Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd?
Should it? Both Jesse Helms and Andrea Dworkin would have been happy to legislate pornography into oblivion, for example. Getting it from both ends (so to speak) doesn't make a position invalid, or even necessarily suspect.
Do you think gaming is akin to pornography?
Do you think that video games are being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, public outcry, censorship, and hand-wringing in society as pornography?
Like, do you think that video games are sufficiently contentious to somehow manage to unite these disparate political spectrums against your hobby?
Or... I'm just going to throw this out there...
Maybe some of y'all got a persecution complex from cross-associating your hobbies with a history of being bullied, yeah?
I wouldn't have given a rats ass about Hatred, but now that a whole set of arses want to ban it, I'll have to buy a copy, to do my part in making it a success, for schadenfreude purposes.
I wouldn't have given a rats ass about Hatred, but now that a whole set of arses want to ban it, I'll have to buy a copy, to do my part in making it a success, for schaudenfreude purposes.
Steam doesn't allow games made by white supremacists on their service and never have
Is highly ironic to read the people freaking out about how a small indie game is threatening The Cause (tm) (which, BTW, is still mostly the fault of the clickbaiters that are supposed to be on your side) telling others that they have a persecution complex.
Is highly ironic to read the people freaking out about how a small indie game is threatening The Cause (tm) (which, BTW, is still mostly the fault of the clickbaiters that are supposed to be on your side) telling others that they have a persecution complex.
I don't think anyone has said it is "threatening The Cause (tm)" (again, nice attempt to make shit up though, buddy)
There have been people, myself included, who have openly said "This game is gross"
"This game is offensive"
"The expressly stated political message behind this game is a bad thing" (This, specifically, is something I said repeatedly in different ways)
Ain't really about a "cause", dogg. It's about not being okay with offensive, harmful garbage that is deliberately being put out to offend people and help contribute to a hostile environment. You might not see it that way. You clearly don't. Good for you!
But don't mischaracterize people instead of engaging them. It's dishonest. Either argue with what they're saying, or don't, but your snitty asides and "funny observations" instead of direct arguments are tiresome.
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Man, people in this thread must've had the same "Word a Day" calendar, and "Histrionic" must've been a recent entry.
RPGPundit and other proponents of the Dark Enlightenment movement have been using it recently, as have Freep and StormFront.
e:Watching the slippery slope argument applied to people who object to supporting Nazis is awful.
e2:Double checked. They've been using it as their go to insult since the start, with Pundit only recently re-adapting it.
so is this one of those "dog whistle" words? Or are we throwing around storm front words here satirically?
The use of the word histrionic by nrxs manages to simultaneously imply that one is lying, only doing it for attention, isn't actually offended, and is also simultaneously mentally unfit and should be exterminated. (Neoreactionaries are bad bad people.)
I assume it reached from the nrx types into the grogosphere, and then into general nerd culture because I see it way too fucking much, esp on Steam Community.
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
I wouldn't have given a rats ass about Hatred, but now that a whole set of arses want to ban it, I'll have to buy a copy, to do my part in making it a success, for schaudenfreude purposes.
Steam doesn't allow games made by white supremacists on their service and never have
are you going to go out and buy those?
None of you have responded to this
Depends on a number of factors:
- is the game good?
- Will I enjoy it?
- Is it on sale?
- Is it really developed by white supremacists, or was the claim made up to vilify them?
Again, can any of you dudes doing this whole "STEAM SHOULD JUST ALLOW EVERYTHING" type argument answer the question of whether Steam should allow literal Neo-Nazis to publish actual, literal white supremacy propaganda games via Steam?
Because currently, Steam does not allow that. They never have, and white supremacy groups have bitched about it in the past and nobody gives a shit because nobody really cares that white supremacists have less outlets for expression than other people!
I'm okay with that. Are you okay with that? Please advise.
I mean, Steam doesn't allow porn companies to put literal porn games up on Steam either. I ain't seen any outcry over that before!
Steam's right as a private company to distribute content of their choice has not been in question before, so why now?
