No Restaurant for Old Men

I got the idea for this post from a Twitter acquaintance who asked if my “sucking up” to women tweeters came from a desire to have sex with them.

Sure, I’ll admit I am flirtatious with the women on Twitter with whom I am in a mutually following relationship. Compliments and slightly off color remarks are part of my repertoire when interacting with some of these ladies. I think of it as playful fun and possibly self esteem enhancing interaction. Many of my female Twitter friends “give as good as they get” and everyone laughs and gets on with their day. It’s all in good fun.

Why then, do some folks think that my intentions are for real life hook-ups”? One reason might be the fact that there are Twitter users who actually do use Twitter to arrange sexual liaisons. Like any other source of interaction between men and women, some percentage of those interactions will be for hookups.

Another reason my motives might be questioned is the age difference between me and the person who questioned my behavior. I recently turned 50 and find that my once powerful libido is diminishing. It’s not gone altogether, just not as much of an “all the time” drive. Humans are studying testosterone’s effects on the brain, but much work needs to be done to fully understand it. It is known that testosterone effects the brain from the womb to the grave. The person asking me about this behavior is many years my junior and probably hasn’t begun to experience this yet.

One thing that I believe to be a factor in this behavior in some people, is the desire to still be viewed as a sexual being by members of the opposite sex. Not wanting to be sexually invisible may influence several behaviors in older adults. Coming to grips with one’s changing libido and body are part of the aging process, but that doesn’t mean the transition from young man to old man is smooth for everyone. This flirting could be seen as a shout to the world and even to one’s self that we are still here. We are still relevant. We are still fully human. Growing old can be scary for some people. Loss of sexual desire and contact is one reason for that fear. Flirtatious wordplay can help to assuage this trepidation.

I’m sure many of you have heard the meme-like joke: “Somewhere in the world a person is having sex for the last time right now. What if yours already happened?” The possibility that this “joke” is actually describing your life becomes more and more tangible as we age.

I’m not saying that I flirt with the ladies on Twitter for the reasons above (hell, I do it because it’s fun) but those reasons may be why some older men continue to behave this way even when they have no intention to “take things further”.

Maybe the next time your father or grandfather flirts with the young waitress at the restaurant, you won’t think him such a cad. Just something to think about and…

Get some time.

Note: All flirting described above is 100% consensual and discontinued upon request.


The Beginning of the End?

Recent radical Tumblr-esque outrages in the news have made criticizing feminism a little less like something only a hateful misogynist would do.

Whether it’s a campaign to ban words from the language (Ban Bossy), an unfortunate choice of villain (10 hours of a woman walking in NYC), or the most recent pearl clutching and hand wringing over a scientist’s shirt, the Neo-Purtian feminists have suffered some significant PR hits.

The Ban Bossy campaign was heartily rebuffed as being too close to fascist book burnings and Orwellian Newspeak for freedom lovers around the world. The concept of elimination of words to prevent certain undesirable thoughts struck many as abhorrent.

Another campaign, this time by a feminist group called FCKH8, created a video of 8-10 year old girls swearing like sailors in a deliberate attempt to offend the viewer. This offense was then compared to the offense of the $0.23 earnings gap and other feminist complaints.

In another example of missing the mark, an attempt to call attention to “street harassment” (also known as catcalling), the video maker disproportionally showed the behavior in question from lower/working class brown skinned people. This led to several hilarious parodies of the original video.

The most recent example of absolute privilege blindness by this extreme branch of the feminism tree, is the treatment of Dr. Matt Taylor for the unpardonable crime of wearing a shirt with cartoon women in bikinis on it. This outrage arose on what should have been a joyous day, remembered not for his apparel, but for his participation in landing a probe on a comet. While the media coverage of this event seemingly has been all slanted in favor of the Neo-Puritans, the comments sections have been delightfully unconcerned with his crime.

This highlighted the divergence between the media’s coverage of events like these and the reaction by the general public. It is perhaps similar to the driving force in GamerGate (an online consumer revolt against ultra left wing, authoritarian feminist gaming sites). As media sources move further away from the sensibilities of their primary readership, tension between the two grows. Ultimately in Gamergate, that tension reached a breaking point several months ago with the publication of “The Zoe Post” and the DDOSing of The Fine Young Capitalists.

