while creating the spectacle of equality.

    I have been sexually abused as a child, raped by men and women alike. However when I explain this to feminist “social justice” warriors, they tell me the women didn’t rape me, or were not responsible for my rape, or I should be happy about it.

    They refuse to accept that women can be just as horrible as men can be. That all humans regardless of gender can be abusers.

    This is why I am a Men’s Rights Activist.

    • Grey

      I disagree with idea of patriarchy theory and feel that it’s that theory itself that most allows for this kind of corruption. It creates a somewhat ‘vague’ enemy on which to put blame, an evil to rally troops to, and a ends to justify any means. It allows you to paint people who have not wronged you under a similar brush as the ones who very much have wronged you, almost excusing the individual actions of those in the wrong but suggesting that their choices are the result of some other entity.

      When they name their enemy the patriarchy they name men the enemy, making them all guilty and all women innocent. That is the fallacy.

      • garvanLI

        Patriarchy theory makes more sense if you think of Patriarchy in terms of what it meant in the Republic of Rome.

        Rule by fathers/patriarchs, with the power structure held by a group of blood related individuals/families.

        • Grey

          Well that is where the word comes from, and it is a direct reference to that, but feminism’s patriarchy theory is a butchering of even that concept and ignores the “matriarch’s” own powers in that culture as well as throughout history.

          It turns out the wikipedia page for patriarchy has been a battle ground for years because of feminism’s use of the word and the page is rarely accurate on a historical level.

  • http://robsimple.tumblr.com Rob Simple

    This is a good read, and I’d like to start by saying if more social justice advocates were like you, I’d enjoy engaging them. Seriously, I think some of the stuff you, personally, are pushing for is insane, but the way you have made yourself open to debate and disagreement, I’d be more than happy to sit and listen to your reasoning, as opposed to how SJW’s prefer to operate; i.e. telling me why they’re right and how I am scum if I disagree.

    The issue of ZQ abusing her ex has been something I’ve been trying to bring up for a while, she is constantly painted as the victim in all this yet she has at every opportunity spun her alleged harassment into self-promotion and attempted to profit off of it; either financially or by raising her profile. This, in my mind, is not the action of a victim. It is the action of a profiteer.

    The simple test for whether or not the media’s treatment of ZQ is biased is simple: If the genders were swapped, would they react the same? If a straight, white man, had cheated on his girlfriend at least five times, convinced her she was imagining it all while sleeping with women who could be advantageous to him in the industry within which he worked, while using his position in the media to facilitate the harassment of potentially innocent forums of vulenrable adults and shut down charity efforts on a whim…how do you think the media what treat that man?

    I mean, we’ve already seen how the media treats INNOCENT men –Max Temkin, Brad Wardell– when they are accused of horrible things, so imagine how they’d react when the allegations were actually true?

    • botenana

      Currently we are working with ZQ’s ex to give him a safe space to talk, however he is waiting for a couple of things in his personal life to clear up.

      From my POV, in researching information that is publicly available regarding Eron, sadly, his abuser is inflicting further control and abuse upon him still. As someone who is a survivor of abuse, i’m reading the red flags. When I finally left mine, he tried to drag me into legal issues and all sorts of stuff to continue to exert control and the viewpoint that I am out of line and paranoid.

      My heart aches for him, but I do know that Eron looks for those who support him, and it’s relieving that the community is coming together to say “Wait a second, it’s fucked up that this abuser isn’t getting any lashback because she’s a female”.

      Your gender test is spot on.

      • Fatherless

        Your MRA brothers and sisters support you in nailing this abuser to the wall. AVfM is sharing daily stories this month on men’s experience of domestic abuse.

        • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

          We don’t want to nail anybody to the wall, we’re simply having a larger conversation and using this episode as illustration.

          • Fatherless

            Whatever you’re interested in, AVfM is sharing stories this month on domestic violence against men, which is part of a larger conversation. No getting around that.

            And yes, abusers need to be called out.

          • vanessa ray

            The problem is 1. the way you guys talk about female victims, and 2. aside from sharing stories, you guys have done little to actually help male victims of violence.

            If a woman had written “the zoe post” about a man, AVfM would be saying “don’t believe her! She’s been scorned and now she’s trying to ruin his life!” You guys routinely make fun of and minimize the experiences of female victims http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

            Your own founder said that if he was ever a juror on a rape trial, he would vote not guilty out of principal (ie “I don’t believe female victims of rape”.) http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/
            Every man who visits an MRA site, concerned about male victims of rape or abuse, is a man who will be told that women are the problem and will be offered no practical solutions, a man who won’t be connected with direct services for survivors if he needs them, a man who still doesn’t know about Just Detention International, which works to end prison rape, or malesurvivor.org, which provides critical resources to men who have been sexually or physically abused.

            Also, there’s this:


          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink


          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            Let me know when they decide to lean towards solution-based efforts, or when all those donations go towards something besides the founder’s car payment, or when they stop attacking feminists for the sake of attacking feminists and maybe we’ll take them more seriously.

            Until then, men, women, PoC, LGBTQ, or any member of any marginalized group who has experienced domestic violence and would like to share their non-hate-fueled voice is welcome to send us their stories at pitches@theflounce.com.

          • NewMHRA

            It’s not your table.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            It’s not?! Well maybe I should stop paying for it then. Damn it.

          • NewMHRA

            The implication of your comment was that you have the authority to determine who can discuss these issues, and who cannot.

            My comment was intended to communicate that you do not have that authority, nor do you have the exclusive right to discuss issues that affect everyone.

            Damn it.

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            And mine was simply meant to communicate with clarity that I don’t want a bunch of AVfM peeps showing up on my website to talk about DV or any other damn thing. Men welcome. MRA’s who don’t live to attack women, ok. AVfM enthusiasts, no.

          • NewMHRA

            If you put an issue out there for discussion and try to control who can participate based upon your own naive and superficial (and, dare I say, convenient) understanding of who they are or what their perspective is, what’s the point?

          • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

            You’re welcome to consider it naive and superficial, even convenient… I’m cool with that. It’s still my prerogative.

          • Vanessa Ray

            It actually *is* her table.

  • Grey

    You’re likely getting a lot of comments along the lines of “Social Justice always seemed extremist/cultish/hypocritical” and so on, but I think you understand why and have addressed the reason perfectly here. It just needs to include one more thing: the view from the outside.

    To those outside of social justice you yourself are not clearly visible. You are in the center, the gooey core that is civil, knows what it stands for, argues with clarity, and can debate civilly. You have well thought out reasons, you have valid points, and people can talk to you. But most don’t see that, and when they do you appear to them hypocritical, because the shape they see isn’t that. What people see from those standing for social justice are the wild outer shell, the poisonous gas that is the fringe, the hypocrites, and manipulators, the bandwagoners, and the insecure who use it as a crutch of an excuse to rationalize some truly horrible attitudes. They don’t see the surface of the planet, they only see its now toxic atmosphere full of violent storms of fiery hot gases.

    I think most of us have been there at some point. This happens with all political, social, or idealogical groups. There is the core that doesn’t want to notice their outer members, but all people outside see are those outer members giving the group a bad name. They become the face, while you remain the large background structure, giving the appearance of a group that is entirely hypocritical. They hear the echo of your reasons and desires for social change, but only ever paired with larger fringe. The fringe is not entirely bad, but in this case especially they turn a blind eye to the bad actions in their group out of necessity, because those same bad members will shame them. It started with only a few bad apples, but their truly cult-like behavior of shaming all dissent has corrupted it further, made it a truly frightening and horrific entity that exists to act monstrous and despicable while using its original messages to feel justified in these actions.

    That is what social justice means outside of itself now. To those within or those more lightly being introduced by the real core voices, all that is invisible, but to the grand majority who have been dealing with this for YEARS now, that is what social justice means. And they are RIGHT to have that misconception by this point, because it has gotten THAT bad.

    Insisting that’s a separate group won’t help you, trying to distance yourself from them won’t fix it, saying ‘there’s “social justice” and then “social justice warriors”‘ as some here are suggesting will only make you look worse. The problem is there, it has spoiled all your efforts, and it must be faced, fought, beaten down, cleaned up, and apologized for before you can even think of trying to save face. It has gone on, ignored, too far and no one can take anyone who has ever stood for social justice seriously with this big log sticking out of its eye.

    You have been fighting for one thing under the name of social justice, but now social justice has become WORSE than any of the groups, ideas, and problems it seeks to fight. The medicine has expired and is more poisonous than the disease it was meant to cure. This must be addressed. It won’t be easy for you, it might be an uphill battle most of the time, and it might be better to burn the diseased tree to the ground to grow a new one from the ashes. I can’t emphasize this enough: This is a problem those fighting for social justice have turned a blind eye to for too long. It’s too late, you didn’t hear the cries of the victims, only the applause and songs from the followers of the faith. You can’t apply a bandage or sever a limb and continue on, it is TOO LATE for that. FAR too late. The cancer has spread through enough of the body. He’s dead, Jim. Its death is inevitable. It can only be delayed in agony.

    All that is left is to,
    a. Run, maybe start again with a rebranding and hope no one makes connections between it and the old brand. They will though soon enough.
    b. fight the possibly long and tiring fight against the beast you’ve allowed to come about and hope when it is finally killed that someone will have enough strength to begin again.
    c. destroy it, stomp it out, what little good it has done hopefully being spared by the holy fire you visit upon the entire thing. Utterly destroy it, then start over from scratch.
    d. Give up. Let the monster continue its rampage and hope that you can find a place where its trail of destruction won’t be visible as to live your life in regret
    e. Join it, become corrupted. Become an evil far worse than those you fought against.

    All other ideas that were not social justice or stood apart from it have already come together to fight it. Groups that have had nothing but hate for each other have banded together in recent months, in recent years even. They have all come to loath the words “social justice” and all that has been done in its name against them. Think of any group that has at its heart nobler intents (or tells itself it does at least) but has enacted great evil. Now you should know how those in various ideologies or religions feel when they try to distance themselves from those who do actions in the name of their “god”. That feeling of annoyance that they would rather pretend those actions are not something they might need to address, or can pretend is not their fault, or do not exist. That is where you are.

    Tear down the temple walls for what has become a horrific cult. You are inside it, you don’t need to siege the city around it. Bring it all down and rise up again. Accept that it has already failed itself, failed us, failed the world, and then pick yourself up and start again. Do right, please. Do right!

  • NWOslave

    When did your DNA rewrite itself from one gender to the other?

  • OldandNavy

    *sigh* SJW’s are their own breed.

    “Oh, goodness. Good thing there was a warning. Evewything is hawassment. Evewy thing. Wouldn’t want some wittow head full of pillow stuffing to get some twama.”

    Wife is so haaaawd. Evewy timg is soooo unfaiw!

    A whole group of people fixated – stuck – on “survivor” or “victim” statuses. They exaggerate them where they do exist and invent them where they might not otherwise be. They attempt to shame those who don’t deserve it and they defend our ignore those who most certainly do. They wish to control thought. Art. Policy.

    What a staggeringly dangerous ideology.

  • eff diskus

    Thank you so much for writing this! It’s hard not to sound corny saying this, but I’ve been so disturbed lately over these events and ten times as disturbed that no one was having a real meta level discussion within a feminist context. I’m not a great writer but I’m trying to say that it’s become this horrible cultofpersonality. “you’re either with us 100% or you’re just horrible!”

    I just want to say that I completely a feminist and have been for years. I’m a progressive liberal and I believe in all the sort of things that you laid out in your essay. For my own *personal* reasons, I have been a reader of the ‘feminist blogosphere’ since at least 2009 and have been involved in trans communities way before that.