I don't, in principle, have any particular issue with Steam being a walled garden. I like walled gardens.
I have some issues with Steam being the only real walled garden and commanding a massive portion of the market share. I think this state of affairs would only work for me so long as I agreed with Steam on every political issue on which they decided to censor - and even then, I would likely be uncomfortable with it.
And in a world where Steam commands 90% of the commercial marketshare and every serious commercial game measures its success through Steam, I am...highly cautious of attempts by political groups to limit the content on Steam to their own ends. That's a lot of power for any one group to have. Services with substantially less marketshare than Steam has now have been able to de-facto ban products in the past. Make no mistake - a political group trying to get a commercial product banned from a service like Steam knows exactly what it's doing. And let's be honest, so do you.
If a walled garden is going to be the only walled garden, then it should ideally be pretty lenient in terms of what it allows people to do. If a walled garden is one of many walled gardens, then it can get a lot more specific with where it puts its walls and what kind of plants can grow where and who's allowed to put down seeds and water them.
So ideally, I guess I'd like to see Gabe Newell have his walled garden, and the porn games to have their walled gardens, and the neo-nazis to have their walled gardens. Hopefully the latter would eventually look over the wall and realize that the flowers are a lot healthier over here. If not, well, I guess I'll just have to disagree with them while defending their rights.
Practically I don't know exactly how to achieve that world, so I'll settle for being sad when stuff gets de-facto banned, and shake my head at the people who try to rigidly push their ideology onto others by removing their access to art, and who think that in doing so they are somehow making the world a better place.
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
So was I. It's the same theory. And it is often used as a balance fallacy. It is linked a lot on pro-Gamergate websites, by the way. This is not a coincidence.
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
So was I. It's the same theory. And it is often used as a balance fallacy. It is linked a lot on pro-Gamergate websites, by the way. This is not a coincidence.
Your link had a bunch of inaccuracies, unfortunately. I prefer mine.
And in a world where Steam commands 90% of the commercial marketshare and every serious commercial game measures its success through Steam, I am...highly cautious of attempts by political groups to limit the content on Steam to their own ends. That's a lot of power for any one group to have. Services with substantially less marketshare than Steam has now have been able to de-facto ban products in the past, and Steam. Make no mistake - a political group trying to get a commercial product banned from a service like Steam knows exactly what it's doing. And let's be honest, so do you.
Wait, are we talking about a hypothetical political group? Or was there a political group that banned Hatred from Steam somehow? I honestly do not know. I thought this was an internal decision by Steam (both the banning and reinstatement) and not due to any pressure from any "group".
And in a world where Steam commands 90% of the commercial marketshare and every serious commercial game measures its success through Steam, I am...highly cautious of attempts by political groups to limit the content on Steam to their own ends. That's a lot of power for any one group to have. Services with substantially less marketshare than Steam has now have been able to de-facto ban products in the past, and Steam. Make no mistake - a political group trying to get a commercial product banned from a service like Steam knows exactly what it's doing. And let's be honest, so do you.
Wait, are we talking about a hypothetical political group? Or was there a political group that banned Hatred from Steam somehow? I honestly do not know. I thought this was an internal decision by Steam (both the banning and reinstatement) and not due to any pressure from any "group".
People are confusing what happened to Hatred (an internal decision by Valve that was quickly reversed, based on Valve's own decision-making process) and what happened to GTAV (Target AU decided to remove GTAV based on consumer petitioning, some other AU retailers followed, which so far as I know still stands), I think
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
So was I. It's the same theory. And it is often used as a balance fallacy. It is linked a lot on pro-Gamergate websites, by the way. This is not a coincidence.
Your link had a bunch of inaccuracies, unfortunately. I prefer mine.
And it's been around long before GamerGate.
A wikipedia link, eh? Both of them are wikis, edited and curated by experts, and also subject to the crowdsourced whim of the Internet hive mind. In either case, it doesn't change the main premise of the Horseshoe Theory. The wikipedia link (as with most wikipedia links) doesn't extrapolate into its current use on Very Serious Internet Forum Debates.
