what you are upset at is literally how an open market works. you are upset that sometimes, the open market disagrees with your personal beliefs. surprise. that happens.
But, to play devil's advocate, wouldn't "letting the open market decide" mean leaving it on Greenlight and seeing if it got enough votes to be considered for addition to Steam's store? As opposed to Steam arbitrarily deciding whether or not to include it on their own.
It kind of bothers me that people are accusing or implying that anyone who has beef with this is in support of the game content or the views of its creators. I'd have been fine with Steam sticking with the initial decision to delist it, but I don't think its unreasonable for people to be perturbed by it in light of their influence in the industry, with regards to the concepts of free speech discussed above. No, I don't think Steam is obligated to do anything by the First Amendment, but I think that the service's power means that how they choose to censor their selection is a valid subject for discussion.
Yep. The "Would you support the views of white supremacists?" questions are just designed to claim the moral high ground no matter the answer. Not playing on THAT fixed game, as I said (though not clearly enough, that was my mistake) before.
Since Steam unfortunately is "The" Store, Valve has to be more questioned than a regular company, given that they have the capacity to decide if any indie studio without AAA budgets gets to be an actual contender on the PC market or not. Is a bad situation, but the alternatives are either be hard on Valve or disminish their power somehow.
Abacus on
+3
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
what you are upset at is literally how an open market works. you are upset that sometimes, the open market disagrees with your personal beliefs. surprise. that happens.
But, to play devil's advocate, wouldn't "letting the open market decide" mean leaving it on Greenlight and seeing if it got enough votes to be considered for addition to Steam's store? As opposed to Steam arbitrarily deciding whether or not to include it on their own.
except that Valve is not an inert thing. they are also an actor in the open market, like Target, or Toys R Us, or Amazon, or other retailers. they can, and do, make decisions on a daily basis on what they do and do not sell. they have the freedom to decide whether to sell a game or not.
Well, I agree that its fine for them to carry or not carry a game based on its content, but I guess I just don't really like your "open market" argument when it comes to a game on Greenlight.
It kind of bothers me that people are accusing or implying that anyone who has beef with this is in support of the game content or the views of its creators. I'd have been fine with Steam sticking with the initial decision to delist it, but I don't think its unreasonable for people to be perturbed by it in light of their influence in the industry, with regards to the concepts of free speech discussed above. No, I don't think Steam is obligated to do anything by the First Amendment, but I think that the service's power means that how they choose to censor their selection is a valid subject for discussion.
it would be, except no one has actually brought up solid numbers as to Steam's influence. the best i've seen was a Forbes article stating Steam has about 50-70% of the online game marketplace. that's not very solid, considering that only covers PC, Mac, and maybe PS3/PS4, and that the game market also has other consoles, mobile devices, and competing PC platforms. there's plenty of competition and publishing platforms out there. companies like Mojang even created their own store from scratch and just sold direct to customers.
I guess I am taking it for granted that Steam handles the vast majority of computer game sales outside EA and Blizzard, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. And having a controlling stake in those markets would be powerful enough to cause concern, as consoles generally aren't nearly as open or accessible to small developers, and mobile devices have technical limitations that can exclude them entirely as an option.
PS. I probably won't be around to respond any further for a day or so, sorry. Didn't want anyone thinking I just checked out.
So, if this is an ideological issue for some of you folk, which you're really painting it like it is, don't try to dance around this like "Oh obviously it'd be different for Nazis..."
Why?
Uh, because games made by jihadists or literal Nazis presumably advocate violence against actual people? Do they not? I've never heard of one, much less played it, and I'm imagining a clunky shooter about blowing up Jews or some shit. Because if the games you're talking about don't advocate violence against real people and that's totally not your point, why the hell would you go out of your way to use groups explicitly known for advocating violence as your examples?
And while we're at it, who exactly do you think should be drawing the line on what is or isn't acceptable? No one in particular, AKA the free market? That's great, then we agree! We'll just sit here together and wait to hear what the free market has to say. Maybe one of those games "journalism" clickbait laughingstock websites will write their zillionth article about how "problematic" everything is, and everyone's brains will click over at once, and GTA6 will tank horribly when it comes out.
Or maybe the masses will continue to be barbarians who aren't appropriately chagrined that this particular wave of self-proclaimed video game police happen to come from the political left, and this whole wave of moral guardianship will fizzle away with a wet farting sound just like all the others.
I know which outcome I'd bet on.
And I'm still going to call you a would-be censor if the existence of games you disagree with makes you so upset that you feel the need to lobby the free market to stop other people from buying them. Because that's the correct word, and the fact that something is within your rights doesn't mean you can't be an asshole for doing it.
FYI I mentioned dog whistles earlier because 2 people on opposite sides of the argument used the same "controversial" word, and I wanted to illustrate how stupid the term "dog whistle" is sometimes. I too find the "ah HA! You just used a term used by <group I don't like>! You're one of them!" Approach a bit silly.
I did not mean to imply one or more of the people in this thread are storm fronters in disguise.
Steam is not the entire market for games. I know several people, and I imagine there are quite a few out there, who buy every single FIFA and COD game that comes out but have never heard of Steam, Penny Arcade, The Escapist, or Gamergate. I know the conversation is about indie games here, and yes, it is very hard for an indie developer to get a game published without Steam. But given the amount of early access garbage on Steam right now, I think it's actually an improvement if it becomes hard to get your game out there. Maybe then you'll stop and think for a second about what sort of game you're making and if it has any real merit.
In my part of Pennsylvania Sheetz is a very prolific convenience store--one of a few major chains that are extremely dominant--if you want a snack, gas, or quick hot food, you'll probably go to Sheetz. Sheetz no longer carries my favorite flavors of Sobe drinks. They only have, like, two, which is barbaric. I could probably do some research and order the flavors I like online, but other than that, the dominance of these few chains, none of which carry a good selection of Sobe, makes it basically impossible for me to get those drinks. Is Sheetz censoring Sobe or abusing its power as a market leader by not selling literally all the things?
Even if we take out the problematic nature of the game (it may be worth posting the dev quote again to show people that no, Hatred is not just a violent game. It is a game specifically made with the intention of saying f*** you to anyone who wants to see games mature or become inclusive), the bottom line is that Steam, no matter how successful they may be (which people seem to think is some sort of black mark on Valve, the fact that they have done well as a company) is not obligated to carry any specific product on their storefront. They could sell nothing but pigeon dating sims if they wanted.
