Gatekeepers – You’re not “Moderates”, You’re Ignorant Bigots

Gatekeeping has been a significant topic in pop culture as the nerd world (and the larger society it reflects) grows more diverse. There’s been a backlash against women, PoC, LGBT+, etc. individuals and their inclusion in a traditionally cis-het, white, male geek world.

Even as these populations grow (or reveal themselves, as many have existed since geekdom began), you’ll find endless anecdotes on how they’ve been treated. FLGS employees talking down to women customers, racial and homophobic comments in multiplayer games, and even in-game rape at tabletop RPGs.

We often focus on the flagrant gatekeepers, the people who are unabashedly racist, misogynistic, or homophobic. As expected, even the most ignorant geek has no problem disavowing Neo-Nazis, sex offenders, and the like.

Nobody wants to game with this guy

The threat isn’t from these blatant bigots, but instead from geeks who claim, “I’m not like that,” while simultaneously saying or doing things that reinforce the gatekeeping. These self-proclaimed “moderates,” “centrists”, “true liberals,” etc. talk about how they’re the reasonable ones, but then turn around and label people “SJWs” and “snowflakes” while spouting the same rhetoric and myths the alt-right uses.

You’ll find these people everywhere, from convention halls to gaming tournaments, and into fandoms beyond. Often, they’re single, straight white men, probably sporting fedoras (and neckbeards) while feigning some fake academic demeanor (and “chivalry” to any “females” they meet).

There’s always some excuse about how they’re not bigoted, but you are; almost always, these excuses are steeped in fallacy, delusion, and social awkwardness. They poison team chats and gaming tables with insensitive jokes or sexist behavior and then claim to be the victim when called on it.

Well, guess what: to all the fedora-tipping, “m’lady” types, you’re not a “true” liberal. You’re not a centrist. You’re not a moderate. You’re not logical or reasonable or a paragon of critical thought.

You’re an ignorant bigot, just as guilty of gatekeeping as the flagrant ones (if not more so), whether you realize it or not.

“I’m not a bigot because…”

Let’s stop this right there, because if you must explain how you’re not racist? You’re probably racist.

Having PoC or gay friends doesn’t mean anything; it just means they tolerate you as I tolerate my bible-thumping, sexist father. Of course, that’s if they even know the real you and the things you think or say.

Have you even spouted your theories or ideology to them in-person? Or do you save that for the safety from behind a keyboard and a screen name? I’m betting none of you have had the audacity to use the N-word in real life like you do online, or make a joke about transgender people in front of your LGBT+ friends.

If you have to hide your true behavior or mentality from your gaming buddies because “they wouldn’t understand,” then your ideology isn’t an inclusive one, and it certainly isn’t a “moderate” one. “Moderates” avoid extremism, they don’t hide it until they’re on the Internet or with like-minded people.

If you weren’t a bigot, you’d recognize the importance of civility and respect for fellow gamers… whether in-person or behind their back.

He said WHAT?!

“You’re the one causing the divide…”

This, “I don’t see color/gender/sexual orientation,” “you’re the one bringing it up” victim-blaming BS is not a “liberal” ideology or reasonable argument. X-blindness is bigotry because your fellow gamers are different and it affects their lives.

That is why inclusion and representation in gaming keep being brought up!

When specific demographics see just as many people like them among game designers, at conventions, or on the screen? Maybe then we can all “not see X” and get along because the divide will be gone.

Until that point? The logical thing to do is to recognize our differences, listen to the groups affected, and try to fix the disparity. A “moderate” wouldn’t deny and dismiss the experiences of the disenfranchised, and claim they’re the ones causing the problem.

Also, stop practicing mental gymnastics to defend your behavior, claiming “double-standards” when called out by, well… everybody. Whining because you don’t get to use the N-word, have to stop using “gay” as a slur, or because rape isn’t funny, isn’t a “centrist” ideology – it’s a self-centered, ignorant mindset.

You’re like a pre-schooler being told to stop using potty language, share with your sister, and play nicely, throwing a temper tantrum.

If you can use racial slurs, so can I! You’re all just trying to censor me!

“I respect women/African-Americans/LGBT…”

No, you don’t.

You put on the airs of the educated, progressive individual, accepting of everyone. You probably even display some fake Arthurian or Shakespearean Renaissance festival flourish, to show how unique and chivalrous you are.

