I used to use it to refer to the kinds of crazy people like TERFs or the crazier side of Twitter and Tumblr who would doxx you and send you death threats because it turns out you accidentally did something against their personal ideals 4 years ago on your blog.
It got polluted and now it seems to just mean “anyone who says something vaguely feminist or anti-racist.”
Probably projection, they can see no reason to support women or agree with a woman unless they are trying to get in her pants, and assume any other man who does so thinks the same way.
It’s also really weird since I suspect most of the “white knights” who supposedly are doing this to get to have sex with Zoe not only only don’t know Zoe Quinn but probably don’t even know what she looks like.
I certainly don’t.
You’re a long way from home, gamer-boy. Best be going now.
Indeed; the closest analog I can think of to either term is “race traitor.” Getting called a white knight or a SJW is like getting complimented by a sewer pipe: I know it’s a compliment, but the stench surrounding it is awful.
The problem with “white knight” is that people disagree on what the term means. It seems now just to be used for vehemently defending someone from a perceived injustice–usually one that “doesn’t really matter.” People seem to have forgotten about the idea that you are doing it to protect women who don’t want to be protected, usually to get laid.
It’s similar to the transition SJW went through. It used to refer to someone who pretends to care about social justice, but actually does it for their reputation. Then it became a term for anyone who cared “too much” about it, implying the person chooses to be offended for recreational purposes. Then it became anyone who dares to actually fight for social justice. Now it seems to mean anyone who tells a troll that they are being an bigoted asshole.
There may have been some initial use for the words, but they’ve mutated to just being insults.
Well he just told me to kill myself, so I imagine he’s not long for this board.
Check out Suey Park and her woefully misguided interview on HuffPo and you’ll get a good impression of what we’re talking about. SJW, to my knowledge, has never not been meant as an insult (much like “Tumblr Feminist”, and the two groups have a significant overlap). It’s directed at people who, essentially, argue against any perceived discrimination “privilege” virulently and vitriolically, regardless of intent, rationale, or anything else. For example, Suey Park, who lashed out violently against a public figure for satirizing exactly the kind of racism she’s so against. Or basically anyone talking about “ableism” who isn’t complaining about actual baseless discrimination against the mentally handicapped (rather than, say, people saying words like “retard” or “idiot” or “stupid” - that’s not even a joke on those last two, by the way). A lot of these people seem to be looking for a reason to be offended, and will jump on any offense, real or not, teeth bared and rabid.
So, reading comprehension is an area you need to work on apparently.
Funny definition of ‘honest’ you have there.
No, it makes the dude look like a petty, bitter, emo whiner who should have gone and written a dozen mopey poems instead of writing a vengeance tirade. End of story.
So…Tetris, anyone?
You just copied what I said when I was goofing on you. You really are trolling this message board so you can be all theatrical, aren’t you? You don’t really care if all the jibber jabber about ZQ is true. You just want the drama. Just what will you do with yourself when #gamergate’s fifteen minutes of fame runs out?
So this is about video games or something?
Ah–so “Social Justice Warrior” is someone whose analysis of injustice is different from yours, and rather than rebutting them with sound reasons why their analysis is flawed, you purport malign motives to them and call them names. Brilliant.
I disagree with Suey Park, but I only do so because I understand the basis of her analysis. I don’t think you understand her rationale enough to disagree with her; if you do, you’ve lied about her.
Yeah, it’s the product of a cramped worldview that sees every interaction as an exercise in quid pro quo. Nothing is done for its only sake, only for the sake of how it benefits the doer.
There’s been some discussion among game designers on Twitter as to whether we’re partially responsible for this way of seeing the world. Most videogames are designed to be ruthlessly utilitarian (in the philosophical sense) – they present themselves as a collection of tools to accomplish goals. So if you play a whole lot of games … maybe you internalize this philosophical stance as your default approach to reality? Everything becomes a means to an end, and other human beings become tools rather than autonomous moral entities. This has nothing to do with whether a game is racist or sexist or anything-ist. It’s just a side effect of the fundamental structure of gamist constraint systems.
Why do you think it “reveals” that? I’m genuinely curious.
Well, she supposedly said a bunch of stuff about what a great failing it was to cheat on someone and then cheated* on her ex so I suppose that’s hypocritical. Doesn’t have anything much to do with video games though.
*Supposedly (per the ex’s account and tweets, yadda yadda) they had agreed not to sleep with anyone during their separation. I really don’t care enough about their relationship to debate the point since, as I said, it’s pretty irrelevant to gaming but it’s the linchpin in the “Zoe Quinn is a terrible person” argument so I mention it.
Anyway, this link was making the rounds, in particular Chris Mancil’s comments after the article itself (4th down). Chris Mancil is Director of Digital Communications with Electronic Arts which probably makes him the antichrist to a significant number of game players 
I doubt it’ll get much traction among those who are invested in the “No, everyone on the other side is a misogynistic woman-hating liar-face and that’s the only answer ever so stop trying to say there’s anything else to it than misogyny” mindset but I found it interesting anyway.
Or feminism.
<Ross> WE WERE ON A **BREAK **! </Ross>
Agreed. I was just trying to get a neutral answer in before the longer, pontificating Anti-Quinn answer came along.
Well it certainly is quite logical to make assumptions about someone you’ve never met or even have heard of based on an angry rant by the person’s ex.
If the first time I’d heard of Zoe Quin was reading a bitter tirade in which she accused her ex-boyfriend of cheating on her repeatedly, kicking the family dog and being rude to her mother, I wouldn’t automatically assume he was an asshole.