How can "gamers" and "social justice warriors" get along?
- Thread starter Burnouts3s3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While most video games have unfavorable depictions of race or gender based stereotypes there are games that have good examples and strong characters of every sex color and orientation.lord.jeff said:
That's the middle ground, but most of the gamers the social justice warriors are complaining about deny the first part and most of the social justice warriors the gamers are complaining about deny the second.
The arguments between the groups isn't about the issue they're about. they're just a framework for the social justice warriors to call all games bad and as a result all gamers think the social justice warriors are stupid.
people want a playable female in Assassin's Creed Unity. Unfortunately Ubisoft is a company staffed by lazy, cheep bastards. so it's easier to copy paste the same character 4 times than make a new one. the board of directors isn't sitting there worried about their pixels getting cooties.
They don't care about middle ground, they care about being the part of the louder side.
It's not an issue that can be solved, they want every game to have a full cast of LBGT characters in every color of the rainbow without realizing that that's just not in the cards. You can't mandate gender equality into video games, that's just stupid.
But they don't even care. They complained that there weren't gay romances in mass effect 2 then they complained that most of Female Shepard's romance options were gay in Mass Effect 3.
There's lots of middle ground. there are lots of games they can play if they want to see strong female characters, and the hardcore gamers could realize that they need to shut the fuck up once and a while and realize that there are games like Gears of War 2 where the most signifacnt thing a female does in that game is get shot in the face because Trauma Therapy wasn't covered by Dom's health insurance. Or games like Dishonored where just because a woman is funding a corrupt politician that's a good enough reason to drug her and hand her over to a creepy rapist. Or that Duke Nukem Forever exists.
Both sides have some good points, the other side doesn't care...
they don't care about hashing things out, they just want to yell "you're wrong" the loudest
But you yourself just made a fallacy that is required for someone to be called a SJW in my eyes. (Social Justice Warrior for me is name for people who have no idea what equality really means among other problems i have with them)Mikeyfell said:
In Dishonored you treat every conspirator with equal disdain. You either kill them of sentence them to the life of eternal torture and agony. She is not an exception to the rule. Problem for SJWs is not that she is not treated like any other human being in that game, their problem is that she is not treated with special care or given special status.
Really? I can see at least four examples or variations on the theme in this thread alone. It's pretty much a go-to method of attack.Silvanus said:
OK, could you explain the issue then?Silvanus said:
That wasn't the intention but it seemed like it merited being pointed out, because a lot of the "let's radically overhaul society right now!" crowd seem to be somewhat divorced from reality.Silvanus said:
Should this kind of thing not be covered by the "don't be a dick" part of the forum rules?JimB said:
Is it not rude to quote someone and not actually acknowledge them? Let's be honest, you basically went "get a load of this guy". This is the kind of post I would like to see be moderated because it really served no purpose other than as self-congratulations. It's low-content. It comes off like a really bizarre attempt at public-shaming combined with a pat on the back.
To me this looks like very bad posting. If a mod reads this, would you mind explaining why this kind of thing is fine?
From examining this thread from the perspective of a gamer, feminist and 'tumblr SJW' (while I don't really spout my beliefs on tumblr, I still use the site for personal reasons so I figure 'meh') the main problem seems to stem from the terms.
And it isn't surprising.
This is a forum about video games, so it makes sense that gamers (you guys and myself) are going to side with themselves, against the SJWs.
But how can 'gamers' and 'social justice warriors' get along?
Well.
We can stop using strawmen, that would be a nice start.
I'd like to note, for sake of noting, that almost each and every individual in this thread that I've seen comment on one side or the other has named them an extreme.
Honestly though, I would really like a western triple A release that has no white straight men. Just have all the white guys on the LGBT spectrum. And I mean in an action game. And they're the background characters except for one. The rest of the team is black or Asian. Just to see the reaction.
And the horrible sales.
Honestly, now I want to make it.
And it isn't surprising.
This is a forum about video games, so it makes sense that gamers (you guys and myself) are going to side with themselves, against the SJWs.
But how can 'gamers' and 'social justice warriors' get along?
Well.
We can stop using strawmen, that would be a nice start.
I'd like to note, for sake of noting, that almost each and every individual in this thread that I've seen comment on one side or the other has named them an extreme.
Honestly though, I would really like a western triple A release that has no white straight men. Just have all the white guys on the LGBT spectrum. And I mean in an action game. And they're the background characters except for one. The rest of the team is black or Asian. Just to see the reaction.
And the horrible sales.
Honestly, now I want to make it.