Then you turn around and quote Milo Yiannopoulos or Jordan Peterson. You spout MRA “Red Pill” garbage about how feminism is destroying masculinity; you can’t even look (i.e. leer) at a woman without being called a creep. “Why would she dress like that if she didn’t want the attention anyway?”

You support hate speech and anti-gay business in the name of the First Amendment. Instead of defending the victims, you champion their oppressors under claims of a “war” on white heritage, Christians, and conservative values. “Just take a moment to talk with that person calling for you to be lynched and burned in Hell – otherwise you’re closed-minded.”

You believe the same myth about how medieval Europe had no PoC, so there’s no reason they should be in a fantasy game based on it. You even present the same fallacious “make your own game” argument, rather than support representation in current ones. “If you want to see black characters, go watch a show set in ancient Africa!”

If you genuinely respected other types of people, you wouldn’t defend hate groups, repeat bigoted nonsense, or try to espouse fake history to protect your precious fantasy worlds. Respect isn’t just putting on airs, it’s believing in the worth of your fellow geeks, including their representation, inclusion, and consideration.

But you’re about as much about “respect” as you are “ethics in journalism.”

Keep telling yourself that…

“You’re the hypocrite by being intolerant!”

I don’t know how many times we have to explain Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance, but here we go again. For a society to be truly inclusive, you cannot tolerate the intolerant, and that goes double for gaming and geekdom.

• We do NOT have to tolerate your inappropriate remarks or offensive humor.
• We do NOT have to listen to your slurs or rape jokes.
• We do NOT have to accept “both sides” in an argument, when one of them is spouting ignorant, bigoted nonsense that excludes people based on their race, gender, etc.

If you don’t have a valid point, based on education, reason, and empathy? If all you have is alt-right, prejudiced rhetoric? Then you don’t belong here; there’s no room at the table, the raid team, or the con booth.

It’s not hypocrisy or a double-standard – we’re not “discriminating” against you because you have a “different opinion.” We deny you because your opinion is ignorant bullshit and has no place in a civil society (including the geek one).

And no amount of all the fallacious claims above, the “I’m not racist,” “I respect women,” “You’re the one causing the problem,” faux-centrist, anti-SJW, outrage will hide who you truly are.

Both suck, by the way…

I keep saying “you,” but this rant actually isn’t meant for you; there’s no way to reason with fedora-tipping, basement-dwelling, neckbeards, and you’ll just brush this off as another example of “the intolerant left” attacking them. You’ll make claims about my identity, political ideology, etc., without knowing a thing about me, or probably just dismiss this article as, “they can’t possibly be talking about me.”

This article is here to unify gamers and geeks and let them know, these fake moderates and wannabe-academicians are not conveyors of “truth” or “critical thought”. They’re just another deluded example of gatekeeping in gaming, geekdom, and society, and we see them for who they really are.

This editorial is a warning shot that we don’t have to accept or tolerate them. Our numbers are larger and growing; our beliefs stronger and more supported in reason, empathy, and civility.

Gaming and geekdom are ours and if you can’t accept concepts like diversity, social justice, and controlling your mouth?

How about you go “make your own” games or “find your own” groups.

From Comic to Screen – Diversity and Representation

The Internet is in an outrage again over the latest “race-swapped” character, as Biracial Zendaya Coleman is cast as Mary Jane Watson, a character that has been White since the 1960s. From reasonable discussions to personal attacks, this is just the latest upset among geeks over changes to their favorite characters. This isn’t the first time, as there’s been backlash against everything from Michael B. Jordan cast as Johnny Storm to even Samuel L. Jackson’s casting as Nick Fury (a role that was actually based on him in the Ultimate comic series years prior to the movies!).

In all the debates about these changes, its important to avoid fallacious arguments or perceptions. I’ve compiled some of these below, primarily based on statements made by those who oppose these changes. Even then, I’ll start with a single point that those who support diverse casting often glaze over: the logic and humanity of the opposition.

For those upset at the haters, please understand they do have a valid argument… even if you or I don’t agree or have good counterpoints. There is something to be said for consistency and continuity for characters; we all get upset when a preferred actor is replaced, so the same applies to changes between page and screen. When creating a movie or TV representation of a comic character, it makes sense people will be upset when they don’t match the visuals we’ve grown accustomed to.