I believe that as these outrages and campaigns continue to either be more extreme or to complain about ever more petty things, the rift between the majority of people and the radical authoritarian brand of feminism that seems to be in vogue today will only increase. One can only hope that it will spawn other “Gamergates” in various other sub culture media, and possibly even with the mainstream itself. In any event, it is no longer a faux pas to criticize these campaigns and outrage manufactroversies.

As an opponent to this particular brand of authoritarian feminism, I can’t wait for their next campaign or outrage.


GamerGate vs Elevatorgate, a Comparison

There have been over a million tweets regarding #Gamergate. I have typed out a few myself along with 2 blog posts prior to this one about it.

The reason(s) I am on the Gamergate “side” of this squabble? Firstly, I love video games. My live in girlfriend would attest to the amount of time I spend with an XBox 360 controller in my hand. I have been playing video games since Pong. My first “gaming system” was a Commodore 64. I’ve played on PC, NES, SNES, XBox, XBox 360, and Wii.

Secondly, I’m against ideologies. All of them. In my opinion ideologies hold certain beliefs to be inviolate regardless of evidence. Religions, political “wings” and academic feminism are all examples of ideologies. They all have, at their core a belief or set of beliefs that they consider “great truths”. Any evidence that conflicts with these “great truths” are ignored, belittled, or actively covered up.

On to the comparison.

One of the better descriptions of the Elevatorgate drama I have found on the webs is this one from Freethought Kampala. The author goes into tedious detail and it’s all very well sourced. I only have a few issues with it, one of which is in how it claims the drama started. I don’t mean that the post is inaccurate, just that it doesn’t go far enough back in time to the real beginning of the conflict.

In my opinion the incident (or something like) it had been percolating beneath the surface for a good while before the offer of a hot caffeinated beverage divided the Atheist community.

GamerGate (or #GamerGate ) has an equally excellent summary at “Know Your Meme”. It too suffers from the lack of background information on the roiling troubles in the gaming community that preceded it.

Both followed a pattern that can be summarized by:

1. A group, hobby, or interest consisting of mostly males (due to disinterest by females) becomes more popular.

2. Females begin to join in. Some out of genuine interest and some ideologues that have ulterior motives.

3. Ideological joiners begin to complain that women are under represented due to sexism (rather than the differences in interest levels)

4. Some original group members disagree that sexism is the cause. This disagreement is then claimed to be proof of the sexism in a form of argument called a KafkaTrap.

5. Tempers flare. Trolls, seeing the opportunity to create strife, send harassment to the ideologues. These harassments are then touted as further “proof” of the sexism.

The pattern is a proven method of infiltrating a group with an interest and co-opting the focus of the group onto the ideology of the infiltrators. I’m assuming I don’t have to actually tell you the name of this ideology. It has been making its “slow march through the institutions” for over 40 years. The result of this infiltration is either capitulation to the ideologues or a schism.

A schism is not the end for the ideologically driven. It simply means they will have to play the long game. This usually involves media assisted denouncements of those opposing the ideology. They are dehumanized. They are grouped in with the worst trolls and shit stirrers.

Sometimes these schisms are sparked by a single event which releases the tensions and passions of the build up phase in a fiery cathartic moment. In EG it was the elevator incident and the subsequent infighting about it. In GG it was the Zoe Post (along with Mundane Matt getting a DMCA and TFYC being decried by ideologues).


In the late 1990’s through mid 2000’s Jack Thompson, a currently disbarred attorney, brought a good deal of attention to violent video games. Jack routinely denigrated gamers as “brain impaired” and comparing them to “Hitler Youth”. The gamers seem better prepared for battles than did the atheists, but that may be false confidence. I’m getting ahead of myself, though.

In the much more recently popular Atheism community, the ideologues were beginning to show up in the late 2000’s to the present. A post from 2010, when read today conveys a sense of foreboding doom that was likely not apparent at the time. Atheists, used to logical reasoned debate with theists, at first tried the same approach to these new claims of sexism, privilege, Patriarchy, and “lived experience”. The traditional methods were only moderately effective and the ideologues refined their arguments.

In 2012 Anita Sarkeesian, Canadian Communications major with a MA in “Social and Political Thought” from York University, announced a Kickstarter campaign to fund her latest project “Tropes vs Women in Video Games” on her “Feminist Frequency” YouTube channel. In stark contrast to most (if not all) of her previous FF videos (several of which had taken issue with video games), the comment section was open for any YouTube user to leave comments. The result was predictable. Irate internet denizens, trolls, and gamers flooded the video comment section with hateful posts.