It seems more like we're using the SJW to define a particular type of overbearing person on that side of the fence. A negative term rather than just someone to believes in equality and advocates reasonably for it. To that effect, this relationship is doomed to failure because a given connotation of a SJW is a person who does not listen to reason and would advocate making things "equal" by making things unfair for the previous status quo rather than making things equal for all. These are the sort of people who think a man should be fired to hire a female rather than just having the hiring agent evaluate candidates objectively and not firing/hiring anyone because of their sex.
Under that kind of connotation, no, I don't think most people can get along with them if they believe in actual equality and fair treatment for all. The type of person that springs to mind when SJW is used isn't a standard feminist or social rights advocate. They don't believe that people in majority groups can be kind and caring unless they're also a SJW. SJW seems to be (in the public eye) like the term femi-nazi was to feminism. Where regular feminism wants equality for women, femi-nazism is thought to want female superiority/dominance beyond just equilibrium.
I'm personally somewhere in the middle. I want equality for all. I don't give a rat's ass who marries who because it's not my business and it's not the government's business as long as they're both consenting adults. I just don't think a person should ever count for more than one vote. I don't care if they're white, gay, black, female, male, or anything else. Just one vote. No more, no less. No additional representation, no less. So it irks me when people think it's cool to with-hold equal representation from minorities who should have it and it also irks me when someone believes that the way to give those groups fair representation is to give them more than one "vote" or more representation and more rights than the other side. It's not seen as a guy reasonably saying that Bill and Ted have every right to bump uglies in the privacy of their own home like anyone else. It's seen as someone saying that George deserves to get fired because he supported prop 8 (AKA, blacklisting dissenters to silence the opposition. This practice is contra-free speech and the one-vote per person premise of our government). It's seen as censorship and oppression of one side to elevate another. I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it. That's a sentiment we need to hold onto for dear life in these times. To give it up to oppress bigots now would be to not have it if our time should ever come to lean on it.
So basically, I spend my time being disappointed with a lot of people on social issues. I should not benefit or suffer in life just because I happened to be born a certain way. I should progress or regress on the quality of my own efforts and the sweat of my brow.
Regardless of whether or not SJW actually refers to that kind of person. This is the perception and that's how language is going to work. I know this is different because people self-identify as SJW. But sometimes words take on a life of their own in society.
Under that kind of connotation, no, I don't think most people can get along with them if they believe in actual equality and fair treatment for all. The type of person that springs to mind when SJW is used isn't a standard feminist or social rights advocate. They don't believe that people in majority groups can be kind and caring unless they're also a SJW. SJW seems to be (in the public eye) like the term femi-nazi was to feminism. Where regular feminism wants equality for women, femi-nazism is thought to want female superiority/dominance beyond just equilibrium.
I'm personally somewhere in the middle. I want equality for all. I don't give a rat's ass who marries who because it's not my business and it's not the government's business as long as they're both consenting adults. I just don't think a person should ever count for more than one vote. I don't care if they're white, gay, black, female, male, or anything else. Just one vote. No more, no less. No additional representation, no less. So it irks me when people think it's cool to with-hold equal representation from minorities who should have it and it also irks me when someone believes that the way to give those groups fair representation is to give them more than one "vote" or more representation and more rights than the other side. It's not seen as a guy reasonably saying that Bill and Ted have every right to bump uglies in the privacy of their own home like anyone else. It's seen as someone saying that George deserves to get fired because he supported prop 8 (AKA, blacklisting dissenters to silence the opposition. This practice is contra-free speech and the one-vote per person premise of our government). It's seen as censorship and oppression of one side to elevate another. I may not agree with what you say but I'll fight to the death your right to say it. That's a sentiment we need to hold onto for dear life in these times. To give it up to oppress bigots now would be to not have it if our time should ever come to lean on it.
So basically, I spend my time being disappointed with a lot of people on social issues. I should not benefit or suffer in life just because I happened to be born a certain way. I should progress or regress on the quality of my own efforts and the sweat of my brow.
Regardless of whether or not SJW actually refers to that kind of person. This is the perception and that's how language is going to work. I know this is different because people self-identify as SJW. But sometimes words take on a life of their own in society.
Some core gamers and sjw want to CONTROL the medium
Some core gamers and sjw want SYNTHESIS between their ideologies
But we all know how this is really supposed to end
DESTROY
Our mission was to kill the goddam videogames and that's what we are goddam going to do!
Some core gamers and sjw want SYNTHESIS between their ideologies
But we all know how this is really supposed to end
DESTROY
Our mission was to kill the goddam videogames and that's what we are goddam going to do!
