The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
Indeed.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I am so sick of people using that bs 47% of gamers are female number in conversations about traditional games. Social gamers and smartphone gamers who do not also play console or pc games are not relevant to conversations about demographics for console/pc games.
I am so sick of people using that bs 47% of gamers are female number in conversations about traditional games. Social gamers and smartphone gamers who do not also play console or pc games are not relevant to conversations about demographics for console/pc games.
Yeah, casuals don't count! They're not real gamers like me and my Call of Gearcraft buddies.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I am so sick of people using that bs 47% of gamers are female number in conversations about traditional games. Social gamers and smartphone gamers who do not also play console or pc games are not relevant to conversations about demographics for console/pc games.
Yeah, casuals don't count! They're not real gamers like me and my Call of Gearcraft buddies.
Hemingway was talking about fps, so yeah, casuals should be excluded.
Social games are pretty much a completely different industry from console games. It's like saying that the guy who makes a digital watch is in the same business as the architect who designs a clock tower, because both happen to involve keeping time.
It's not your place to say that. You do not get to make judgements on what sexual variations people enjoy, so long as it is legal. Judging people for their sexual preferences is something I figured you, of all people, would be against.
So, you think shame has a valid place in intimacy? Because that's what we're talking about here. Let's be honest - sexual culture in the US is, to put it mildly, extremely fucked up the wazoo. A large part of the reason that we don't talk about what we like and don't like in bed is because we are accultured against it. And women get a double whammy, because our culture has the whole Madonna/whore complex issue that tells them that if they show signs of being a sexual being, that marks them as a Bad Person.
So I don't see a problem in saying that if you view shame as an intrinsic part of sex and sexuality, you don't have a healthy relationship with it.
There is no ranked system of sexual health. Talking about sex while having sex is not a goal we are all supposed to be working towards. A healthy sex life is about two people who have sex the way they enjoy having sex in a way that breaks no law. A healthy sex life is definitively not conforming to a specific model developed by a person who does not share the same preferences and pleasures you do.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them. To the original: if a couple finds that having sex through a sheet is awesome, good for them.
You have no right telling anyone what they should be doing to enjoy a proper and healthy sex life. No one died and made you the Sex King (though that sounds like an awesome thing to be).
Enthusiastic consent isn't a prescribed script that must be followed to the letter. It's just open communication, mutual respect, and lack of coercion. Maybe some of that communication can be nonverbal! Different people communicate in different fashions. It seems to me that your argument here is perfectly in line with feminism.
If a couple wants to discuss everything they're doing while they're [consensually] doing it, good for them. That is how a healthy sex life is manifested for them. If a couple wants to go to a swing club and have wild [consensual] orgies with random strangers, good for them. If a couple finds [consensual] exploration and uncertainty in their sex lives appealing, good for them.
Honestly, i feel my post was more about not judging people for their sexual preferences than it was about Enthusiastic Consent. The origin of this back-and-forth began with AngelH making a judgement on a sex life that didn't conform to his idea of a healthy sex life (for no other reason then it differing from his personal expectations and preferences). I think this is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Regarding Enthusiastic Consent, my problem with it is that it seems to take a very passive approach to sexuality (for both genders). That's fine for some people, but I have trouble seeing how it could possibly be an across the board application. Most of my best experiences never would have happened had I used this approach, for the sheer reason that a good number of people just aren't into passive sexuality. And that's ok from where I'm standing.
And really, I just don't see how this is anything different from a passive approach. I'm fairly fluid in my understanding of the concept (due to many seeming contradictions in what I'm seeing), so feel to set me straight if I've got this part wrong. I'm thinking it's possibly due to enthusiastic consent meaning different things when applied to initial vs ongoing consent, but I don't have any confirmation on that so far.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Ironically, the casual games that supposedly Do Not Count As Games, For Real You Guys are still more complex than the games of my youth. A guy who played Pac-man may be a Real Gamer, but a woman who plays the more sophisticated Angry Birds is not.