Ms. Sarkeesian, then used these hurtful comments as evidence that there is a sexism problem in gaming. She parleyed these comments, along with a flash game depicting her visage in an ever increasing brutalized condition, into nearly $160,000 US dollars.


The year before (2011) Rebecca Watson, also the proud owner of a Communications degree, described her polite encounter with a man in a Dublin hotel elevator (for the life of me I can’t figure out why this wasn’t called LiftGate in deference to the UK term for Elevator).

Striking parallels:

Both EG and GG began in what were originally male dominated interests groups.

Both EG and GG had ideologically minded joiners once the groups or hobby became more popular.

Both used the disproportionate numbers of males as evidence for sexism, when a more reasoned explanation would have just been interest levels (which were organically already beginning to change).

Both harnessed hateful comments, and untraceable internet “threats” as evidence for the claimed sexism.

Both claimed that they received the hateful comments solely due to their gender (rather than the draconian moderation of comments or the refusal to engage in discourse).

Both use emotional leverage provided by the deeply ingrained desire to protect women as a shield from more rational assaults on their points.


So, here we are. An internet world filled with terms like privilege, cis-het, transmisogyny, internalized oppression, and Tumblr. God help us all (and I’m an atheist).

The way forward should be the same for both groups. Hard science over emotion, logic over feelings, and civility above all. The reason civility is so important is because these people thrive on “threats” and “harassment”. Every anonymous threat or vulgar insult are like Pac Man “power pills” for their cause. These behaviors are so beneficial to them that it has become popular to question their veracity. This too plays into their hands. Call for the law enforcement to apprehend the credible threats. Call for folks to report and ban the threats that aren’t actionable by law enforcement.

Gamers, at first glance seem better prepared for an internet battle of ideas and ideologies. They’ve dealt with the likes of Jack Thompson, and have even moved a developer to create a more fleshed out game ending through sheer determination.  What they lack,however, is the experience with emotionally manipulative rhetoric. Gamers, like atheists, are not seen sympathetically by the overall population. The ideologues, by claiming that they represent women (the most sympathetically perceived group in society), have a decided advantage in an emotional standoff. It’s a bit like charging the end boss as a level 5 thief.

The only way to regain popular opinion and stave off this infiltration is coldly. Calm, reasoned points invalidating the claims of the ideologues IS effective, but slow. The email campaigns targeting advertisers is also a great strategy. Be warned though, there is no quick win here. There are no cheat codes to level up and beat the end boss. You really have to grind it out and remain calm.

Good luck, and Get Some Time.





A KafkaTrap Defense

I’ve written about the KafkaTrap before, but I’ve never demonstrated a successful defense from one. This post aims to do just that.

In response to this tweet:

Me: StopGamerGate2014 because we should judge all Muslims by ISIS, all feminists by Valerie Solanas, and all by the threateners.

My Kafkatrapping interlocutor enters with (and in keeping with YouTube conventions I will present my opponent’s quotes in bold while my replies remain unbolded):

Him: @submanusn incorrect comparison. Should be “all gamers by gamergate”.

Me: I stand by my comparison.

Him: Well I suppose I was just hair splitting either way. So, have you done anything to discourage your personal ISIS?

This is one of the alternate forms of kafkatrapping. I recognized it right away as an attempt to tar me with the “sins” of others. He continues:

Him: Because your concerns, however sincere they are, are currently misplaced in what the battle has actually become about.

Me: Is this the part of the Kafkatrap where I’m supposed to present evidence that I no longer beat my wife?

This response lets both those onlookers who know what a Kafkatrap is and those who don’t see the loaded question just asked.

Me: Which is?

Him: No. See, this is the problem, you are all about big general issues like how people are COLLECTIVELY judging gamergate by etc.[end tweet] but as soon as one of these general descriptors of wrong-doing grazes you, you go on the defensive, “IT’S NOT ME”[end] “IT’S JUST SOMEONE ELSE.”[end] If you’re not against us, then you are actually with us, simply through not doing crap like that.

Me: I see. My actual inclusion of both Muslims and feminists in the comparison was calculated. Both groups are defended by the[end] very SJW types that are anti GG and by using the same “Not all X are like that” [end] My record is clean, I have no “worry” about your “censure”. I’m responsible for my own voice, not for other adults.