    It seems that there is no awareness among these feminist bloggers that they are hurting people throught their misguided but well meaning vitriol. I don’t believe in sharing intimate details about my personal self due to privacy issues but I fall into a category where I basically completely appear to be the subject of these bloggers hate (a nerdy straight guy is how i look on the outside) but I’m actually so different from the stereotype that theyre trying to portray!

    I feel so alone and invisible!

    I have EXTREME social anxiety (like a medical condition) and many of the horrible words that play thought my head when I walk through public come directly from sites like upworthy or jezebel (a site I used to read daily years ago!)


    from blog posts that conflate being (male and) overweight with being a looser. that strictly police how I’m allowed to have my facial hair.

    my battery is dying. i’m sorry for the crazy post. this just hit so close to home for me. like right in the heart. true feminist out


    i also want to say, that just because i can say that i’m not straight and am a feminist doesn’t mean that I think this hatred is justified of ‘regular’ straight guys not like me. it does’t at all.

    my situation only gives me insight into the irrational way that these bloggers are hurting people for no reason.

  • DukeLax

    I personally believe that American law enforcement are going to keep “Taking the pork”…as in keep taking the federal pork bloating dollars to keep persecuting innocent guys, and keep manufacturing more and more faulty and inflammatory statistics….until we reach the point where hetero-relationships in the US become such a legal liability that guys are forced to go MGTOW just to not be harassed by American law enforcement.

  • MrSonicAdvance

    That’s a lot of convoluted navel-gazing. Sometimes I wonder if SJWs refuse to say things succinctly because they sound preposterous until layered under a lot of SJW right-speak.

  • crydiego

    Beautifully said. You are going to take some heat for this but sometimes that is the price of justice. Thank you.

    • Paul Johnson

      Quite frankly, after reading Jen Pink’s commentary, I’m surprised it’s allowed to stand.

      • http://theflounce.com Jen Pink

        Well then you just don’t understand me at all, Paul.

  • http://garycostanza.wordpress.com gary959


    “For a middle-class, able-bodied, and college-educated individual, the entry barrier for joining a social justice community is very low. The requirements are often rather minimal: you must be able to understand systems of oppression. You have to do your homework on identity and identity politics. You need to understand what the patriarchy is, and how it affects people on both an interpersonal scale, as well as a sociocultural scale. You have to understand the ways in which the LGBTQ+ letters are not created equally, and some letters are more likely to receive institutional support (for better or for worse) than others. You have to engage with intersectionality, and understand the ways in which privilege and oppression can exist on different spheres within the same individual. You have to know your 101, and you MUST be able to engage with current events that pertain to social justice.”

    In other words, leave your brain at the door.
    “Intersectional Feminism” WTF is that? I know – it’s lumping perceived oppressions one upon the other until you’re outraged by ordinary life.

    • Heisenberg

      Why does there need to be a barrier to entry into the social justice community? How about we treat other people the way we would like to be treated and be decent human beings? That would be a good start.

    • Phil McCracken

      That jargon had my eyes rolling to, but the overall sentiment was sound.

    • colleen prinssen

      all other subjects are related to feminism. fighting raceism is a feminist issue. intersectional feminism,it is like the oppression themed “6 degrees of seperation”
      animal rights and veganism is intersectional feminism. because cow females are opressed by humans.

      it is also the feminism that will take into account for “trans women of color’s issues” when nobody else where

  • Heisenberg

    I’m going to borrow from a comment I read recently about present-day feminism and SJW’s in general …. “You’re either empowered, or you’re a victim …”
    You Must Choose.

  • Anon

    ‘Ironic’ misandry from hipster activists has to stop. The Left has some dark prejudice it needs to deal with.

  • Lokigoc

    This. This so much it hurts. For someone so predisposed to advocate on the social justice side of any issue the behavior I’ve seen recently has sickened me to my core. There are some bullies that have infiltrated social justice in order in order to attack and harass others while wearing the armour of social justice to deflect criticism or worse to be seen as virtuous fighters for equal rights. These kinds of people will frequently espouse a ends justify the means philosophy while fostering an us vs them mentality to justify there attacks on as many people as possible. They don’t seek to foster inclusivity or equity but instead remain fixated on punishing the guilty in the name of the virtuous. The parallels here to the justifications of religious fanatics are deeply disturbing. Ultimately you are right these people are abusers and worse is they victimize people while pretending to be champions of victims rights. It’s a level of hypocracy that really makes me queasy. Worse it damages real progress. Ends justify the means attitudes destroy social justice credibility. These issues are supported by a very important set of principles. Abandoning those principles to achieve any progress ultimately fails. You can’t expect others to embrace social justice if you undercut the principles that justify it as a movement. The means in social justice quite literally support the ends.

    • Grey

      I’d argue it’s not recent and not infiltration. They were there from the start. Many were among the first to join. They gave you a smiling face and because you were “one of them” you never noticed how they acted to anyone not “one of them”.

      It’s only recently that their positions and influence within social justice circles has reached the point that they can’t hid their real faces from you and don’t need to, as many of them can call on a legion of others to shame you for even thinking ideas of dissent.

      They were there the whole time. When you weren’t looking they’d be out bullying other people and causing trouble. At most you’d see them saying that something or some person was bad and if you didn’t fully and deeply investigate you would never realize the thing wasn’t quite that bad, and was actually a victim of that person who had been telling you they were bad. Whenever you met anyone who reacted to you with anger when you said you stood for social justice or feminism, there were people responsible for placing that anger in them, who had caused them to no trust those words.

      Whenever a peaceful protest is turned into a mob, or when rocks are thrown from a crowd, it’s because of people like this.

      • Lokigoc

        Yeah you’re probably right. To be honest I was in uni until recently always focused on the ideas and the big names lots of whom are dead. I never really took the time to look around the culture and groups of today until recently. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, there are assholes everywhere. It just hurts a lot more for me when they use something I strongly believe in – something that should be used to promote the happiness and the coming together of all people. It makes me sick. I can handle it a lot better when it comes from an opposing view. Not that I think all those who disagree with me are bullies but the bad behavior of the few with differing views on the discussion just doesn’t feel like the betrayal it does here. Damn it just sucks when you realize how naive you can be.

