I’d be more sympathetic to your analogy if the “Gamers Don’t Have to Be Your Audience, Gamers Are Over” article that started GamerGate didn’t lump all “Gamers” (capital “G” there) into the straight, white, male category (“You know, young white dudes with disposable income who like to Get Stuff.”) and totally ignore everybody who considers themselves to be gamers who don’t fall into that category.
So when the SJW types started acting like they represented everyone who didn’t fit into the young white dude category, but they represented them in such a toxic way, and apparently (according to the #NotYourShiled hashtag) not how they wanted to be represented, the SJW types BECAME the Hitler or slave owner of your analogy, but who was saying they were doing it for the good of the Jews or the slaves. I think it is pretty clear a social media movement wouldn’t coalesce around this if a lot of people didn’t feel like the SJW types were misrepresenting them.
CraigM
4182
DO you not understand why that reference point was taken?
Simple, because the vast, vast, VAST majority of marketing and design was based around that stereotype. Do you think it is any accident that all these free to play apps would market themselves with that terrible Evony style cleavage? Why was it so accepted as common knowledge that ‘games with female leads don’t sell’? How many stories do we hear about how this or that developer was pressured into changing their player character to be male and white? How hard it was to get a Mirror’s Edge or Remember Me made?
The article was not written in a vacuum. It was in direct response to years and years of industry actions, treating the only market out there as being that of the white male. The article would not have been written that way if suits at EA and Activision didn’t treat it that way.
We all knew the gaming populace was more diverse. It was then, and it is now. But decisions were being made at the top that ignored this. In the space of major developers there is a homogeneity to the way games are designed and marketed, and the blandness we all complain about is in direct correlation to catering to this one audience only.
So seriously quit complaining about that damn article. It just shows you do not understand what the fundamental point of the article was, and are proving why it needed to be made.
Quaro
4183
Not to rehash this again… but do realize you just made the same point as the article. ‘Gamers’ in quotes, is a label invented by marketers, defined by bad stereotypes they created, and isn’t representative of gamers, no quotes, actual people who are not stereotypes.
Extra Credits made the same argument in 2012, this isn’t a new idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HXJLTtMIHU
See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apBnWCYSYCM&t=1h42m
You know, Gamer Grub, Gamer Points, etc:
I put gamers in quotes because I was using it like it was used in the article.
I realize my previous post wasn’t the most eloquently written, by my point was (as made evident by the NotYourShield hashtag) that “Gamers” has never actually been a REAL thing, like you said, but gamers are a thing, and there are plenty of people that identify as gamers, and didn’t like being used as a shield when they actually like things that those dirty “Gamers” actually like.
I’m not sure… if you read what I wrote? The article obviously wasn’t written in a vacuum and I wasn’t complaining about it. I was mostly trying to explain why the #NotYourShield users don’t fit into the awkward analogy that Soapyfrog had made. I mean, if anything, your comment shows you’re missing the fundamental point of #NYS.
Sounds like a reading comprehension problem. The point of the article is that everyone is a gamer, not just those who insist they are “true” Gamers, with a capital G.
the SJW types BECAME the Hitler or slave owner of your analogy, but who was saying they were doing it for the good of the Jews or the slaves. I think it is pretty clear a social media movement wouldn’t coalesce around this if a lot of people didn’t feel like the SJW types were misrepresenting them.
Hah what! Amazing the contortions you have to engage in. “if you criticize slavery, you become the slave owner!”. Sense, made.
At the risk of arguing in a circle, there are plenty of minorities who enjoy the stuff that “Gamers” enjoy. That is why #NotYourShield became a thing, and why so many of them identify with GG, and that is why comparing SJW activists to slave owners saying they own slaves for the good of the slaves is an apt comparison. People don’t like being told, “Hey, we’re trying to take down something you like… but, you know… this is for your own good. Because reasons!”