Also remember that this isn’t a perspective unique to a singular, dominant demographic: White, heterosexual, CIS-males. Discussions with women, minorities, and LGBT individuals have shown no small number who are unhappy with recent changes, both on-screen and in comics. They don’t like the changes because (to them) these aren’t the characters they grew up with… regardless of how lacking in diversity or sensitivity those characters were. They expect Johnny Storm to be a cocky White guy or Thor to be the name of a Nordic man… they don’t expect them to change anymore than Black Panther not being an African prince or the Ancient One not being an elderly Asian man.

The point is, while there are a number of haters that simply can’t stand changes and/or may harbor discriminatory beliefs… there are also people with valid arguments against changes in movies and comics. While we may disagree with them, we can’t just disregard them as “haters”. Don’t try to dehumanize your opposition, talk to them… you’ll sway people’s opinions more with reasonable discourse than simply demonizing them.

Now, that being said, many more fallacious arguments arise from those opposed to the changes from the comics. Some of these are based on personal preference and others on ignorance, but they’re all easily countered. (I’m not going to even go into those who use these arguments to cover up their own inherent discrimination.) The following are simply some of the most common claims against “x-swapping” in comic book adaptations.

“It changes the character!”

Unless race, ethnicity, or gender is key to the character’s personality or plot, it changes nothing. The Ultimate universe (and MCU) changed Nick Fury to African-American with no problem because race wasn’t important to the original character. You couldn’t do that to Black Panther or Luke Cage because their ethnicity is important to their origin, story, etc.

You can see this by looking at many of the replaced characters in comic book adaptations. Wilson Fiske, Heimdall, Johnny Storm, Tulip O’Hare, etc… while the adaptation may have criticisms, the character’s were not “ruined” by a PoC actor. In fact, these same performances were often praised even despite the movie or show. Since there’s no evidence that changing an unimportant physical aspect hurts the adaptation, and in fact evidence it helps, then there’s no support for this assertion.

“It doesn’t make sense!”

It only doesn’t make sense if you won’t let it. It’s amazing how people can accept all manner of fantasy, science-fiction, and horror nonsense, and yet not accept a race- or gender-swapped character. They can even change entire origin stories and characters for the movies, yet make someone Black or gay and people throw a fit.

No one said all Asgardians are White; this is an assumption based on the Norse ethnicity that produced the mythology… which the comic adapted. Yet, the comic isn’t faithful to that mythology in the slightest, so why should the Asgardians be anything like real-world Nordic people? Plus, Heimdall could easily be Asgardian (a culture) but from another realm (a race). After all, Hogun wasn’t Aesir (the movies claim he’s Vanir) and yet he’s considered Asgardian and a decorated warrior of that society.

Similarly, Johnny Storm and Sue Storm don’t have to be the same race. Adoptions, re-marriage, and extended families are nothing new and quite common in the 21st century. If someone easily accepts fantastic elements (aliens, magic, etc.) but can’t grasp elements based on our own reality… then that’s a problem with the viewer, not the material. If you’re willing to suspend disbelief or logic for everything else, you can certainly do it for things easily explained.

“If minorities can swap, then White actors can too!”

Ummm, no. This perception ignores the entire problem in current society regarding representation and opportunity. I’ve already covered the difference between equality and equity numerous times. This isn’t about equality but equity and equal opportunity. A White actor losing a role to a PoC doesn’t affect the larger picture, because there will always be more roles for White people. The same cannot be said when Native American actors are passed over for an American Indian character for a popular White actor.

When a playing field is unfair to start, fairness is not doing the same for both sides. In tabletop gaming, players in a lop-sided scenario are often given bonuses or extra points to compensate. You don’t see the player who starts with the advantage complaining about that, do you? No, because they realize that the fairness in the game is by helping the disadvantaged player through other routes.

The same should occur in society, from Hollywood to social support, with those who have the advantage helping the disadvantaged. Groups who are disenfranchised need extra opportunities to compensate for their lack to begin with. That’s why African-Americans and women need organizations dedicated toward equal opportunities while those with special needs receive additional support like parking spaces or closed captioning.