        • Grey

          Embrace that feeling. Remember it. Use it to sympathize with others, ESPECIALLY those you disagree with the most.

          Use feeling to sympathize with a lot of people that are more popularly disliked, like various religious groups who are vilified for their worse members. Realizing that it’s more likely not any ideology that’s bad is actually a major relief in the long run. Extreme left, extreme right, extreme theist, extreme atheist, extreme socialist, extreme capitalist, extreme feminist… It turns out the only inherently bad part is being extreme.

  • SodiumAzide

    I am going to be a massive nerd now and point out that this problem you mention is one that was outlined as the central philosophical conflict of bioshock. People will tell you the game was about objectivism, but that was only window dressing. The real central philosophical conflict was that of man’s attempt to adhere to a lofty philosophy and the conflicts, both internal and external the brings down the utopia.

    Despite the fact that I disagree with you on almost every single point of meaningful contention I still have a muted respect for you. You are the andrew ryan figure, the one that holds to their noble beliefs, at least until the firing squad has brought their rifles to shoulder. Quinn repressents the opportunist, the fontaine character that has no loyalty beyond themselves and will drape themselves in any flag if it serves their interests.

    The problem is that the more dogmatic a religion is, the more vulnerable it is to this particular brand of cynical parasite. So long as “ought” outweighs “is” someone with no morals and an intersectional feminist bible will be able to better sway the masses than the true believers.

    On a side note I find it disturbing that your belief structure requires that you distance youself from a particular identity before your opinion is valid. Your article would be just as true if it were written by a albino mongolian dwarf, a transexual jamaican otherkin or a straight white man. Suffering, wisdom and truth are not contingent on racial, sexual and class affiliitaion.

  • ellorgast

    The problem is that the conversation has never been about abuse. If it had been, I think it would have been a very different discussion. It was about Zoe Quinn sleeping around. It was about her infidelity. It was about her supposedly using sex to get good reviews. This is literally the first article I’ve found that actually discussed the potential abuse that was taking place.

    I absolutely agree that social justice activism needs to examine its tactics and its failures. The echo chamber and the dogpiling are serious problems. But in this particular instance, it was Zoe Quinn’s attackers who framed the conversation as being about sex and journalism instead of about abuse. The social justice activists reacted based on how that conversation was already framed–attacking a woman for having sex.

    So maybe the conversation we should be having is, why do male abuse victims not get recognized as abuse victims, and why did a woman’s sex life take the spotlight instead of that?

    • defjam101

      I’ve followed this since the news first broke and the focus was definitely not just on sleeping around. The focus was mostly on cheating and lying, repeatedly, over a long period of time, as well as targeting a group of near-suicidal people for the heinous crime of being depressed male virgins who share an imageboard with people who sometimes say dumb things about women.

      You know, bad stuff.

      The claims of “using sex to get good reviews” (and not mere suspicion of intent) really only took off after a suppression period wherein thousands of posts discussing the zoepost were deleted on various forums, followed by an absolute torrent of articles decrying criticism of ZQ as “harassing a woman because of her sex life”.

      Zoe’s sex life took the spotlight over the abuse angle because it was an easy way to make everyone talking about her look bad. People had a choice between addressing an unpleasant issue and blaming 4chan. They chose to blame 4chan. And it worked 100%. Great job, internet.

      • ellorgast

        I was following the story almost from the beginning too, and no, the people who were speaking out against Zoe Quinn were definitely focusing on the “using sex to get good reviews” angle very early, because it was only later that it was confirmed that the reviewer she supposedly slept with never actually reviewed her game. Many GG-ers I spoke to specifically cited the concern about her using sex for good reviews as a major concern to the movement.

        • defjam101

          I suppose I can agree, with the qualification that not everyone jumped to conclusions about her “using sex to get good reviews”. No, parody articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica don’t count. People were speculating about a game developer (a game developer already suspected of misconduct, no less) having an undisclosed sexual relationship with a journalist and — if I remember correctly — her boss. The mass-censorship on Reddit, 4chan, and other websites fueled that scrutiny, because everyone began to wonder why this story was worth censoring to such a degree.

          Turns out the mass censorship occurred because the people doing the censoring held a double standard when it came to women vs. men’s private lives, not so much rampant corruption. Welp.

          I still can’t say I see much wrong with what people did, other than the unfortunate side effect of causing Zoe unnecessary grief. But even then I struggle to muster much sympathy for people who have shown a repeated willingness to throw others under the bus for personal gain.

          I would also argue the idea this story /could/ have been framed any differently is absurd. It may be the case a lot of people were literally slut-shaming Zoe, rather than pointing out the abuse, but this didn’t actually have any effect on how things were reported. All it takes is one screencap of one guy on 4chan saying, “lmao what a slut she sucked five dicks” and, bam, that’s all the evidence you need to convince a metric fuckton of people on Twitter that Zoe is being widely shamed because of her sex life.

          And what is 4chan supposed to do in that situation? Make a bunch of image macros pointing out emotional abuse w/ screencaps from the zoepost? Gee, 4chan or a Social Justice Tumblr brigade, I wonder who people are going to believe.

          The only way this could have played out any different would be if Eron had collaborated with some people from the Social Justice in-crowd like Philip and broken the story that way, rather than plastering it all over the internet.

  • julian francisco

    You are everything wrong with activist groups.

    Look at your comment section. You’ve created (deliberately one can only assume) yet another place to insist that anti-racism activism is motivated by a hatred of whites. That women who are harassed by men are just man haters and “fake feminists” who don’t know any feminist theory or writing. That “sjws” are the true oppressors of the internet (nevermind the gentleman this morning who felt I was an ugly nigger faggot) and that they are a plague on free speech unlike anything ever seen before.

    All so you could say “please don’t call men who called you a feminist cunt neckbeards. It’s insensitive.”

    Bravo. Truly well done that.

