385 réponses à ce sujet

[Jorji Costava]

I've got no love for Milo Yiannopoulos, but even he deserves the dignity of freedom of association, and a bomb threat represents a violation of these rights and an unacceptable way to resist his politics. Hopefully whoever is responsible is dealt with by the justice system sooner rather than later.

 

Most people would be, but I get perverse pleasure out of the SJW narrative getting it's teeth kicked in. More than anything though, I hugely dislike identity politics. The modern practitioners of it are the biggest mental gymnasts ever and there is zero intellectual honesty in it whatsoever. Despite flying the flag of "equality", it is the one ideology that prioritises people's arbitrary or immutable differences over all else.

 

My view is that working through the identity politics of games is just a part of the growing pains of a maturing medium. In 1975, Chinua Achebe gave a famous lecture entitled "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness," which ignited an uproar among the community of literary critics at the time but is today recognized as an essential part of the history of literary criticism; discussions of Heart of Darkness are today routinely classified as pre- or post-Achebe.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, it's just impossible for me to believe that we'd have a better understanding of literature if we just dismissed his view outright or if we just never raised the kinds of questions he raised. And I think games have to go through this same process. Sure there are plenty of people who do a horrible job of this (and let's face it; the denizens of Tumblr are not up to the level of Achebe), but to me it's preferable to the alternative of plugging one's ears and simply declaring by fiat that we've achieved 100% equality and are doing everything right.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mass censorships also a part of growing pains ala the comics code authority or guidelines of morality for films or the obscenity trials for books.

Does thst mean we should embrace it as good? Just cause ot to is a "phase" other mediums went through?

[LPPrince]

but to me it's preferable to the alternative of plugging one's ears and simply declaring by fiat that we've achieved 100% equality and are doing everything right.

 

Thats not really happening amongst those that are actually debating though(as opposed to those with the one off statements).

 

It usually goes like this-

 

Person A- Men and women should be equal, and in some cases they aren't, but both have their upsides and downsides in society. Both men and women have issues, but the potential for men and women to achieve the same things already exists. We need to work together to bridge that gap but at the same time accept when people make their own decisions, even if it opposes our own.

 

Person B- Men and women should be equal, and its women who are the ones suffering most. Women live in a patriarchal society that holds them down, doesn't offer them the same opportunities as men, and women are psychologically led to have certain roles they wouldn't choose on their own. Women need to be boosted up in every way imaginable to be on the same level as men in today's society.

 

Person A- But women can do the same things as men in society. They choose not to, not because of manipulation, but because its simply their choice as human beings. Women aren't wrong for choosing to fit certain roles, its part of the inner differences between man and woman. It would be wonderful to have more women taking on the roles predominantly filled with men, but they have to choose to take them if its going to happen, and they seem quite comfortable and happy with the roles they have already. There will always be exceptions, but its just as hard for a man to get a traditionally female-role as it is for a woman to get a traditionally male-role.

 

Person B- Women don't choose to take on those positions because they aren't geared to do so. Everything in society says that women need to be a certain way and that men need to be a certain way;that way being men as the dominant and women as the lesser party. The roles that are held by men are only held by them because society has determined that men should fill those roles;women would if they could, but there is constant barriers being put up to stop it from happening. They would be just as competent as any man in a man's field, but there's a war on women to prevent them from taking those positions.

 

Person A- How so? Can it not just be that women choose to fill the roles they have already taken? Can it not be that men and women shaped society to be as it is, rather than society shaping men and women to be as they are today?

 

Person B- No. Men took control of society for years and instituted everything imaginable to maintain control. Slowly women have been able to break free from these constraints, but more needs to be done and as time goes on, more is occurring.

 

Person A- But what do you say to those that are content with their current roles? What do you say to the men that like the way society caters to them, or to the women that like the way society caters to them? What do you say to the men that do not approve of how society holds them back, or to the women who don't like the way society holds them back?

 

etc etc it usually goes on like this at least between the rational debaters. Most of what you'll see online are people unwilling to understand both sides, outright loonies, or trolls looking to get a rise out of the other side.

[Jorji Costava]

Mass censorships also a part of growing pains ala the comics code authority or guidelines of morality for films or the obscenity trials for books.

Does thst mean we should embrace it as good? Just cause ot to is a "phase" other mediums went through?