Yet those with the advantage ignore this, concerned only with themselves. Then they create all sorts of fallacious claims to justify their disregard for other people. In fact, I’ve already discussed this (and many more of those poor arguments) before. The point is, casting Mary Jane with a Biracial actor doesn’t strip White actors of anything; casting the Ancient One as White does do that to Asian actors.

“It feels shoe-horned, unnecessary, inorganic, etc.”

This is one I’ve heard from the original group I was discussing. Unfortunately, I feel this is still based on a lack of larger picture. At times, as a society, we have to force people to change… because otherwise, they won’t. It took major social movements, full of protests and civil disobedience, before laws were altered to allow equal opportunities for women and Blacks. Even then, you had to have the federal government step in, to force local governments and citizens to adhere to the new social norms. That’s not even going into the continuing fights by women and minorities today despite those same laws, plus newer social movements.

The same is true in geek media, where newfound popularity, exposure, and changes in demographics have warranted new standards in comics, games, and fiction. Many involved, from fans to industry, have been slow in adapting and adhering to these new norms of inclusion and representation. That means someone has to force them to change, complying with the new diverse standard. You could consider the gender- and race-swapping as the “National Guard”, sent in to force the “integration” of Hollywood and its audiences despite their resistance to the “Civil Rights Laws” of an increasingly diverse popular culture.

“These aren’t my characters!”

This is another common claim by those I talked to in my original point. The truth is… they’re absolutely right. These aren’t your characters, not anymore. The new adaptations weren’t necessarily made for you, they’re more likely for a new generation and society. One that is more diverse and open-minded than the generations prior, and faces many different social and political issues.

The original Star Trek was made for an era full of racial discrimination and wars. The Matrix targeted the tech-savvy, alt-culture, anti-establishment people sick of the dystopian corporatocracy behind their socioeconomic woes. Now we have new movies and shows intended for audiences that have become far more diverse, inclusive, and sensitive.

Many of the geeks throwing fits refuse to accept a fact: we are old and society has changed. The same way we look at racial insensitivity, exclusion, and female stereotypes from the early- to mid-20th century? That’s how younger generations look at current whitewashing, appropriation, and tropes. Just like how Jar-Jar Binks was targeting the youngest Star Wars fans and the new Ghostbusters was meant to inspire a new generation, these new versions of comic characters are meant for the latest generation of audiences.

Your choice is to adapt and accept them… or become reclusive and exclusive. Do you want to be the cool older person, like Betty White, changing with the times? Or do you want to be the bitter asshole, like Clint Eastwood, clinging blindly to archaic values.

Women in Color in Comics

To summarize this, there is a lot of reason why arguments against “x-swapping” in comic adaptations are unfounded. In fact, the opposite can be said in that changing a character’s race, gender, orientation, etc. is a good and necessary thing, given changing demographics and societal norms. That being said, understand that some who argue against the changes may have a valid argument. The best way to convince them is to not disregard them, but instead to discuss the matter. We may not come to a complete agreement, but we can at least find some mutual ground in our fandom and its effects on society.

Racial Issues are Real – Your Arguments are Invalid

In this ever divisive society, exacerbated by the sounding board that is the Internet, there have been a lot of arguments against movements to help racial disparities in society. Most of the arguments against these movements are from White individuals who espouse a variety of perceptions and beliefs why the other side is wrong. Sadly, many of these arguments are based in ignorance or logical fallacy, supporting a maladapted schema about racial issues. Here are some of the most common claims and why they hold no water…

• All Lives Matter

One of the biggest arguments against the Black Lives Matter movement is that the name itself is divisive and racist. After all, shouldn’t all lives matter? Are supporters claiming that Black lives are more important than the other races?

The problem is that latter question is a strawman. No one is saying that Black lives are more important; instead, they’re bringing attention to the fact that society seems to treat Black lives with less importance. Statistically, the race that is most likely to be killed are African-Americans, whether by police, medical reasons, etc. This disparity is often tied to societal practices and systems, whether it’s profiling by law enforcement and non-Blacks, unequal treatment by judicial systems, the prevalence of poverty and crime in Black neighborhoods, or a lack of proper treatment for mental and physical illnesses.

