I see you’re going with the “anyone to the right of Lenin” definition. That’s… remarkably unhinged and utterly unrelated to video games. I’m not gratifying you with attention any longer. I’m sorry to everyone else in the thread that I contributed to this as much as I did.
(Edited to remove attack)
The guy who thinks Trump is a normal centrist is lecturing me about being unhinged? Right. Sorry to burst your bubble if you thought this forum was going to be MAGA safe zone or something. But I probably should have been surprised when you jumped at the chance to defend Nazis from getting punched.
I ain’t a mod guys. Happily this is the least modded place I know. But you know, to keep it that way why don’t we all chillax a bit? Before Tom or Wumpus ban us all and let god sort it out? :)
Anonymity must be at least a significant factor, but I also think that online exchanges (and social media) can be so antagonistic and occasionally outright vile for reasons that are also positive aspects of the internet (or at least they were supposed to be positive, and are in other contexts):
democratization of speech - everyone has a voice, and the internet gives everyone the opportunity to express an opinion that finds an audience. For people like me that grew up in the 80s that was initially very liberating. But the dark side of that freedom is that anyone can say insulting/outrageous things and be heard (at least for a while) - those sorts of soapboxes didn’t exist pre-internet: people just weren’t accessible/wouldn’t hear you unless you worked for a publication or had some other semi-public status.
the social nature of online speech - echo chambers, insults without consequences and often rewarded for being outrageous or attacking targets that like-minded people also dislike.
There’s just an incredible decline in civility in our society today. You see it in political movements, protests, at colleges, from political leaders and other celebrities - nastiness, disingenuous exchanges, hypocritical antagonism – it’s all just nonsense at war with reality, motivated primarily by the power and standing fighting affords, more than any sincere desire to achieve stated goals.
It’s about empowerment for self aggrandizement, whether that translates into yelling slurs in a game or yelling to drown out someone’s speech you dislike.
I’ll just aim this at myself (unless anyone takes offense at that too, in which case ignore it…) and go read a book for the night.
Heh :) I should have that cartoon on speed dial for myself every day :)
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been about to write a manifesto and then thought of that cartoon and got a couple extra hours of sleep instead.
I think the 30-40 year old assholes actually outnumber the toxic teens at this point.
Oh man, I missed punching Nazis in the face. Where did the time go?
Only if they’re doing really stupid shit, otherwise, there’s better ways to deal with it without fueling their believes. Take the advice from a former clansman if you want to engage - 1 2 3.
Thanks, the article was really interesting. There’s a 1996 news report featuring Daryl Davis:
The… Wizard? Roger Kelly left the KKK and gave his robe to Davis not too long after this, so the guy isn’t just talk!
This is a games forum where a distinct subgroup has formed over fantasising about committing physical violence. They have become so distant from any meaningful concept of reality and norms of behaviour, that they do so with a false sense of righteousness and moral superiority, while responding aggressively to any/all that do not fit with said group’s narrow views on particular subjects (as can be seen with Wyndwraith here among tens of others).
So as I said earlier, Brad’s belated joining of the conversation exemplifies the point the NYT article was making. Clearly videogames aren’t making people <racist/sexist/violent/fascists/whatever>, so studies need to concentrate less on the link between videogames and outcomes, and more on the cultures around videogames and outcomes.
Playing videogames haven’t made Brad_Grenz act this way, but he acts this way in a culture that evolved around the playing of them.
Perhaps all that these studies will find is that videogames led the way in how online communities and discourse evolved, and that the likes of twitter or facebook are in no real meaningful way different. It would be nice to find out though, and to perhaps insulate videogames further from the more overt criticisms it receives in press and politics.
I think it resonated with a lot of folks. Personally I’m not chatty online, and I lose patience with others talking pretty quick. Guess I don’t like my good time being dependent on the good graces of other people.
I’ve had 3 teenage boys, they’re currently 20, 18, and 14, and I’ve heard a lot of crap from both sides of the mic. I assure you, there’s different degrees, but they are not being unfairly tarred.
If you think I’m the kind of people that NYT article was talking about you’ve completely misread it. I’m using my real name in a debate with people using anonymous handles. I didn’t join this conversation belatedly, I’ve been active in these Journalism threads for years.
My stated position is Nazi attitudes are not to be tolerated and those pushing for their normalization are to be resisted, violently as necessary. The link Telefrog posted was in essence talking about what I suggest. These people thrive in a vacuum of social or physical consequences, so to prevent them from gaining ground in meatspace we have to ensure those consequences remain. Neonazis believe themselves exempt from the social contract. In my mind that means they have no right to its protection. If one is brazen enough to walk proudly down the street advocating for another holocaust they should get punched in the mouth and I would do it myself with no moral qualms.
That’s about as far from an insulated circle jerk of people who like to call strangers faggot and nigger on the internet as you can get.
FYI, wumpus is not a moderator here. And I have no problem with people using “Nazi” and shorthand for “fascist” or “authoritarian” or “white supremacist”, especially when it’s used colloquially. I’m sure if you were to ask Brad Grenz to write a policy paper on National Socialism, he would be more careful about using the term.
I’m also greatly amused at Richard Spencer getting punched during an interview. Some people deserve to have unfortunate things happen to them. And all that is the sum total of moderating in this thread so far! :)
-Tom
Drama queen much? Besides, you don’t have a leg to stand on in that regard. :)
-Tom
I fully agree. It’s not anonymity that’s at issue, it is lack of consequence. Though, to be fair, in 2004 we didn’t have the prevalence of Facebook and other social media to positively disprove it. At the time the Internet was de facto anonymous, so identifying anonymity as the source of the problem was more defensible. It was reasonable to take the position that non anonymous contact would induce social consequences, fostering less toxic behavior.
14 years later we conclusively know this isn’t true.
The NYT article doesn’t mention anonymity once that I can find. Perhaps you could quote where it does, or even where it alludes to anonymity? If you can’t find where it talks about anonymity, perhaps you might withdraw the remark. If I’m wrong, I’m more than happy to apologise!
I suggest that you also don’t understand what conversation in this context means, posting once on January 27th doesn’t somehow mean you were participating in a conversation on the NYT article.
The conversation revolved around the NYT article and toxic videogame culture. You arrived out of nowhere to talk about punching Nazis. That wasn’t even tangentially related to the NYT article or the conversation that followed.
Besides, you don’t have a leg to stand on in that regard. :)
Being an argumentative arsehole isn’t the same as gleefully promoting violence, or calling those who don’t agree with you nazis/cucks/homophobic slurs or what have you. One is an unpleasant nuisance, the other glibly talks about punching nazis and accusing anyone who disagrees with them as being a Nazi defender.
As an aside, I’m well aware of ‘your forum, your rules’, but if you’re ok with colloquially calling fascists/authoritarians/white supremacists Nazis, is it ok to refer to homosexuals colloquially as ‘fags’? What about ‘bitches’ for women? Or a variety of negative terms for various ethnicities?
If not, what’s the difference beyond that you don’t like fascists(etc) so it’s ok to use extreme slurs for them? Isn’t that the justification many people give for insulting homosexuals? Or black people? It seems like a rule that would happily fit in on The_Donald on reddit or wherever.
Punching ‘Nazis’ is as illegal as the disgusting all too common homophobic attacks in Russia, I wouldn’t be happy to see people glibly advocating the beatings of people based on sexual orientation.
Definitely no discernible differences between these two groups. Let’s make sure we roll out the same exact rules for both sides.