Not that it matters. It's not like SKFM, or anyone complaining about that percentage, actually has the numbers. For all that we know, the percentage of male and female gamers who play only casual games could be equal enough that removing them from the picture doesn't change the male to female ratio in non-casual games. Until we see a breakdown, anyone complaining about it is talking out of their ass.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Social games are pretty much a completely different industry from console games. It's like saying that the guy who makes a digital watch is in the same business as the architect who designs a clock tower, because both happen to involve keeping time.
But aren't the people looking at the watch and looking at the tower both interested in telling what time it is? Would we market watches to only women and clock towers to only men? What does this analogy have to do with anything?
The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
I like how it dismisses all valid concerns about PCness so flippantly in order better suit the intended point. It reads exactly like a political opinion piece on the opposing party. I'd expect better from Huffpost, and that's saying something.
Even after that, the premise of the quote is kinda silly. No one likes unwanted intrusions and changes to something they like, that's fundamental human nature: If Group 1 likes X, they will not appreciate Group 2 attempting to change X to Y. They state this like it's some chilling dissertation on gamer culture, which I find hilarious.
You know, when you have guys making flash games singularly about beating women and when I can't even play xbox live without hearing a sexist or racist slur every couple of minutes, then I don't think that PCness is a problem in gaming.
You know, when you have guys making flash games singularly about beating women and when I can't even play xbox live without hearing a sexist or racist slur every couple of minutes, then I don't think that PCness is a problem in gaming.
Trying to judge the gaming community as a whole based on Xbox-live and MRAs is like trying to judge the people of New York based solely on the graffiti in the subway.
+2
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
I like how it dismisses all valid concerns about PCness so flippantly in order better suit the intended point. It reads exactly like a political opinion piece on the opposing party. I'd expect better from Huffpost, and that's saying something.
Even after that, the premise of the quote is kinda silly. No one likes unwanted intrusions and changes to something they like, that's fundamental human nature: If Group 1 likes X, they will not appreciate Group 2 attempting to change X to Y. They state this like it's some chilling dissertation on gamer culture, which I find hilarious.
Well normally when there is group A and group B discussing something, it'll go down like:
Group A: I hate all these RPGs. You know what gaming needs? More First person shooters.
Group B: Oh my God your taste is terrible. It's bad enough how few RPGs we have. FPS needs to die.
And the debate rages, with more or less maturity on either side. But when we talk about how we'd like games to be less actively offensive to women, the dialog is different:
Group A: I'm tired of all the sexism in games. Can we have more games geared towards women?
Group B: OH MY GOD SHUT UP. Games are MY thing and you're not allowed to say what you want because it isn't FOR you! Stop talking about it right now!
So it's not a debate so much as one side telling the other that they aren't allowed to have opinions on this matter.
And that's fairly shitty, even without getting into the death/rape threats aspect.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
A douchebag makes a game about beating a woman (which while in poor taste, should be taken as no worse than a video where you beat Rush L.)....how is this significant?
Anonymous people tend to do stupid things on the internet.... again, how is this significant?
I take it you're trying to take examples of douchebags being douchebags and claiming that therefore, political correctness cannot possibly be a problem to gamers? That would be very silly of you.
You know, when you have guys making flash games singularly about beating women and when I can't even play xbox live without hearing a sexist or racist slur every couple of minutes, then I don't think that PCness is a problem in gaming.
Trying to judge the gaming community as a whole based on Xbox-live and MRAs is like trying to judge the people of New York based solely on the graffiti in the subway.
That might work... If New York kept building more subway stations specifically so more graffiti could be made, and the subway itself was staffed by strippers and hosted mma fights to the death on thursdays. Pretending like it's not a culture-wide program is putting on blinders and saying "Lalalalala!"
Or in a shorter sense, that's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy right there.
A douchebag makes a game about beating a woman (which while in poor taste, should be taken as no worse than a video where you beat Rush L.)....how is this significant?
Anonymous people tend to do stupid things on the internet.... again, how is this significant?
I take it you're trying to take examples of douchebags being douchebags and claiming that therefore, political correctness cannot possibly be a problem to gamers? That would be very silly of you.