    • defjam101

      And you are…

      …the subject of the article.

      • julian francisco

        I am not middle class, not white, have no disposable income, and have only just now been able to begin college at 25. Going off the article I’m not part of the SJ community.

        But please, insist I’m the bad guy because I find it much more worrying that this is a space where people see anti-racism activism as being motivated by a hatred of whites than I am worried that someone was a dickish girlfriend. It makes Wythe’s nonsense all the more transparent.

        • defjam101

          I actually meant to suggest that you’re a toxic, unconstructive individual. Great to see you’re also paranoid about accusations of excessive whiteness and class privilege, though. That was the missing link between you and the subject.

          • julian francisco

            The article isn’t about “toxic, unconstructive individuals.” It’s about how the criteria people in sj are judged by lead to performance over self examination. And that that in turn creates an environment where problematic behaviour is overlooked or out right denied.

            Learn to reading comprehend.

          • A Real Libertarian

            The article isn’t about “toxic, unconstructive individuals.” It’s about how the criteria people in sj are judged by lead to performance over self examination. And that that in turn creates an environment where problematic behaviour is overlooked or out right denied.

            Learn to reading comprehend.

            Irony Alert!

  • Falcus

    I was harassed twice yesterday: specifically, I was subject to hate for my nationality (harassment) and the other tried to frame me for some threats (defamation).
    I went to police this morning, their accounts are now banned and they are under investigation.
    Those people were clearly SJWs not just allegedly so, one of them even had “feminist” in his nickname.
    Other 2 women of GG (namely liz f and GG+Fem) were threatened with violence threats; I’m not sure how they dealt with this but they posted evidence on twitter.
    None of us made a fuss about leaving our home nor asked for donations.
    None of us received any apology from SJWs nor they tried to dissociate from those events.

    There is a major effort in trying to frame us for doing harassment, yet no proof has appeared so far – and when WE are harassed, they all go silent about it.

    Meditate on this.

  • guber

    American college educated trash write this sort of stuff with a straight face, and tenured professors applaud:

    “For a middle-class, able-bodied, and college-educated individual, the entry barrier for joining a social justice community is very low. The requirements are often rather minimal: you must be able to understand systems of oppression. You have to do your homework on identity and identity politics. You need to understand what the patriarchy is, and how it affects people on both an interpersonal scale, as well as a sociocultural scale. You have to understand the ways in which the LGBTQ+ letters are not created equally, and some letters are more likely to receive institutional support (for better or for worse) than others. You have to engage with intersectionality, and understand the ways in which privilege and oppression can exist on different spheres within the same individual. You have to know your 101, and you MUST be able to engage with current events that pertain to social justice.”

    This is an article which shows the hypocrisy of the “social justice” idiotologists who noticed the sexist bigotry that is feminism when she found how a woman was manipulating all the idiots around her to ganging up on her boyfriend based on her false allegations. But in the end the writer knocks herself out in all her bullshit babble newspeak. The picture matches her article perfectly. This girl there is totally confused and lost in the middle of a sea of communist red flags. Because that is all that it is. Reads like Marxis-Leninist bullshit just reworked because newspeak is infinite. But my own seasoned academic colleagues give this a pass instead of helping the confused youth to escape these trappings and save our country. This is the only reason why I regret having left my position as a University Professor after receiving my tenure letter. I would have been able to go into the faculty council and make life for these women’s studies Marxists hard… with gusto! But then, my life is way better now. So, I don’t really regret it.

    • guber

      Oh Lord have mercy! I notice this writer’s name is “Philip” … well, being non-binary I guess I am not sure where the quantum-Y chromosome spins with him. But I want to give a word to humans with a Y chromosome to please not follow its lead. For your own sake!

      • guber

        And a word to Philip: hey man, you were born with a Y chromosome, a male brain formed by the early effects of testosterone while you were still in your female (binary and confirmed) womb. Probably nobody ever told you this: being male is good! You are good the way you came out, you don’t need to atone for anything. No patriarchy and no toxic masculinity, not even white cis-privilege. You could do so much better if you were not running after Marxist-Leninist bullshit. There is an entire life for you out there. Just quit being conformant and afraid of being a man.

  • Brain-trauma Haver

    Wow, my morally self-justified, ideologically-motivated cabal composed mainly of upper-middle class people turned out to be full of assholes. How did that happen? You know what, it’s fine. It’s probably a fluke. Let me try this a bunch more times.

  • GS Talbert

    Just so the author knows, Zoe Quinn has instigated a lawsuit against Gjoni. It’s not about past abuse, it’s about ongoing abuse. Abuse that everyone pushing the “slut-shaming” narrative is actively supporting. There is no middle ground about Zoe Quinn. We can put aside Anita and the corruption and say, without fail, that Zoe Quinn is a cunt-punching bastard.

  • Mooj

    Philip, thank you so much for writing this.

    I am male, cisgendered, heterosexual, and white. I chose none of these things. I also did not choose to be the child of violent mother, and I did not choose to normalize that abuse until I was subjected to intimate partner violence from a girlfriend – because, again, it seemed so normal to me.

    When reading Zoe Quinn’s story, the part that stuck out to me was her emotional abuse as well. I couldn’t get past it. If GamerGate did anything, it was blow by the serious – and provable – abuse from Zoe. Journalistic ethics is one thing, but cronyism and nepotism and favoritism have long been privileges of men, and fuck it, why deny that to Zoe Quinn? But why, at the same time, allow her to be an abuser? To reward her? To target her victim.

    Sexism and prejudice is an ugly thing. Social justice circles all too often forget inconvenient truths about sexism. That positive sexism (favoring the woman because she’s a woman) is real. And it’s still sexism. That women are four times more likely to favor their in-group (other women) then men are to favor their own (other men).

    All too often these tiny notions that somehow that particular brand of prejudice and sexism is OK because it’s positive or benign crop up again and again. But giving and recognizing women (and, in fact, any marginalized group’s) agency means giving them the full depth and breadth of what that agency is capable of, including the capacity to choose to do evil.

