- 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
I'll take your word for it then as I know nothing of such things, that is pretty shitty. And I didn't realize Waterloo had that problem. .
0
Options
H3KnucklesBut we decide which is rightand which is an illusion.Registered Userregular
edited June 2015
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.
Also, while calling someone's argument histrionic BS is bad form because it's dismissive and lacks any content, it is still an attack on the other person's argument, not the other person, I think.
So, let me start with what my views are on some of the subjects that have been raised because I'm seeing a lot of people on both sides jumping to conclusions about others' views (or at least subtly implying things) based on some flimsy correlation they've made. I have never played any GTA, Manhunt, Postal, or even any Hitman games. Because I don't want to support their production by paying for them, or for rental services to provide them. But I don't think they should be barred because of their content; if enough other people do pay for them to keep being made, I'm content to just shake my head and go about my own business. I am very much in support of more representative games, and expanding the medium with games that have social messages.
As for the Target Australia thing; I'm okay with Target pulling it, but my understanding was that the people behind the petition were very clear about their intentions to try and get as many other major retailers as they could to pull it, which is essentially a ban by non-governmental means. I think it is totally reasonable for people to speak out if they don't like where the petitioners are trying to go after the first success, rather than waiting for the final retailer.
Now, I come from a fairly affluent and well-educated area in the eastern US, and never before in my 31 years have I ever heard the argument that it's only censorship if the government is involved. I do know that it's only a violation of First Amendment Rights if the Government is involved, and I wonder if people are conflating the two concepts. I have heard censorship used many, many times in various situations where a non-governmental private or public organization restricted access to creative works based on their content. I think you guys are playing a game of semantics rather than arguing substance with this definition stuff.
As for Steam; again, I'm okay with it. I agree with other people's concerns about the degree of leverage Steam has on the marketplace and the implications of shifts in their policy on what kinds of content they'll allow, or which creators. I would be bothered if they weren't consistent with their policy, but I don't have a problem with Steam censoring the content on their service. Which brings me to my big point: censorship may be a loaded term, but not all censorship is bad. Censorship (such as not allowing porn in a family-oriented venue) can be right and necessary, even. However, when you're choosing whether or not to allow the creation of a work or access to it based on the nature of its content that is censorship.
The only part of this story that actually upsets me, is the hypocritical manipulation by the press that Tycho/Jerry brought up.
Re-edited Jun 2015: just moving a sentence within a paragraph for better flow. Awhile after making the post I noticed it, but felt silly modifying such an old one. However this thread was linked from a recent strip discussion thread, so I figured I might as well.
- 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
I'll take your word for it then as I know nothing of such things, that is pretty shitty. And I didn't realize Waterloo had that problem. .
I grew up in Kitcehener more than Waterloo (which is largely students anyway), which remember back in the day used to be named Berlin till suddenly it wasn't cool to have your city named after a German place anymore
(so instead they named it after a British guy who instituted concentration camps lol)
and that high German immigrant population resulted in a youth that are very proud of their "German heritage" and responded to Kitchener-Waterloo's increasing immigrant population in the 80's and 90's with becoming skinhead gangs and shit
To be honest I don't know how it is nowadays, I ain't lived there for years. But growing up? Yeah, I learned to recognize a "Life Rune" (or as we called em, "crow's foot") on some guy's pec and know what the fuck that meant.
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.
No it's not, that's the real test of dedication to free speech. It isn't so obvious and you need it pointed out.
I didn't know this prior to recent events, and was actually shocked to learn this: the ACLU has even gone to court to defend hate speech.
Their reasoning is it is a disservice to the people they're trying to protect if censorship can be used against fringe groups.
How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.
Now you can play the "corporate vs. government is not censorship" (censorship is censorship) shell game if you like, but as an American I value companies that respect this right.
Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?
A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.
The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."
I'm a person that doesn't like Hatred, I also had real problems with the show Fear Factor for actual physical abuse of people (including women) for example shoving needles under a bikini clad woman's skin etc. I also didn't like Dexter for glorifying a serial killer and refused to watch it. Surprisingly no one attacked these shows to my knowledge but games always take the heat for some reason. I still support their right to make all this art even if I don't agree with the message. That's my morality and it is not and cannot be the standard for everyone.
