So much crazy in such concentration

Published on Friday, March 13, 2015 By Brad Wardell In Blogging

A Social Justice Warrior is defined as:

pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle. source

They’re not liberals. They’re not conservatives.  They’re narcissists who hate people in order to feel good about themselves in front of their peers.

It’s Friday and I’ve decided to indulge myself by publishing some of the asinine comments from a SJW subredit. The best thing you can do with SJWs is point and laugh at them.

Let’s begin with: https://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2xva7w/about_the_brad_wardell_thing/

To recap: Brianna Wu asked me to have coffee with her at GDC.  Bri is very active in the “anti-gamer gate” movement who runs an indie game studio. She and I have clashed in the past and after we got to know each other better we realized that her views and my views have a lot of overlap.  Our basic difference is that she sees GamerGate as a hate group and I am sympathetic to GamerGate’s stated goal of cleaning up indie gaming journalism. 

Anyway, Bri shared on twitter that she and I had a pleasant sit down together and her followers went bonkers leading her to feel obligated to restate that she and I are not in some sort of alliance, etc.  After being viciously insulted online, Bri felt obligated to make a Reddit post to assuage the irrational fears of her supporters. Now, her liking me or not liking me doesn’t affect whether I found her to be a pleasant individual in person or not. I found her to be quite pleasant and interesting. But then again, I don’t define myself by hating other people.

Let’s take a look

MaxwellTolvo writes:

I feel I should preface what I'm about to say with this, I'm very scared and do not feel safe.

I really have nothing to add to that statement. It just gives you the mindset of the SJW.  He/she continues:

Your tweets about Brad were disheartening to me, but I had not personally been harassed by him(My friends have been) so I didn't feel betrayed on that front.

What does “harassed” mean? Maybe it’s taken on a new meaning? Let’s take a look at the meaning in English:

: to annoy or bother (someone) in a constant or repeated way

The key thing about harassment is that it involves repetition.  If you (or I) criticize someone, that’s not harassment.  If someone posts “I wish Brad would die in a fire” and I respond “I’m in Michigan so at least I’d be warm” that is not me, harassing them. 

The grand total of people I’ve harassed is 0. 

Salarta writes:

I think Brad Wardell is playing you.

For what? What exactly do I get out of this? I didn’t tweet about it.

Brad Wardell has hurt a lot of people, and he's fine with that. He hasn't apologized. He's not sorry in any way.

Define “hurt”? And who are these people I’ve hurt? I assume they mean emotionally. Isn’t that really on them? For example, the weirdos on the Subredit could all claim this post is “hurting” them.  I don’t think that’s on me. That’s on them to take a little responsibility for their own online behavior. Similarly, if I were the delicate snowflake these people clearly are, aren’t they hurting me with their mean words?

But they are right about one thing: I’m not sorry. And I won’t apologize. I have nothing to be sorry for and nothing to apologize about.  People making up crazy things about me or someone else doesn’t somehow give them leverage over their target.

Maybe I don't really understand what it means to be a CEO, and this is a necessary evil. Maybe being a CEO means consorting with evil.

Maybe they don’t understand what it’s like to have a job? Maybe they don’t understand what it’s like to be a parent? Or to have responsibilities? They don’t really articulate what they mean.  As CEO, I run one of the world’s most progressive studios of our size in terms of equality of treatment for all human beings regardless of race, sex, orientation.

Rarebitt writes:

Just to make it clear - Brad Wardell has sexually harasser his emplyees. He has confessed in engaging in sexual harassment, he just refuses to call it that.

This is interesting circular logic. I have both confessed to sexual harassment AND refused to call it that.  Well, let’s make sure we understand what that is:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. (source)

Bear in mind, I’ve not even been accused of doing the above.  I was once sued for sexual harassment (that was the allegation) but none of the allegations actually involved anything that involved harassment or sexual.  The internet hub-bub boiled down that I mocked an employee, who happened to be female, for complaining about unspecified jokes I tell around the office.  That’s not sexual harassment. And in fact, if I choose to go around quoting Family Guy or Simpsons that is also not sexual harassment though, even there, I don’t tell dirty jokes or even tell what might be considered off-color jokes.  But if I want to go around my office singing “Every sperm is sacred” and you don’t like it, tough shit. Find another job. I realize that this makes SJWs lose their minds but that’s really not anyone’s problem but theirs. At this point, I feel I can safely say that I’m the world’s most qualified internet lawyer on what constitutes sexual harassment.

I also had a conversation with him on twitter once and when I said that it's up to people to set their own boundaries and say when an unwanted touch or sexual comment constitutes harassment, he said I had "an entitled view of the world".

Why yes, you do have an entitled view on the world if you think what you personally define as offensive should somehow entitle you to control what happens in an office environment.  Now, to be clear: physical touch is a different thing.  But I wasn’t accused of that. My offense was about “words” and unspecified ones at that.  If someone objects to something said to them, they have every right to complain and that should be the end of it. However, as any employment attorney can tell you, the pervading culture at a company overrides an individual’s preferences on what happens there in general.  Hence, if you find Homer Simpson quotes offensive, then you are welcome to find another job.

Inchoatercia writes:

please understand people like Wardell have done real, tangible harm, and absent even a tiny bit of contrition for that harm, that hate is going to continue to drive his actions.

Like Wardell? So what, “real”, “tangible” harm has been done? Do you know what tangible means? And who is it I hate? I don’t hate you. I may laugh at you. Ridicule you. But I don’t hate you. What’s there to hate? I may resent having to pay for future subsidies for you to become a career student after your music theory major fails to land you a job but that’s a far cry from hating.

Now, this is just touching the tip of the iceberg. 

A lot of what separates people like me and SJWs is how they deal with this abuse. SJWs wilt. They try to turn their hurt feelings into a weapon to extract concessions from others.  They absolutely rely on the good nature of other people to further their agenda.

By contrast, people like me can’t help but laugh at this idiocy.  I try not to indulge too much in ridiculing these abusive twerps. But it’s been a long week and frankly, these creatures need to be exposed for what they are. And the journalists who use them as props to further their own ridiculous agendas should be exposed for what they are.