"Oh that's just Ed. He likes to pretend he's brutally beating up women all the time. He comes to meetings and makes a bunch of super popular statements about how those hysterical feminazi bitches won't stop censoring Splinter Patriots 6: Brothers in Vengeance, but we kind of think he's a douchebag otherwise. If we ever get press he's the fall guy, if you know what I mean. The rest of us will distance ourselves from him when people are looking, but he's otherwise a pretty integral bit of our crew here. Except when he takes his pants off."
The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
I like how it dismisses all valid concerns about PCness so flippantly in order better suit the intended point. It reads exactly like a political opinion piece on the opposing party. I'd expect better from Huffpost, and that's saying something.
Even after that, the premise of the quote is kinda silly. No one likes unwanted intrusions and changes to something they like, that's fundamental human nature: If Group 1 likes X, they will not appreciate Group 2 attempting to change X to Y. They state this like it's some chilling dissertation on gamer culture, which I find hilarious.
Pandagon produces some of the best political analysis and applied analytic thought to current issues of our modern blogosphere.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
A douchebag makes a game about beating a woman (which while in poor taste, should be taken as no worse than a video where you beat Rush L.)....how is this significant?
I'm not talking about that game only, but specific rape and death threats sent to people like Anita Sarkeesian.
Anonymous people tend to do stupid things on the internet.... again, how is this significant?
I take it you're trying to take examples of douchebags being douchebags and claiming that therefore, political correctness cannot possibly be a problem to gamers? That would be very silly of you.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The problem with video game culture (and nerd-dom generally) is not the suffocating intrusion of political correctness. It’s the territorial and vicious nature of those comfortably enshrined within it, who look at their experience as something uniquely and explicitly theirs. It’s the fact that a prolonged kvetch-fest over what amounts to an unsatisfying purchase is seen as a more pressing and important issue within the culture than the overt and continual alienation of most of the rest of the world.
Great summary.
I like how it dismisses all valid concerns about PCness so flippantly in order better suit the intended point. It reads exactly like a political opinion piece on the opposing party. I'd expect better from Huffpost, and that's saying something.
Even after that, the premise of the quote is kinda silly. No one likes unwanted intrusions and changes to something they like, that's fundamental human nature: If Group 1 likes X, they will not appreciate Group 2 attempting to change X to Y. They state this like it's some chilling dissertation on gamer culture, which I find hilarious.
Well normally when there is group A and group B discussing something, it'll go down like:
Group A: I hate all these RPGs. You know what gaming needs? More First person shooters.
Group B: Oh my God your taste is terrible. It's bad enough how few RPGs we have. FPS needs to die.
And the debate rages, with more or less maturity on either side. But when we talk about how we'd like games to be less actively offensive to women, the dialog is different:
Group A: I'm tired of all the sexism in games. Can we have more games geared towards women?
Group B: OH MY GOD SHUT UP. Games are MY thing and you're not allowed to say what you want because it isn't FOR you! Stop talking about it right now!
.
I see it more like this:
Group A: Wow, that's so sexist! That offends me! This shouldn't be in the game! *goes into rant on oppression in gaming*
Group B: If it offends you, why don't you fuck off and play something else? *goes into rant on PC Nazis trying to ruin gaming*
Neither group generally handles themselves well, and both tend to massively overreact.
The funny thing is, Group B doesn't care if Group A has games to play. There are tons of games that Group B doesn't like, it doesn't hurt them if Group A has something that appeals to them. But the problems are rarely about Group A wanting a game for them, it's about Group A wanting Group B's game to fit their standard of non-offensive content. Then it's not about having their own thing, it's about taking Group B's thing and making it their own. It doesn't help that this is usually over stuff that Group B tends to find awesome/hilarious, IE: "How dare you suggest that the strippers in Duke Nuke'em were bad! THEY WERE TOTALLY AWESOME YOU *$!&#!"
It usually gets nasty when Group A insinuates that Group B's tastes are not valid, and group B reciprocates with a loud "fuck off". Or the other way, when Group B tries to invalidate Group A's tastes as pure PC garbage.