Also, @beeftruck, for your own sake I would advise you to take heed of this soon, or I imagine you won't be able to participate in the argument much longer. I'm not a mod or anything, this is just a friendly reminder.
The only insult that is permitted on this forum is “silly goose”. No other adjective may be added, you cannot call someone a “fat, stupid, silly goose”. The only exception to this is the moderation staff, who work hard for free and therefore can call you bastards whatever they so desire. We are aware that this is very unfair and consider it to be part of the fun.
But have people seriously shifted the goalpost from "Hatred is offensive and shouldn't be on Steam" to "Hatred has one guy working on it who might be a neonazi so it shouldn't be on Steam?"
If so, I have very bad news for you. Racists have tangentially been involved in almost every human endeavour since the dawn of time. It's lamentable that racists still exist, but I do not find their existence a compelling reason to ban everything they might accidentally be involved in. I know it's shocking to have racists pointed out to you. But when most albums, movies and games are made by increasingly large groups of people, odds are good there is at least one hateful fuck on that team.
I'm not sure how I feel about people who no longer think we should separate the artist from the art. I do however know exactly what to think about people who think that one person on a team somehow taints anything that team ever makes.
I've done this dance already too many times in my life. I'll judge Hatred on it's merit when it actually comes out on Steam. Until then, all anybody is doing is trying to skewer one another over things they can only pretend to know.
From what I've read, some people seem to think the game itself is a means of propaganda for their ideological views. I haven't played the game, but people have criticized the demo/preview video by saying it has a "higher than average" number of non-white/PoC NPC's that you are killing.
So I guess we can possibly shift the goalposts to "if a game is an engine to sell a particular ideology, does it belong on Steam?" and have that discussion? But now we're edging closer to GamerGate territory and I'm not sure we want to go there.
I haven't played the game, but people have criticized the demo/preview video by saying it has a "higher than average" number of non-white/PoC NPC's that you are killing.
So, just to go back to primary sources, I watched the reveal trailer again. When it's in the isometric perspective, I couldn't tell what race anybody was. Maybe you'll have better luck. But for the cinematic kills, it seemed equally distributed. A white cop, a white civilian, a black cop, a black civilian, I think an asian lady? and then a few more people of ambiguous ethnicity.
I also find this funny because somewhere else I heard people complaining that Hatred was racist because it didn't have enough minorities in it. And then people returned with "Well most people in Poland are white!"
Now I remember, I saw that on twitter. It was retarded enough to have been on twitter.
I do find it really amusing however, the outrage of the hypothetical that there aren't enough minorities in a game, coupled with the outrage that a game about murdering people lets you murder the minorities that are equally represented in the game.
What I'm winding to is I'm highly skeptical of any "analysis" anybody did of that trailer trying to prove racist intent.
From what I've read, some people seem to think the game itself is a means of propaganda for their ideological views. I haven't played the game, but people have criticized the demo/preview video by saying it has a "higher than average" number of non-white/PoC NPC's that you are killing.
So I guess we can possibly shift the goalposts to "if a game is an engine to sell a particular ideology, does it belong on Steam?" and have that discussion? But now we're edging closer to GamerGate territory and I'm not sure we want to go there.
Bothered to read their website, and according to them, the NPCs are randomly generated. If you don't want to buy it (I don't, BTW), can wait to the inevitable YouTube videos to confirm that.
Yep. The "Would you support the views of white supremacists?" questions are just designed to claim the moral high ground no matter the answer. Not playing on THAT fixed game, as I said (though not clearly enough, that was my mistake) before.
I'm am failing to see how this is a "fixed game". If you do support free speech and say any game, regardless of content, can be made available, that doesn't mean you're immoral. Just like the ACLU, you can agree with their right to publish something without agreeing with the content.
It seems like a fairly simple question to me, and dodging it (or saying "real Nazi" games don't count) introduces completely arbitrary decisions based on individual moral beliefs.
But have people seriously shifted the goalpost from "Hatred is offensive and shouldn't be on Steam" to "Hatred has one guy working on it who might be a neonazi so it shouldn't be on Steam?"
If so, I have very bad news for you. Racists have tangentially been involved in almost every human endeavour since the dawn of time. It's lamentable that racists still exist, but I do not find their existence a compelling reason to ban everything they might accidentally be involved in. I know it's shocking to have racists pointed out to you. But when most albums, movies and games are made by increasingly large groups of people, odds are good there is at least one hateful fuck on that team.
I'm not sure how I feel about people who no longer think we should separate the artist from the art. I do however know exactly what to think about people who think that one person on a team somehow taints anything that team ever makes.
There's a difference between someone with terrible views making something worthwhile (Say, Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game) and someone with terrible views making something to push their terrible views.
It's perfectly acceptable for people not to buy things for whatever reason. Sometimes they don't buy an otherwise good game because it would support someone whose views they don't support. For many people, in the case, they don't want to buy what looks to be a garbage game, made by what looks to be a team of people with views they don't want to support, and the game itself reflects those values.
It's perfectly acceptable for people not to buy things for whatever reason. Sometimes they don't buy an otherwise good game because it would support someone whose views they don't support. For many people, in the case, they don't want to buy what looks to be a garbage game, made by what looks to be a team of people with views they don't want to support, and the game itself reflects those values.
I feel that's disingenuous? Nobody has said anybody has to buy it. And the claims made by people in this very thread are that they don't want that game sharing shelf space with other games. Because hate is like lice, and it leaps to other games in close proximity.
I just want it available on Steam for anybody who does want it. Which appears to be a lot of people given the Greenlight votes. Although personally I think it's just another instance of slacktivism, and most of those people won't buy it. It's ambiguous what the "other side" wants. To me, I see 1000's of weasel words that heavily imply censorship, and rhetorically lead you right up to censorship being the only possible conclusion, and then just stop. Now this could easily be me seeing something that's not there, but that last second backing down comes with a very telegraphed wink and a smile. Is that one of those dog whistles everyone keeps talking about?
All these people concerned that an individual's freedom of speech is being infringed upon by being refused a platform...
What about the freedom of the person running that platform? Is theirs not important? Because I can tell you right now that if I ran a digital distribution service as big as Steam and I had a game, made by white supremacists and about killing black people submitted, I would be super fucking nervous about allowing it on my platform.