It doesn't matter how long "it's been around". It can be used and appropriated by any group. Modern internet groups are really good at rehashing things they found linked on the internet for their own purposes. It's kind of their "thing". Anyway, I'd be wary of applying the Horseshoe Theory in this case because of the pitfall of the balance fallacy. This isn't a case of "if the Horseshoe fits..."
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
So was I. It's the same theory. And it is often used as a balance fallacy. It is linked a lot on pro-Gamergate websites, by the way. This is not a coincidence.
Your link had a bunch of inaccuracies, unfortunately. I prefer mine.
There was absolutely nothing inaccurate about his link.
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote:
From the other direction, abuse of the horseshoe theory can lead to the balance fallacy and appeals to moderation. This is a problem common among Very Serious People and radical centrists, who, in their desire to avoid slipping into one partisan extreme or another, often have the opposite problem and go out of their way to characterize both sides as being fundamentally crazy, even if one side or the other may very well be clearly in the right in this instance.
It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
So was I. It's the same theory. And it is often used as a balance fallacy. It is linked a lot on pro-Gamergate websites, by the way. This is not a coincidence.
Your link had a bunch of inaccuracies, unfortunately. I prefer mine.
There was absolutely nothing inaccurate about his link.
Well, it IS RationalWiki, you have to think about that. It would be like linking to TV Tropes.
I wouldn't have given a rats ass about Hatred, but now that a whole set of arses want to ban it, I'll have to buy a copy, to do my part in making it a success, for schadenfreude purposes.
Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please!
Only please, hsu, please don't fund nazis with your credit card!
Well you did link RationalWiki, come on. At least Wikipedia TRIES to have some semblance of neutrality. I'd trust a link from conservapedia for as much neutrality as one from RationalWiki. Especially on this specific topic which editors of RationalWiki would especially find offensive.
Besides, I think it was an apt analogy for what Pony was saying with "being in the middle" and feeling attacked by both ends of the political spectrum.
Well you did link RationalWiki, come on. At least Wikipedia TRIES to have some semblance of neutrality. I'd trust a link from conservapedia for as much neutrality as one from RationalWiki. Especially on this specific topic which editors of RationalWiki would especially find offensive.
Besides, I think it was an apt analogy for what Pony was saying with "being in the middle" and feeling attacked by both ends of the political spectrum.
Don't try TOO hard to be a martyr, there. Anyway, I wasn't aware that Steam was either left-wing or right-wing. As far as I know, it's apolitical.
EDIT: Actually, I think it's pro-money, anti-wallet.
Well, besides that the white supremacist strawman is just a setup for character assasination, there's been 4 pages and you have already admited that you are fine with Steam's near complete dominance of the market as long as is it used to make everybody fall in line with your beliefs.
And Hatred's banning was a direct reaction to the bunch of clickbait articles that got all outraged about it. We don't need Valve to state the obvious, specially for a dumb decision on the first place. Because if I'm GabeN, I don't want to set up a precedent that is going to make difficult for my store to sell GTA6.
Well, besides that the white supremacist strawman is just a setup for character assasination, there's been 4 pages and you have already admited that you are fine with Steam's near complete dominance of the market as long as is it used to make everybody fall in line with your beliefs.
And Hatred's banning was a direct reaction to the bunch of clickbait articles that got all outraged about it. We don't need Valve to state the obvious, specially for a dumb decision on the first place. Because if I'm GabeN, I don't want to set up a precedent that is going to make difficult for my store to sell GTA6.
so can you answer my question, then?
Squidget did. I don't necessarily agree with his answer, but he was good enough to be honest about it.
And Hatred's banning was a direct reaction to the bunch of clickbait articles that got all outraged about it. We don't need Valve to state the obvious, specially for a dumb decision on the first place. Because if I'm GabeN, I don't want to set up a precedent that is going to make difficult for my store to sell GTA6.
I hate to be "that guy", because I hate "those guys" when they do "that". But can you prove that it was because Steam likes the clickbait? I mean, is there any indication that it was removed due to articles out there that someone at Steam read? It is really sounding like a logical leap there that some people are taking and others are not.
