Are Internet Discussions Regressing?

[Dizchu]

So I was watching some older Extra Credits videos and noticed something. Earlier videos regarding sexism in video games and game reviews that go beyond merely being descriptive got an almost universally positive response in 2012. I'll bring up striking example.


99% likes, almost universal agreement

Then I remembered the response to a more recent video concerning Tom Clancy's The Division, which also suggested that we should look at games in a more in-depth way than merely writing a report on the overall game experience.


73% likes, which is exceptionally controversial for an Extra Credits video

But this isn't the only thing I've noticed, merely an example of something that can be measured. Increasingly we see knee-jerk reactions to words rather than ideas. Words such as "problematic" and the mere mention of the dreaded "current year" have people dismissing arguments outright. I've also noticed a trend towards pigeonholing opponents, with terms such as "SJW", "mansplainer", "rape apologist", "MRA", "regressive leftist, "cultural Marxist" and so on gaining a lot of popularity in the last few years from your typical internet layperson.

Is it just me? Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe it's just nostalgia speaking but I do remember a time when sexism in video games could be discussed without accusing huge groups of people of misogyny or whining. If you agree or disagree with my observation, let me know why.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

But this isn't the only thing I've noticed, merely an example of something that can be measured. Increasingly we see knee-jerk reactions to words rather than ideas. Words such as "problematic" and the mere mention of the dreaded "current year" have people dismissing arguments outright. I've also noticed a trend towards pigeonholing opponents, with terms such as "SJW", "mansplainer", "rape apologist", "MRA", "regressive leftist, "cultural Marxist" and so on gaining a lot of popularity in the last few years from your typical internet layperson.

Is it just me? Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe it's just nostalgia speaking but I do remember a time when sexism in video games could be discussed without accusing huge groups of people of misogyny or whining. If you agree or disagree with my observation, let me know why.

Not really, although it just may have to do with my internet background.
Many would consider the point/goal of internet argument is about "winning". As long as I remember, in internet long logical argument was always second place compared to one-word, catchphrased offence words to throw the argument off the cliff and "win the crowd" - so to speak.
(kind of reminds me of politics)

In short, no. Argument have just changed into more effective format, due to unique environment of the internet.
I would argue that the cause of this new phenomenon is due to influx of new generation of veteran keyboard fighters in the last few years into those... "issues".

Edit: Hmm... and I will go out of my way to say that the turning point - THE issue that sucked those people into those issue - is The movement that will not be named.

 

[Dizchu]

I would argue that the cause of this new phenomenon is due to influx of new generation of veteran keyboard fighters in the last few years into those... "issues".

That seems plausible actually, because a lot of the people I see being to target of knee-jerk responses to words or topics they're not aware have become "taboo" have been making content for years, when it comes to Youtube they might have even been around since the website first got popular back around 2006-2009 (remember when videos were rated with stars?).

I do find it interesting how a lot of discussions and content from the late 00s to early 10s would be bombarded with accusations of being "SJWs" or "mansplainers" these days.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'm not really sure it devolved. I remember being in plenty of discussions back in 2008-2012 where being on the wrong side would lead to an aggressive dogpiling from everyone else. Petty arguments were common, and respect was low. It's just that people were good about creating an echo chamber and mostly ignoring everyone else's echo chamber. Back when I was lurking on The Escapist, I remember it being virtually impossible for anyone to express conservative viewpoints without having a dozen people jump on top of them. This wasn't helped by a few content creators occasionally antagonizing conservatives and getting praised for it.

So in light of that, it doesn't surprise me that we're here. I am, however, surprised that it is now easy to see the aggression going both ways to the degree it is. This may give the impression of regressing discussion value, but it's not like we were having a whole lot of great discussion beforehand. We just didn't have to interact with the other echo chamber as much.

 

[Dizchu]

Can't we look at it the other way around? People thinking for their own rather then just blindly agreeing with what "the voice in the computer screen" says like they were taught their whole lives.