    Abusive personalities are the products of maladaptive personality traits; in the day and age of cell phone cameras, I’m afraid more and more social justice activists and feminists are going to have to start answering the question of why they’re so inherently sexist and apologetic towards abuse as more and more incidents are caught and archived. Of why these experts on abuse are allowing so much to pass by unchallenged – are they truly experts in abuse, could they recognize it if it was dangled in front of their face, or (worse still, and the accusation will be made) are they acting out of sheer malice? Why do so many women-oriented publications seem interested in derailing discussions of male victims to center around female victims, or other marginalized groups?

    It, in the end, will cut both ways. If the abuse apologism in these circles continues, it will come to a point where people will begin to notice that the interest is NOT on ending victimization, NOT on ending stereotypes that perpetuate victimization, but on reversing the victim/offender roles of groups. And soon after that, the question will be posed as to why the innocent members of the group are being punished for the sins of the guilty, and why the cycle is not being stopped, but perpetuated.

    If the ideology wants to be taken seriously, and it should be, because abuse in all its forms (whether it’s sexual, systemic, partner, unchosen relationship, elder, institutional, racist, sexist, transphobic) is utterly awful and dehumanizing, it needs to nip that problem in the bud now.

    Let me close by saying that rarely, from a position typically privileged in everything but what matters to me (marginalized as a male victim of abuse), have I had the need for an ally. It means a lot to me that you have stepped up to the plate and been that for a person you don’t know, a person you never met when you wrote and published this article, and that I feel better living in this world. I hope I can repay that somehow, when your own experiences have you backed into a corner, I can stand between you and them for just long enough for you to get your own fight back, to win your own battles. You, or someone like you – not necessarily non-binary, just somebody who is being brutalized and reduced to an object for things they can’t control, and choices that harm nobody.

    Thanks. Sincerely.

  • David Gray

    I am an opponent of both feminism and social justice as you describe it (I’m all for equality, fairness, compassion and inclusivity; just not on your terms)
    I must say, it is refreshing to see this being stated, and I wholly support it.
    This is pretty much the cornerstone on which my position was built. The hypocrisy I see has been more damning of social justice and feminism than any other aspect.

    With more people willing to police their own and call out abuse and harassment there’s truly a chance for mature and constructive conversation.
    I cant say I would ever agree with many of your positions, but I can *actually* respect you as a person, and wish you the best. Hopefully this garners a thoughtful response and some genuine support, and not the outrage and harassment I have come to expect.

  • Michael Pitchard

    tl;dr radFeminists and Social Justice Warriors are just as capable of being abusive and throwing out harassment as anyone else.
    The Social Justice crowd finally wakes up to the problems in their own house.

  • Kiltmanenator

    Great article. I really think TWs on college syllabuses, especially for Shakespeare is absurd (….I think a quick Google search should be enlightening), BUT I have immense respect for you. Thank you for reminding us that Eron suffered through a lot of emotional abuse. How can one be “jilted” if one does the dumping?

    You might also be interested in viewing the FULL, uncut transcript of Eron’s Buzzfeed interview. He figured it would be biased, so he saved it all and published it. This part was especially powerful.


    [10/14/14 2:29:03 PM] Eron Gjoni: Just a sec. I want to send an appraisal of why this personal thing became so cultural

    [10/14/14 2:29:11 PM] Eron Gjoni: while the other personal things made only small blips

    [10/14/14 2:29:11 PM] joseph_bernstein: okay

    [10/14/14 2:29:22 PM] Eron Gjoni: I haven’t published it anywhere yet, so do with it as you wish

    [10/14/14 2:29:32 PM] Eron Gjoni: Game Dev: ”Josh Mattingly was being a total fucking creeper on Facebook last >night.”

    Josh Mattingly: ”My bad, I was drunk. I’m gonna quit.”


    Someone Pseudonymously Known as Magz: “Max Temkin had
    not-entirely-consensual sex with me one time way back >in college.
    Well, it was more like, a crime of opportunity, but yeah.”


    Max Temkin: “I have no idea what’s going on but I’m sorry.”


    Former Employee of Stardock Entertainment: ”Brad Wardell sort of maybe sexually harassed me.”


    Former Employee of Stardock Entertainment: “Oh oops, no I made it up, deleted a bunch of his files. Sorry for that.”>


    Me: “So uhhh, Zoe Quinn fired me to work for someone she was having
    an affair with. Also she doesn’t abide by like >any of the virtues
    she has marketed herself as an activist for. Also, by her own
    definition, she violated my sexual >consent. Also she claims to be a
    compulsive liar. Also (again quite contrary to her activist stances) she
    purposely >stigmatizes mental illness whenever it suits her
    interests. Basically be careful around her?”

    Games Journalists: “This isn’t industry related you’re such a
    shithead for airing dirty laundry these are all private >matters grow
    up you angry jilted ex.”

    Me: ” Wouldn’t ‘Jilted’ would require that she broke up with me? It
    was the other way around. Also, I don’t really get >angry because I
    kind of depersonalize in stressful sit—”

    Games Journalists: “Angry. Jilted. Ex.”

    Wolf Wozniak: “Oh shit. Zoe? She sexually harassed me at a wedding.”

    Games Journalists: “Sorry what? We couldn’t hear you over the sound of how private these matters are.”

    Chloe Van Keenan: “Wait — she said infidelity is a violation of
    consent? Doesn’t that mean she was complicit in >violating my consent
    when she was sleeping with my boyfriend?”

    Games Journalists: “Are you guys seeing all of this harassment Zoe is
    getting? This is totally uncalled for. I can’t >believe how
    misogynistic this community is.”

    Abuse Survivors: “Uhh, guys? Has anyone read these chatlogs? She’s
    being like textbook psychologically abusive here. >Like, this is
    pages and pages of triggering.”