There's a thing called freedom of association, and a few of you are looking really, really ignorant. Just as nobody can prevent someone from making a game about, I dunno, strangling grandmothers, there is no requirement or obligation for anybody to distribute that game for you. And no reason needs to be given for it, either!
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can't be a total racist goose and have an expectation for people to help you shout your racist goose propaganda from the rooftops, even if they don't share your racist goose beliefs.
If we had to give a platform to anybody who wanted it, wherever they wanted it, we'd have to force people to present things they didn't agree with everywhere, and not just in video games. So some of you don't care about a stupid game or whatever. Think about something you do strongly disagree with, and then imagine you are being forced to not just allow yourself to be associated with it, but to actively assist that viewpoint you do not want to be associated with.
All these people concerned that an individual's freedom of speech is being infringed upon by being refused a platform...
What about the freedom of the person running that platform? Is theirs not important? Because I can tell you right now that if I ran a digital distribution service as big as Steam and I had a game, made by white supremacists and about killing black people submitted, I would be super fucking nervous about allowing it on my platform.
There's a thing called freedom of association, and a few of you are looking really, really ignorant. Just as nobody can prevent someone from making a game about, I dunno, strangling grandmothers, there is no requirement or obligation for anybody to distribute that game for you. And no reason needs to be given for it, either!
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can't be a total racist goose and have an expectation for people to help you shout your racist goose propaganda from the rooftops, even if they don't share your racist goose beliefs.
If we had to give a platform to anybody who wanted it, wherever they wanted it, we'd have to force people to present things they didn't agree with everywhere, and not just in video games. So some of you don't care about a stupid game or whatever. Think about something you do strongly disagree with, and then imagine you are being forced to not just allow yourself to be associated with it, but to actively assist that viewpoint you do not want to be associated with.
I guess this is where you hit the difference between lawful neutral interpretations of "freedom of speech" and chaotic good interpretations of "freedom of speech".
Personally I'm chaotic good.
But there is a difference between the letter of the law of freedom of speech, and the spirit of it, to many people. You start arguing a lot about trends. Things like "chilling effect" get tossed around a lot. And "slippery slope". I think the 20th century has provided ample examples of why these aren't fallacies when you are talking about free speech, but we can agree to disagree on that.
Yeah, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. But what about when the consequences are insanely disproportionate because the mob gets involved? If you see something you don't like, and you don't want to purchase it, that's a reasonable consequence of speech. If you see something you don't like, and you decide to raise such a fuss that you assassinate that person's entirely livelihood, get all their friends to abandon them, get their employer to fire them, drive their business into the ground, get their wife to divorce them, and get everyone who knows them to publicly repudiate them... well that seems awfully disproportionate.
If there is anything I've learned over the last few months, it's that the style of internet dis-information warfare that is a consequence of free speech these days is utterly insane. It's fucking scary to have an opinion on the internet these days if the wrong sort of mob decides to get pissy about it.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
I think the explicit, expressed political message behind Hatred that the developers literally state on their website verbatim is offensive enough
Without all the like, Neo-Nazi links and other implied awful shenanigans that have come out since then
The expressed political message on their site is basically to be as "un-PC" as possible. I'm sorry, but you being offended by this admittedly childish mindset is not really enough for me.
And when I ask sincerely ask for allegations of Nazism to be substantiated, it might be helpful to do so instead of acting like the "shenanigans" you refer to are blindingly obvious. I still don't see anything in the game that qualifies as hate speech. You will have to understand my reluctance to readily embrace "proof" from Tumblr.
I'd also like to see less strawmen involving "So you think Babyfucker DX should be on Steam and all products should be stocked everywhere for freedom!?!?!?"
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? 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.
For the first situation, no I don't find it odd. That has been the status quo for ages, and I'm not even convinced it's under attack from "every possible political spectrum" so much as some very outspoken worriers that have their masks cycled every decade or so.
For the second one... yes, and? And now Hatred is the number one game on Greenlight by community vote. I'm not sure what your point is. And I really don't like talking about this through nebulous abstracts like "change in gaming" because I don't know what that means, what that specifically entails, what that should look like, or even if everybody is on the same page regarding it.
I'm willing to admit that my personality is likely just running against the grain here. I consider myself liberal, or "left", by and large. But I truly could not give a damn if Steam, Target, Amazon, or Walmart carried more things like porn, or A Serbian Film, or lots of other "problematic" products. And if something pisses me off or offends me, you're never going to see me signing a petition to have a product removed unless I think it is actually hurting somebody or legitimately condoning hatred and violence against a group of people.
All these people concerned that an individual's freedom of speech is being infringed upon by being refused a platform...
What about the freedom of the person running that platform? Is theirs not important? Because I can tell you right now that if I ran a digital distribution service as big as Steam and I had a game, made by white supremacists and about killing black people submitted, I would be super fucking nervous about allowing it on my platform.
There's a thing called freedom of association, and a few of you are looking really, really ignorant. Just as nobody can prevent someone from making a game about, I dunno, strangling grandmothers, there is no requirement or obligation for anybody to distribute that game for you. And no reason needs to be given for it, either!
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can't be a total racist goose and have an expectation for people to help you shout your racist goose propaganda from the rooftops, even if they don't share your racist goose beliefs.
If we had to give a platform to anybody who wanted it, wherever they wanted it, we'd have to force people to present things they didn't agree with everywhere, and not just in video games. So some of you don't care about a stupid game or whatever. Think about something you do strongly disagree with, and then imagine you are being forced to not just allow yourself to be associated with it, but to actively assist that viewpoint you do not want to be associated with.
I guess this is where you hit the difference between lawful neutral interpretations of "freedom of speech" and chaotic good interpretations of "freedom of speech".
Personally I'm chaotic good.
But there is a difference between the letter of the law of freedom of speech, and the spirit of it, to many people. You start arguing a lot about trends. Things like "chilling effect" get tossed around a lot. And "slippery slope". I think the 20th century has provided ample examples of why these aren't fallacies when you are talking about free speech, but we can agree to disagree on that.
