1570

I’ve been “stalking” Raph Koster who makes some interesting points:







1571

Kinda thinking the same thing. The internet is leading to the radicalization of society, and might return us to Athenian Democracy.

1572

You can’t download food from the internet.

https://fresh.amazon.com/Gateway?showFullSite=true

1573

I have read no calls for “less violent games.” SJ commentators often argue that they have -no problem- with violence in games. What they are seeking is parity and diversity of violence-inflicting roles, so that it is not only men but also women, transwomen, agendered asexuals, etc. who dehumanize, maim, and victimize other men (they definitely do not have any problem with men as victims of violence in video games.)

It is an interesting dissonance in their thought, where a smattering constellation of ‘problematic’ artwork across games produces social calamity (rape), but an overwhelming mode of gameplay (violence as instrumental, a class of humanoid adversaries as worthless) has no meaningful repercussions.

1574

Holy shit.

1575

This thread has gone in some … interesting directions at times.

1576

I said it… It isn’t worth it.

It’s like staring in to the abyss. Bad idea.

1577

And a hail Mary it is! There’s so much crazy here I don’t know where to begin but I’ll take a few shots.

I’ve also talked about how i suspect the arms industry is funding much of this boom in violent video games (especially the military shooter type) and that was before we had that scandal with Activision and links to real arms sellers in their games (that they later took out/toned down).

Suspicion is not the same as facts. Many/most of these companies are publicly traded entities with disclosure requirements out the wazoo. Any material funding would probably end up being disclosed. And in fact you have it totally wrong. Games companies are having to pay to license the use of actual weapons:

Video games fund gun manufacturers not the other way around. Kind of kills this angle, doesn’ it? There are legitimate concerns as this article raises, but it’s based upon facts, not speculation. And I found this with a 30 second google search. How hard could it be to look for actual facts?

Anyway this is my (not so) wild hail mary. I probably am not wrong in that the social-conditioning aim of all these violent military shooter type games IS to breed an intolerant society, because if your business is War (and a large slice of the american economy is based on that), it makes sense to use methods that can and do indoctrinate to create a more fertile and accepting social norm to all things related to war.

The military budget is only about 4-5% of the US economy. Not a large amount by any means. The other problem you have is that violent games are not just played in the US. They are played around the world. If we are trying to install violence in our future soldiers, then we are doing the same for our future allies and oppponets. I’ll also note that all violent games are not made by US companies. This is a world wide issue.

If you are going for conspiracy theories, why not assume the medical profession is behind this. After all, they make billions treating the victims of gunshot wounds. Or the funeral business as they makes lot of money from people being killed by guns.

Now while i don’t think each head of every AAA games company is involved in a conspiracy to corrupt the next generation (or even would consider that a good thing), they are not the people actually funding AAA game devs, that comes from third party outside sources. Chicken or egg situations are especially hard to pin down, but if not all, then certainly a large part of the reason there are so many graphically violent video games is probably down to those that ultimately fund these games, as they will, most probably be, that same right-wing military invested individuals you see represented in your right wing politics, and people like the NRA, brain washing TV like Fox News etc.

Again, I’ve already shown that it is the game industry that is paying gun manufacturers to use their weapons in games. That’s totally opposite of what should happen if your conspiracy theory was true. And again you have no proof, not even anything close.

With that background around games in the USA it is no wonder that many gamers are behaving so radically violent and out of proportion. They have been conditioned to behave like this by many things in a war led society, and the games they play are (imho) an important part of that effort to change a society.

But what about gamers in the EU? Or Russia? Or Japan? China? Korea. The Third World. Everyone is playing the same games.

1578

Here’s my hail-mary:

A lot of boys get rejected by social groups while growing up. Maybe they look funny, maybe they smell funny, maybe they are too smart, maybe they’re too dumb… Whatever it is, they don’t fit in.

Part of this rejection involves girls ignoring or laughing at them.

They find escape in video games. Here, they are the heroes. Girls are begging for their attention. They save the world. They are the big buff jock space marine. They are the wizard who outsmarts everyone.

These people fall deep into these manufactured worlds, and a lot of the ones who fell into these worlds early went on to make games of their own for major studios.

This created a three decade long echo chamber of games created by escapists for escapists… no one ever really took the time to stand back and realize what they were creating.

Finally, someone came along and said “Hey, whoa, these are some pretty offensive worlds you guys have created, I mean just look at these examples”

This made a large portion of the audience panic, thinking the very women that ruined their childhoods and rejected them were now coming into the only safe haven they had created for themselves and were going to take it all away.

That’s what’s happening in a nutshell.

1579

Man, it sure is a good thing that all books ever written were only ever penned by super well-adjusted, healthy people and consumed by the same. Otherwise we’d probably have to pray for the “end of readers” and “reader culture.”

