Seriously though, where do I sign up to get a Bachelor’s in Fantasy Studies?
So yeah, that is Standford University of Fantasy Studies …
I’ve read a few bits of it. It’s absolute pap.
Not an entire degree but you can enroll in the following courses if you like.
https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/70/courses70.htm
Welcome!
Ep 1- 6 had male leads :P.
Although…Prtncess Leia was a female, and a lead…
It’s called History :P.
Mostly fantasy anyway.
I believe it’s called Economics!
I agree with you. There should be spaces for discussions. There is value in discussing challenges. I have not argued to the contrary.
But those spaces are private. If Riot had rented a separate space offsite and held that discussion then they would be free to invite anyone they wished. When someone pays money to a public event and then is told they are not allowed to attend because of their gender, race or religion that is the essence of discrimination. There is a major difference between accommodation and discrimination. This crossed that line and kept going without looking back. This is absolutely no different than if someone purchased a ticket to a rock concert and was told they could not attend while the first 3 songs because they were Jewish. No one here would argue that is somehow legal because 12 Jewish bankers own the world (or is it 14? I can never remember) and the band is fighting the banking system. That is what occurred in this case and that is where they went off the rails.
Much like Riot employees went entirely off the rails in slamming their customers. Regardless of their intent, the execution of the delivery of their message was unacceptable. That is why they were fired. But it seems that some prefer the narrative that telling customers to kill themselves is somehow acceptable as long as it supports their chosen political agenda.
Did History actually End? I would say that the last 25 years prove him completely and totally wrong. One of the most ridiculous titles ever penned by a historian.
As many critics pointed out, Fukuyama’s logic was a bit too reminiscent of the pseudo-Hegelian historical determinism that Marxists and Fascists deployed to disastrous effect earlier in the 20th century, but when his article appeared in The National Interest , it was hard to disagree with him. The Berlin Wall was about to fall, the Soviet Union was collapsing, and the world was clamoring for the consumerist boom in an orgy of free-market excitement. Everything seemed to suggest that only liberal capitalist democracy allowed people to thrive in an increasingly globalized world, and that only the steady advance of laissez-faire economics would guarantee a future of free, democratic states, untroubled by want and oppression and living in peace and contentment.
Today, it’s hard to imagine Fukuyama being more wrong. History isn’t over and neither liberalism nor democracy is ascendant. The comfy Western consensus he inspired is under threat in ways he never predicted. A new Cold War has broken out. China’s “Marxist capitalism” suggests you can have wealth without freedom. And the advance of ISIS may herald a new, state-oriented Islamic fundamentalism.
But most disturbingly, the connection between capitalism, democracy, and liberalism upon which Fukuyama’s argument depended has itself been broken.
Yet, to be fair, the article @FreeTheGluten linked isn’t that bad @Panzeh - it points out that broad diverse coalitions are necessary for liberal democracies to function, even if some of the details seem to me unnecessarily contentious or just more of his “I wish it was 1992 again”.
In Mr Fukuyama’s defense, his thesis did not take into account the kids who skipped out of history class to go smoke behind the gym and so ended up starting the whole dog and pony show all over again.
Identity politics doesn’t have to mean narrowing of identities, especially when populations can and are becoming more diverse. It’s a narrow view itself to think everything is either this or this other thing, and it can’t be both. It’s a win lose situation which is why so many on the have side feel like they have nothing to gain and only a power position to lose. The fact is with more diversity, with more ideas, with greater equality, everyone can gain.
Identity politics is not the crisis of Democracy, although it does make a nice headline.
It’s also not the reason gaming is so toxic nor does it explain any need to drop someone’s pants and try to measure which is worse.
If groups want to come together and discuss shared experience, that does not mean they will never share with other groups. It might mean it simply not welcoming to share in larger groups, or in some cases, literally not safe. When the problem exist so notably in one industry, maybe the answer shouldn’t come from that industry but look at… others. They have groups, like i said, where others can get together and talk, and share ideas in a space that isn’t dominated by the group that’s been in charge for decades. It’s allowed, happens all the time.
That analogy is nothing at all like what happened. The rooms these companies have at PAX are essentially private rooms within which they have meetings and events where they include / exclude people for a variety of reasons (usually because they can only support X people at a time, but sometimes because they’re having actual private business-to-business meetings and are only including people from a business). When you go to them, they usually have a person out front telling you what’s going on and whether you’re capable of entering one of the rooms. Just because you paid for a PAX ticket does not allow to barge into any of them.
In any case I don’t see what the big deal is. If we can all acknowledge that some women might feel more comfortable talking about job stuff without men around, what’s the harm in giving them space to do that? Sure, it’d be great if they didn’t need to exclude men to feel safe, but that’s clearly not the reality we live in. It sounds like there was plenty of time for men to engage in this setting during the rest of PAX.
I really liked this post.
Minor aside but from the data I have seen at my last few jobs, women players are now the majority of gamers world wide. Driven in large part by dominating mobile but not exclusively.
For developers I am not sure. My guess is around 20 odd % as you mentioned.
I agree with @porousnapkin. That was a great post. Thank you for making me think about things from a different perspective.
Thanks, @Nesrie for the sanity and patience you’re demonstrating. When it comes to the inciting incident here, @porousnapkin has it exactly right:
I would add: “it’d be great if they didn’t need to exclude men to feel safe, but that’s clearly not the reality we live in and we need to trust them when they say it’s not.” Because who knows better? Us guys?
Sentiments are not important, and we can’t act based on sentiments. If a racist person see a black person taking the same train he is using, maybe the racist will have his sentiments hurt.
Do we have to act on this racist sentiments and ask the black person to drop from the train in the next station? Clearly not. So fuck sentiments.
This was not directed at what you guys/gals where talking about.
To me, the weird thing about the hysteria over ‘identity politics’ is that all politics has always been identity politics, and probably always will be identity politics. If anyone can point to any political conflict in the past, from any country at any time, which cannot be accurately described as ‘identity poltics’, I will figuratively eat my hat. Higher taxes vs lower taxes is identity politics. Conservatives vs liberals is identity politics. Whether Kenya belongs to Kenyans is identity politics. Mao vs Chiang is identity politics. Whether Henry could divorce Catherine of Aragon or not was identity politics.
My hat stands ready for eating.