0
Options
MrMiscreantMean motor scooterHiding in the back seat of your carRegistered Userregular
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd?
Should it? Both Jesse Helms and Andrea Dworkin would have been happy to legislate pornography into oblivion, for example. Getting it from both ends (so to speak) doesn't make a position invalid, or even necessarily suspect.
Do you think gaming is akin to pornography?
Do you think that video games are being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, public outcry, censorship, and hand-wringing in society as pornography?
Like, do you think that video games are sufficiently contentious to somehow manage to unite these disparate political spectrums against your hobby?
Or... I'm just going to throw this out there...
Maybe some of y'all got a persecution complex from cross-associating your hobbies with a history of being bullied, yeah?
That's a lot to infer from very little.
I'm simply providing an example of why both ends of the political spectrum having similar goals doesn't inherently invalidate a third position. Both sides can be wrong. You can substitute any other example you'd like -- I could provide others, but the example only serves to illustrate the point; it isn't the point itself. Focusing on the meaning of its selection is a distraction from the primary issue.
That said, I grant video games no "special snowflake" status among media, existing on a spectrum with comic books, pulp magazines, rap music, the opera, Dungeons & Dragons, jazz, and a great number of other things, including, yes, pornography.
And I think you missed "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Well you did link RationalWiki, come on. At least Wikipedia TRIES to have some semblance of neutrality. I'd trust a link from conservapedia for as much neutrality as one from RationalWiki. Especially on this specific topic which editors of RationalWiki would especially find offensive.
Besides, I think it was an apt analogy for what Pony was saying with "being in the middle" and feeling attacked by both ends of the political spectrum.
Don't try TOO hard to be a martyr, there. Anyway, I wasn't aware that Steam was either left-wing or right-wing. As far as I know, it's apolitical.
EDIT: Actually, I think it's pro-money, anti-wallet.
I don't think Pony was implying steam was attacking gamers, more the people trying to ban stuff from steam.
Well, besides that the white supremacist strawman is just a setup for character assasination, there's been 4 pages and you have already admited that you are fine with Steam's near complete dominance of the market as long as is it used to make everybody fall in line with your beliefs.
And Hatred's banning was a direct reaction to the bunch of clickbait articles that got all outraged about it. We don't need Valve to state the obvious, specially for a dumb decision on the first place. Because if I'm GabeN, I don't want to set up a precedent that is going to make difficult for my store to sell GTA6.
Huh. I mean the whole "Would you support a white supremacist videogame?" questions. I, as a rule, don't answer "Did you stop beating your wife?" questions since they are arguments on bad faith.
So then, do you think white supremacist groups should get to use Steam Greenlight to publish their games?
Islamic fundamentalist groups?
Because those people make video games! They do. Their games are fucking garbage from a technical perspective because they're propaganda tools first and foremost and don't have the technical proficiency of American propaganda tools like America's Army
Currently, their games couldn't get on Greenlight. But you're saying that, regardless of the political message behind them, regardless of the intention of the developers, we should ignore that because FREEDOM and Steam should be for EVERYONE regardless
is Hatred as bad as a game made by literal Nazis? No, of course not. I'm not saying that. That's not my point. But your point is that it doesn't matter what a game's political message is, it doesn't matter how harmful anyone thinks a game is, nobody gets to determine that a game is bad for society, Greenlight is for EVERYONE
So, how far do you go, bro?
Where did I ever say that nothing in the world should ever be censored ever for any reason? Seriously, do you really think spewing "Well you didn't go out of your way to include exceptions for Nazis and ISIS and genuine hate speech, therefore... something!" is some sort of compelling argument? Or are you just sort of feebly peddling it here, the same way some of this lot tries to pretend their neck-snappingly sudden 180 on the whole "Let the free market decide!" thing isn't a complete joke?