Here I refuse his insinuation that I’m tarred with the original sin of any one but myself.

The encounter went quite well after that. The entire conversation was recorded and preserved by @lazysavant here (the interlocutor deleted all of his tweets in the exchange or I would point you there).

Check it out if you like and learn to not fall into the KafkaTrap.


Special thanks to LazySavant.

Get some time.


Collaborative Post with John Bullock (@beagrie)

John Bullock recently approached me with an idea for a collaborative post on the behaviors and tactics of the SJW’s. I’ll excerpt a sample for you here, and if you like it, go read the full post here.


Oh, sure, there are real life people who are caricature sexists or racists or what have you, the kind of people who are beyond reproach, but when it comes down to it most of the arguments are over the details, not the wider issue. Two people who wholeheartedly agree that sexism is a bad thing will argue endlessly over what constitutes sexism.

It was a lot of fun working with John and I hope to collaborate with him again. Check out his podcast (along with ineffable @ZoeJen_) at Also check out his YouTube channel and follow him on Twitter.



Emma Watson and The Left Hand of Darkness

In a recent speech before the United Nations, former child star Emma Watson raised some interesting points. She also provided a glimpse at her version of feminism’s view of the future.

I could go through her speech and “point by point” address the problems with it, but I want to stay “big picture” here. Plenty of other folks have done videos and articles doing the former.

Let’s start with an article I found when searching for the speech transcript. From the article :

In the speech Ms. Watson makes the very important point that in order for gender equality to be achieved, harmful and destructive stereotypes of and expectations for masculinity have got to change.

The target of the campaign, at least for this feminist writer, is masculinity. This is demonstrated by the link she included in the above quoted passage (that I have left in place). This links to another article which espouses the notion that masculinity is the primary problem in society.

“… boys are socialized to adopt and perform a dominant, aggressive, controlling, and sexualized version of masculinity. This kind of masculinity, the idealized norm in our society, requires that boys and men control girls and women.”

Idealized norm is hardly the word I would use to describe controlling behavior. The actual words of Ms. Watson’s speech that would lead one to believe that masculinity is the “most important” thing to be challenged are these:

We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes, but I can see that they are, and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.

So while I’m purportedly imprisoned by my stereotypical role as provider and protector, Ms. Watson wants me to provide advocacy and protection for women from both violence and discrimination. Excuse me if the irony of that combination makes me laugh.

The unstated but, in my opinion, implicit goal of this type of feminism is to create a genderless society.

In her novel “The Left Hand of Darkness“, Ursula K. Le Guin posits a species of humanoid with no outward gender. Indeed, this species only morphs into the different sexes when it’s time to procreate. Rather than this science fiction novel being merely a “thought experiment”, it has become the main goal of 3rd wave feminism.

The transformation begins by the demonization and destruction of the masculine. Rather than advocating both genders move toward the other, they attempt to eradicate the masculine. Rather than pushing women to be more assertive, they demand men be more demure. In our sexually dimorphic species, just how close humans can come to this ideal is far from clear.

This approach strikes me as another form of dualism. Not substance dualism where mind and body are considered separate materials, but a dualism of humans being separate from all other members of the animal kingdom.

I see this in the strident vegans and the religious also, this insistence that humans are distinct from animals. I’m sorry to tell them all that humans are indeed animals. The fact that we have this consciousness strapped to the top of animal instincts and drives, does not mean that those drives cannot influence us. This genderless society that is being espoused is likely a fools errand, forever unreachable. That possibility won’t stop men like myself from being castigated for our drives and emotions.

Emotions? Yes, men show emotion. Men are perfectly free to show our emotions. We just don’t find the need to do so for every little thing. Take as examples: the birth of our children, our wedding day, our retirement, and watching our children graduate. Every one of these events as well as others will see men giving expression to their emotions. Sometimes with tears and sometimes with gregarious joy. We are already perfectly free to express them, even if in many situations we find it more prudent to keep them in check.

In summary, I’m not a signatory to the He for She campaign. It’s not that I want women discriminated against or victims of violence (even though statistically men are far more likely to be victims of violence), it is that I do not wish to be utilized by a program for the very ideology which sees me as the problem.


Get some time.




