Video Game Culture V: Social Justice Warriors attack

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

We're over 400 in the last thread. Continue.

[Glaurung]

We're over 400 in the last thread. Continue.

I tried to keep up in the last thread, but the posts were coming in faster than I could read them. I have to work too!!

[Prosesskrift]

:lol:

I'm not sure I understand the mirth here, to be honest.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm not sure I understand the mirth here, to be honest.

I think that was meant was "no no, it is you who are in the echo chamber!"

[HairBearHero]

From last thread:

1)a) Ofcourse they are not synonymous, no one claimed otherwise.

1) b ) I don't accept your unsubstantiated and arbitrary definitions of "oppressed minorities". The fact that some people can see a group as an "oppressed minority" in a gaming context specifically, separately from society is... yeah... Also I couldn't care less if feminists (not women) are feeling lolppressed, considering the extraordinary lengths they go and ridiculous justifications they make up to find things to feel that way.

2) a) If you think that women in gaming are the equivalent of gay people in a town as the one I described above you are delusional and your analogy is even more flawed that mine (and at least mine doesn't affect my argument).

If you think that feminists are as powerless in gaming contexts to enforce changes as gay people are into the town I described then all I would have to do is point you towards other entertainment mediums where those "powerless" feminists apparently somehow managed to change quite a few things to their liking.

The idea that feminist individuals/organizations which hold a considerable sway in Western societies as a whole are somehow powerless in a sub-segment of that society (games) is a joke. The amount of money Sarkesian earned to start her project speaks by itself. Or do you think all those feminists/pro-feminists contributors were gamers?

Feminists might not be (comparatively) many in numbers in gaming but they also have the backing of non-gaming feminists as well. And that tramps any power the (unorganized) average gamers currently have (except maybe the power they have as consumers).

3) Says the guy who described women as "oppressed minorities in games."

In any case, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to the example I used, you can admit that feminists, especially if left unchecked, are in a position to force their ideologies on gamers and change games in the way I described.

1.a) The two seem to get conflated fairly frequently whenever this topic rears it's head, but it wasn't really directed at you so apologies if it sounded like that.

1.b) I'm confused by your point here. Are you arguing that a certain group cannot be considered more of a minority in a specific context than they are in general life? Is it the "minority" part you disagree with or the "oppressed"? Would you be satisfied if I changed it to the less emotive "disadvantaged"?

Leaving aside whether you consider women or feminists a disadvantaged/oppressed minority in society in general, how can they not be a minority in AAA gaming (which is where most of this "gamer culture" is found, rather than in Facebook/mobile games where women are an overwhelming majority)? There aren't as many women as men playing these games - that is pretty much the definition of a minority.

Additionally, would you argue that women/feminists are wrong when they wish for better treatment of female characters? I mean, if it means more female characters in addition to the existing male characters, that are written better and are generally more rounded characters, isn't that a net gain for gamers? Better female characters does not mean worse male characters - this isn't a zero-sum game.

Your use of lolpressed doesn't do you many favours when attempting to be taken seriously, incidentally. Also, is it not possible that amongst those you describe as going to extraordinary lengths there are some that are just...offended? That there are some who are genuinely being discriminated against? There are definitely some examples of people reaching for a reason to be offended, but there is also plenty of genuinely offensive and oppressive shit out there. The absolute torrent of abuse heaped on people like Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn would be a pretty golden example in my book. It's been a case of a significant portion of gamers saying "I disagree with you (for whatever reason), shut up or I'll threaten you". Again, this is textbook oppression.

2. I'm going to abandon this "gay people in a town" analogy because it was broken from the start, but do you really think that feminists are the powerful majority in any conversation about games? Within the gaming community? Within the games industry? At companies like Activision, EA, Ubisoft etc.?

Please do provide me with some examples of feminists changing an entire medium of entertainment, I'd be very interested to read about them.