Yeah, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. But what about when the consequences are insanely disproportionate because the mob gets involved? If you see something you don't like, and you don't want to purchase it, that's a reasonable consequence of speech. If you see something you don't like, and you decide to raise such a fuss that you assassinate that person's entirely livelihood, get all their friends to abandon them, get their employer to fire them, drive their business into the ground, get their wife to divorce them, and get everyone who knows them to publicly repudiate them... well that seems awfully disproportionate.
If there is anything I've learned over the last few months, it's that the style of internet dis-information warfare that is a consequence of free speech these days is utterly insane. It's fucking scary to have an opinion on the internet these days if the wrong sort of mob decides to get pissy about it.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
What in the hell are you talking about? I'm concerned about both. The letter of the law of free speech is that freedom of association is a thing. I am free to associate with you or not as I choose. Likewise, the spirit of free speech is that I am not obligated to make my personal business a platform for your abhorrent social views should I not wish it.
Show me where in the fuck the letter of the law says that I am obligated to give you a platform or be prosecuted for it. Go on, I will wait!
As for "disproportionate consequences", nobody has advocated getting someone's wife to divorce them. Your argument makes literally no sense.
Like, seriously, the argument that somebody should get to be a horrible racist, white supremacist asshole and I should just be cool with that is ridiculous prima facie. Unless you're willing to prosecute people for expressing their opinions about someone, social consequences will exist regardless of whether or not you feel they are "disproportionate". I'm personally fine with a white supremacist losing their job as a pundit or reality TV star or whatever, because the alternative is no free speech.
I strenuously object to making assumptions about a person's political or social leanings based on the use of terms or concepts that have a long and widespread historic use because of how some internet community is using it currently (histrionic, horseshoe theory). If you don't like horseshoe theory getting thrown around because it leads to balance fallacy, fine, but no need to accuse someone of being a gamergater.
I was not implying that anyone was a "Gamergater" in this thread, and I apologize if people felt accused of being associated with that group, as that was not my intention at all. I can easily see how someone could take my comment to be an ad hominem attack, and that was definitely not my intention. I simply mentioned it because the Gamergate community has been abusing the Horseshoe Theory as a balance fallacy to further their agenda, and it was the most recent example of this usage that would be familiar to this audience. (although by no means is it the ONLY example of the Horseshoe Theory to demonize an "other" group and make the accuser look centrist or moderate by comparison).
While you may object to using terms or concepts because of how "some internet community" is using it currently, it is important to mention. This is context, and it is one of those important things to worry about when debating on the internet.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
I keep harping on this, but where is the proof that the decision for Steam to remove Hatred wasn't just an internal policy decision by Steam? People keep talking about "clickbait articles" and "mobs", and I hate to keep pressing this point, but there hasn't ever been a statement by Steam or anyone that this is what happened here. Steam's decision to delist and relist Hatred seems to be wholly internal, unless one of you has some relevant links to point to me. I would like to know if an outside group is pressuring Steam to list/delist games.
This is a different issue than the thing that happened at Target, although it feels like people are conflating the two incidents.
based on the gameplay trailers, Hatred specifically targets Muslim folks. that is screwed up. i'm not even all that active, but seeing a game out there that attacks people because of their skin color and/or religious beliefs, and then seeing a bunch of gamers rallying around it feels like a personal attack.
you might not view it as such, because you are in a position where it does not affect you. when people talk about "privilege", this is precisely what they mean. you've got the privilege of not having this be an attack on you.
also, Hatred does not have just "one guy" who is a neo-nazi. the majority of their team has white supremacist tattoos, clothing, and facebook likes.
Out of curiosity, how did you decide the game was about killing Muslims? Did you watch the trailer yourself and come to that conclusion? Or did you hear it somewhere else.
I hate the argument of "You don't agree with me. You don't agree with me because you have privilege. Your privilege makes you wrong. End of discussion." That's all I'll say about that.
You say a lot of things that are outrageous, and completely unsupported. It's not my "privilege" that causes me to disbelieve them.
What in the hell are you talking about? I'm concerned about both. The letter of the law of free speech is that freedom of association is a thing. I am free to associate with you or not as I choose. Likewise, the spirit of free speech is that I am not obligated to make my personal business a platform for your abhorrent social views should I not wish it.
Show me where in the fuck the letter of the law says that I am obligated to give you a platform or be prosecuted for it. Go on, I will wait!
As for "disproportionate consequences", nobody has advocated getting someone's wife to divorce them. Your argument makes literally no sense.
I thought I was pretty clear that the law does not say anyone is obligated to give anyone a platform. But that a person who strongly believes in the spirit of free speech would still offer a platform to someone who's speech they don't agree with, or even find abhorrent.
Ugh, watched the trailer (a game trailers channel). The bunch of edgy stupid hurt my brain, but the NPCs are obviously randomly generated, and they show different parts of the same NPC kills on several places on the video.
Everybody that said "Postal 1, version 2.0" was correct.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
I keep harping on this, but where is the proof that the decision for Steam to remove Hatred wasn't just an internal policy decision by Steam? People keep talking about "clickbait articles" and "mobs", and I hate to keep pressing this point, but there hasn't ever been a statement by Steam or anyone that this is what happened here. Steam's decision to delist and relist Hatred seems to be wholly internal, unless one of you has some relevant links to point to me. I would like to know if an outside group is pressuring Steam to list/delist games.
This is a different issue than the thing that happened at Target, although it feels like people are conflating the two incidents.
there hasn't been. nor has anyone brought up any solid proof that Steam == the entire video game market. so far the evidence points the other way.
Nobody has brought up solid proof of Steam equaling the entire video game market because nobody actually believes that. It IS a hugely massive part of the market on PC. It is not the only source of video games on the pc, but it is obviously the biggest.
As for "disproportionate consequences", nobody has advocated getting someone's wife to divorce them. Your argument makes literally no sense.
I don't think it has happened in this particular case, but there certainly has been a disturbing online trend to ruin the livelihoods of "objectionable people" based on their personal Facebook posts and the like. Equally disturbing, if not moreso, has been some media's tacit approval or encouragement of the act.
You can Google up "getting racists fired" for a fairly recent example, where some activists are actively seeking out people to dogpile on and ruin. While I personally think the people in these posts have stupid opinions and should honestly learn to keep their social media private (a lesson everybody could use), I find myself getting far more angry at the internet mob that thinks they're doing a a Good Thing by getting some truck driver in Virgina booted from the highway. I also think the Twitter Justice that Justine Sacco faced was nauseating.