I doubt knee-jerk reactions to certain words count as "thinking for their own". Look at the comments for the second video, countless people with a bone to pick because of the word "problematic", people insisting that politics should not be brought up when discussing video games, people essentially going against what the core message of the first video was.

But about the second video here I skipped around it.... it makes a comparison to players of The Division to SS agents, it's Godwin's law right there and then goes a spiel of how the game is fascist simulator and hateful to blacks (5:55), I didn't play the game only heard of it, but from what I heard it seems a lot like trying to create controversy for controversy's sake, I also remember someone saying in a different thread it also comes from people trying to diss the game because it's views do not align to their "progressive" views.

I think you're misunderstanding Godwin's law (and actually falling into the "fallacy fallacy" trap). If something can be directly compared to the Nazis it shouldn't be avoided simply because there's an internet law that "predicts" that it'll happen. Also the video did not say that the game is a "fascist simulator that's hateful to blacks", the timecode you provided actually contradicts your interpretation. The video goes on to explain the context at 5:55 with real-world examples.

The whole point of the video isn't "The Division is a Nazi simulator for racists", it's "games don't exist in a vacuum". Which is exactly the same point raised in the first video.

 

[DoPo]

99% likes, almost universal agreement
[...]
73% likes, which is exceptionally controversial for an Extra Credits video

I just want to mention some stats that you haven't but seem relevant:

First video has 5,631 votes in total as opposed to the second video's 24,165 total votes. Both videos also have a comparable number of views the one which is (almost exactly) 4 years old has 369,759 views while the other one has 324,635, yet it's only barely a month old. So, it seems that the new video has gathered a lot more audience as opposed to the old one, however, that's only views on YouTube - it doesn't count other sites it's been hosted on and people who've seen it there. However, that also means that it doesn't reflect the disagreements of the people from those sites.

 

[Dizchu]

I just want to mention some stats that you haven't but seem relevant:

First video has 5,631 votes in total as opposed to the second video's 24,165 total votes. Both videos also have a comparable number of views the one which is (almost exactly) 4 years old has 369,759 views while the other one has 324,635, yet it's only barely a month old. So, it seems that the new video has gathered a lot more audience as opposed to the old one, however, that's only views on YouTube - it doesn't count other sites it's been hosted on and people who've seen it there. However, that also means that it doesn't reflect the disagreements of the people from those sites.

Actually, that's a great point. Thanks for bringing it up, I'm actually disappointed that I hadn't considered it.

I do however still believe that backlashes against inoffensive words such as "problematic" are a recent phenomenon, though.

 

[NPC009]

My guess is that in the past couple of years certain types of people have gotten into the habit of looking for things to be upset about, instead of looking for things they agree with/validate their opinions. Because, holy shit, the current internet seems to love being angry even more than it loves looking cats.

 

[Fox12]

I would argue that the cause of this new phenomenon is due to influx of new generation of veteran keyboard fighters in the last few years into those... "issues".

That seems plausible actually, because a lot of the people I see being to target of knee-jerk responses to words or topics they're not aware have become "taboo" have been making content for years, when it comes to Youtube they might have even been around since the website first got popular back around 2006-2009 (remember when videos were rated with stars?).

I do find it interesting how a lot of discussions and content from the late 00s to early 10s would be bombarded with accusations of being "SJWs" or "mansplainers" these days.

Pretty much this. People who don't even know about this, who have doing the same thing for years, are suddenly being attacked for their SJW views... Even if they aren't SJW's. It's really made any kind of intelligent conversation even harder to find. The Escapist used to be a fairly open place for discussion, and now even its devolved down to nothing.

 

[The Philistine]

I think you have groups that are more actively seeking confrontation, and Extra Credits has pretty much always had a progressive lean to it.

 

[Fractral]

I don't know if I'd say 'Regressing' as such, since I haven't really been on the internet and paying attention for long enough to identify if there's a trend. And certainly some discussions aren't bad. But a lot of them, especially the ones about Gender Politics, turn into hate filled toxic cesspools.