Of course actual hate speech that promotes violence against real people is a completely different kettle of fish. That's so goddamn obvious that no one should have to point it out, nor expect to be patted on the back as some sort of clever debater for doing so. The fact that this is the best you can do is telling. And sorry, but a dev thumbing their nose at the politically correct crowd, or not setting the female characters as invincible, or whatever the fuck has you people all worked up on any given day, isn't considered hate speech by the rest of society no matter how butthurt it makes you.
Oh, because of this victim-complex mentality that some self-identified gamers have nowadays like they're under attack by somebody. If it's not Jack Thompson or right-wing "Moral Guardians", it's people who are their complete political opposites yet somehow are still out to persecute gamers and take away their games!
I know right? Why are they conflating you with them just because you use the exact same arguments with a different set of social ills copypasted in? Those benighted savages should all see that YOUR politics are the CORRECT ones, but instead they view you as being hung up on political correctness! Unthinkable!
Like, does it not seem absurd to you dudes that you're somehow the center of attack by every single possible political spectrum in twenty years? Doesn't that seem odd?
Of course not, why the hell should it? And let's be honest, nobody here really gives a shit what the right wing thinks about anything, myself included. This sentence boils down to "Doesn't it seem odd that people on the LEFT are attacking you? How dare you continue to resist!" and speaking as a guy who's been holding his nose to vote for those far-too-righty Democrats for twenty years, that notion is utter bullshit.
Or perhaps you're not under attack, that there is no attack on gaming coming from without, there's a change in gaming coming from within, from people who actually play games? Yeah, maybe that's possible.
And there are people, and Destructive Creations are among those people, who are directly opposed to that change and feel it is a direct hostile attack on them. Their response is to make an offensive political statement back, and they've expressly stated that as such. Steam, for a brief moment, opted not to include that political statement in their Greenlight program, as they have in the past declined to include other hostile and hate-filled political statements. They reversed their decision, and that's their choice and their right as a platform.
Yeah you're not a politically correct moral crusader, you're just an agent of change nobly standing against your nebulously-defined opposition and their incorrect politics. Totally different.
Got those links from this post on FuckNOVideoGames.tumblr.com
The level designer/lighting guy, Cyprian Listowski is the artist who designed those.
So he is not modelling them, he designed them? And what do those symbols indicate? I'm not familiar.
I just read an article on player attack, but given how they bunged up some of the details and had to apologize for misrepresenting a group, I'm looking for a secondary source that is NOT Tumblr.
Edit: also the copious use of "right-wing" is dubious to me. If they're racist groups, call them as such. Right-wing doesn't mean much to me except for "traditionalists". But then again this is Europe, and right wing has a different connotation.
The use of the word histrionic by nrxs manages to simultaneously imply that one is lying, only doing it for attention, isn't actually offended, and is also simultaneously mentally unfit and should be exterminated. (Neoreactionaries are bad bad people.)
I assume it reached from the nrx types into the grogosphere, and then into general nerd culture because I see it way too fucking much, esp on Steam Community.
It's also in the fucking thesaurus you raging nutjobs. In addition to histrionic, I used the words panicky, hysterical, and overwrought, as well as a number of phrases to the same effect. Would you like to run around blathering about "dogwhistles" like a bunch of paranoid politics-obsessed psychopaths over those too?
- Is it really developed by white supremacists, or was the claim made up to vilify them?
What am I looking at here?
Polska Liga Obrony, literally "Polish Defense League" is a Polish white supremacist and anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant group.
Jaroslaw had their Facebook page listed among the things he Liked
until people noticed that and were like holy shit what
then suddenly it wasn't there anymore
but since the Internet doesn't forget anything, there's a screenshot from when it was there.
Archive sites to the rescue! So what was his explanation for such a like? And how does the tattoo pictures factor in? I'm not up on the imagery.
He Liked it "by accident" I think was his excuse?
Erich might know about this, he seems to be more up to date on this shit than I am, good lord
Cyprian Listowski's tattoos contain specific symbols that are known to be associated with Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist movements. Most modern folk of such inclinations generally don't tattoo literal swastikas on themselves, they disguise it inside things they can pass off as emblems of their Nordic heritage and so they can act all offended at the implication.
