Its 'sensationalism' and we know it.
- Thread starter gargantual
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You might want to look at it in a more subtle way. Games don't make you a killer, sure, but nobody's saying that playing GTA will make you want to rape women either. It's more along the lines of when you're exposed to lots of sexist content, then that can inforce negative stereotypes about women that you already hold. And many boys already do hold such beliefs.weirdo8977 said:
In a similar way, perhaps playing lots of violent games - where violence is contextualized in the story as the preferred method of solving problems - could change the attitudes towards violence as means to an end in an impressive youngling. (That said, I don't think there are actually many games that contextualize violence in such a way - for the most part, it's all pretty abstract. But the more realistic the visuals get in games, the more we will have to think about such questions.) Or like consuming too much Japanese entertainment can influence the behaviour and attitudes in a way that reflect what they're seeing in Manga and Anime all the time... if you're already predisposed to liking such stuff (if you weren't you probably wouldn't consume it in the first place); that's an influence I had the dubious pleasure witnessing first hand in my days of learning Japanese.
I've seen first hand what consuming too much Japanese entertainment can do to people (wh.
People certainly behave like it. Nintendo deciding to fix an issue that unintentionally allowed same-sex relationships = Nintendo must hate homosexuals. Hitman: Absolution trailer having sexy nuns = IO Interactive are sexist misogynistic pigs. Tomb Raider having an implied rape scene = Crystal Dynamics are encouraging rape culture and misogyny.Vault101 said:
If you haven't seen those kinds of reactions literally FLOODING all over these forums then I don't know where you've been.
I'm not white but I'm definitely privilegedVault101 said:
"Flooding forums"? If you think that, then you're seeing things that don't exist. Which would actually explain a lot. No need to feel too bad though; you're not the only one by far. It is an often observed pattern in these discussions: People claiming that people who care about inclusivity say (racist! sexist! misogynist!) and demand (censorship! no nudity! burkas!) all sorts of things they never actually do. You're the Don Quixotes of the gaming community: You're fighting against enemies that only (mostly) exist in your imagination.Aaron Sylvester said:
Have you, before you posted, stopped for a moment and thought about just how conceited this sounds, especially that last bit?CloudAtlas said:
But okay, fine, call people "Don Quixotes of the gaming community" all you want, but these "Don Quixotes" are going to stick around, and there's nothing you are in a position to do about it. They have as much right to be here as you do, but whether or not you want to lose sleep and feel indignation over their presence is your prerogative. Just don't blame them for what you choose there.
Sorry, but just because problems are misrepresented and enlarged in the media and nitpicked about on internet forums doesn't mean you can dismiss them as simple sensationalism.
It's one thing to complain about Mass Effect being sexist because of an alien babe race and skintight suits. While the game series in itself has a whole variety of different roles for females and is generally liked by female gamers.
It's a whole other thing to file a valid complain about the lack of believable female characters in western games and the role of marketing departments creating self-fulfilling prophecies about the perceived sale numbers of such games. Only to see whole forums full of misogynist hate by certain male gamers who make statements like: "Females aren't capable of combat roles', or "They'd get raped anyway."
Many parallels can be found with the discussion about the ethnicity of main characters.
You have to realise that agendasetting in the media isn't a one way process. It happens through interaction with the public. In other words, the media will influence the public and sometimes misrepresent information, but the fact that topics about these problems surface does mean that they're alive somehow in that same public, who in turn influence the media to report about them.
You'd have a point if there were supreme monopolies on media content around, like Rupert Murdoch's. But overall that's still not the case on the internet, luckily.
It's one thing to complain about Mass Effect being sexist because of an alien babe race and skintight suits. While the game series in itself has a whole variety of different roles for females and is generally liked by female gamers.
It's a whole other thing to file a valid complain about the lack of believable female characters in western games and the role of marketing departments creating self-fulfilling prophecies about the perceived sale numbers of such games. Only to see whole forums full of misogynist hate by certain male gamers who make statements like: "Females aren't capable of combat roles', or "They'd get raped anyway."
Many parallels can be found with the discussion about the ethnicity of main characters.
You have to realise that agendasetting in the media isn't a one way process. It happens through interaction with the public. In other words, the media will influence the public and sometimes misrepresent information, but the fact that topics about these problems surface does mean that they're alive somehow in that same public, who in turn influence the media to report about them.
You'd have a point if there were supreme monopolies on media content around, like Rupert Murdoch's. But overall that's still not the case on the internet, luckily.