Only if you cherry pick the extremists. I could do the same and point to all the trolls threatening rape as a response to feminist critique, but that doesn't help either side. From what I've seen, the only hostility coming from reasonable progressives are towards ignorant and hateful opinions (and no, that's not a no true Scotsman fallacy since we can assess whether someone is acting reasonably or not).Batou667 said:
We decide whether a game is racist/sexist/homophobic by discussing the issues. Note, with things like ACU or Brink before it nobody is accusing the devs of being sexist for excluding playable female characters, they're just arguing the devs are being exclusionary by not having the option (as there are some people that won't be interested in playing multiplayer as a guy). It wouldn't have been a big deal if it wasn't for the weak excuse given in response which essentially boiled down to "We don't consider you worthy", and if they stuck with the truth (that the multiplayer characters are just representations of the single player protagonist, like Metroid Prime 2) there wouldn't have been nearly as much hubbub.Batou667 said:
You mum, your grandparents, Aunt Sally, etc.Batou667 said:
The gaming industry is like $26 billion or something - bigger than the film industry. But that only means consumers are sinking more money into games than other media, not that gaming has wider cultural appeal/visibility. And I never said that gaming exists in a vacuum, only that it's more obscure and misunderstood than other mediums.Batou667 said:
Games that are designed for/marketed to white, adolescent males. Of course black, middle-aged women can play and enjoy them too, but that's beside the point.Batou667 said:
You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that ONLY white, adolescent males can/do play and enjoy mainstream AAA games, I'm saying those games are made for and sold to primarily white, adolescent males. The first question they ask is "Does this appeal to white, adolescent males?" And this is true for practically every Western-developed AAA game (and Japanese developers ask "Does this appeal to Japanese, adolescent males?"). The only other market that sees any kind of public visibility is the kids market.Batou667 said:
That's a gross misunderstanding of the progressive position. In most cases people aren't saying "Stop doing this thing that other people want", they're saying "Stop doing this needlessly discouraging thing that you're only doing because you've done it in the past and are too lazy to address it." I highly doubt there's a significant number of players that are like "I thought the game was ok, but I would have preferred it if 'Girl Character' had less agency and was more of a trophy for me to win."Batou667 said:
Another guy in the thread brought up Korra, and how he wonders if it's the show the writers initially envisioned or if they made so many characters female just for the sake of being progressive. And we may wonder that, seeing as we're right in the middle of experiencing this shift away from predominantly male-centric media, but the kids aren't wondering that. It only seems weird now because it's different, but that won't be the case for younger generations. We can set better examples.
The only (fictional) solution I can think of is a culling of all the people in both groups who misrepresent and make a complete mockery of otherwise sound ideologies. Every group I've ever heard of has those people in them. Every peaceful protest has violent thugs who just want to wreck stuff, every political movement has crazies who make the rest cover their faces in embarrassment, and of course, the same goes for internet activists. I mean, do you really think any group that's accessible on the internet would consist entirely of well-adjusted people with good intentions? They're not going away any time soon, so I don't think the fights will be going away either.
I'd argue that it has nothing to do with the amount of movies and everything to do with the age of the medium. Gaming is the new girl in town and for whatever reason gamers and game makers for that matter have been courting "legitimacy". I'm not saying that is all there is to it. Naw, there are alot of societal and interpersonal factors at work here, heck even technology becoming more readily available has a role to play here, but what I am saying is that every form of human expression has gone through the same growing pains as it found its place in human society and the "collective consciousness" if you will. Also I'm not saying that it is a bad thing exactly, but the thing is that we as creators and audience both, consciously or sub-consciously feel the need for validation of our hobby or creations and that has actually in my mind led to more scrutiny than anything else.Vault101 said:
Of course that also doesn't mean that the gaming industry doesn't have faults or that we should somehow stigmatize people for bringing up those flaws, harmful or lazy tropes, and honestly anything else they don't agree with. The whole concept of this thread is flawed because as someone pointed out, SJW and Gamers aren't two mutually exclusive groups and indeed there is quite a bit of overlap. I would agree that it is closer to conservatives and progressives as a previous poster mentioned. The way people look, feel about, and analyze things is taking on new outlooks and discussion is a healthy part of this. Now if only we could get that discussion and not internet flame wars...
Critics need to recognize that "not perfect" isn't equal to "inexcusably horrible", while defenders need to make the same realization in the other direction, that "fun game" does not equal "nothing wrong ever". It really is that simple. Unfortunately... "simple" does not equal "easy" either.