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!
the irony being, this is exactly what the marketplace of ideas is all about: people hashing out what ideas are worth promoting and what ideas have little to no value. like, this is how human society has behaved since human societies existed. the folks who painted animals in caves selected some depictions of animals and decided against others. black women and men during the 1960s civil rights struggles chose businesses that didn't segregate as opposed to those who did, and ultimately the national discourse in the US changed to agreeing that segregation was wrong. women felt more comfortable and safer speaking up against harassment in workplaces, and eventually workplaces put no-harassment policies in place. retail stores today refuse to sell certain types of music or books because they don't fit their brand image, or the author or artist is controversial, or a whole host of other reasons.
let's not mince words here: we are precisely talking about what ideas are worth valuing and what are not. it just happens to be that this debate is happening in the marketplace of ideas and is not being forced top down by a government or state institution. people and groups are free to express whatever opinions and art and works and whatever they like. they are not prevented from making games like Hatred, or GTA V, or Postal, or Custer's Revenge. they are not subject to arrest, or fine, or license, or other stigma. they are free to put their ideas out there for people to see, consume, and think about.
it just so happens that when you put you speech out there, you are not immune from the consequences. your speech does NOT have more rights than another's. those ideas can and do and SHOULD clash, to figure out which ideas we value more.
and as Pony so clearly pointed out, the ideas of neo nazi assholes who publish those ideas into a racist, misanthropic game are up for judgment here. a few folks in here, myself included, believe this is the sort of speech that has no worth. would i want Destructive Creations to be silenced? hell no. would i want Valve to see that the marketplace has deemed their game utter shit not worthy of a sale? hell yes.
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.
The ACLU is exactly the kind of people who have the honesty to take that unilateral approach of "All free speech is free or no speech is completely free at all times for all people"
Which leads to the ACLU defending the KKK, NAMBLA, all kinds of fucked up people, just to stay ideologically consistent. They kind of have to, otherwise they're hypocrites.
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?
Because you disagree with them and think they're offensive and that their game would promote hatred and be bad for society?
So what?
It's just a game, right?
I mean aren't you saying that's exactly why it's wrong for other people to be opposed to Hatred? Because they think it's offensive and would promote hatred and be bad for society, and who are they to say that, right? After all it's just a game, right?
It's either a matter of belief and values, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then there's an objective standard. If we're determining an objective standard then we're going to have to agree on what that is, otherwise it's not very objective, is it?
If you're okay with Hatred being on Steam because it's "just a game" (even though it's openly a political statement by some guys, some of whom it turns out might actually be white supremacists...), but not okay with actual, literal Neo-Nazis putting their games on Steam because those are hate propaganda that don't belong, you need to establish what that difference is better than just c'mon it's different.
Because the difference is just, one offends you and one doesn't, and that seems pretty fucking arbitrary to me and is exactly the same thing you're accusing other people of being guilty of.
0
Options
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TryCatcher on
+3
Options
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.
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.
as one of those "loud activist minorities", frankly, getting stuff that attacks people on a personal level out of the market is entirely worthy of the fight. 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.
last,
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.
except having something removed from Steam is far, far from this nicely constructed strawman.
yes, there are people who are "doxxing" others, and it's happening from a whole host of people on all sides. that's messed up. attacking someone personally isn't acceptable. but a business making sales and retail decisions, including decisions on whether or not to sell something based on consumer feedback, is part of normal commerce. civilized societies have almost uniformly agreed that this is acceptable. what Target in Australia did, and what Valve did (ever so briefly), happens all the damn time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that's not the argument and you know it. what the argument is is this: the video game industry until recently has catered to a specific demographic. that demographic has gotten used to games having subject matter and gameplay which appealed to them and/or included content that did not attack or challenge who they are. it has been getting to the point where games have been affecting how gamers see women as objects, not human beings, and similar outcomes.
as video gaming has become more mainstream, more people who have either enjoyed games but were never considered part of the main demographic, or people who have started enjoying games but were never part of the original demo are starting to come in. the tent is getting bigger.
turns out, these groups have different perspectives on the messages games convey. turns out, some of the games out there have, for a long time, shat upon these groups. now that folks of color, women, transgender folks, and others are gaining a voice in video gaming, the traditional video game demographic is "upset" that games are no longer strictly for them. it's no longer an old boys' club. the point being, many gamers of the "traditional" demographic have never had their medium challenged like this. they've never had their world view challenged on what game content actually comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. you can hate an argument all you want, but as long as gaming is becoming more mainstream and more people are finding it an artform and a hobby, you're going to have to answer that argument. that's part of being a society.
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.
it's entirely possible to believe in the law AND the spirit of free speech and ALSO believe that some ideas have little to no redeeming value whatsoever and should be left in the past.
freedom of speech ALSO means that people debate each other on what ideas are worth it and what ideas are not. people are free to discuss and express the ideas, but it doesn't mean that all ideas have equal weight.