I don't think this kind of behavior belongs solely to any group in particular. Online communication is pretty bad across the board and the dysfunctional group mentalities you see born from it are everywhere. But there clearly are people (arguably on "my side") that are functionally no different than conservative loons or disturbed GamerGaters, and I am pretty tired of people not smelling the shit in their own backyard.
Out of curiosity, how did you decide the game was about killing Muslims? Did you watch the trailer yourself and come to that conclusion? Or did you hear it somewhere else.
watched the trailer, noted the really high number of people of color being depicted killed (as opposed to others), and noted the devs strong uniform predilection for neo-nazi groups, including anti-Muslim groups, and noted the entire intro monologue being a screed of "wiping society clean", a fairly common white supremacist group message. it's kind of obvious.
Wow, ok, that is a massive stretch. I've watched the trailer and it just looks like a random mix of different people.
He certainly did say it comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. Yes it is the same argument, and it has just as much evidence to support it as its predecessor. He also called gaming an "Old boy's club" which is strange, because I thought our hobby was basically alien gibberish to much of the elderly.
I'm not sure why the argument has now shifted to one of "Is gaming inclusive enough" since it only seems tangentially related to current one, and I don't think anybody here has expressed any opinion that non-white dudes shouldn't be part of gaming or have objections...? Furthermore, I don't see how Hatred is some threat to a diverse gaming audience, assuming such an audience is capable of ignoring it. Quite frankly, anybody who would look at a game like this and then writes off the medium as not for them is doing themselves a disservice. I don't feel like gaming needs to bend over backwards and apologize for itself to pull such people.
He certainly did say it comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. Yes it is the same argument, and it has just as much evidence to support as its predecessor. He also called gaming an "Old boy's club" which is strange, because I thought our hobby was basically alien gibberish to much of the elderly.
I'm not sure why the argument has now shifted to one of "Is gaming inclusive enough" since it only seems tangentially related to current one, and I don't think anybody here has expressed any opinion that non-white dudes shouldn't be part of gaming or have objections...?
Namrok literally said "I'm old" in an earlier post. And "Old boy's club" is an expression, comparing the "treehouse" tendencies of a certain demographic of hardcore gamer to the "old boy's club" mentality of golf and finance (and other areas). It's a valid idiomatic expression. Gamers are older now, and the average age is now in the 30s. A lot of gamers feel like their hobby is "under attack", which seems weird to me.
I'm aware of the expression, but I don't like its usage here because it does conjure a very potent image of some gamer treehouse that is purposefully pushing women off the ladder to it. That's pretty much how it was used previously and I'm not convinced that's the case here. There's been a lot of talk in this topic about "dog-whistle words" or whatever, and I don't think this is much different.
Well until this game is actually proven to be a literal manifesto bent on changing people's opinions and getting them to view minorities and women as objects, I'll continue to be substantially less worried about it than the bible.
I'm not saying it wouldn't worry me, or that some theoretical influx of racist and misogynist games wouldn't also worry me. And it seems pretty clear to me that the "free market" has decided it wants this game on Steam. And it has also simultaneously decided that it does not want GTA5 to be sold in Target Australia.
Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.
I am mostly in agreement with Squidget and the ACLU argument - the issue is that the ideas Pony describes are what historically people do when they want to deal with the problem on a surface level and hide it rather than admit to the idea that there are (a non insignificant apparently) amount of people who are drawn to these bad ideas.
The best way to expose something as a bad idea is to let it hang itself; not just try to ban it. There's a reason the KKK was never "banned" or had the gov't try to "regulate" it, just like the crazy Westboro people. They can hang themselves with their own actions.
I feel like with how racism was dealt with in the US is a perfect example. We tried to engage it on the surface level and make it "taboo", and all we did was merely drive it underground and possibly make it even stronger in some areas.
As for studies that try to link playing games to temporary behavior shifts - there's a big difference between a temporary behavior shift from doing an activity as opposed to a permanent behavior shift. Social studies have a large issue with correlation vs causation currently; right now you can more or less create a study that backs any conclusion you want to come up with. There were lots of "violent video games cause people to be violent" studies that used the same methodologies; but when they tried to extrapolate that to long-term behavior - they found that it had an opposite effect. They basically managed to take a long time and a lot of money proving that venting is a good thing. :-p
Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.
"hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"
"hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"
"hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."
no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.
Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.
I am mostly in agreement with Squidget and the ACLU argument - the issue is that the ideas Pony describes are what historically people do when they want to deal with the problem on a surface level and hide it rather than admit to the idea that there are (a non insignificant apparently) amount of people who are drawn to these bad ideas.
The best way to expose something as a bad idea is to let it hang itself; not just try to ban it. There's a reason the KKK was never "banned" or had the gov't try to "regulate" it, just like the crazy Westboro people. They can hang themselves with their own actions.
I feel like with how racism was dealt with in the US is a perfect example. We tried to engage it on the surface level and make it "taboo", and all we did was merely drive it underground and possibly make it even stronger in some areas.
As for studies that try to link playing games to temporary behavior shifts - there's a big difference between a temporary behavior shift from doing an activity as opposed to a permanent behavior shift. Social studies have a large issue with correlation vs causation currently; right now you can more or less create a study that backs any conclusion you want to come up with. There were lots of "violent video games cause people to be violent" studies that used the same methodologies; but when they tried to extrapolate that to long-term behavior - they found that it had an opposite effect. They basically managed to take a long time and a lot of money proving that venting is a good thing. :-p
There's a great episode of Drunk History about the KKK and how exposing their secret signs and rituals showed people that they were basically giant children.
I think what frustrates me most about this whole "Games cause people to view X as objects" argument is it's absurd on so many levels.
On the most basic level, everything in a game is an object, and must be an object, on a technical level. Because they are just abstractions of the real world at worst, and highly imperfect simulations at best. I'm saying they aren't real and they cannot possibly be real. Creating a game that fully represents all the consequences and depth of the real world would be literally godlike.
Thinking this is problem, or "problematic" like the cool kids are saying, means you either think people cannot tell the difference between reality and non-reality, or that something subliminal gets in people. That indulging in a simplified game world somehow overrides your experiences growing up with your family, classmates, neighbors, etc. That the games will subliminally override all the humanizing experiences you've had with real people, and make you view them as objects like the games you play.