I also think it's highly likely that Sarkeesian's backing was mostly from gamers. I don't find it all difficult to imagine that there are 7,000 gamers around the world willing to donate $20 each to advance the feminist critique of video games. Lacking actual data though, all we're doing here is tossing "I think" about the place so it's not really a productive conversation.

As to your final point, the combined purchasing power of gamers is hugely more important to the gaming industry than this mysterious cabal of feminists hellbent on changing video games. If game studios are changing, it's because they think it'll make them more money - that consumer power is in favour of an improved representation of women in video games.

[Solmyr]

Really? You had the opportunity to name the thread "... # 5, Blowing up buses filled with hookers" and you didn't take it?! I'm mortified.

[TerraPrime]

Post From Stannisaurus2: http://asoiaf.wester...-bad/?p=6326306

But to the main point, while calling what most feminists are doing/trying to do as censorship might be a bit inaccurate and unfair, they are actually trying to tell people what to play. When you (generic you) are trying to present something as morally wrong, and you spend large amounts of energy, time and resources to try and make that opinion the "standard" one for a society to have, then you are effectively trying to force a "moral ban"*.

So what's your suggestion then, for people who do find plenty of very objectionable elements of sexism in video games? Shut up? Because, apparently, if you are passionate about this issue and talk about it, and get your friends to talk about it, then you're guilty of enforcing a moral ban on video games. So, what's your solution to the presence of sexist elements in various games? C'est la vie and it's just a game so don't get worked up about it?

I mean sure, no one is going to come to your house and take your games, but as long as you play game X (or play it in a certain way) the you are a vile misogynist (but never a misandrist ofcourse)/woman-hater/sexist/rape supporter/pervert/weirdo etc. Not that there aren't games or actions in games that can lead to reasonably calling someone one of those things but I sure as hell am not going to accept the definitions of the average feminist for them. And ofcourse companies who make these games would be seen as equally bad, so in a society where the previously-mentioned ideologies are taken as "standard", reputable companies would avoid making those games. And if those ideologies become (practically) completely dominant then essentially (almost) no games like game X (or with some characteristics of game X) would exist.

Would you find it ok to have a substantial number of games, amongst which are some of the really popular titles, where black people are depicted as stupid and barbaric? Or maybe Jews were depicted as money-grabbing and selfish? What if the depiction was of Catholics as pedophiles? These games are popular because, it's "fun" to play. What then, should the response be for the rest of society, both gamers, TRUE-AND-REAL GAMERS, and non-gamers alike? We shouldn't criticize it because we don't have the authority to "take away" games with racist depictions from the large number of players who enjoy such games?

Also, you're talking about a group of people who want to stop certain types of games from being produced at all, whereas, a lot of the critique coming from gamers, like Sarkeesian, is more about relying less on sexist tropes. Sarkeesian, for instance, isn't saying that GTA games should be banned. She's saying that the game elements in the series are problematic for sexist reasons. Unless the sexist elements she had identified, like using women as background objects, is integral to the game, then removing those elements shouldn't mean that the game can no longer be produced.

Essentially, the critique is analogous to saying that the black-faced step-and-fetch caricature of black people is offensive and should not be used in comedies (with exceptions during satire), not that comedies should be banned.

But, if the comedy relies entirely on the racist trope, and if a video game relies entirely on sexsit tropes, then yes, consumer pressure should play a role in deterring its production. There is nothing morally wrong about this position unless someone holds that market economy should be divorced from moral considerations of the consumers. Or, if they are produced, they should be criticized soundly.

Furthermore, I don't know what you meant when you said that on the one hand, you agree that there are games where the content, when played as intended, will justifiably land someone in the label of misogynist/racist/etc., but on the other hand, you would not accept criticism from self-identified feminists. What other sources, if not feminism, are providing criticism of sexism? And why is a critique of sexist content NOT a manifestation of feminist thoughts? How can the enterprise of analyzing sexism in a type of media, be it books or films or video games, not be an intellectual offspring of feminism? What are some of the sources that you find acceptable in criticing video game sexism? Or is there none and your disclaimer is just for show?