Edit: I think the way #NYS sees it, the SJW’s aren’t criticizing slavery. They’re the slave owners criticizing the industrial revolution because it threatens their plantations, because some of their slaves don’t want to work on Maggie’s Farm no more.
No one got told that, and no one said people can’t enjoy whatever they want. It was gamergate who insisted that broadening gaming’s appeal in general would ruin ALL GAMING. GG is the restrictive party.
Edit: I think the way #NYS sees it, the SJW’s aren’t criticizing slavery. They’re the slave owners criticizing the industrial revolution because it threatens their plantations, because some of their slaves don’t want to work on Maggie’s Farm no more.
That is a very tenuous rationalization, especially given notyourshield’s completely cynical origins.
You’re right. Nobody was told that in those words. But they were told “Gamers” and things related to “Gaming” - things they liked and identified with, even though they were not stereotypical “Gamers” - were dead. If you can’t do the math on that one… I don’t know what to tell you. GG is the least restrictive party in this whole mess. They welcome the influx of variety and options that would be made available were more minorities and women to start making games they might more identify with. What they DON’T like is the idea that they’re somehow less for liking capital “G” gaming.
#NotYourShield’s origins are only cynical to those who are inconvenienced by it. To people who identify with it, I seriously doubt the rationalization is tenuous.
I pulled this quote from the front page in KiA just now. Wasn’t hard to find.
That is not the case. No one said those things except GG propagandists. All you need to do is READ the article.
If you can’t do the math on that one… I don’t know what to tell you. GG is the least restrictive party in this whole mess. They welcome the influx of variety and options that would be made available were more minorities and women to start making games they might more identify with.
That is literally the exact opposite of that gators want. Literally. The attacked, harassed and attempted to boycott indie devs who were making games of that nature with the accusation that they were "not games, e.g. Gone Home. How does your mind stand the cognitive dissonance?
If they were in any way interested in inclusiveness they would not immediately set upon and harass anyone who suggested ways to potentially make a game more inclusive. Sarkeesian would be their hero.
#NotYourShield’s origins are only cynical to those who are inconvenienced by it. To people who identify with it, I seriously doubt the rationalization is tenuous.
Again, people who carry the banner of their detractors are not inconvenient, although GG doubtless thinks it’s a great coup to have a few useful tools come to hand.
I pulled this quote from the front page in KiA just now. Wasn’t hard to find.
This quote is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about, the total bullshit that is notyourshield. The total lack of critical thought and vacuous reasoning, the idea that they speak for all the underprivileged when they say they do not want something therefore no one should have it. Like a homeless person railing against soup kitchens and shelters.
I personally don’t think that was her intent at all. In fact, I would contend that her whole point was that the specific subset of gamers is not representative of the modern audience for games and that game makers should stop pandering to that minority audience. I agree that her message got lost by the literal reading of her article and that she should have defined her target better than she did. However, the shameful response to her article simply reinforced her point that there is a vocal subset of socially deficient ‘Gamers’ that perpetuate hatred against women, gays, non-whites, etc.
What would be best IMHO would be if games could be perceived as genres (like movies) by the general public, rather than just a single lump. One way to do that would be to introduce more diversity into gaming in general. ‘Torture Porn’ is subgenre in movies, but it does not represent movies to the mainstream. Maybe we, as gamers rather than ‘Gamers’, should not just accept the status quo and not continue to support games with sexist, homophobic, and racially insensitive content. If that makes me a SJW, then I will wear that badge with pride.
Teiman
4192
The problem is… different people did different things, you are clumping all the bad in a single group that you call “GG”.
Repeat after me: Reality is diverse, sometimes can’t be described in a single clear forum post. By simplifying groups of people to Evil Moustache Characters I do a disservice to the truth.
Actually as a brown immigrant with a funny accent from a 3rd world heckhole, that quote hit home for me. Liberals have certainly done a lot for minorities over the years, but modern far-left progressives are something else. They see us as their pets, tools to be trotted out in their crusade for egalitarianism. They pat each other on the back for making a big deal about protecting us from being called nasty names on the internet. In fact that’s the most irrelevent and laughable examples of the racism we’ve ACTUALLY experienced in life. Any disagreement is dismissed by our enlightened white shepherds as being too stupid to know what’s best for ourselves - as some of the comments above illustrate.