But then, internet discussions are never going to be pleasant, even moreso than face to face ones. Reading a few pages of the Witcher discussion currently on the front page got me thinking a bit about why people get so angry. As someone who's pretty divorced from the whole discussion it seemed to me that most of the arguing was done not towards the points the other side was making, but percieved points of view and positions. If someone seems to be supporting the 'The Witcher 3 isn't sexist' it's easy to ascribe to them other viewpoints they may not hold, such as 'I condone domestic abuse.' Likewise someone who says that 'The Witcher 3 is sexist' (or perhaps more accurately 'Includes characters with sexist opinions') is often attacked for the percieved notion that they will want to ban the game, or censor it, or what have you.

So the two sides are never going to see eye to eye, because both misunderstand what the other is saying and what they actually think. It's like watching a sports game where one team thinks they're playing tennis and the other badminton. The tennis player might claim they've scored a point but by the badminton players rules it's actually his point, and they can't agree because each can only see their own rulebook.

And then the badminton player thinks the tennis player insulted his uncle, and in trying to get an apology unknowingly insults the tennis players' sister. And one half of the audience caught the insult to the uncle, while the other half saw the insult to the sister, and so they take sides, and start throwing shit, and before you know it what might have been a nice game has degenerated into a shitstorm and nobody is going to come out of it smelling of anything but turds.

 

[Dizchu]

But how do you know that those people really had kneejerk reaction to the video? I don't doubt that some are but it's hard to say en-masse, plus the youtube comment sections seems to attract a.... "special" kinds of people, it's hard to use them as a gauge to the mass opinion.

Spoiler: Here's some knee-jerk reactions to the word problematic in the comments section of that video

You can expect some SJW bullshit when "problematic" is already in the title.

Please, just don't use the word problematic. I get flashbacks to gamergate.

This channel has gotten really gay lately. Also problematic is getting annoying.

"Problematic". Any semblance of respect I had for you and yours is instantly gone. You want to be a propaganda piece, go ahead. I give up on watching this shit.

Don't use the word "problematic". It's been taken over by the feminazis.

The only thing problematic is retarded SJWs. Stop being offended, whiny children.

Before I even watch this, I wanna say this: 'Problematic' is a bullshit-term that's overused. 

Are you telling me these aren't knee-jerk reactions? In addition there's the countless accusations of propaganda and brainwashing which indicate a stunning lack of self-awareness.

As for the second, yeah it's tempting to jump the Godwin bandwagon but can we at least agree that using a comparison to SS is a bit too strong and kind of distasteful?

Is it also distasteful to compare the Galactic Empire in Star Wars to the Nazis too? Even though George Lucas quite clearly set out with the intention of making the Empire resemble Nazi Germany? Outside of fiction, is it distasteful to compare ISIS to the Nazis?

The video seeks to make a comparison between the actions of the eponymous "Division" and fascism, it's hard not to bring up Nazi Germany and the Schutzstaffel when talking about fascism as it was the most prominent example of fascism.

And yeah videogames don't exist in a vacuum but starting to go about implications of hoodies in a game seems to stretch it too far, I think a far more interesting (and grown up) conversation can be found on The Witcher 3 thread or Dark Souls 3 old thread that shows there is moving forward in internet discussions.

Is it though? It's not Left 4 Dead where the hooded zombies are a particular zombie type that are able to leap around and incapacitate players, The Division is intended to be set in a realistic scenario. It doesn't have Left 4 Dead's B-Movie camp (at least not intentionally), it wants to present itself as legitimate speculative fiction. I think it's perfectly fair to draw a parallel between the huge number of "thugs" in the game that wear hoodies and the moral panic surrounding the hoodie that has been propagated by the likes of Fox News.

Overall, I think the bigger problem is not that the internet discussions are regressing but on some topics the well was poisoned to the point it's borderline radioactive.

Well the well-poisoning is regression. It means that certain topics cannot be discussed because of their association with the dreaded "SJWs" or the equally dreaded "Gamergaters".[footnote]Please forgive me for bringing up this word, please, please![/footnote]

I think the collection of knee-jerk comments against the word "problematic" I posted earlier is evidence enough of this. What, so Anita Sarkeesian used a word and now it's somehow offensive? I can't use it without being called an SJW shill? If I used the word "troublesome" which means exactly the same thing does that mean I won't be associated with her? Isn't that completely ridiculous?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Are you honestly implying there was something to regress from to begin with?