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.
Posts
I'll take your word for it then as I know nothing of such things, that is pretty shitty. And I didn't realize Waterloo had that problem.
Also, while calling someone's argument histrionic BS is bad form because it's dismissive and lacks any content, it is still an attack on the other person's argument, not the other person, I think.
So, let me start with what my views are on some of the subjects that have been raised because I'm seeing a lot of people on both sides jumping to conclusions about others' views (or at least subtly implying things) based on some flimsy correlation they've made. I have never played any GTA, Manhunt, Postal, or even any Hitman games. Because I don't want to support their production by paying for them, or for rental services to provide them. But I don't think they should be barred because of their content; if enough other people do pay for them to keep being made, I'm content to just shake my head and go about my own business. I am very much in support of more representative games, and expanding the medium with games that have social messages.
As for the Target Australia thing; I'm okay with Target pulling it, but my understanding was that the people behind the petition were very clear about their intentions to try and get as many other major retailers as they could to pull it, which is essentially a ban by non-governmental means. I think it is totally reasonable for people to speak out if they don't like where the petitioners are trying to go after the first success, rather than waiting for the final retailer.
Now, I come from a fairly affluent and well-educated area in the eastern US, and never before in my 31 years have I ever heard the argument that it's only censorship if the government is involved. I do know that it's only a violation of First Amendment Rights if the Government is involved, and I wonder if people are conflating the two concepts. I have heard censorship used many, many times in various situations where a non-governmental private or public organization restricted access to creative works based on their content. I think you guys are playing a game of semantics rather than arguing substance with this definition stuff.
As for Steam; again, I'm okay with it. I agree with other people's concerns about the degree of leverage Steam has on the marketplace and the implications of shifts in their policy on what kinds of content they'll allow, or which creators. I would be bothered if they weren't consistent with their policy, but I don't have a problem with Steam censoring the content on their service. Which brings me to my big point: censorship may be a loaded term, but not all censorship is bad. Censorship (such as not allowing porn in a family-oriented venue) can be right and necessary, even. However, when you're choosing whether or not to allow the creation of a work or access to it based on the nature of its content that is censorship.
The only part of this story that actually upsets me, is the hypocritical manipulation by the press that Tycho/Jerry brought up.
Re-edited Jun 2015: just moving a sentence within a paragraph for better flow. Awhile after making the post I noticed it, but felt silly modifying such an old one. However this thread was linked from a recent strip discussion thread, so I figured I might as well.
I grew up in Kitcehener more than Waterloo (which is largely students anyway), which remember back in the day used to be named Berlin till suddenly it wasn't cool to have your city named after a German place anymore
(so instead they named it after a British guy who instituted concentration camps lol)
and that high German immigrant population resulted in a youth that are very proud of their "German heritage" and responded to Kitchener-Waterloo's increasing immigrant population in the 80's and 90's with becoming skinhead gangs and shit
To be honest I don't know how it is nowadays, I ain't lived there for years. But growing up? Yeah, I learned to recognize a "Life Rune" (or as we called em, "crow's foot") on some guy's pec and know what the fuck that meant.
No it's not, that's the real test of dedication to free speech. It isn't so obvious and you need it pointed out.
I didn't know this prior to recent events, and was actually shocked to learn this: the ACLU has even gone to court to defend hate speech.
Their reasoning is it is a disservice to the people they're trying to protect if censorship can be used against fringe groups.
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus
Now you can play the "corporate vs. government is not censorship" (censorship is censorship) shell game if you like, but as an American I value companies that respect this right.
I'm a person that doesn't like Hatred, I also had real problems with the show Fear Factor for actual physical abuse of people (including women) for example shoving needles under a bikini clad woman's skin etc. I also didn't like Dexter for glorifying a serial killer and refused to watch it. Surprisingly no one attacked these shows to my knowledge but games always take the heat for some reason. I still support their right to make all this art even if I don't agree with the message. That's my morality and it is not and cannot be the standard for everyone.
the irony being, this is exactly what the marketplace of ideas is all about: people hashing out what ideas are worth promoting and what ideas have little to no value. like, this is how human society has behaved since human societies existed. the folks who painted animals in caves selected some depictions of animals and decided against others. black women and men during the 1960s civil rights struggles chose businesses that didn't segregate as opposed to those who did, and ultimately the national discourse in the US changed to agreeing that segregation was wrong. women felt more comfortable and safer speaking up against harassment in workplaces, and eventually workplaces put no-harassment policies in place. retail stores today refuse to sell certain types of music or books because they don't fit their brand image, or the author or artist is controversial, or a whole host of other reasons.