1580

This sounds like some industrial grade projection.

Also, I’m a little confused. I thought the people who despise Sarkeesian were privileged cishet white whiners. Now it turns out that they are actually trauma survivors and victims themselves?

1581

That’s why this war has been so violent- both sees see themselves as the victims and trauma survivors, and neither side has really run into their own poo being flung back at them before- so they’re both reacting the way they are.

1582

Nope, that interpretation makes no sense.

The problem is that those critics seek contrast. As I said above, instead of trying to find and develop a new space, they rile against current games.

It’s only natural that someone who enjoys CURRENT games feels like it’s an attack on the things they like. And so all the accuses about limiting expression, freedom and whatnot. It’s like: you’re stepping into my garden with your haughty judgmental stuff. You judge things I like, and by extension you judge me as a human being because I like those things (rape culture, every white male guy gamer endorses rape by liking and playing these games). So now I’m going to kick you out. Very vehemently. You’re not anymore a welcome guest.

The core of all problems is this judgmental look from the outside. Someone looks at what you do and what you like, and judges you.

The problem is again that this strategy sucks. If you want new types of games, once again, you don’t get them by confronting what already exists and pretend change (like petitioning to add female avatars in Assassin’s Creed). You simply open that space. You focus on new games that do not exist yet, instead of ranting against games that exist and that you scorn.

But if instead your style is confrontational, then the contrast just escalates in the ways we’ve all seen. Legitimately or not.

1583

Yes. This is a judgmental stance.

It reads like “whoa, you are a lesser human being for liking and appreciating this stuff. Feel ashamed of your gaming habits, poor kid.”

It’s the implicit scorn that sets people off: “Haha, look at this kid.”

Are you surprised that then these guys respond with all the vitriol?

1584

Does anybody think that maybe people who speak about sexism in games might be speaking to themselves? Or to other people like them? The confrontation everybody sees only came after the abuse and harassment, and it’s geared towards that, not towards games.

The pieces that started the polemic (AS videos), were critiques, plain and simple. Please, do read Pauline Kael (widely considered one of the best film critics ever) to see a real confrontational style (and yet things were kept civil back then).

Critical comment on games (and on anything, really) is normally not aimed at the consumers, but at the critical and production apparatus (as opposed to reviews). AS (and countless others) were not really confrontational when speaking about games. They have been confrontational when speaking about assholes who keep harassing (and ARE confrontational), which is a very different thing.

No it doesn’t, that’s the whole point.

1585

Nope.

1- If you, in some way, attempt to sabotage this production apparatus by demanding change, you still go blatantly against those who currently enjoy what the apparatus produces. So they’ll try to defend it from your “betterment plans”.

The problem here is you aren’t asking different stuff, but asking that current stuff is corrected (or this is how it’s perceived).

2- Judgmental stances are both implicit and explicit. They are omnipresent. You can cherry pick some examples where this haughty judgment is not actually present, but you’d be blind about the elephant in the room.

Gamers ARE being judged and scorned. And this IS the reason why you see so much hate.

This type of feminism is definitely perceived as judgmental, and naturally generates strong counter-reactions. Legitimate or not.

And I point out this is not my personal opinion and definition of right or wrong. I’m just trying to understand and describe what I see.

1586

I still see the judgmental examples mostly on reactions to the harassment, not on the criticism itself. Or to be more precise, criticism is judgmental of the work, but not of the person. There’s nothing saying AS and other people involved in this kind of criticising don’t enjoy (and love) the games they are commenting on. That’s a false dichotomy. Again, I think Thrash, art and the movies is the most eloquent piece arguing this.

This might be true, that it’s perceived as so, but you can’t blame the critics as responsible for how people perceive their work.

Look at it this way. Some people make games that are perceived as sexist by some. Those critics decide to make video and articles analyzing said sexism, with, at most implied judgementalism.

Now, that work is perceived as judgmental and you get abuse and death threats (which is what people are complaining about, not about rational criticism of the criticism).

On one side you have rational discourse (even if it’s flawed if you don’t agree with it). On the other side you have bullshit. Both sides of this are not morally equal (the sides of the feminist critics and the side on the harassers, that’s it).

1587

A pretty good piece by Slate, discussing the idea of whether gamers or game journalists are the ones who are dead.

1588

What the… Even you must self-assess, from time to time. Even you must think there’s a 60-70% chance that you’re completely, utterly insane, right?

You are one damaged cat.

1589

Probably is easier and more comfortable to talk about game journalism and continue to claim the problem that sparked the whole thing is a small minority and not talk about it. Good only in the sense that it tries to shift focus entirely and take an easy path away from the uncomfortable stuff.