I've read the thread. What I saw would only really apply if we exaggerated it.Batou667 said:
Alrighty, that's reasonable.Batou667 said:
Films, games, books, do not exist in a vacuum-- they're given context by what came before, and what else is available. Trends only really exist when we look at the entire market (or a lot of it), and as I understand it, this argument is all about trends. Individual examples may be used to illustrate a trend, but no one example is the issue.
So, say, a game with a grizzled straight white dude as its protagonist is absolutely fine. It could well be an awesome game (like Uncharted). The only issue I have (and, as I understand it, most who argue for diversity have) is that the trends favour these characteristics predominantly, to the exclusion of imagination and innovation and a diverse cast.
It's not necessary for a character to reflect you in a game, not at all. I love numerous games with protagonists that don't reflect me. However, when the dominance of a certain trend is such that I can find no, or almost no, characters that I can relate to in other respects... it can become alienating. Individual games are not the problem (well, unless they flagrantly and unironically mine stereotypes, and even then, they're not really a main concern).
Having a wealth of characters in books and films that a watcher/reader can relate to is a tremendously good thing. I would just like people who have that to recognise that not all of us do, and to empathise when we say we'd like it.
That's the issue as I see it, anyway. It's probably a good idea to have it written out here without any aggression or hyperbole surrounding it, so I'm grateful you asked.
Well, it's not really such a radical suggestion. Films and books function very well as media with greater diversity than games. Hell, some of the greatest examples of literature and film were bogged down in criticism that they were being too radical-- and yet, classics were born.Batou667 said:
It's not equivalent because rape threats don't form an integral part of an anti-feminist or pro-MRA argument; rape threats are an irrelevant and offensive digression calculated to derail the conversation. The accusation that a resistance to progressive inclusivity must stem from a position of fear or hatred is part of the "party line" (homophobia, racism as fear of the outsider, misogyny as mother-issues or sexual frustration, etc) - the very fact that people would see fit to label their opponents as racist/sexist/phobic reveals the thought process going on: "your argument isn't legitimate because you're not as intelligent or morally correct as I am" - and that immediately scuppers the hope of an honest dialogue. Whether the progressives choose to parse this as racist/sexist/phobic or use more base insults of the fedora/neckbeard/virgin variety, the same basic mechanism is happening: they're making a value judgment about the legitimacy of a viewpoint and using that as the core of their attack. So, yeah, that's why it's precisely a No True Scotsman a lot of the time.NoeL said:
True, Ubisoft handled it really badly, but it's suspicious that people would jump to the worst possible conclusion in the first place; much like they were lining up to call Far Cry 4 "racist" based on nothing more than a (mis)interpretation of the cover art. That's the kind of knee-jerk bullshit I'd like to see less of.NoeL said:
I thought we were talking about people who purchase and play games?NoeL said:
Perhaps this is a minor distinction but I feel it's an important one: mainstream games aren't tailored to white males because they hold the somehow important qualities of being white and male, they're aimed at white males because they happen to be the mainstream (most people in the Western world are white, males are still typically the breadwinners, more males play games than females, etc). Implying that white hetero males are pandered to in some kind of meaningful way by the cover-all-bases, lowest-common-denominator school of content creation is misleading and I feel has the potential to bias the conversation. We wouldn't call Transformers "a film for white males", would we? We'd call it a piece of mainstream popular cinema. Perhaps the two descriptions are as good as synonymous, but why bring sex and race into the equation gratuitously? A black male isn't going to by default not enjoy it; it's not excluding anyone.NoeL said:
And yeah, at the risk of labouring the point, I think it's an important distinction. Women and minorities complain that games don't include enough well-written female or black characters? Welcome to my world! There aren't many well-written, fleshed-out white hetero male characters in games either! Us white males aren't enjoying the videogaming equivalent of Shakespeare behind closed doors while everybody else suffers; depictions of game characters are pretty crap across the board. The fact that Doom Guy or Football Dude or Faceless Racing Man are white males doesn't enhance my gameplay; they're surface details of the most superficial, meaningless type.
Feel free to clarify what the progressive position is, but from what I see, it seems to be a demand that an established industry come together and perform an unprecedented act of collaboration in risking millions of dollars to create games that include elements that are untested and aren't considered to appeal to the bulk of mainstream consumers. The idea that this change could be a gradual process or that progressives could provide proof-of-concept through some indie hits before the AAA-market jumps on board is also regularly rejected as being too little, too late.NoeL said:
I have no idea what Korra is but I'm guessing it's an example of something that breaks the traditional mold of majority characters? OK, great! I'm all in favour of more people taking risks and diversifying the medium, especially if that's what the consumers want. But it has to be a voluntary process. The idea that people feel they can strong-arm the industry into a new direction if they lobby hard enough and shout loud enough is obnoxious.NoeL said:
That's a fair judgment of Social justice warriors.carnex said:
Well Dishonored is all around a pretty fucked up game.