Cyprian's pectoral tattoo is the Sonnenrad, a pretty common co-opted Neo-Nazi symbol, with double crosses in the centre designed to evoke the Double Bolts of the SS without actually being SS bolts (pretty common)
His back tattoo is a giant Elhaz/Algis, or "Life Rune", another common symbol co-opted by Neo-Nazis, which is a favorite because it's also used by non-racists (for example, some people who practice Asatru, and gosh do they get pissed about its association with white supremacy)
At the top of the Elhaz is a single bolt rune and at the bottom is the Othala, another common rune co-opted by the Neo-Nazis (and very specifically, one that was used as a divisional insignia of the SS during World War II)
and then, of course, in the center of the Elhaz is a spiraling swastika. It's pretty common nowadays for Neo-Nazis not to use the well-known four-spoked swastika since it's so obvious, and instead tend to use a three-spoked triskelion or a multi-spoked design like this one.
To some people, especially people who don't like me and feel the reflexive response to argue with me and say I'm seeing faces in clouds here, this might seem like I'm full of shit, but go check my work if you'd like
growing up a Jewish kid in a city that had a serious Neo-Nazi youth gang problem, you learn to spot this shit in order to survive
Posts
Do you think gaming is akin to pornography?
Do you think that video games are being subjected to the same level of scrutiny, public outcry, censorship, and hand-wringing in society as pornography?
Like, do you think that video games are sufficiently contentious to somehow manage to unite these disparate political spectrums against your hobby?
Or... I'm just going to throw this out there...
Maybe some of y'all got a persecution complex from cross-associating your hobbies with a history of being bullied, yeah?
Steam doesn't allow games made by white supremacists on their service and never have
are you going to go out and buy those?
None of you have responded to this
I don't think anyone has said it is "threatening The Cause (tm)" (again, nice attempt to make shit up though, buddy)
There have been people, myself included, who have openly said "This game is gross"
"This game is offensive"
"The expressly stated political message behind this game is a bad thing" (This, specifically, is something I said repeatedly in different ways)
Ain't really about a "cause", dogg. It's about not being okay with offensive, harmful garbage that is deliberately being put out to offend people and help contribute to a hostile environment. You might not see it that way. You clearly don't. Good for you!
But don't mischaracterize people instead of engaging them. It's dishonest. Either argue with what they're saying, or don't, but your snitty asides and "funny observations" instead of direct arguments are tiresome.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
In the current state of the "game", the Horseshoe Theory is often used as a rhetorical weapon in order to demonize an "other" group. It is being used here in order to lump "feminazis" with Jack Thompson. Here's the relevant quote: It's also used in the whole "both sides are bad, so vote (my position)" arguments (the "balance fallacy"). Essentially, it's yet another kind of ad hominem attack ("I can't win with a good argument, so I'm just going to say my opponent is crazy.").
Any use of the Horseshoe Theory in this particular instance is iffy at best, and most likely someone parroting something they read on a website somewhere, rather than any meaningful analysis. I don't think you could argue about this with Steam and Hatred, which was not motivated by a citizen's petition, nor was it taken down due to outside pressure... for all indications, this was completely a Steam internal decision and the Hatred devs are milking it for all its worth.
There is a different kind of conversation that should be happening, and it's not the "OMG censoring of art!" argument that the silly geese (I'm imagining prairie dogs/meerkats, for some reason) keep piping up with. We should be talking about walled gardens like Steam and Apple's store and Amazon, and the dominance they have in our lives, and how we ever let a single entity have so much power in the online shopping space.
The use of the word histrionic by nrxs manages to simultaneously imply that one is lying, only doing it for attention, isn't actually offended, and is also simultaneously mentally unfit and should be exterminated. (Neoreactionaries are bad bad people.)
I assume it reached from the nrx types into the grogosphere, and then into general nerd culture because I see it way too fucking much, esp on Steam Community.
Definitely not that tripe, I was referring to this theory:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
Depends on a number of factors:
- is the game good?
- Will I enjoy it?
- Is it on sale?
- Is it really developed by white supremacists, or was the claim made up to vilify them?
So many factors to take into account.