 

The reason why I describe the discussion of identity politics in games as a "growing pain" is that it is a process which is initially unpleasant but whereby we gain greater understanding of the subject matter, even if we end up disagreeing with the people who raise these issues. All I'm appealing to is the idea that there's value in understanding perspectives you don't agree with, and that it's good to have intelligent people who are willing to discuss games from the point of view of race and gender; do you deny this? Are these topics just off-limits for some reason?

 

Working through censorship did not give us greater understanding of anything, other than of the fact that censorship is bad. There is simply no moral equivalence at all between censorship and criticism of a work from a broadly left-wing perspective. Left-wing academics and games crit types are not trying to take away or censor your games; their calling a game 'problematic' does not prevent you from consuming a work. Of course such views can and do get abused (Australia's censorship of Hotline Miami 2 comes to mind), and this abuse should be resisted, but from the fact that a practice or belief system can be used for bad ends, it doesn't follow that it ought to be abandoned wholesale.

 

EDIT: Fixed grammar

[In Exile]

Mass censorships also a part of growing pains ala the comics code authority or guidelines of morality for films or the obscenity trials for books.

Does thst mean we should embrace it as good? Just cause ot to is a "phase" other mediums went through?

This isn't about censorship. Don't be a ****** IRL racist is totally different from "don't portray violence".

There was a recent Oscar winning movie about the brutality of slavery, you might recall. Nothing prevents that portrayal. The whole point is to do it without being an actual racist.

[Isichar]

Thats not really happening amongst those that are actually debating though(as opposed to those with the one off statements).

It usually goes like this-

Person A- Men and women should be equal, and in some cases they aren't, but both have their upsides and downsides in society. Both men and women have issues, but the potential for men and women to achieve the same things already exists. We need to work together to bridge that gap but at the same time accept when people make their own decisions, even if it opposes our own.

Person B- Men and women should be equal, and its women who are the ones suffering most. Women live in a patriarchal society that holds them down, doesn't offer them the same opportunities as men, and women are psychologically led to have certain roles they wouldn't choose on their own. Women need to be boosted up in every way imaginable to be on the same level as men in today's society.

Person A- But women can do the same things as men in society. They choose not to, not because of manipulation, but because its simply their choice as human beings. Women aren't wrong for choosing to fit certain roles, its part of the inner differences between man and woman. It would be wonderful to have more women taking on the roles predominantly filled with men, but they have to choose to take them if its going to happen, and they seem quite comfortable and happy with the roles they have already. There will always be exceptions, but its just as hard for a man to get a traditionally female-role as it is for a woman to get a traditionally male-role.

Person B- Women don't choose to take on those positions because they aren't geared to do so. Everything in society says that women need to be a certain way and that men need to be a certain way;that way being men as the dominant and women as the lesser party. The roles that are held by men are only held by them because society has determined that men should fill those roles;women would if they could, but there is constant barriers being put up to stop it from happening. They would be just as competent as any man in a man's field, but there's a war on women to prevent them from taking those positions.

Person A- How so? Can it not just be that women choose to fill the roles they have already taken? Can it not be that men and women shaped society to be as it is, rather than society shaping men and women to be as they are today?

Person B- No. Men took control of society for years and instituted everything imaginable to maintain control. Slowly women have been able to break free from these constraints, but more needs to be done and as time goes on, more is occurring.

Person A- But what do you say to those that are content with their current roles? What do you say to the men that like the way society caters to them, or to the women that like the way society caters to them? What do you say to the men that do not approve of how society holds them back, or to the women who don't like the way society holds them back?

etc etc it usually goes on like this at least between the rational debaters. Most of what you'll see online are people unwilling to understand both sides, outright loonies, or trolls looking to get a rise out of the other side.

Yep. This is the kind of discussion you'd almost never see online.

The whole GG versus SJW debate has gotten stale. It's hard to take either side seriously when they both tend to turn into explaining why the other side is **** and has no merits. I've heard people go on about how GG is complete trash with no redeeming qualities and just as many people go on about how bad the SJW are likewise. I'm just going to enjoy the games I enjoy and forget about the entire discussion. It has no value whatsoever because each side is just throwing as much mud as possible trying to discredit the other group.

[LPPrince]

There was a recent Oscar winning movie about the brutality of slavery, you might recall. Nothing prevents that portrayal.