Branding and scaring a guy for life,
selling the twins into slavery
giving whatshername to her... "Admirer"
are all portrayed as the "good" option, where killing them would be far less painful.
the only target who's actually dealt with in a humane way is the Regent, when you reveal his crimes and get him exiled
I have a ton of problems with Dishonored
I would make just one change in your assessment of the game. Those choices are not good. Nothing in dishonored is considered good or bad, it's a place rather devoid of universal morality. It's considered just, as in just punishment for break of moral obligation that they, at their own free will, made. It might be twisted but it has it's own internal consistency.Mikeyfell said:
Gamers need to learn that criticizing an aspect of a game is not an attack on everything in the game or all games in general.
It's like... remember that time you were watching an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, and then suddenly he's doing a blackface gag and you're like "...yeah... I'm a bit uncomfortable now." It's not an indictment of everything in the cartoon, or every Bugs Bunny cartoon, or every cartoon in general.
Saying "Duke Nukem Forever was kinda gross" or "There sure are an inordinate number of prostitutes in AAA games, and they're kinda portrayed unrealistically" does not mean "BAN GAMES NOW."
Some gamers have this bunker mentality that they need to get over.
It's like... remember that time you were watching an old Bugs Bunny cartoon, and then suddenly he's doing a blackface gag and you're like "...yeah... I'm a bit uncomfortable now." It's not an indictment of everything in the cartoon, or every Bugs Bunny cartoon, or every cartoon in general.
Saying "Duke Nukem Forever was kinda gross" or "There sure are an inordinate number of prostitutes in AAA games, and they're kinda portrayed unrealistically" does not mean "BAN GAMES NOW."
Some gamers have this bunker mentality that they need to get over.
And SJW need to learn that sometimes gamers responding negatively to their criticisms aren't just because of unrelated reasons like gamers somehow thinking it's a criticism about gaming in general. In fact, I'd say your comment here is a strawman. Do you really run into gamers who think a criticism about a plot mechanic like the damsel in distress trope is a complaint about gaming in general? That'd be silly.McMarbles said:
Look, the nature of being a "Warrior" for anything get's people in the mindset that they're right and anyone who offers any kind of resistance is the enemy. That's wrong. We're all people here and while some nutso bigots do exist I'd say the majority of us are civil minded people who want the best from our gaming and the industry in general. Gamers disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean that they're anti-equality or something. Maybe they just disagree with the criticism.
For example, I personally have nothing against the damsel in distress trope. I think it's over-used but I also understand that with a finite number of ways to motivate people to want to do anything, then every plot mechanic that has ever existed is overused. Belief/tradition/honor, Gold, Love, Power and little else are points of motivation and nothing tugs at the little heartstrings more than the desire to protect the ones we love. There is nothing inherently evil about it and it's a good lessen to teach people to take initiative to help if they see someone in trouble regardless of sex. So when people complain about things like this, I disagree.
As far as the existence of games that do use sex inappropriately, I look at them the same way I see porn. Yes, it exists, don't use it if you're not into it but just mind you're own business and people who like that kind of stuff can mind theirs. If anything, video game porn would be less harmful than actual porn. Trying to remove it from the earth is just censorship and blind militant policing of the tastes and desires of real people in pursuing victimless enjoyment. Having not played Duke Nukem or any kind of erotic-game (save Hitman which I admit certainly had risque scenes), I can't say much about it but I seriously doubt an argument can be made that it has no right to exist. Even crap has a right to exist where free markets and free speech are permitted.
What we need to push for are games that are more catered for women. Not censor games that were made that cater to men. Equality doesn't mean women get what they want and men get it taken away. In a world market it should men both get both and I agree that the market isn't catering enough to women for whatever reason. So the primary goal of SJW should be to push for recognition that there is a latent demand for female-focused games and if that does exist, then it should motivate the production of those kinds of games and the inclusion of those sorts of themes in other games too. But even in movies we're still going to see ridiculous shots of Megan Fox sweating in booty shorts over a vehicle in major movies because that's what the consumer market wants (note that males disproportionately like action movies compared to women) and complaining that men are attracted to those things is a lot like complaining that gay men like other men and shots of their toned ass.
This warrior mentality is pure nonsense. Everyone wants to have super powers or feel like they're some world changing badass but at the end of the day we're just people sitting at a computer typing. the sooner we accept that and are able to get over ourselves the sooner we'll be able to start working together on things that matter.