Yeah, I know it sounds absurd when I put it like that. I know your gut reaction is "That is not what I'm saying". But that is what it sounds like to me.
If people want to keep having this discussion, I made a thread about this very topic a long while back. I don't really think it's as appropriate to keep discussing this in the thread for a comic that has nothing at all to do about free speech/censorship/etc.
Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.
"hey, segregation isn't such a bad idea, why are you so upset?"
"hey, those Japanese internment camps aren't so bad, at least you're not in em, right?"
"hey, so what if that guy called you a gook, quit being so offended."
no. fuck that. i'd rather say something now, before it does become something later.
Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.
one game, no. a pattern of them? that's what i'd like to see not happen. letting game companies know that people want better games is the best way to have better games.
i would like to see games that have better writing, or at least characters that aren't two dimensional caricatures. i'd like to see games that stop relying on dumb, overused stereotypes. i'd like to see games that are accessible and welcoming to more people, not less.
I'm aware of the expression, but I don't like its usage here because it does conjure a very potent image of some gamer treehouse that is purposefully pushing women off the ladder to it. That's pretty much how it was used previously and I'm not convinced that's the case here.
I believe that the Steam case is different from previous arguments/debates. There's no evidence that it's because of a moral minority mob or anything other than a Steam-internal decision. So yes, I'm inclined to agree with you, with this regard.
There is a gamer treehouse that gamers have been using to push women out. Many women have already been drummed out of the industry, and women make up less than 20 percent of people who are involved in making games. But I don't think this has anything to do with Steam and Hatred in particular. It is important to make this distinction and not conflate this incident with other recent controversies.
Posts
But, to play devil's advocate, wouldn't "letting the open market decide" mean leaving it on Greenlight and seeing if it got enough votes to be considered for addition to Steam's store? As opposed to Steam arbitrarily deciding whether or not to include it on their own.
It kind of bothers me that people are accusing or implying that anyone who has beef with this is in support of the game content or the views of its creators. I'd have been fine with Steam sticking with the initial decision to delist it, but I don't think its unreasonable for people to be perturbed by it in light of their influence in the industry, with regards to the concepts of free speech discussed above. No, I don't think Steam is obligated to do anything by the First Amendment, but I think that the service's power means that how they choose to censor their selection is a valid subject for discussion.
Since Steam unfortunately is "The" Store, Valve has to be more questioned than a regular company, given that they have the capacity to decide if any indie studio without AAA budgets gets to be an actual contender on the PC market or not. Is a bad situation, but the alternatives are either be hard on Valve or disminish their power somehow.
Well, I agree that its fine for them to carry or not carry a game based on its content, but I guess I just don't really like your "open market" argument when it comes to a game on Greenlight.
I guess I am taking it for granted that Steam handles the vast majority of computer game sales outside EA and Blizzard, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. And having a controlling stake in those markets would be powerful enough to cause concern, as consoles generally aren't nearly as open or accessible to small developers, and mobile devices have technical limitations that can exclude them entirely as an option.
PS. I probably won't be around to respond any further for a day or so, sorry. Didn't want anyone thinking I just checked out.
Uh, because games made by jihadists or literal Nazis presumably advocate violence against actual people? Do they not? I've never heard of one, much less played it, and I'm imagining a clunky shooter about blowing up Jews or some shit. Because if the games you're talking about don't advocate violence against real people and that's totally not your point, why the hell would you go out of your way to use groups explicitly known for advocating violence as your examples?
And while we're at it, who exactly do you think should be drawing the line on what is or isn't acceptable? No one in particular, AKA the free market? That's great, then we agree! We'll just sit here together and wait to hear what the free market has to say. Maybe one of those games "journalism" clickbait laughingstock websites will write their zillionth article about how "problematic" everything is, and everyone's brains will click over at once, and GTA6 will tank horribly when it comes out.
Or maybe the masses will continue to be barbarians who aren't appropriately chagrined that this particular wave of self-proclaimed video game police happen to come from the political left, and this whole wave of moral guardianship will fizzle away with a wet farting sound just like all the others.
I know which outcome I'd bet on.
And I'm still going to call you a would-be censor if the existence of games you disagree with makes you so upset that you feel the need to lobby the free market to stop other people from buying them. Because that's the correct word, and the fact that something is within your rights doesn't mean you can't be an asshole for doing it.
I did not mean to imply one or more of the people in this thread are storm fronters in disguise.
In my part of Pennsylvania Sheetz is a very prolific convenience store--one of a few major chains that are extremely dominant--if you want a snack, gas, or quick hot food, you'll probably go to Sheetz. Sheetz no longer carries my favorite flavors of Sobe drinks. They only have, like, two, which is barbaric. I could probably do some research and order the flavors I like online, but other than that, the dominance of these few chains, none of which carry a good selection of Sobe, makes it basically impossible for me to get those drinks. Is Sheetz censoring Sobe or abusing its power as a market leader by not selling literally all the things?
Even if we take out the problematic nature of the game (it may be worth posting the dev quote again to show people that no, Hatred is not just a violent game. It is a game specifically made with the intention of saying f*** you to anyone who wants to see games mature or become inclusive), the bottom line is that Steam, no matter how successful they may be (which people seem to think is some sort of black mark on Valve, the fact that they have done well as a company) is not obligated to carry any specific product on their storefront. They could sell nothing but pigeon dating sims if they wanted.
Also, @beeftruck, for your own sake I would advise you to take heed of this soon, or I imagine you won't be able to participate in the argument much longer. I'm not a mod or anything, this is just a friendly reminder.
But have people seriously shifted the goalpost from "Hatred is offensive and shouldn't be on Steam" to "Hatred has one guy working on it who might be a neonazi so it shouldn't be on Steam?"
If so, I have very bad news for you. Racists have tangentially been involved in almost every human endeavour since the dawn of time. It's lamentable that racists still exist, but I do not find their existence a compelling reason to ban everything they might accidentally be involved in. I know it's shocking to have racists pointed out to you. But when most albums, movies and games are made by increasingly large groups of people, odds are good there is at least one hateful fuck on that team.
I'm not sure how I feel about people who no longer think we should separate the artist from the art. I do however know exactly what to think about people who think that one person on a team somehow taints anything that team ever makes.
I've done this dance already too many times in my life. I'll judge Hatred on it's merit when it actually comes out on Steam. Until then, all anybody is doing is trying to skewer one another over things they can only pretend to know.