 

I think thats a big thing within the GamerGate mess.

 

You have characters like Bayonetta who are clearly sexualized heavily and characters like the rebooted Lara Croft who aren't, both of which female gamers have embraced and taken massive likings to for several reasons like being positive role models, being strong characters, comfortable in their sexualities, fighting uphill battles, etc etc. In this case, these characters are the "slaves". Follow me here.

 

Then you have people who come in and say that those characters are wrong for all the reasons people like them, that there are other reasons why they exist and are the way they are. That characters of those natures shouldn't exist, that they are not perfect, that while they have their positives, they have negatives too and we need characters more like what these other people approve of. These would be people complaining of the "slaves" depiction.

 

The first group of people say, "Stop trying to prevent these characters from existing, they rock and they are fine as they are"

 

The second group of people say, "No, there is plenty wrong with them-"

 

and then there's a split between-

 

A. People that finish that with, "and they shouldn't exist, no more characters like that should be created"

B. People that finish that with, "and its fine that they exist, but we should have more characters without these issues"

 

People are often shoved under the same labels(which is why I personally hate labels) and then you have arguments like the pro or anti Gamergate mess, the game journalism fiasco, the feminism thing, etc etc.

 

Its all just a mess of labels, misunderstandings, disagreements, trolling, and GAAAAH

[LPPrince]

Yep. This is the kind of discussion you'd almost never see online.

The whole GG versus SJW debate has gotten stale. It's hard to take either side seriously when they both tend to turn into explaining why the other side is **** and has no merits. I've heard people go on about how GG is complete trash with no redeeming qualities and just as many people go on about how bad the SJW are likewise. I'm just going to enjoy the games I enjoy and forget about the entire discussion. It has no value whatsoever.

 

You'd think if the masses of either side actually cared about the causes they supposedly care about they'd agree to work together or at least part ways amicably.

 

But nope. Poison coming from both sides.

[Isichar]

You'd think if the masses of either side actually cared about the causes they supposedly care about they'd agree to work together or at least part ways amicably.
 
But nope. Poison coming from both sides.

It's unfortunate because I love a good debate and I think the topic is worthwhile. I think a lot of good discussion could come from the topic but there's too much butthurt from both sides and they just keep blaming each other for it. It's a damned shame really.

[slimgrin]

You'd think if the masses of either side actually cared about the causes they supposedly care about they'd agree to work together or at least part ways amicably.

 

But nope. Poison coming from both sides.

 

This is a no brainer though, and symptomatic of being anonymous people on the internet. I mean, we've all known reasonable people will sh*t post since its inception, right? And then the supposed moral outrage after Zoe's incident was supposed to be shocking? I mean come on...

 

Imo people in GG have systematically dismantled every stance the media and SJWs took. And much of the time they did it with style and humor. As for working together, you're right about that. Neither side will budge.

[LPPrince]

It's unfortunate because I love a good debate and I think the topic is worthwhile. I think a lot of good discussion could come from the topic but there's too much butthurt from both sides and they just keep blaming each other for it. It's a damned shame really.

 

If I had it my way, I'd separate GG from feminism in gaming entirely. The whole feminism part of it only came into the picture because of the response from trolls to the ladies involved. I'd have GG focus entirely on making sure ethics for games journalism are on point, and I'd have a new hashtag focus specifically for feminism in gaming. That way each side splits and can do what needs to be done for their sides without competing or mixing in with one another.

[LPPrince]

This is a no brainer though, and symptomatic of being anonymous people on the internet. I mean, we've all known reasonable people will sh*t post since its inception, right? And then the supposed moral outrage after Zoe's incident was supposed to be shocking? I mean come on...

 

Imo people in GG have systematically dismantled every stance the media and SJWs took. And much of the time they did it with style and humor. As for working together, you're right about that. Neither side will budge.

 

As for Anita's lot, I wonder why they're never open to direct debate. Its always one sided or comments disabled(which is justified as happening to prevent trolling, but also serves to prevent discussion with dissenting opinion).

 

Those trying to separate the feminist side from the ethics in games journalism side have been open to debate and have done great jobs in breaking down opposing sides, but the flip side continues the one-sided, "hear my ways and nope, if you disagree you're gone or don't exist".