Anyway, on your actual point, no, I don't think they are. I think they're evolving in a way. Whether or not that's a good thing is up to debate. As the general userbase of the internet is getting older (I was 12-13 when the internet really blew up at around 2004-2005), they start establishing political and philosophical views and start to view content in light of those viewpoints, as opposed to just watching stuff. With the rise of phenomena like Gamergate or the social justice storm that have been sweeping the internet, discussion starts to become more politicized, and therefore more polarized. Hence why like/dislike ratios on polarizing topics tend to be more divided. And yeah, you better have your asshole prepared for generalizations like "MRA", "feminazi", "gamergater", "mansplainer", and so on, because it's going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better. It's up to you to decide whether or not that's preferable to everyone just calling each other faggots or idiot christians in comments sections.

And since Extra Credits was brought up, I found that I profoundly disagreed with one of their videos from way back. I never watched them much, and stopped altogether after they moved from the Escapist, but I found this video in particular jarring


At 20:07 he says we can relate to this gay character despite his sexuality, which to me kind of debunks the whole "we need more inclusion in games" thing. I mean, the title of the video is "Why a gay character made Persona 4 great", implying that the character made the game great BECAUSE they're gay. Which is horseshit. It's not about the character's sexuality, gender, or whatever the fuck. It's about whether or not they're a relatable and interesting character.

 

[Dizchu]

I kinda agree with a lot of what you said so I won't address that, but about that EC episode...

At 20:07 he says we can relate to this gay character despite his sexuality, which to me kind of debunks the whole "we need more inclusion in games" thing. I mean, the title of the video is "Why a gay character made Persona 4 great", implying that the character made the game great BECAUSE they're gay. Which is horseshit. It's not about the character's sexuality, gender, or whatever the fuck. It's about whether or not they're a relatable and interesting character.

I think you're looking at this the wrong way. There's a difference between being able to relate to a character and having certain groups of people represented in media. Take a game like Thief for example. I'm not a thief like Garret is, I don't find myself constantly evading law enforcement to do my job. Yet I can relate to his non-partisian stance, being confronted by two extremes and choosing neither. I think a lot of us can relate to that.

I'm sure gay people can relate perfectly well to straight characters, but does that mean we should have nothing but straight characters? Having relatable gay characters can open up new gameplay experiences, as well as explore themes that haven't already been done to death with heterosexual themes. Also there's a difference between "a gay character made a game great" and "this game is great specifically because it has a character that is gay". The latter suggests that just the fact that there was a gay character was enough to make the game great, while the former suggests that a character that happens to be gay made a game great.

Now I know a common response to this would be "but why does it matter if they're gay or not?" Well it's because gay characters in video games are so rare. Having a gay person be the breakout character in a video game is quite remarkable, so Extra Credits y'know... remarked on it.

 

[Redd the Sock]

I don't know if I'd say 'Regressing' as such, since I haven't really been on the internet and paying attention for long enough to identify if there's a trend. And certainly some discussions aren't bad. But a lot of them, especially the ones about Gender Politics, turn into hate filled toxic cesspools.

But then, internet discussions are never going to be pleasant, even moreso than face to face ones. Reading a few pages of the Witcher discussion currently on the front page got me thinking a bit about why people get so angry. As someone who's pretty divorced from the whole discussion it seemed to me that most of the arguing was done not towards the points the other side was making, but percieved points of view and positions. If someone seems to be supporting the 'The Witcher 3 isn't sexist' it's easy to ascribe to them other viewpoints they may not hold, such as 'I condone domestic abuse.' Likewise someone who says that 'The Witcher 3 is sexist' (or perhaps more accurately 'Includes characters with sexist opinions') is often attacked for the percieved notion that they will want to ban the game, or censor it, or what have you.