let's not mince words here: we are precisely talking about what ideas are worth valuing and what are not. it just happens to be that this debate is happening in the marketplace of ideas and is not being forced top down by a government or state institution. people and groups are free to express whatever opinions and art and works and whatever they like. they are not prevented from making games like Hatred, or GTA V, or Postal, or Custer's Revenge. they are not subject to arrest, or fine, or license, or other stigma. they are free to put their ideas out there for people to see, consume, and think about.
it just so happens that when you put you speech out there, you are not immune from the consequences. your speech does NOT have more rights than another's. those ideas can and do and SHOULD clash, to figure out which ideas we value more.
and as Pony so clearly pointed out, the ideas of neo nazi assholes who publish those ideas into a racist, misanthropic game are up for judgment here. a few folks in here, myself included, believe this is the sort of speech that has no worth. would i want Destructive Creations to be silenced? hell no. would i want Valve to see that the marketplace has deemed their game utter shit not worthy of a sale? hell yes.
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.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
The ACLU is exactly the kind of people who have the honesty to take that unilateral approach of "All free speech is free or no speech is completely free at all times for all people"
Which leads to the ACLU defending the KKK, NAMBLA, all kinds of fucked up people, just to stay ideologically consistent. They kind of have to, otherwise they're hypocrites.
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?
Because you disagree with them and think they're offensive and that their game would promote hatred and be bad for society?
So what?
It's just a game, right?
I mean aren't you saying that's exactly why it's wrong for other people to be opposed to Hatred? Because they think it's offensive and would promote hatred and be bad for society, and who are they to say that, right? After all it's just a game, right?
It's either a matter of belief and values, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then there's an objective standard. If we're determining an objective standard then we're going to have to agree on what that is, otherwise it's not very objective, is it?
If you're okay with Hatred being on Steam because it's "just a game" (even though it's openly a political statement by some guys, some of whom it turns out might actually be white supremacists...), but not okay with actual, literal Neo-Nazis putting their games on Steam because those are hate propaganda that don't belong, you need to establish what that difference is better than just c'mon it's different.
Because the difference is just, one offends you and one doesn't, and that seems pretty fucking arbitrary to me and is exactly the same thing you're accusing other people of being guilty of.
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.
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.
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.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
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.
as one of those "loud activist minorities", frankly, getting stuff that attacks people on a personal level out of the market is entirely worthy of the fight. 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.
last,
except having something removed from Steam is far, far from this nicely constructed strawman.
yes, there are people who are "doxxing" others, and it's happening from a whole host of people on all sides. that's messed up. attacking someone personally isn't acceptable. but a business making sales and retail decisions, including decisions on whether or not to sell something based on consumer feedback, is part of normal commerce. civilized societies have almost uniformly agreed that this is acceptable. what Target in Australia did, and what Valve did (ever so briefly), happens all the damn time.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
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.
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.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
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.
that's not the argument and you know it. what the argument is is this: the video game industry until recently has catered to a specific demographic. that demographic has gotten used to games having subject matter and gameplay which appealed to them and/or included content that did not attack or challenge who they are. it has been getting to the point where games have been affecting how gamers see women as objects, not human beings, and similar outcomes.
as video gaming has become more mainstream, more people who have either enjoyed games but were never considered part of the main demographic, or people who have started enjoying games but were never part of the original demo are starting to come in. the tent is getting bigger.
turns out, these groups have different perspectives on the messages games convey. turns out, some of the games out there have, for a long time, shat upon these groups. now that folks of color, women, transgender folks, and others are gaining a voice in video gaming, the traditional video game demographic is "upset" that games are no longer strictly for them. it's no longer an old boys' club. the point being, many gamers of the "traditional" demographic have never had their medium challenged like this. they've never had their world view challenged on what game content actually comes at the cost of dehumanizing others. you can hate an argument all you want, but as long as gaming is becoming more mainstream and more people are finding it an artform and a hobby, you're going to have to answer that argument. that's part of being a society.
it's entirely possible to believe in the law AND the spirit of free speech and ALSO believe that some ideas have little to no redeeming value whatsoever and should be left in the past.
freedom of speech ALSO means that people debate each other on what ideas are worth it and what ideas are not. people are free to discuss and express the ideas, but it doesn't mean that all ideas have equal weight.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
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.