As an aside, I don't know if you've actually seen a real debate about gaming and gaming mechanics if you see your first example as a reasonable model. It's basically these feminism debates pumped to 11. "YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND MY POV BECAUSE YOU PLAY X CLASS!" (privilege argument) "YOU JUST WANT TO GET OP, FUCK YOU!" (You feminazis just want all the power) "IF THEY INSTITUTE THESE CHANGES I AM GOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND KILL YOU!" (death threat, obviously)
Yes, I have indeed been threatened with rape and murder for suggesting my class get buffed. It was an odd experience.
So it's not a debate so much as one side telling the other that they aren't allowed to have opinions on this matter.
And that's fairly shitty, even without getting into the death/rape threats aspect
There's a massive difference between someone telling you your opinion sucks (and by correlation, that you should go fuck yourself) and someone telling you that you can't have an opinion.
Yes, the rape/death threats suck. I've been there. It's not about feminism, it's about you having an opinion that someone disagrees with strongly enough that they feel they should express their displeasure in the clearest possible terms. Anonymity and drunkenness really help here. That's to excuse their behavior (because there is no excuse), but I tend to put as much value on those sorts of things as I do the ravings of drunken rednecks in my local beer dispensary.
You know, when you have guys making flash games singularly about beating women and when I can't even play xbox live without hearing a sexist or racist slur every couple of minutes, then I don't think that PCness is a problem in gaming.
Trying to judge the gaming community as a whole based on Xbox-live and MRAs is like trying to judge the people of New York based solely on the graffiti in the subway.
That might work... If New York kept building more subway stations specifically so more graffiti could be made, and the subway itself was staffed by strippers and hosted mma fights to the death on thursdays. Pretending like it's not a culture-wide program is putting on blinders and saying "Lalalalala!"
Or in a shorter sense, that's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy right there.
Do you think that game developers are making games specifically so that more racist and sexist comments can be made? Do you think that's their aim?
Do you think the people who make bigoted statements are the majority in online communities? Or even close to the majority?
A douchebag makes a game about beating a woman (which while in poor taste, should be taken as no worse than a video where you beat Rush L.)....how is this significant?
Anonymous people tend to do stupid things on the internet.... again, how is this significant?
I take it you're trying to take examples of douchebags being douchebags and claiming that therefore, political correctness cannot possibly be a problem to gamers? That would be very silly of you.
"Oh that's just Ed. He likes to pretend he's brutally beating up women all the time. He comes to meetings and makes a bunch of super popular statements about how those hysterical feminazi bitches won't stop censoring Splinter Patriots 6: Brothers in Vengeance, but we kind of think he's a douchebag otherwise. If we ever get press he's the fall guy, if you know what I mean. The rest of us will distance ourselves from him when people are looking, but he's otherwise a pretty integral bit of our crew here. Except when he takes his pants off."
Hypothetical Ed sounds like a douchebag. I certainly hope someone isn't going to take Hypothetical Ed and try to hold him up as an example for all gamers in order to advance an argument. That would be silly.
Cloud:
Pandagon produces some of the best political analysis and applied analytic thought to current issues of our modern blogosphere.
That is little bearing on that very biased opinion piece. Though I might check out more articles in the future, if you feel they're not all like that.
Cambiata:
I'm not talking about that game only, but specific rape and death threats sent to people like Anita Sarkeesian.
I've had death and rape threats sent to me. I don't see how it's significant. It's not cool, but it's really just the downside of having a consequence-free outlet for all the shit some people keep in their very shitty heads.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
The sort of people that would care about John Hemingway are generally less prone to nasty outbursts. They tend to be more socially aware and conscious of their actions because a huge part of their whole thing is that we shouldn't say nasty and hurtful things. Which is a credit to that community.
Alternatively, the people who would normally send death/rape threats from the other direction tend to be people with little-to-no interest in social matters except when they see them as a threat to their personal enjoyment. Their reactions follow fairly predictable lines. Which is not a credit to them.