 

Its mental.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Lets be honest, its not like the SJW rabble would ever leave their basements to build a bomb. Its great to expose their hypocrisy but no need to actually take it seriously. You can't compromise with them, you can't reason with them, and you can't appease them. Whatever relationship they have with traditional feminism is irrelevant, those feminists should want to chop off this gangrenous limb themselves.

[Isichar]

Actually yeah, it often feels like there's 2 seperate issues at hand here and they just don't seem to be mixing well. The issue of gaming journalism doesn't have to be necessarily connected to that of feminism in gaming. Of course I know people who say gaming journalism is fine and it's all just a front to attacking feminists..

[LPPrince]

Actually yeah, it often feels like there's 2 seperate issues at hand here and they just don't seem to be mixing well. The issue of gaming journalism doesn't have to be necessarily connected to that of feminism in gaming. Of course I know people who say gaming journalism is fine and it's all just a front to attacking feminists..

 

They are two separate issues. Its just that one person involved in the ethics issue was a woman and brought in the feminist crowd, and then you had the mixing of issues and arguments/accusations and such.

 

Problem is, people keep BRINGING THEM TOGETHER.

 

For example, check out this set of tweets posted by Notch(creator of Minecraft) just a few days ago-

 

https://pbs.twimg.co...Aqkui.png:large

 

Wild.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Stop posting your tl;dr comments. Write briefly and usefully.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

You'd think if the masses of either side actually cared about the causes they supposedly care about they'd agree to work together or at least part ways amicably.

 

But nope. Poison coming from both sides.

Kinda my view regarding things.

sure there are the ones who realy do care then there are the intelectualy dishonest sharlatins who are out to make a quick buck.

stir up controversy and play the victim card like a pro.

then there are the internet Thaught Police who basicaly look for decent like its some cult. 

"Hay i met one of the opposition and they were human."

"#BLASPHEMY."

But in my honest oppinion i'd say maybe 50% were 3rd party trolls looking to play both sides like a fiddle. 

[LPPrince]

But in my honest oppinion i'd say maybe 50% were 3rd party trolls looking to play both sides like a fiddle. 

 

Both sides are infested with trolls. Its what makes the whole thing silly to engage in.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Yep and half of those trolls are nuteral. 

Stop posting your tl;dr comments. Write briefly and usefully.

OI Teal Dear just eats his fruit in the forest its not his fault he makes great youtube videos.

[AlanC9]

Did anyone else laugh when reading about the bomb threat? I did, though I felt a little bad about that afterward.

[LPPrince]

I think that would be hard to do since so many of the ones talking about corruption see the 'SJW feminism etc' as part and parcel to said corruption.

 

Aye, too true.

[KaiserShep]

Lets be honest, its not like the SJW rabble would ever leave their basements to build a bomb. Its great to expose their hypocrisy but no need to actually take it seriously. You can't compromise with them, you can't reason with them, and you can't appease them. Whatever relationship they have with traditional feminism is irrelevant, those feminists should want to chop off this gangrenous limb themselves.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that people love to blow smoke and make idle threats to get people riled up, but there's always that little paranoia in me that thinks that there's always that one overactive weirdo that would just do it because why the frak not.

[LPPrince]

On the one hand, I'm inclined to think that people love to blow smoke and make idle threats to get people riled up, but there's always that little paranoia in me that thinks that there's always that one overactive weirdo that would just do it because why the frak not.

 

Thats a worry everyone should have when a threat is made. People often don't protect themselves until AFTER something has happened. See 9/11/01

[SnakeCode]

As for Anita's lot, I wonder why they're never open to direct debate. Its always one sided or comments disabled(which is justified as happening to prevent trolling, but also serves to prevent discussion with dissenting opinion).

 

Those trying to separate the feminist side from the ethics in games journalism side have been open to debate and have done great jobs in breaking down opposing sides, but the flip side continues the one-sided, "hear my ways and nope, if you disagree you're gone or don't exist".

 

Its mental.

 

That's an easy one. Anita or Mackintosh would get torn to shreds in an actual debate setting. It's fairly obvious that neither of them harbour any love for videogames. Anita has been filmed saying as such, and one look at Mackintosh's twitter will tell you that he despises videogames. On the Colbert report, Sarkeesian couldn't even name three games off of the top of her head that were overtly sexist.