Feminist or Female Misogynist?

Feminism is defined by the Oxford dictionary as: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”  Wikipedia adds: “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.”

I see the word “equal” or some derivation of that word in both definitions. Perhaps we should examine that word: ” (1.1) having the same status, rights, or opportunities. (1.2) Uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds (1.3) Evenly or fairly balanced” – Oxford Dictionaries.

So from the definition, one would think that if there exist inequalities that favor women, feminists should seek to reduce that favoritism, no? Inequalities such as: making up the majority of college graduates, making up the vast minority of workplace deaths, making up the minority of the homeless, or receiving less harsh criminal sentences for the same crimes would (one might think) also be on the agenda of the dictionary feminist.

There is one well known and outspoken feminist that I know of who does speak out about these inequities, Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers. Calling herself an “Equity Feminist” to differentiate her vision of feminism from the mainstream version (a distinction which should not have to be made if the dictionary definition was followed by those “mainstream feminists”), she frequently speaks out on some of the inequities I mentioned above. According to the dictionary definition so frequently pointed to by the mainstream feminists, Dr. Sommers should be a venerated leader of the movement, right?

So how is Dr. Sommers viewed by those who speak for feminism?


Anti-feminist?? Surely that must be an aberrant view. Perhaps PZ Myers (a well known advocate of feminism) holds Dr. Sommers in higher regard. Here’s PZ:  “First, that’s straight from Christina Hoff Sommers, the one ‘feminist’ (she’s more of an anti-feminist) writer the misogynists love to quote.

Wow, that’s another claim of anti-feminism. Perhaps Melody and PZ aren’t aware of the definition of feminism. Let’s see PZ’s definition of feminism: “My definition of a feminist is someone who recognizes the inequities towards women of the present system, and argues for changing the status quo.”  Hmm, so inequities only seem to count when they are not in the favor of women. Inequities that favor women are just fine. That seems to go against the Oxford definition.

Let’s do a Google search for Dr. Sommers and “anti-feminist“. I get over 67,000 results. Surely that can’t be right?

I know quite a few women who call themselves feminists that actually believe in the principles of equality articulated in the dictionary definition. Unsurprisingly, many of these women are ostracized by the Melody Hensley’s and PZ Myers’ of the world. In fact, there are quite a number of them on the Atheism Plus Blockbot. To my mind, blocking women who follow the dictionary definition of feminism is odd behavior from “feminists”.

If you identify as a feminist and you speak out about inequalities regardless of the gender affected, you have my respect. If you are one of the ones who block and call “anti-feminist” those who see inequities that affect both genders, you have my contempt.

I prefer to call myself an egalitarian. There’ are a lot fewer claims of being “anti-egalitarian”.

Get some time.

Why Atheists Should Worship Jesus

I know what you’re going to say, but hear me out. You’re going to say, “But we don’t believe in deities and Jesus is claimed to be one!”. Hold your horses (or your asses to wax Biblical). Atheists can get a lot of benefits by worshiping Jesus.

First of all, if you live in a predominantly Christian region of the globe, you will fit in better in your local community. You will meet a lot of new people at church, some of whom are the movers and shakers in the community. You will also get the benefit of weekly socialization and fellowship with other people.

Another benefit is that you won’t have to constantly be vigilant about Christian groups getting governmental support for their projects and memorials. You won’t have to monitor school boards that attempt to have Intelligent Design taught in biology classes. Think how much easier your life will be!

Your on-line life will be much easier as well. No more long discussions with theists about evidence and the burden of proof. No more arguments.You can just sail through your social media time with cat photos and funny Vine’s. Won’t that be nice!

So, in summary: blending in, making new contacts, and a less stressful life are some of the benefits for worshiping Jesus in majority Christian regions. Those of you atheists in Islamic regions might want to consider Allah instead.



This is what you sound like when you post blogs proclaiming that “Atheists Should...”.

Atheists should: not believe in deities. Period. Full stop.


Get some time.


#GamerGate – It’s Not About Misogyny

We’ve all heard the rhetoric. Seemingly, any criticism of ideological “truths”,  is rebutted with claims of hatred or persecution. We’ve seen it with the Christian claims of persecution whenever a teacher violates the law by leading prayer or a 10 commandments memorial on government property is opposed. We see it in social issues, employed by the group which has come to be known as “Social Justice Warriors”.