EDIT: This is actually where a large divide takes place. Many gamers do not care about the PCness of their games. They're not there for insightful and non-offensive social commentary. They're paying money for entertainment. Anything that interferes with that entertainment is understandably seen as a threat.
You could say that it's not the most progressive of mindsets, but that's not really the point. At a certain point, we're doing things for entertainment's sake. We don't go to Rap music for insightful social commentaries.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
The sort of people that would care about John Hemingway are generally less prone to nasty outbursts. They tend to be more socially aware and conscious of their actions because a huge part of their whole thing is that we shouldn't say nasty and hurtful things. Which is a credit to that community.
Alternatively, the people who would normally send death/rape threats from the other direction tend to be people with little-to-no interest in social matters except when they see them as a threat to their personal enjoyment. Their reactions follow fairly predictable lines. Which is not a credit to them.
Which makes one wonder why the games industry tries so strenuously to support and defend that second group while dismissing the first.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Except these people will call your office and try to get fired from your dayjobs. At least the MRAs have done so in the past.
Oh, like feminists haven't arranged whole bloody petitions to get people fired from their dayjobs. Daniel Tosh being a very recent example.
Let he who is without sin, my friend.
No, like they find feminist boards and do ip traces and then call their places of work and tell their bosses that they post on feminist boards when they aren't working. You know, weird and creepy pseudo-rape stuff that MRAs love to do.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
The sort of people that would care about John Hemingway are generally less prone to nasty outbursts. They tend to be more socially aware and conscious of their actions because a huge part of their whole thing is that we shouldn't say nasty and hurtful things. Which is a credit to that community.
Alternatively, the people who would normally send death/rape threats from the other direction tend to be people with little-to-no interest in social matters except when they see them as a threat to their personal enjoyment. Their reactions follow fairly predictable lines. Which is not a credit to them.
Which makes one wonder why the games industry tries so strenuously to support and defend that second group while dismissing the first.
Because gaming isn't about being PC. It's about entertainment. That's what the whole push against PC in games and art is about: no one wants someones offense interfering with their entertainment/creative process.
Frankiedarling on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Except these people will call your office and try to get fired from your dayjobs. At least the MRAs have done so in the past.
Oh, like feminists haven't arranged whole bloody petitions to get people fired from their dayjobs. Daniel Tosh being a very recent example.
Let he who is without sin, my friend.
No, like they find feminist boards and do ip traces and then call their places of work and tell their bosses that they post on feminist boards when they aren't working. You know, weird and creepy pseudo-rape stuff that MRAs love to do.
I agree that's not cool.... but I'm not seeing the rape connection.
But hell, I don't need to defend MRAs I very well may not agree with. I'm just saying that trying to get someone fired for this sort of thing isn't restricted to one side of the issue.
Like, I get that to some people the idea of "political correctness" is tantamount to fascism or something, but I still don't legitimately understand why "being PC" is such a big deal.
As an addendum- the only people who really refer to it as 'PCness" are people who dislike it. I certainly have never said "it would be more politically correct to say X"
I have definitely said "it would have been less racist/sexist/homophobic to do X"
This is mostly directed at Frankie, because he is the one who keeps using this boogeyman.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
The sort of people that would care about John Hemingway are generally less prone to nasty outbursts. They tend to be more socially aware and conscious of their actions because a huge part of their whole thing is that we shouldn't say nasty and hurtful things. Which is a credit to that community.
Alternatively, the people who would normally send death/rape threats from the other direction tend to be people with little-to-no interest in social matters except when they see them as a threat to their personal enjoyment. Their reactions follow fairly predictable lines. Which is not a credit to them.
Which makes one wonder why the games industry tries so strenuously to support and defend that second group while dismissing the first.
I've never seen a game developer defend rape or death threats, and I don't know any developers who would.
I feel like you're lumping in the people who have some disagreeable sexist views (which is pretty much everyone) with the people who are actually dangerous and vile.
I guess to me "being more PC" means "not saying offensive stuff out of ignorance, stupidity, or malice."