This comparison is uneven and unequal in more than one way but it is a valid example for the point I am making: When you are trying to present something as "morally wrong" and you also try to spread that belief across a society in order to make it the "standard" one then you are effectively trying to enforce a moral ban, or in other words to indirectly force people to stop playing certain games.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with the approach. I imagine you are okay with society ostracizing child molesters? Because, if you are, then you're okay with using social pressure to achieve a goal, in some ways. The difference is whether the genesis of enmity is justifiable, i.e., can we justify enmity against homosexuality, vis a vis can we justify enmity against pedophilia. If the morallistic and ethical rejection of a set of action is justified, then applying social pressure to ostracize practitioners of those actions is justified.

[Kalbear]

On actual video game corruption...shockingly, there's a major AAA thing that is actual video game journalism corruption - and almost no one from gamergate is talking about it.

“Reading a few forums (yeah I know my mistake) about this whole Shadow of Mordor brand deal thing boggles my mind. There are literally people saying “I don’t know what he’s complaining about, if he wants it early he has to give something in return”. – TotalBiscuit

Seriously, why isn't this a bigger deal? A triple A title telling reviewers that they can't review their game unless they give it a majorly positive review and the company gets final say over what is in the video review? What the hell?

So what is gamergate culture concentrating on? Apparently, getting Vox/Verge boycotted because they had the temerity to tell Intel that Intel wasn't doing a great thing in pulling their ads over the Gamasutra thing - AND they took Intel's money.

Which brings us to two interesting news stories. The first is one I believe to be one of the finest display of pure-cut hypocrisy to yet be entertained by this catastrofuck. It’s called #OperationVoxPopuli. The argument is that Vox (the parent company that owns Verge) should be boycotted partially because Verge dared to be critical of Intel’s decision to abandon advertising for Gamasutra. Yes, apparently, to the guys running this, journalistic integrity means no Vox site should criticize Intel because Intel gives them money.

Sigh. Gamergaters are kind of huge idiots.

[Kalbear]

On a side note - I was thinking about the various making fun of that random otherkin person on the prior thread was getting. We live in an odd society, don't we? It's confrontational and considered a 'thoughtcrime' by some if we criticize someone for enjoying blowing up buses of virtual hookers - but it's totally fine to criticize someone who thinks that they might be part tortoise. From a purely normative standpoint this is fascinating. It's more socially acceptable to admit that it's funny to blow up a whole bunch of women than it is to pretend that you're part animal.

[Gears of the Beast]

On actual video game corruption...shockingly, there's a major AAA thing that is actual video game journalism corruption - and almost no one from gamergate is talking about it.

How amusing. I actually linked to this issue ages ago in the other thread. How did I find out about it? Gamergate was talking about it. What's even more hilarious is that TotalBiscuit -a Gamergate supporter- was the one who broke it in the first place and he clearly isn't talking about Gamergate supporters in that Tweet unless anyone on "a few forums" now counts as Gamergate supporters.

Good try though.

[Cold Crashing Waves]

We live in an odd society, don't we? It's confrontational and considered a 'thoughtcrime' by some if we criticize someone for enjoying blowing up buses of virtual hookers - but it's totally fine to criticize someone who thinks that they might be part tortoise. From a purely normative standpoint this is fascinating. It's more socially acceptable to admit that it's funny to blow up a whole bunch of women than it is to pretend that you're part animal.

:lol:

[HairBearHero]

On a side note - I was thinking about the various making fun of that random otherkin person on the prior thread was getting. We live in an odd society, don't we? It's confrontational and considered a 'thoughtcrime' by some if we criticize someone for enjoying blowing up buses of virtual hookers - but it's totally fine to criticize someone who thinks that they might be part tortoise. From a purely normative standpoint this is fascinating. It's more socially acceptable to admit that it's funny to blow up a whole bunch of women than it is to pretend that you're part animal.

Whilst I agree with you that it's ridiculous to categorise criticism as a "thoughtcrime", you're being more than a little unfair here. Nobody has actually advocated blowing up real buses of real women as "funny".