I don't, in principle, have any particular issue with Steam being a walled garden. I like walled gardens.
I have some issues with Steam being the only real walled garden and commanding a massive portion of the market share. I think this state of affairs would only work for me so long as I agreed with Steam on every political issue on which they decided to censor - and even then, I would likely be uncomfortable with it.
And in a world where Steam commands 90% of the commercial marketshare and every serious commercial game measures its success through Steam, I am...highly cautious of attempts by political groups to limit the content on Steam to their own ends. That's a lot of power for any one group to have. Services with substantially less marketshare than Steam has now have been able to de-facto ban products in the past. Make no mistake - a political group trying to get a commercial product banned from a service like Steam knows exactly what it's doing. And let's be honest, so do you.
If a walled garden is going to be the only walled garden, then it should ideally be pretty lenient in terms of what it allows people to do. If a walled garden is one of many walled gardens, then it can get a lot more specific with where it puts its walls and what kind of plants can grow where and who's allowed to put down seeds and water them.
So ideally, I guess I'd like to see Gabe Newell have his walled garden, and the porn games to have their walled gardens, and the neo-nazis to have their walled gardens. Hopefully the latter would eventually look over the wall and realize that the flowers are a lot healthier over here. If not, well, I guess I'll just have to disagree with them while defending their rights.
Practically I don't know exactly how to achieve that world, so I'll settle for being sad when stuff gets de-facto banned, and shake my head at the people who try to rigidly push their ideology onto others by removing their access to art, and who think that in doing so they are somehow making the world a better place.
Your link had a bunch of inaccuracies, unfortunately. I prefer mine.
And it's been around long before GamerGate.
People are confusing what happened to Hatred (an internal decision by Valve that was quickly reversed, based on Valve's own decision-making process) and what happened to GTAV (Target AU decided to remove GTAV based on consumer petitioning, some other AU retailers followed, which so far as I know still stands), I think
It doesn't matter how long "it's been around". It can be used and appropriated by any group. Modern internet groups are really good at rehashing things they found linked on the internet for their own purposes. It's kind of their "thing". Anyway, I'd be wary of applying the Horseshoe Theory in this case because of the pitfall of the balance fallacy. This isn't a case of "if the Horseshoe fits..."
There was absolutely nothing inaccurate about his link.
Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please!
Only please, hsu, please don't fund nazis with your credit card!
Besides, I think it was an apt analogy for what Pony was saying with "being in the middle" and feeling attacked by both ends of the political spectrum.
EDIT: Actually, I think it's pro-money, anti-wallet.
And Hatred's banning was a direct reaction to the bunch of clickbait articles that got all outraged about it. We don't need Valve to state the obvious, specially for a dumb decision on the first place. Because if I'm GabeN, I don't want to set up a precedent that is going to make difficult for my store to sell GTA6.
so can you answer my question, then?
Squidget did. I don't necessarily agree with his answer, but he was good enough to be honest about it.
I think you can do it!
That's a lot to infer from very little.
I'm simply providing an example of why both ends of the political spectrum having similar goals doesn't inherently invalidate a third position. Both sides can be wrong. You can substitute any other example you'd like -- I could provide others, but the example only serves to illustrate the point; it isn't the point itself. Focusing on the meaning of its selection is a distraction from the primary issue.
That said, I grant video games no "special snowflake" status among media, existing on a spectrum with comic books, pulp magazines, rap music, the opera, Dungeons & Dragons, jazz, and a great number of other things, including, yes, pornography.
And I think you missed "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
PSN: CitizenXero
NNID: TheFennec
I don't think Pony was implying steam was attacking gamers, more the people trying to ban stuff from steam.