And I mean
When people say they don't like people being "more PC" or they are concerned about "PC gone wild" to me it sounds like "I want to protect people who are saying hurtful things from ever seeing the consequences of their actions!"
Which I mean, might be me reading to much into it.
But I don't get why being "politically correct" is such a huge negative.
I guess to me "being more PC" means "not saying offensive stuff out of ignorance, stupidity, or malice."
And I mean
When people say they don't like people being "more PC" or they are concerned about "PC gone wild" to me it sounds like "I want to protect people who are saying hurtful things from ever seeing the consequences of their actions!"
Which I mean, might be me reading to much into it.
But I don't get why being "politically correct" is such a huge negative.
Developers and gamers don't see people going after people making death threats, they see people going after fellow developers who make comments that are, by any reasonable standard, pretty innocuous.
I think a "Let's clean up our communities" campaign would be pretty successful among developers. Doubly so if you can show them a way to do it that actually works.
As for PC, I don't think "not being a dick" is what it stands for, Frankie. I always thought it was to denote terms that are chosen as "less offensive" to people, such as *whatever*-american instead of the person's race.
maybe I don't understand your point, but I mean some of the phrases you guys are tossing around are kind of shocking
like, "the feminists" get accused all the time of making accusations up or inventing things that aren't there
but then someone goes "valid concerns about PCness" and another goes "comments that are, by any reasonable standard, pretty innocuous" and I begin to feel like you guys are approaching this with just as much, if not more, bias than "the feminists" are
Posts
Great summary.
Indeed.
I am so sick of people using that bs 47% of gamers are female number in conversations about traditional games. Social gamers and smartphone gamers who do not also play console or pc games are not relevant to conversations about demographics for console/pc games.
Yeah, casuals don't count! They're not real gamers like me and my Call of Gearcraft buddies.
Hemingway was talking about fps, so yeah, casuals should be excluded.
Honestly, i feel my post was more about not judging people for their sexual preferences than it was about Enthusiastic Consent. The origin of this back-and-forth began with AngelH making a judgement on a sex life that didn't conform to his idea of a healthy sex life (for no other reason then it differing from his personal expectations and preferences). I think this is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
Regarding Enthusiastic Consent, my problem with it is that it seems to take a very passive approach to sexuality (for both genders). That's fine for some people, but I have trouble seeing how it could possibly be an across the board application. Most of my best experiences never would have happened had I used this approach, for the sheer reason that a good number of people just aren't into passive sexuality. And that's ok from where I'm standing.
And really, I just don't see how this is anything different from a passive approach. I'm fairly fluid in my understanding of the concept (due to many seeming contradictions in what I'm seeing), so feel to set me straight if I've got this part wrong. I'm thinking it's possibly due to enthusiastic consent meaning different things when applied to initial vs ongoing consent, but I don't have any confirmation on that so far.
Not that it matters. It's not like SKFM, or anyone complaining about that percentage, actually has the numbers. For all that we know, the percentage of male and female gamers who play only casual games could be equal enough that removing them from the picture doesn't change the male to female ratio in non-casual games. Until we see a breakdown, anyone complaining about it is talking out of their ass.
But aren't the people looking at the watch and looking at the tower both interested in telling what time it is? Would we market watches to only women and clock towers to only men? What does this analogy have to do with anything?
I like how it dismisses all valid concerns about PCness so flippantly in order better suit the intended point. It reads exactly like a political opinion piece on the opposing party. I'd expect better from Huffpost, and that's saying something.
Even after that, the premise of the quote is kinda silly. No one likes unwanted intrusions and changes to something they like, that's fundamental human nature: If Group 1 likes X, they will not appreciate Group 2 attempting to change X to Y. They state this like it's some chilling dissertation on gamer culture, which I find hilarious.
Trying to judge the gaming community as a whole based on Xbox-live and MRAs is like trying to judge the people of New York based solely on the graffiti in the subway.
Well normally when there is group A and group B discussing something, it'll go down like:
Group A: I hate all these RPGs. You know what gaming needs? More First person shooters.
Group B: Oh my God your taste is terrible. It's bad enough how few RPGs we have. FPS needs to die.