Hell, I find it incredibly fun to absolutely crush my enemies and destroy their civilisation in a nuclear holocaust in Civ, but that doesn't mean I'd find an actual nuclear holocaust amusing.

[paddington]

Seriously, why isn't this a bigger deal? A triple A title telling reviewers that they can't review their game unless they give it a majorly positive review and the company gets final say over what is in the video review? What the hell?

It's pretty much the norm for game reviews and AAA games. Ad's and access to games early so the site can be the first to review it and get the added clicks. It's a pretty corrupt system.

[Gears of the Beast]

Whilst I agree with you that it's ridiculous to categorise criticism as a "thoughtcrime", you're being more than a little unfair here. Nobody has actually advocated blowing up real buses of real women as "funny".

Hell, I find it incredibly fun to absolutely crush my enemies and destroy their civilisation in a nuclear holocaust in Civ, but that doesn't mean I'd find an actual nuclear holocaust amusing.

And nobody actually said it was thoughtcrime, I said it was sanctimonious.

[DanteGabriel]

It's pretty much the norm for game reviews and AAA games. Ad's and access to games early so the site can be the first to review it and get the added clicks. It's a pretty corrupt system.

Yet "Gamergate" (I hate that something this bullshitty got -gated) sprung up over a provably false allegation of favoritism towards one indie developer by an ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind. Something else in this whole thing is pretty corrupt too.

And nobody actually said it was thoughtcrime, I said it was sanctimonious.

You said it was "pretty close to thoughtcrime." So you introduced the word into the discussion and made the comparison.

[TerraPrime]

Yet "Gamergate" (I hate that something this bullshitty got -gated) sprung up over a provably false allegation of favoritism towards one indie developer by an ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind. Something else in this whole thing is pretty corrupt too.

It is incomprehensible to me that people would insist on using the GamerGate tag when there are other tags, like GameEthics, that are about the relevant issues, but without the sexism. It's all so 16-year-old-ish, you know? "You said I can't use this tag, well, I will keep using it!!! That'll show you!!"

[Kalbear]

Actually ccw said blowing up buses of hookers was hilarious. Gears and others agreed.

Total biscuit did link to the original shadows of mordor thing - as the article indicated - but gamergate has largely been totally silent about it. They've been super loud about this vox thing, but not at all trying to boycott shadows of mordor.

[paddington]

Yet "Gamergate" (I hate that something this bullshitty got -gated) sprung up over a provably false allegation of favoritism towards one indie developer by an ex-boyfriend with an axe to grind. Something else in this whole thing is pretty corrupt too.

Yeah kind of sounds like any excuse to harrass someone.

[Kalbear]

I guess I thought that if gamergate was actually about trying to fix corruption in the industry they would have universally called for SoM to be boycotted and not bought. That's the best message I can think to send to the publishers about not doing this sort of thing. Instead there are a few people saying that it sucks - but more people saying things like 'well, you've got to give something to get something' and justifying the behavior. My thought is that gamers don't want to boycott a game that they'll probably like because of purely selfish reasons, and ethics basically go out the window at that point.

[Gears of the Beast]

Actually ccw said blowing up buses of hookers was hilarious. Gears and others agreed.

Total biscuit did link to the original shadows of mordor thing - as the article indicated - but gamergate has largely been totally silent about it. They've been super loud about this vox thing, but not at all trying to boycott shadows of mordor.

I just told you I found out about it because Gamergate was talking about it, so clearly that's not the case especially considering the guy who broke it is Gamergate's most high profile supporter. I have no idea where you get your information about how 'loud' gamergate is being on an issue because I've seen plenty of discussion on shadow of mordor and yet have never even seen that operation vox thing. I don't think it was ever even posted on the gamergate sub reddit. Wait I just found it, it was downvoted and people in the comments are saying the guy who started it is crazy. Okay...So I'm very much doubting that you're basing your ideas of what Gamergate is talking about on what gameragte is actually talking about.