When someone wants to remind people that “Black lives matter”, they’re attempting to bring attention to this disparity and the underlying causes. Supporters are saying that the attention needed for Black issues is more important than other demographics, not the Black lives themselves. “Oh, but you just admitted it, they want more attention!” Well… yes. Why wouldn’t they? There’s a cartoon that easily explains this…

As you can see, those who are suffering more deserve more attention. Whites are not statistically more likely to be killed; even Asians and Latinos fare better, with Middle Easterners only beginning to face similar problems because of Islamophobia. This doesn’t mean that each group doesn’t have its own problems, but that the biggest problems require more help. If you have a group of people with one cut, one shot, and the rest are untouched… who should the EMT look at first? Would you try and suggest the people standing around unharmed, require attention? “I’m sorry, but could you please stop and talk to me as I’m suffering mental distress from witnessing this incident. I mean, we all matter equally, don’t we?”

Black lives matter because they are currently the ones suffering the most. They’re not more important than other races, but their situation generally is.

• Every Race can be Racist

This isn’t exactly untrue, as the literal definition of the term racism is objective and doesn’t care about the perpetrator. You can find individuals of any race who espouse beliefs or practice behaviors that race is a determinant of characteristics and/or a race is inferior (or superior) to others. What this ignores, however, is the influence of racist acts on society by certain demographics (historically and currently).

Even if 50% of Whites practiced racism and 50% of Blacks did the same, what impact would each have on society and its systems? 110 million Whites that discriminate against 38 million Blacks, in a society where Blacks are at a disadvantage… versus 17 million Blacks who might discriminate against 220 million Whites in that same societal system. The only way it would be close to equal numerically would be if 100% of Blacks were anti-White and only 17% of Whites felt the same way. Given recent polling data, I highly doubt that sort of mentality is equal, and that’s still ignoring the fact that the majority of people in positions of authority (from legislators to judges) are White. Which is where structural racism, as opposed to individual acts, comes into play…

In sociology, and similar academics, there is a different definition of racism as a societal structure that makes the “playing field” unfair for certain races. Some demographics do not have adequate representation and often suffer under unequal institutional policies. They may be subject to stereotypes, labels, and (conscious or subconscious) reactions based on these generalizations and misperceptions. These problems are not just on an individual level but ingrained in society as a whole, thanks to generations of societal norms and continued inaction by those in positions of authority. This is why racism cannot be “reversed”, because a single racist act by a Black against a White is nothing compared to the structure of a society where Blacks experience systemic racism on a daily basis.

So, yes, every person can be racist regardless of race. Yet that doesn’t mean that African-Americans don’t have it worst when it comes to the racism game, from simply being outnumbered to being subject to a complex societal structure that puts them at a constant disadvantage. That’s why “racism” in this country generally runs one way, at least on a societal level.

• Africans were Guilty of Slavery Too

Now that we’ve explained why Black lives matter and how the system of racism generally puts Blacks at a disadvantage, we get to the next misinformed arguments. That usually involves historical examples of how Blacks treated themselves or the subjugation of other demographics. Of course, this is all irrelevant as it doesn’t address the problems African-Americans face today or the sources of those issues. That being said, let’s look at the first of two common historical arguments: the actions of Africans.

Historically, much of the African slave trade originated in Africa by Africans. This is an indisputable truth and no one denies this practice (that is still common in war-torn countries even today). Of course, it ignores several historical truths that put the slave trade of the Americas into a different context when compared to the practice of slavery throughout historical Africa.

Prior to the presence of foreigners, African slavery was a varied practice where slaves were treated as anything from future tribal members to third-class citizens. Often these slaves were sold through commerce or won through conquests, yet in the end they were still treated with some sense of humanity. This ingrained a certain expectation that when a slave was sold to someone else, they’d be treated in the same manner as the seller’s culture. Things would change, however, when slaves were taken or traded to foreign powers.

Starting with the Arabic invasions that brought slaves to northern Africa and the Middle East, some slaves were treated as disposable labor or soldiers. Still, even with the wars and expansions of these kingdoms, slaves still held onto cultures and were treated as human (even if lesser). It wasn’t until the rise of the European powers that slavery took on a new face, treating enslaved Africans like chattel and beasts of burden. Africans probably thought their fellows would be kept similar to their own culture, not squeezed into ships, tortured into submission, and discarded like refuse.

So yes, Africans sold slaves to Europeans and no one is excusing that unethical cultural practice. However, few expected them to be treated like animals or objects. The atrocities committed during the European slave trade rivaled those committed during the genocide of the indigenous American peoples, and laid the groundwork for future prejudices and the structural racism of American society.