And the debate rages, with more or less maturity on either side. But when we talk about how we'd like games to be less actively offensive to women, the dialog is different:
Group A: I'm tired of all the sexism in games. Can we have more games geared towards women?
Group B: OH MY GOD SHUT UP. Games are MY thing and you're not allowed to say what you want because it isn't FOR you! Stop talking about it right now!
So it's not a debate so much as one side telling the other that they aren't allowed to have opinions on this matter.
And that's fairly shitty, even without getting into the death/rape threats aspect.
Anonymous people tend to do stupid things on the internet.... again, how is this significant?
I take it you're trying to take examples of douchebags being douchebags and claiming that therefore, political correctness cannot possibly be a problem to gamers? That would be very silly of you.
That might work... If New York kept building more subway stations specifically so more graffiti could be made, and the subway itself was staffed by strippers and hosted mma fights to the death on thursdays. Pretending like it's not a culture-wide program is putting on blinders and saying "Lalalalala!"
Or in a shorter sense, that's the "No true Scotsman" fallacy right there.
"Oh that's just Ed. He likes to pretend he's brutally beating up women all the time. He comes to meetings and makes a bunch of super popular statements about how those hysterical feminazi bitches won't stop censoring Splinter Patriots 6: Brothers in Vengeance, but we kind of think he's a douchebag otherwise. If we ever get press he's the fall guy, if you know what I mean. The rest of us will distance ourselves from him when people are looking, but he's otherwise a pretty integral bit of our crew here. Except when he takes his pants off."
I'm not talking about that game only, but specific rape and death threats sent to people like Anita Sarkeesian.
It's relevant because you notice John Hemingway has not recieved any death threats, despite the reaction to his words described as "irrational" by the people who don't agree with that reaction.
The death threats/"keep your opinions to yourself" type of "debate" is disproportionately leveled at minorities in this community.
I see it more like this:
Group A: Wow, that's so sexist! That offends me! This shouldn't be in the game! *goes into rant on oppression in gaming*
Group B: If it offends you, why don't you fuck off and play something else? *goes into rant on PC Nazis trying to ruin gaming*
Neither group generally handles themselves well, and both tend to massively overreact.
The funny thing is, Group B doesn't care if Group A has games to play. There are tons of games that Group B doesn't like, it doesn't hurt them if Group A has something that appeals to them. But the problems are rarely about Group A wanting a game for them, it's about Group A wanting Group B's game to fit their standard of non-offensive content. Then it's not about having their own thing, it's about taking Group B's thing and making it their own. It doesn't help that this is usually over stuff that Group B tends to find awesome/hilarious, IE: "How dare you suggest that the strippers in Duke Nuke'em were bad! THEY WERE TOTALLY AWESOME YOU *$!&#!"
It usually gets nasty when Group A insinuates that Group B's tastes are not valid, and group B reciprocates with a loud "fuck off". Or the other way, when Group B tries to invalidate Group A's tastes as pure PC garbage.
As an aside, I don't know if you've actually seen a real debate about gaming and gaming mechanics if you see your first example as a reasonable model. It's basically these feminism debates pumped to 11. "YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND MY POV BECAUSE YOU PLAY X CLASS!" (privilege argument) "YOU JUST WANT TO GET OP, FUCK YOU!" (You feminazis just want all the power) "IF THEY INSTITUTE THESE CHANGES I AM GOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND KILL YOU!" (death threat, obviously)
Yes, I have indeed been threatened with rape and murder for suggesting my class get buffed. It was an odd experience.
There's a massive difference between someone telling you your opinion sucks (and by correlation, that you should go fuck yourself) and someone telling you that you can't have an opinion.
Yes, the rape/death threats suck. I've been there. It's not about feminism, it's about you having an opinion that someone disagrees with strongly enough that they feel they should express their displeasure in the clearest possible terms. Anonymity and drunkenness really help here. That's to excuse their behavior (because there is no excuse), but I tend to put as much value on those sorts of things as I do the ravings of drunken rednecks in my local beer dispensary.