    “Games Enthusiasts”: “Uhh, but we want to know these things because
    we don’t want to support people who do these >horrible sorts of


    Zoe Quinn: “I’m still trying to come to terms with everything because
    I thought that false abuse / rape claims literally >never happened
    up until now. Also, uhhh, 4chan is spreading nudes of me on the


    Mallorie Nasrallah: “Uh, hi. Those nudes were from a porn pay site.
    They were back from when Zoe was doing porn. >They’re not private or
    anything. I was her photographer at one point. Within an hour of meeting
    me she claimed she >murdered someone who tried to rape her. These
    sorts of claims were not out of the ordinary for her… like I’ve met her
    >and her ex is really right to have warned you. You guys should
    really be careful.”


  • http://herogonie.blogspot.ca/ Akhuan

    I definitely agree with this call to engage in dialogue from a standpoint of compassion. I commend the author for sharing their experience and salute their effort at inclusiveness and lucidity.

    I am not sure, however, that anyone can legitimately demand of all people that all of their words comme from a place of compassion and understanding. Regardless of the nature (or reality) of the slight, it is difficult to be rational — let alone nuanced — when one is hurting. There is moreover immense cultural pressure to not take abuse “lying down.”

    Concretely, this means I can sympathize with Gjoni *and* Quinn without setting up either of them as the hero or the vilain of the piece. I see their relationship as something which is complex, problematic, beyond my intellectual grasp and decidedly none of my business. I can discriminate against any attempt to instrumentalize accounts of their fraught involvement as a legitimate focus for political discourse.

    Authenticity — the coherence of words and deeds — is a problem in every sphere of cultural activity. As it may prove beyond our ability to solve completely, I believe it is best to give *people* the benefit of the doubt and to limit discussion to *ideas* whenever possible.

  • JonathanNathan

    How does it feel, Philip, to know that the only people who agree with what you’ve written here are people who hate the very ideas of social justice and feminism? Does it make you reconsider your position?

  • Pax

    I have always thought that the good and honest people of the world, no matter the differing perceptions between them, could sit down and in a discussion of equality and rights come to understand that at the heart of every side is a desire to help others and fight ignorance, the seed of the all the world’s evil. Ethics and morality are a foundation for accepting that while the issues may never be fully agreed to, the solving of them can occur as every ethical and moral person will seek to defend those who are victims no matter their race, sex, religion, or any other category that they may come from. The dishonest people of the world justify wrong doings and evil done to people because of category and ‘greater purpose’. This is exactly what the writer in the article above is discussing. It is that justification to abuse and victimize a person that is absolutely wrong and no truly ethical and moral person would do so. Dishonest people of the world who are focused on their own selfish motives use whatever platforms they can to get what they want, using them to decry anyone that gets in their way with language that, for the ear of the ethical and moral person, will ring the warning bell that this person is not part of the solution and more than likely part of the problem.
    I’m a Men’s Rights Advocate and non-feminist, but foremost I’m a human being who would like all human beings to have equality. I’m sure there are feminists out there that agree about equality for every person just like I do. Though we approach the problem of the world from different sides and different perspectives, I do believe the simplicity that is equality and equal rights can be achieved if we put these things as the greatest priority. We may never agree on the why and stats, but I’m sure we could agree that all person’s should be equal under the law, and treated the same as victim or perpetrator no matter the race or sex.

  • Caruso64

    See, this is a legitimate discussion we really should have. The problem is, we can’t have it because “IT’S ALL ABOUT EHTICS IN GAMES JOURNALISM!!!” It’s impossible to talk about whether ZQ or Eron or both were or are abusive right now because so many false allegations and lies are circulating that it’s impossible to tell what’s true and what’s false in regards to their relationship.

    Eron could have made the whole thing up to call down a hit on ZQ. Eron could have called out real abuse and gotten it all caught up in MRA bullshit. ZQ could have abused him AND he could have made half the things up to start an attack on her. By all accounts I’ve heard, many of the allegations he’s made are straight up lies (like alleging she slept with someone for a positive review), but that’s what they say about ZQ as well. And ultimately Eron went straight into the IRCs with these assholes to help them perform this hit and give his blessing on it, so abuse survivor or not, he is definitely culpable in ZQ’s harassment himself by now http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/09/08/zoe-quinns-screenshots-of-4chans-dirty-tricks-were-just-the-appetizer-heres-the-first-course-of-the-dinner-directly-from-the-irc-log/.

    Abuser herself or not, the harassment ZQ has received since Eron’s post is neither just, productive nor conscionable. And before we can have a discussion about whether the allegations of abuse against ZQ are true or not, the harassment has to end.

    That may not be a very happy or helpful conclusion, especially if ZQ is, in fact, abusive, but it’s the situation we find ourselves in now :/

    • minmod

      Eron’s never said she slept for a review, even explicitly said she didn’t over and over again, go read the zoepost yourself. His behaviour in the IRC was also extremely fair if you read the full chatlogs yourself, and he was extremely critical of the attention it was getting from some undesirables.

  • Duni Arnold

    You have got to be kidding me with this shit. (Oh yeah, late to the party.)

    It’s hard to describe the lack of self-awareness writing something like this takes. This entire opinion piece, besides completely exuding bizarre and, I think inappropriate, self-righteousness, almost appears at its core to serve chiefly as an excuse for Wythe to maintain his ally cred while defending Eron Gjoni and painting his friend as a victim.

    C’mon, man (sincerely not intending to be dismissive of your non-binary status here…I feel like terms like “man” and “dude” ought to be treated as gender-neutral — at least, I certainly use them in such a manner). This “we have an entitlement to the intimate knowledge of every personal action of a social justice activist so that we may police them for ideological purity” bullshit is laughable. That’s not the way any of this works. That’s not what social justice is about.


    This piece, which I won’t re-hash, highlights the issues with many of your call-outs in Quinn’s correspondence. I suspect that you aren’t so much concerned with Zoe’s potential status as a genuine abuser as you are with convincing people (or yourself, whatever), that Gjoni isn’t the lowlife he has demonstrated himself to be, purely based on his ties with you, as an advocate for social justice. I have to conclude that you’re being intentionally disingenuous throughout this piece — there’s no way you don’t understand that being a victim of abuse or having a social justice-minded friend doesn’t elevate someone to the ethical up-and-up, just as you argue that being into social justice doesn’t make one necessarily morally sterling in practice.