You're getting there, but I think there's more to it than that. I think a running problem in internet discourse is that most people don't seem fully aware of why there's putting the thoughts they put out there, and as such, they put things out in poor ways.

As per your example: Is the Witcher Sexist, well, why bring it up? Someone can't just trade the game in and be done with it? They have to take to the internet as if their opinion is somehow particularly important to let people know? It's not like CD project Red frequents this forum so information isn't going to those that may need it in the future for feedback. I don't think I've even seen anyone post such a thread with the idea of people trying to convince the TC they were wrong. They want agreement, conversation with people of shared opinions, and no one rocking that boat, but have make a mistake by making it a question and asking for opinions.

Now, if people just admitted that, we could all hide in our echo chambers and call it a day having spelled out in our topics that we don't want disagreement. But we don't because of negative connotations of echo chambers and single minded consensus without alternative views, so the disagreement comes. Since we didn't want discussion, the response back isn't to points made, but is done in a more missionary way. That the disagreement is from ignorance and it only needs to be shown the light tot he true way. The disagreer now gets defensive back having not having points addressed or having their values seen as unimportant, making the same missteps, and things start getting hostile. Neither side wants to change their view, and neither wants to shut up.

That is a single flame war, and if the topic gets brought up again, the baggage of the old ones come with. This is where the true problem arises as now, while the first might have been innocent, now the topic comes up from people that know damn well the kind of response they're going to get, but their tactics never change. I didn't visit that thread because at this point, I couldn't see it being anything other than the same old conversation with the same old gender studies buzzwords with little interest in anyone saying "you're overthinking it". I avoid a lot of topics these days because of that. Most people dislike the labels of SJW or MRA, but how often do they try and avoid things that would get them the label? Those labeled SJW don't want to be anti-sex prudes in anyone's eyes, but there's always someone there to go shame shame for sexiness, and the MRAs don't want to be seen as anti-women, but responses get fairly knee jerk and dismissive.

So you get a lot of people talking at other people never thinking "I need to change tactics because this isn't working". Labeling gets faster, and starts being assumed in an effort to dehumanize any disagreement so as to not be wrong about something. There's nothing new here. It drove me from fanfic forums 15 years ago, and will probalby drive me away from forums in the future.

 

[DoPo]

It's not about the character's sexuality, gender, or whatever the fuck. It's about whether or not they're a relatable and interesting character.

This is true, however, if I remember correctly[footnote]last time I saw this video was in 2012. And I've not played the game, so I literally only have that video to go off on.[/footnote] the idea was that the character was interesting because he was gay, albeit not directly. It was something to do with this being a major factor for him - he was...conflicted? Or something about his sexuality which is where the drama and engagement about him comes in. Of course, on top of that, he was also fully fleshed out, and "gay" wasn't his only feature, but it was one of the primary motivators behind his character.

So, I believe the point wasn't that "being gay makes you a good character" but "being gay" can be used as a powerful device to build a good character out of.

 

[CaitSeith]

I just want to mention some stats that you haven't but seem relevant:

First video has 5,631 votes in total as opposed to the second video's 24,165 total votes. Both videos also have a comparable number of views the one which is (almost exactly) 4 years old has 369,759 views while the other one has 324,635, yet it's only barely a month old. So, it seems that the new video has gathered a lot more audience as opposed to the old one, however, that's only views on YouTube - it doesn't count other sites it's been hosted on and people who've seen it there. However, that also means that it doesn't reflect the disagreements of the people from those sites.

Actually, that's a great point. Thanks for bringing it up, I'm actually disappointed that I hadn't considered it.

I do however still believe that backlashes against inoffensive words such as "problematic" are a recent phenomenon, though.

There is another detail too. The first video wasn't originally published in Youtube. It was first published on Blip in Jun 23, 2011. There is no way to know how many views and comments it had though.

 

[CaitSeith]

You should then check some of their more controversial old videos (the ones about religion).

Specifically this one:


Published: Jan 2013
Views: Over 500,000
Like/dislike ratio: 92% (from over 141,000 votes)
Comments: 8,626. Varied, with some knee-jerk reactions towards the words "religion" and "faith".