Do you think that game developers are making games specifically so that more racist and sexist comments can be made? Do you think that's their aim?
Do you think the people who make bigoted statements are the majority in online communities? Or even close to the majority?
Because you would be wrong on both counts.
Hypothetical Ed sounds like a douchebag. I certainly hope someone isn't going to take Hypothetical Ed and try to hold him up as an example for all gamers in order to advance an argument. That would be silly.
Cloud:
That is little bearing on that very biased opinion piece. Though I might check out more articles in the future, if you feel they're not all like that.
Cambiata:
I've had death and rape threats sent to me. I don't see how it's significant. It's not cool, but it's really just the downside of having a consequence-free outlet for all the shit some people keep in their very shitty heads.
The sort of people that would care about John Hemingway are generally less prone to nasty outbursts. They tend to be more socially aware and conscious of their actions because a huge part of their whole thing is that we shouldn't say nasty and hurtful things. Which is a credit to that community.
Alternatively, the people who would normally send death/rape threats from the other direction tend to be people with little-to-no interest in social matters except when they see them as a threat to their personal enjoyment. Their reactions follow fairly predictable lines. Which is not a credit to them.
EDIT: This is actually where a large divide takes place. Many gamers do not care about the PCness of their games. They're not there for insightful and non-offensive social commentary. They're paying money for entertainment. Anything that interferes with that entertainment is understandably seen as a threat.
You could say that it's not the most progressive of mindsets, but that's not really the point. At a certain point, we're doing things for entertainment's sake. We don't go to Rap music for insightful social commentaries.
Oh, like feminists haven't arranged whole bloody petitions to get people fired from their dayjobs. Daniel Tosh being a very recent example.
Let he who is without sin, my friend.
Which makes one wonder why the games industry tries so strenuously to support and defend that second group while dismissing the first.
Because gaming isn't about being PC. It's about entertainment. That's what the whole push against PC in games and art is about: no one wants someones offense interfering with their entertainment/creative process.
Well maybe you don't.
I agree that's not cool.... but I'm not seeing the rape connection.
But hell, I don't need to defend MRAs I very well may not agree with. I'm just saying that trying to get someone fired for this sort of thing isn't restricted to one side of the issue.
Like, I get that to some people the idea of "political correctness" is tantamount to fascism or something, but I still don't legitimately understand why "being PC" is such a big deal.
As an addendum- the only people who really refer to it as 'PCness" are people who dislike it. I certainly have never said "it would be more politically correct to say X"
I have definitely said "it would have been less racist/sexist/homophobic to do X"
This is mostly directed at Frankie, because he is the one who keeps using this boogeyman.
I've never seen a game developer defend rape or death threats, and I don't know any developers who would.
I feel like you're lumping in the people who have some disagreeable sexist views (which is pretty much everyone) with the people who are actually dangerous and vile.
And I mean
When people say they don't like people being "more PC" or they are concerned about "PC gone wild" to me it sounds like "I want to protect people who are saying hurtful things from ever seeing the consequences of their actions!"
Which I mean, might be me reading to much into it.
But I don't get why being "politically correct" is such a huge negative.
Heavens to betsy, i'm gettin' the vapors!
(this is where durandal's joke pages ago came from, I think)
Developers and gamers don't see people going after people making death threats, they see people going after fellow developers who make comments that are, by any reasonable standard, pretty innocuous.
I think a "Let's clean up our communities" campaign would be pretty successful among developers. Doubly so if you can show them a way to do it that actually works.
As for PC, I don't think "not being a dick" is what it stands for, Frankie. I always thought it was to denote terms that are chosen as "less offensive" to people, such as *whatever*-american instead of the person's race.
Twitter
that isn't condescending or anything
maybe I don't understand your point, but I mean some of the phrases you guys are tossing around are kind of shocking
like, "the feminists" get accused all the time of making accusations up or inventing things that aren't there
but then someone goes "valid concerns about PCness" and another goes "comments that are, by any reasonable standard, pretty innocuous" and I begin to feel like you guys are approaching this with just as much, if not more, bias than "the feminists" are