• The Irish were Slaves Too

A more recent argument, that is even more fallacious, is the discussion of enslaved Irish. Like the discussion of the African slave trade, this is based on fact without considering the context or consequences. During the 17^th through 19^th centuries, Britain invaded and oppressed Ireland, murdering or enslaving most of its people. Many Irish were shipped to plantations in the Caribbean, where they initially were even interbred with the African slaves (explaining the many slaves of mixed-heritage). Although these practices were later curbed, the process of enslaving the Irish wasn’t abolished until 1839 and hundreds of thousands had been through the same experiences as Africans.

Although atrocious, the comparative experiences and lasting consequences are far different for each population. Hundreds of thousands of Irish are compared to millions of Africans, who were being shipped overseas two centuries earlier and who experienced consequences long after their emancipation in 1863. African slaves were far more widespread, outnumbered Irish at least 20-to-1 and had been enslaved for so long their culture was all but forgotten.

Another big difference is that, upon freedom, those descended from Irish alone could blend right back into society… only linguistics and culture divided them from the rest of the Euro-dominant world. Despite some continued prejudice during the immigrations of the later 19^th century, by the early 20^th most Irish were part of the majority culture and just another part of the White demographic. By the modern era, Irish heritage is often displayed as a badge of pride and celebrated annually by people of all types.

Compare that to African-Americans, who created a demographic unto themselves because of a difference in skin color. After “freedom” they still struggled for acceptance and equal opportunity, facing White supremacists, Jim Crow segregation, fights for civil rights, the loss of their original culture, and stereotyping in everything from civilian society to law enforcement. Even into the 21^st century, Blacks still face discrimination and unequal treatment. Can anyone honestly compare the post-slavery experiences of Irish and Blacks and claim they are equal?

So, once more, yes… factually the existence of Irish slaves is completely true. Yet, comparatively, the experience was nothing compared to African slaves. In addition, the descendants of the latter still face consequences compared to the pride and normalization of those of Irish descent. In fact, those modern experiences are why historical events are of little consequence when discussing racism today.

• I’m not Racist

This is a catch-all for a variety of self-assurances that the individual arguing against equality movements is not a racist. “I never owned slaves or treated a Black person poorly”, “I don’t see color”, “I have Black friends”, and any number of claims are spouted to point out how non-racist the individual is… all to justify their arguments. After all, if the individual arguing against these movements is not a racist, then their argument (no matter how ignorant or fallacious) must be just as valid as the movements themselves.

This may even be coupled with talks about what the person has gone through. “I’ve experienced racism and know what it’s like”, “I’m poor, and therefore I have no privilege”, etc. are all used to deny a society-wide problem because of individual anecdotes. Since the claimant has suffered at some point in their life, they’re on the same level as anyone else who’s suffered… right?

What the claimant seems to not notice is the very egocentrism of their own words. Notice what word they use? “I”… repeatedly. It’s all about what they did, rather than discussing what others do or the inherent unfairness of society itself. This is the crux of most arguments, as the person only wants to think about the immediate picture rather than expand their schema to include a larger picture and their role in it.

A popular movie quote stated, “Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.” By ignoring one’s position in society, including one’s advantages, authority, and participation in unfair systems, the individual becomes just as culpable as those who flagrantly practice racist beliefs and behaviors. In essence, the claimant contributes to racism by refusing to acknowledge racism.

So, while you might not be racist, that doesn’t mean your perceptions and actions don’t contribute to racist systems and policies. Not to mention, when people talk about these issues, it’s not all about you.

• I Shouldn’t be Forced to Feel Guilt

This last is not so much as an argument against racial equality movements, but a general statement that crops up. When you attempt to confront someone arguing against racial issues, they fall back on how you are trying to make them feel guilty when they did nothing wrong. Interestingly, this emotion they feel has nothing to do with what you are doing and everything to do with their own psychological mechanisms.

An individual who experiences a disparity between what they believe and reality, often suffer a form of psychological distress known as cognitive dissonance. They cannot handle the difference between their worldview and the facts in front of them, so they experience emotions similar to guilt. This often triggers psychological defense mechanisms including minimization (“Racism is not that big an issue”), denial (“It’s not happening around here”), and projection (“You’re the one that keeps bringing up race!”).  Thus, when confronted with a societal reality (wherein they have an advantage), they resort to fallacious and ignorant statements.