What am I looking at here?
citation needed.
a hell of a lot of citation needed.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
https://www.facebook.com/CyprianListowskiTattoo/photos/pb.207037562839143.-2207520000.1413906829./249686165240949/?type=3&src=https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10383635_249686165240949_1781728057965688877_n.jpg?oh=d6ce0bb85e2f1209da84f78f33cf7140&oe=54B0C2A1&__gda__=1421055101_9ca6ce9ac05f0e099f12c6b1234b6d23&size=960,359&fbid=249686165240949
https://www.facebook.com/CyprianListowskiTattoo/photos/a.218411391701760.1073741845.207037562839143/218411415035091/?type=1&permPage=1
Polska Liga Obrony, literally "Polish Defense League" is a Polish white supremacist and anti-Muslim/anti-immigrant group.
Jaroslaw had their Facebook page listed among the things he Liked
until people noticed that and were like holy shit what
then suddenly it wasn't there anymore
but since the Internet doesn't forget anything, there's a screenshot from when it was there.
Archive sites to the rescue! So what was his explanation for such a like? And how does the tattoo pictures factor in? I'm not up on the imagery.
The level designer/lighting guy, Cyprian Listowski is the artist who designed those.
Of course actual hate speech that promotes violence against real people is a completely different kettle of fish. That's so goddamn obvious that no one should have to point it out, nor expect to be patted on the back as some sort of clever debater for doing so. The fact that this is the best you can do is telling. And sorry, but a dev thumbing their nose at the politically correct crowd, or not setting the female characters as invincible, or whatever the fuck has you people all worked up on any given day, isn't considered hate speech by the rest of society no matter how butthurt it makes you.
I know right? Why are they conflating you with them just because you use the exact same arguments with a different set of social ills copypasted in? Those benighted savages should all see that YOUR politics are the CORRECT ones, but instead they view you as being hung up on political correctness! Unthinkable!
Of course not, why the hell should it? And let's be honest, nobody here really gives a shit what the right wing thinks about anything, myself included. This sentence boils down to "Doesn't it seem odd that people on the LEFT are attacking you? How dare you continue to resist!" and speaking as a guy who's been holding his nose to vote for those far-too-righty Democrats for twenty years, that notion is utter bullshit.
Yeah you're not a politically correct moral crusader, you're just an agent of change nobly standing against your nebulously-defined opposition and their incorrect politics. Totally different.
So he is not modelling them, he designed them? And what do those symbols indicate? I'm not familiar.
I just read an article on player attack, but given how they bunged up some of the details and had to apologize for misrepresenting a group, I'm looking for a secondary source that is NOT Tumblr.
Edit: also the copious use of "right-wing" is dubious to me. If they're racist groups, call them as such. Right-wing doesn't mean much to me except for "traditionalists". But then again this is Europe, and right wing has a different connotation.
He Liked it "by accident" I think was his excuse?
Erich might know about this, he seems to be more up to date on this shit than I am, good lord
Cyprian Listowski's tattoos contain specific symbols that are known to be associated with Neo-Nazi/White Supremacist movements. Most modern folk of such inclinations generally don't tattoo literal swastikas on themselves, they disguise it inside things they can pass off as emblems of their Nordic heritage and so they can act all offended at the implication.
Cyprian's pectoral tattoo is the Sonnenrad, a pretty common co-opted Neo-Nazi symbol, with double crosses in the centre designed to evoke the Double Bolts of the SS without actually being SS bolts (pretty common)
His back tattoo is a giant Elhaz/Algis, or "Life Rune", another common symbol co-opted by Neo-Nazis, which is a favorite because it's also used by non-racists (for example, some people who practice Asatru, and gosh do they get pissed about its association with white supremacy)
At the top of the Elhaz is a single bolt rune and at the bottom is the Othala, another common rune co-opted by the Neo-Nazis (and very specifically, one that was used as a divisional insignia of the SS during World War II)
and then, of course, in the center of the Elhaz is a spiraling swastika. It's pretty common nowadays for Neo-Nazis not to use the well-known four-spoked swastika since it's so obvious, and instead tend to use a three-spoked triskelion or a multi-spoked design like this one.
To some people, especially people who don't like me and feel the reflexive response to argue with me and say I'm seeing faces in clouds here, this might seem like I'm full of shit, but go check my work if you'd like
growing up a Jewish kid in a city that had a serious Neo-Nazi youth gang problem, you learn to spot this shit in order to survive