Using a co-opted version of Marx’s standpoint theory (where the only people with a correct view of society are those deemed “marginalized”) any defense of their criticisms is deemed “part of the problem”.  I’m sure you have seen the comments saying things like, “All these comments against feminism is why we need more feminism”. These folks are not your coffee shop feminists who truly believe in equality. These ideologues hold radicalized beliefs which are sacrosanct. Standpoint theory, Patriarchy theory (kyriarchy is patriarchy in new clothes), and the belief that gender differences are all socially constructed are at the core of this ideology and they are unquestionable.

As a skeptic, I don’t believe any ideas should be free from critique or inquiry.

When the claim is made that SJW critiques are being opposed simply out of misogyny (or other form of hatred), that claim is truly believed by the one making it. In an act of doublethink that would make Orwell cringe, they believe they are oppressed when nearly every major media outlet presents the story from their (biased) perspective.

In relation to #GamerGate, they believe they are oppressed when nearly all of the gaming media couch the issue in terms like “misogyny” and “neckbeard”. When 10 articles are released by different gaming media sites within a 48 hour period, all of which declare “gamers” are finished, perhaps they have more power than they claim. When an obviously biased critique of “tropes vs women” garners Ambassador Awards and consulting positions for its creator, perhaps they are not so powerless.

As a gamer (or just as a person who plays video games), I don’t care about the race, sex, sexual orientation, or identity of the people who make games. I care about the games themselves. If a game is fun and engaging, it doesn’t matter to me what demographic its creator is a member of.

Like most people, I believe in fairness and equal treatment. Ironically that’s the very thing being being claimed as goals by the SJW’s, all while getting preferential articles in the media, preferential judging in contests, and preferential treatment on Steam. How fair and equitable is the cronyism to the developers who aren’t in the “clique”?

GamerGate is not about misogyny, it’s about fairness and equitable treatment for all gamers and developers.



GamerGate – The Next Phase of Social Engineering

If you play video games as a recreation, chances are you’ve heard of GamerGate. The latest kerfuffle in a string of such dramas that seemingly follow a set script. Community X is largely made of of males due to it once being seen as nerdy or uncool. Community X grows in popularity. Social Justice Warriors invade Community X and demand it redecorate to their tastes. There is usually an innocuous trigger event that brings the slow invasion to everyone’s attention.

It has happened in the atheist/skeptic community with an event called ElevatorGate. It has happened in the comic/geek community (although I’m not aware of a ‘Gate’ event for that community as yet). Now it has occurred in the gaming community.

I’m not going to rehash the entire event sequence that encompasses what is now called GamerGate as many others have done a much better job of that than I could. The actual details of the spark that brought this all out in the open are irrelevant. The pattern is the key component that hasn’t gotten enough attention in my opinion.

What these agenda driven ideologues do, instead of creating games that do not contain the “problematic” content that they point out in existing games (and out-competing those existing games), is to infiltrate the community and claim discrimination when their ideas are not immediately seized upon by the giants in the industry. In what commercial industry do the newest people in the company make product decisions? Does Apple take product ideas from the new guy in the mail room?

Companies understand two things very well: profit and to a lesser extent, public relations. If a SJW were to create their own game which sold millions of copies, believe me the industry would take notice and start making changes in their games. There really is no barrier for PC game designers since the technology to create a game is readily available and in some cases free. So why doesn’t someone make a game with a social justice agenda and show the big companies the way into a new market? If the gaming community is so thirsty for these types of agenda driven games, why haven’t any been made by independent developers and become huge success stories?

The agenda driven ideologues don’t actually want to make games that tell stories of the marginalized. If they did, they could create their own. No, what they want is rapid (instant) power and status in the existing game development structure. They want power and influence over content and message because games are just another form of media to promulgate their agenda. The SJW method is an end run around merit or talent to get to the powerful positions in the industry.

The method is similar to that used in the atheist community. Criticize the existing structure from a biased perspective, block or disable dissenting opinions and discussion, wait for the inevitable trollish hatred and nasty comments, display the troll comments as proof of the initial problem, rinse and repeat. Click bait journalists eat this stuff up since it makes the page counter spin and they will publish the trolling as news, often completely overlooking the dozens or hundreds of reasoned rebuttals of the initial criticisms.

The SJW’s want power, control and the ability to spout their message without critique.