Here’s the thing… no one is saying you should feel guilt. If you feel guilt it’s probably because you are experiencing some sort of mental distress when faced with these issues. Which is good! No one should look at the disparity of how society treats African-Americans and feel positive. They should be upset, outraged, or any other negative emotion. That’s normal!

What’s not normal is then choosing to deny the issue and make all sorts of claims why it’s not an issue. That’s just plain ignorant… and ignorance is a major factor behind society-wide racism.

Social Justice: It’s not a Pejorative

After spending far too much time arguing on the Internet, I’ve been thinking there needs to be a new variant of Godwin’s Law. For those that don’t know, Godwin’s Law is an assertion that the longer an online discussion continues the more likely someone will compare something to Hitler or the Nazis. When that happens, the conversation is over, because the comparison is usually indicative of a point when all logic and objectivity has faded; the individual guilty of such a comparison has probably fallen victim to some major fallacy, including hyperbole, slippery slope, or outright ad hominem attacks.

The same is true today with the pejorative “social justice warrior”, which is all too often trotted out when someone dares to make a suggestion that supports diversity, inclusion, cultural sensitivity, or any other ideal construed as “progressive”. The problem is, like Godwin’s law, the moment this pejorative is thrown out it means the conversation has lost all sense of reason and intelligence. “Social justice warrior” or “SJW” is a fallacious attack used to disregard the opposition, often in ignorance of the individual, the counterargument, and the original term itself.

Social Justice

Social justice is not a pejorative. At its core, it represents a demand for equity, equal opportunity, and protection regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, faith, economic status, etc. This concept has existed long before the divisiveness of 21^st century America. Although the term originated in the 19^th century, you’ll find its underlying tenets in the teachings of Ancient Greek philosophers and the great minds of the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment. Labor movements rose from these ideas while international treaties used the concept to protect human rights. You’ll find “social justice” behind the end of slavery, Woman’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, and the ADA. Today, this concept is part of social and mental health programs, influencing treatment methods, codes of ethics, and prevention programs.

There is nothing negative about social justice, so its use as a pejorative is fallacy. No one should decry social justice any more than they should denounce human rights or due process. Social justice is a lofty ideal that every society should strive for, to ensure health and happiness for as many of its citizens as possible. Which brings us to our next concern… the full term of “social justice warrior”.

Social Justice Warrior

“SJW”, like the concept of social justice, should not be a derogatory term. A “warrior” fighting for social justice should be someone who stands up for equity, equal opportunity, and human rights. Yet, like all causes, you’re going to have your few who take things too far. Some might become authoritarian themselves in their ideals of “justice”, often out of ignorance of how extreme or unreasonable their demands or beliefs are. Others might believe “justice” will only occur when the tables are turned, promoting superiority while falling victim to the same poor thinking as their opposition. And, of course, there are those few who might hide under the banner of “social justice”, while purposefully using it for their own maleficent reasons.

The thing to remember is that these individuals are no more supporting “social justice” than someone who denies individual rights is a “liberal” or a person who espouses bigotry is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. I could proclaim myself to be whatever I want, but whether I speak for a greater cause or support its tenets is what should be questioned… not the cause or tenets themselves. That’s where the fallacy of using “SJW” as a pejorative occurs, because people are denying valid arguments or the cause itself all because of a few extremists. Worse, they then use that same illogical thinking to reinforce a schema wherein “social justice” is a bad concept and any future discussions are immediately disregarded and disparaged without any sort of critical thought.

Thoughts

Social justice and “SJW” is not a pejorative. Social justice is a laudable philosophy that underlies everything from human and civil rights to equity and equal opportunity. You’ll find it in international treaties, labor movements, health programs, etc. and there is no ethical reason to oppose such a concept. The “warriors” who fight for it are varied, and while a few may be extreme or unreasonable, they are no more indicative of the greater cause than a fundamentalist Christian speaks for the entirety of the faith.

I posit there should be a new law, similar to Godwin’s law, which states that any conversation will eventually devolve into someone using “social justice” in a derogatory fashion. At that point, the conversation has ended and the person guilty of the ignorant fallacy automatically loses any validity or credibility. The only question is what to call it…