So I guess we can possibly shift the goalposts to "if a game is an engine to sell a particular ideology, does it belong on Steam?" and have that discussion? But now we're edging closer to GamerGate territory and I'm not sure we want to go there.
So, just to go back to primary sources, I watched the reveal trailer again. When it's in the isometric perspective, I couldn't tell what race anybody was. Maybe you'll have better luck. But for the cinematic kills, it seemed equally distributed. A white cop, a white civilian, a black cop, a black civilian, I think an asian lady? and then a few more people of ambiguous ethnicity.
I also find this funny because somewhere else I heard people complaining that Hatred was racist because it didn't have enough minorities in it. And then people returned with "Well most people in Poland are white!"
Now I remember, I saw that on twitter. It was retarded enough to have been on twitter.
I do find it really amusing however, the outrage of the hypothetical that there aren't enough minorities in a game, coupled with the outrage that a game about murdering people lets you murder the minorities that are equally represented in the game.
What I'm winding to is I'm highly skeptical of any "analysis" anybody did of that trailer trying to prove racist intent.
Bothered to read their website, and according to them, the NPCs are randomly generated. If you don't want to buy it (I don't, BTW), can wait to the inevitable YouTube videos to confirm that.
I'm am failing to see how this is a "fixed game". If you do support free speech and say any game, regardless of content, can be made available, that doesn't mean you're immoral. Just like the ACLU, you can agree with their right to publish something without agreeing with the content.
It seems like a fairly simple question to me, and dodging it (or saying "real Nazi" games don't count) introduces completely arbitrary decisions based on individual moral beliefs.
It's perfectly acceptable for people not to buy things for whatever reason. Sometimes they don't buy an otherwise good game because it would support someone whose views they don't support. For many people, in the case, they don't want to buy what looks to be a garbage game, made by what looks to be a team of people with views they don't want to support, and the game itself reflects those values.
I feel that's disingenuous? Nobody has said anybody has to buy it. And the claims made by people in this very thread are that they don't want that game sharing shelf space with other games. Because hate is like lice, and it leaps to other games in close proximity.
I just want it available on Steam for anybody who does want it. Which appears to be a lot of people given the Greenlight votes. Although personally I think it's just another instance of slacktivism, and most of those people won't buy it. It's ambiguous what the "other side" wants. To me, I see 1000's of weasel words that heavily imply censorship, and rhetorically lead you right up to censorship being the only possible conclusion, and then just stop. Now this could easily be me seeing something that's not there, but that last second backing down comes with a very telegraphed wink and a smile. Is that one of those dog whistles everyone keeps talking about?
What about the freedom of the person running that platform? Is theirs not important? Because I can tell you right now that if I ran a digital distribution service as big as Steam and I had a game, made by white supremacists and about killing black people submitted, I would be super fucking nervous about allowing it on my platform.
There's a thing called freedom of association, and a few of you are looking really, really ignorant. Just as nobody can prevent someone from making a game about, I dunno, strangling grandmothers, there is no requirement or obligation for anybody to distribute that game for you. And no reason needs to be given for it, either!
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. You can't be a total racist goose and have an expectation for people to help you shout your racist goose propaganda from the rooftops, even if they don't share your racist goose beliefs.
If we had to give a platform to anybody who wanted it, wherever they wanted it, we'd have to force people to present things they didn't agree with everywhere, and not just in video games. So some of you don't care about a stupid game or whatever. Think about something you do strongly disagree with, and then imagine you are being forced to not just allow yourself to be associated with it, but to actively assist that viewpoint you do not want to be associated with.
I guess this is where you hit the difference between lawful neutral interpretations of "freedom of speech" and chaotic good interpretations of "freedom of speech".
Personally I'm chaotic good.
But there is a difference between the letter of the law of freedom of speech, and the spirit of it, to many people. You start arguing a lot about trends. Things like "chilling effect" get tossed around a lot. And "slippery slope". I think the 20th century has provided ample examples of why these aren't fallacies when you are talking about free speech, but we can agree to disagree on that.
Yeah, freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences. But what about when the consequences are insanely disproportionate because the mob gets involved? If you see something you don't like, and you don't want to purchase it, that's a reasonable consequence of speech. If you see something you don't like, and you decide to raise such a fuss that you assassinate that person's entirely livelihood, get all their friends to abandon them, get their employer to fire them, drive their business into the ground, get their wife to divorce them, and get everyone who knows them to publicly repudiate them... well that seems awfully disproportionate.
If there is anything I've learned over the last few months, it's that the style of internet dis-information warfare that is a consequence of free speech these days is utterly insane. It's fucking scary to have an opinion on the internet these days if the wrong sort of mob decides to get pissy about it.
What we've seen with these loud activist minorities getting companies to change policy clearly isn't that extreme. But it's still worrisome to me, when you are concerned about the spirit of free speech and not the letter of the law of it.
The expressed political message on their site is basically to be as "un-PC" as possible. I'm sorry, but you being offended by this admittedly childish mindset is not really enough for me.
And when I ask sincerely ask for allegations of Nazism to be substantiated, it might be helpful to do so instead of acting like the "shenanigans" you refer to are blindingly obvious. I still don't see anything in the game that qualifies as hate speech. You will have to understand my reluctance to readily embrace "proof" from Tumblr.
I'd also like to see less strawmen involving "So you think Babyfucker DX should be on Steam and all products should be stocked everywhere for freedom!?!?!?"
For the first situation, no I don't find it odd. That has been the status quo for ages, and I'm not even convinced it's under attack from "every possible political spectrum" so much as some very outspoken worriers that have their masks cycled every decade or so.
For the second one... yes, and? And now Hatred is the number one game on Greenlight by community vote. I'm not sure what your point is. And I really don't like talking about this through nebulous abstracts like "change in gaming" because I don't know what that means, what that specifically entails, what that should look like, or even if everybody is on the same page regarding it.
I'm willing to admit that my personality is likely just running against the grain here. I consider myself liberal, or "left", by and large. But I truly could not give a damn if Steam, Target, Amazon, or Walmart carried more things like porn, or A Serbian Film, or lots of other "problematic" products. And if something pisses me off or offends me, you're never going to see me signing a petition to have a product removed unless I think it is actually hurting somebody or legitimately condoning hatred and violence against a group of people.