Define sexist, homophobic and racially sensitive.
For the latter;
By US SJW standards? The Mexican sections in Red Dead Revolver were vile racism*
By European standards? Concentration Camp Commander cannot be sold on the high street.
By Asian standards? Limited use of golliwogs if meant for export.
Or by something in between?
Who gets to decide what the standards are? The loudest voices? Those most likely to cause a twitterstorm?
The culture warriors attacking gaming have no problem denouncing Thomas The Tank Engine for its lack of inclusivity, do you want these guys defining the standards for FPS games?
*quoting a former QT3’er there.
I think if majority of a group (women, homosexuals, people of a non-white origin) find something offensive or demeaning, then that thing constitutes sexism, etc. I am not saying that these things should not exist in games, but that the larger subset of games should try to avoid these stereotypes. Games are much less marginalized now than they have been in the past because there has been a proliferation of games that are acceptable to a larger audience.
And no, I do not want the Thomas the Tank Engine radicals to define what I can consume. However, changes could occur that would help the perception of gamers and make our hobby more inclusive. I think you are being disingenuous if you state that these issues are absolutely absent from gaming today.
Is Concentration Camp Commander offensive? Of course, probably on purpose. It should not be banned, but I also do not think it should be widely advertised or diplayed either. The game makers chose to make an offensive game and should expect backlash against it.
Is the blackface Pokemon offensive? Of course it is. Maybe not in Japan, but definitely in most of the US. Their concession was pretty weak (dark purple? Really?), but at least they recognized it as a potential issue that could hurt the bottom line and made the change.
I have no idea about Red Dead Revolver, since I have never played the game and would not presume to think of it as racist or not.
So what are you saying, all support from white people specifically should be rejected? People should NOT discourage use of racial epithets? Open racism should not be shunned? And you speak of course for all minorities?
Your characterization of people who are uncomfortable with and speak out against racism is really goddamn stupid. The idea that there is some “modern far-left progressives” who are only doing it to look good is… Bizarre. Maybe it’s true but it’d be hard to demonstrate. I think the vast majority of people oppose racism from an honest belief that it is shitty and unfair and should stop.
Lastly you don’t let petty thieves off the hook because there are murderers and that is worse. Shunning casual racism broadly across society does help lessen over time more serious racist offences (which of course also need to be addressed and punished).
So if I am to talk about things GG has done I gave to talk about everything they’ve done everywhere at the same time as a qualifier? That would be impractical, but also not very flattering to GG since they have done nothing useful. Even if they had some something useful we can’t talk about it because we can’t clump GOOD things in the single group “GG” anymore than the bad, right? Or are the rules different for good things?
Or maybe GG is so vague and ill defined we can never talk about them at all, in which case they effectively don’t exist?
Timex
4198
I think what he’s saying is that it’s silly for a white college student to tell actual minorities that their opinions are less informed and valuable regarding the racism they experience, and that their disagreements may in fact be well considered and not merely the result of some sort of Stockholm syndrome as you suggested.
The twisting causal stuff is getting really incredible. Alexander’s article was ABOUT GamerGate. It was written after the whole Five Guys/Quinn stuff had been building for a while, the #GamerGate hashtag was coined prior to publication, it’s not the origin story. The “Gamers are Over” was a counterattack by the educated normals against the “consumer revolt” of our nation’s most racist Gamestop assistant managers on those feminists and indie games and whatnot ruining gaming.
Also, carlton, just to be clear, you are personally a socially awkward white kid, right?
How’d I guess?
I do not know about this theoretical white college student, but if a person of colour told me I should NOT discourage the use of racist epithets, I would dismiss them in the same way I would dismiss a white person who told me the same thing.