    Your argument, basically this article’s thesis, about social justice advocates needing to be cautious about avoiding abusive and oppressive tactics in pursuit of their agenda, would seem to be an alright one. But nowhere have I seen exist any substantial evidence for an epidemic or a systematic problem of hateful SJWs, and your focus on this issue seems like a distraction.

    At no point have you seemed willing to entertain the idea that perhaps Gjoni and Quinn were both shitheads to each other — which is peculiar considering the cold disregard Gjoni has demonstrated for people caught in the fray of this “scandal” who have fallen victim to acts of quite literal terrorism.

    Yes, calling #Gamergaters “cheeto-dusted fat virgins” is wrong and contrary to intersectionalism. Yes, social justice advocates should behave in a manner concordant with their espoused principles. But if you think you’re acting nobly by rushing to the defense of a man whose deliberately spiteful (there’s no getting around this) actions unleashed the floodgates for legions of bigots, degenerates, and social justice retardants to come out and play, I’ve got bad news.

  • akulkis

    Borderline Personality Disorder.

    Zoe Quinn, [REAL NAME: Chelsea van Valkenburg, heiress to a sizeable chunk of Valkenburg fortune…] has it in spades. And she has had some nerve shutting down charity events by accusing them of all sorts of evil, for having the gall to schedule their event on the same weekend that she decided at the last minute to hold her event..which NEVER happened anyways.

    I haven’t threatened her, but, like most BPD’s, the world would be better off if she never existed.

  • the_mouse_

    It’s flabbergasting that such an apparently astute and empathetic person can’t see the SJW movement for what it is: a well-meaning but hopelessly hypocritical ideology in its inception that has long since been replaced by a poisonous political machine. Divisive identities are not something to be cherished, and there is no patriarchy in these parts. (Nor is there matriarchy; the modern family is a hollow shell.) Go to Saudi Arabia if you want to see what a functioning patriarchy is.

  • Triple Gee

    Harassment abuse apologist.

    That fits like a glove. Except why use three words when two will do?

    Bullshit detector.

  • plasmacutter

    Identity politics and the concepts of “social justice” rely on generalization and stereotyping of entire demographics. All it takes is the application of social justice theories to an individual level to see it for what it is.

    The afro-american community is, in aggregate, at a severe economic disadvantage to whites. From an aggregate level, affirmative action and special afro-american only student aid seem fine.

    Now, place yourself in the shoes of a rural white male, a typical example of what constitutes the majority of those in poverty in the U.S.

    You have grown up race-blind, worked hard despite grinding poverty, opressed nobody, scored 90th percentile against all odds, and are now applying to a college. Unfortunately, you’re denied due to affirmative action while someone with fewer qualifications is admitted because of his skin color. This happens with your first, second, third, fourth choice. Your fifth choice accepts you, but when you receive the aid package, it’s lacking, because they assume you’re ‘privileged’ and 30% of your package is instead given to ‘disadvantaged groups’. Because of this, you can’t go to that school, either, all because of your race and gender.

    Thus, social justice becomes individual injustice. You are being collectively punished by systemic racism and sexism because someone who looked like you 3 generations ago “may” have benefitted from racism and sexism in the opposite direction.

    When moderates and conservatives point this out, the general SJ community and their powerful allies in the media smear them as reactionary racists, and in many cases their careers are destroyed by a neo-McCarthyist “social justice” network.

    I’m glad to see it’s possible for someone in “social justice” to wake up to the stench of hypocrisy surrounding this community, but the very concept of “social justice” is itself hypocritical. The only way to attain justice is to provide equality of opportunity to everyone, not to attempt to “right the scales of history” at an aggregate level by punishing the innocent for the sins of people they never knew.

  • colleen prinssen

    you are to white to write this XD

    you need to be at least Indopacific Islander African American, with Lakota ancestors. as well as be otherkin and multiple and self diagnosed with some disorders XD

    that is what I learn from sjws. one needs to fit a criteria to be allowed to fight. it becomes oppression olympics.

    and how come nobody wants to put triggers on romance for romance repulsed aromantic asexuals? and make everyone shut up about the prom. every time a hero story about someone taking a mentaly/intellectualy disabled classmate to prom, it triggers me to want to cry and break something, because nobody ever loved me, and I am told to get over not getting prom, and people not being hot for me?

    or a trigger like tumblr triggers.
    “warnign this book contains animal death, a character is lost in the woods, and kills, cooks and eats a rabbit”
    “this book contains a character that used a fatphobic slur aginst someone they don’t like”
    “this book is cisheteronormitive and binairst”
    “trigger warning, spooky things”
    “trigger warning, fear of abandomnet and being lost”
    “trigger warning, classism”

    some trigger warnings will look like why some books get banned.

    also, Kudos to finding Zoe Quinn problematic. when everyone else turns her into some abused mayter and saint. I trolled her twitter demanding she make a game about a nonwhite-elderly-wheelchair using-transgender dwarf in a game “like The Legend of Zelda” if she won’t do it, why would any big name developer? so she is bad person for that too.

  • The Watcher

    That is because the issue of “social justice” is a smoke screen. They do not seek to and neither do they really care about making anything better for anyone but themselves. And it shows. Time and time and time and time again. It’s the latest fashionable buzzwords to throw out in attempt to impress other fools.

  • lias

    …Unrelated to the anti-social justice commentors who have hijacked this article, I’m here because I saw a very marginalized person bullying a minor for her looks in front of thousands of people. She posted pictures of her for people to ridicule. While the minor definitely was in the wrong and was a harrassing bigot, the fact that her photo was posted to be ridiculed as a response made me very uncomfortable. I didn’t know what was wrong or right. This article was very helpful by letting me know that it was in fact not right.