What in the hell are you talking about? I'm concerned about both. The letter of the law of free speech is that freedom of association is a thing. I am free to associate with you or not as I choose. Likewise, the spirit of free speech is that I am not obligated to make my personal business a platform for your abhorrent social views should I not wish it.
Show me where in the fuck the letter of the law says that I am obligated to give you a platform or be prosecuted for it. Go on, I will wait!
As for "disproportionate consequences", nobody has advocated getting someone's wife to divorce them. Your argument makes literally no sense.
While you may object to using terms or concepts because of how "some internet community" is using it currently, it is important to mention. This is context, and it is one of those important things to worry about when debating on the internet.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
This is a different issue than the thing that happened at Target, although it feels like people are conflating the two incidents.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Out of curiosity, how did you decide the game was about killing Muslims? Did you watch the trailer yourself and come to that conclusion? Or did you hear it somewhere else.
I hate the argument of "You don't agree with me. You don't agree with me because you have privilege. Your privilege makes you wrong. End of discussion." That's all I'll say about that.
You say a lot of things that are outrageous, and completely unsupported. It's not my "privilege" that causes me to disbelieve them.
I thought I was pretty clear that the law does not say anyone is obligated to give anyone a platform. But that a person who strongly believes in the spirit of free speech would still offer a platform to someone who's speech they don't agree with, or even find abhorrent.
Everybody that said "Postal 1, version 2.0" was correct.
EDIT: Added a gameplay video of Postal 1.
Nobody has brought up solid proof of Steam equaling the entire video game market because nobody actually believes that. It IS a hugely massive part of the market on PC. It is not the only source of video games on the pc, but it is obviously the biggest.
I don't think it has happened in this particular case, but there certainly has been a disturbing online trend to ruin the livelihoods of "objectionable people" based on their personal Facebook posts and the like. Equally disturbing, if not moreso, has been some media's tacit approval or encouragement of the act.
You can Google up "getting racists fired" for a fairly recent example, where some activists are actively seeking out people to dogpile on and ruin. While I personally think the people in these posts have stupid opinions and should honestly learn to keep their social media private (a lesson everybody could use), I find myself getting far more angry at the internet mob that thinks they're doing a a Good Thing by getting some truck driver in Virgina booted from the highway. I also think the Twitter Justice that Justine Sacco faced was nauseating.
I don't think this kind of behavior belongs solely to any group in particular. Online communication is pretty bad across the board and the dysfunctional group mentalities you see born from it are everywhere. But there clearly are people (arguably on "my side") that are functionally no different than conservative loons or disturbed GamerGaters, and I am pretty tired of people not smelling the shit in their own backyard.
Last comment aimed at nobody in particular here.
I mean, it won't, of course, but it would amuse me if it did.
I would absolutely love if the game turns out to be smart social commentary about mental health or how the media handles mass shootings or violence.
I'm not holding my breath, but still, I can dream.
It is "Games cause violence" again.
Wow, ok, that is a massive stretch. I've watched the trailer and it just looks like a random mix of different people.
I'm not sure why the argument has now shifted to one of "Is gaming inclusive enough" since it only seems tangentially related to current one, and I don't think anybody here has expressed any opinion that non-white dudes shouldn't be part of gaming or have objections...? Furthermore, I don't see how Hatred is some threat to a diverse gaming audience, assuming such an audience is capable of ignoring it. Quite frankly, anybody who would look at a game like this and then writes off the medium as not for them is doing themselves a disservice. I don't feel like gaming needs to bend over backwards and apologize for itself to pull such people.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
Also, 30 ain't old!
I'm not saying it wouldn't worry me, or that some theoretical influx of racist and misogynist games wouldn't also worry me. And it seems pretty clear to me that the "free market" has decided it wants this game on Steam. And it has also simultaneously decided that it does not want GTA5 to be sold in Target Australia.
Saying that gamers need to be exposed to the idea that different people are also real people is just super weird, I'm sorry. Can you tone it down? I don't think we're at the point where gamers are all trench-coat wearing Columbine wannabes just yet.
The best way to expose something as a bad idea is to let it hang itself; not just try to ban it. There's a reason the KKK was never "banned" or had the gov't try to "regulate" it, just like the crazy Westboro people. They can hang themselves with their own actions.
I feel like with how racism was dealt with in the US is a perfect example. We tried to engage it on the surface level and make it "taboo", and all we did was merely drive it underground and possibly make it even stronger in some areas.
As for studies that try to link playing games to temporary behavior shifts - there's a big difference between a temporary behavior shift from doing an activity as opposed to a permanent behavior shift. Social studies have a large issue with correlation vs causation currently; right now you can more or less create a study that backs any conclusion you want to come up with. There were lots of "violent video games cause people to be violent" studies that used the same methodologies; but when they tried to extrapolate that to long-term behavior - they found that it had an opposite effect. They basically managed to take a long time and a lot of money proving that venting is a good thing. :-p
Ok, so gamers aren't currently all racist sociopaths? I think we agree that this would be a bad thing and that it would be good to prevent it. I'm just not sure if a video game can help somebody that literally views others as non-human objects, or even come close causing that in the first place.
There's a great episode of Drunk History about the KKK and how exposing their secret signs and rituals showed people that they were basically giant children.
On the most basic level, everything in a game is an object, and must be an object, on a technical level. Because they are just abstractions of the real world at worst, and highly imperfect simulations at best. I'm saying they aren't real and they cannot possibly be real. Creating a game that fully represents all the consequences and depth of the real world would be literally godlike.
Thinking this is problem, or "problematic" like the cool kids are saying, means you either think people cannot tell the difference between reality and non-reality, or that something subliminal gets in people. That indulging in a simplified game world somehow overrides your experiences growing up with your family, classmates, neighbors, etc. That the games will subliminally override all the humanizing experiences you've had with real people, and make you view them as objects like the games you play.
Yeah, I know it sounds absurd when I put it like that. I know your gut reaction is "That is not what I'm saying". But that is what it sounds like to me.
Well hey, that sounds good to me.
There is a gamer treehouse that gamers have been using to push women out. Many women have already been drummed out of the industry, and women make up less than 20 percent of people who are involved in making games. But I don't think this has anything to do with Steam and Hatred in particular. It is important to make this distinction and not conflate this incident with other recent controversies.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3