Wait a minute... When I'm criticizing some sexist or racist element in a game, I - and people who generally share my views - am accused of making a fuss about nothing all the time. But me telling the very same people, the people who accuse me of complaining about nothing regularly, that they are often defending games against demands and criticism nobody (okay, rarely anybody) that nobody ever made is "conceited"? What about them?Vegosiux said:
Why yes, going "Oh hey, it's SJWs complaining about non-issues again" is conceited too. But that's on the wrong side of the popular opinion these days to begin with, so that base is covered.CloudAtlas said:
And just to nitpick a little; I'm sure nobody means "It happens all the time, everywhere" when they talk about "flooding", it's hyperbole. I mean, I tend to be of the opinion that when people complain about the "prevalence" of sexualization and male pandering, they aren't discounting a significant enough amount of games in which that doesn't happen, they're more like saying "It happens a whole lot".
Sensationalism does factor into it though, because of how the entire thing is set up what with revenue from ads and all, and people tending to click "hot topics" a lot more than lukewarm ones. But that's an entirely different discussion (one we can't really have on any kind of community site that funds itself from advertising).
One thing I would have to stress is for people to watch their language. In today's internet culture and social situation some words gained a huge power of shaming and condemnation and have to be used carefully. Two of those words are "sexist" and "racist". They have huge power of subject degradation therefor their use should be waged carefully.
Dragon's Crown is not sexist due to a simple fact that it has almost naked characters of both sexes. It might be pandering or uncomfortable for some due to some graphical representation but it does not degrade any sex. It does not portray anyone in degrading manner. It might be stupid too, but keep the weight of words in equilibrium with weight of problem. This is just one of many examples of things getting way to overblown.
And now for personal opinion.
I want sexist characters, and racist, and whatever. I want them to be of all races, sexes etc and against all races, sexes etc. I want characters to be interesting, real and not perfect. Ashley from Mass Effect was a racist piece of excrement and I left her to die because of it, but I want more characters like her! They are just one of many spices that make worlds feel real!
Dragon's Crown is not sexist due to a simple fact that it has almost naked characters of both sexes. It might be pandering or uncomfortable for some due to some graphical representation but it does not degrade any sex. It does not portray anyone in degrading manner. It might be stupid too, but keep the weight of words in equilibrium with weight of problem. This is just one of many examples of things getting way to overblown.
And now for personal opinion.
I want sexist characters, and racist, and whatever. I want them to be of all races, sexes etc and against all races, sexes etc. I want characters to be interesting, real and not perfect. Ashley from Mass Effect was a racist piece of excrement and I left her to die because of it, but I want more characters like her! They are just one of many spices that make worlds feel real!
Well, you got me then. It's not like I took a screen shot of the title thread for future reference, and I'm not about to insinuate that you're a liar. That would just be rude.Ultratwinkie said:
I missed the point when pointing out how asinine something is counts as kicking up a fuss about it, but it's been discussed to death in that game's case on your own thread. You act as if those who want it wouldn't turn around and complain about it the second they got it. Hell, you act as if the same sexism threads haven't been being passed around on the site for years.
Then again, I've said in another discussion on this thread that your thread did generate a couple of good ideas on how that could be implemented correctly, so at least it yielded something other than vitriol.
Mario, dude. Unless Mister Popo from Dragon Ball Z is your idea of a black man, you've missed the point of the argument completely.
Yes, alienating your already dwindling and hyper sensitive audience with a stereotype of a black person is such a good way to broaden their demographic. And wasn't there an article on this very site a good while back stating that developers were actually jumping ship from the mobile market because it was flooded with crap?
Erm, what? Connected to your last paragraph: The Wii U is selling badly, therefore adding black people to anything is trivial. I assume anything meant the franchise in question, because otherwise, that's a nice little jump with your logic.
As for the part about racism, yes, that's obviously the only possible explanation. The fact that it's always brought up despite the context of the game has nothing to do with it, nor does the assumption that those not in 100% agreement with your views are racist or misogynistic.
Even when the same arguments in favor of more PC, constrictive game design have been being passed around for years? The mentality gets old and isn't as progressive as you'd think it would be. I'd argue that it's actually regressive, since it makes everyone bunker down in their own positions and makes creating a female/ethnic character hell for the developers.
There's a time and place. If you cry sexism or racism on every game, you trivialize the claim to the point that others will ignore you simply because you've done it before to other targets. You know, the reason the opposed are always claiming it's trivial in the first place.
First, I'd like to apologize for the massive wall of text. Some, if not a lot of it, is probably redundant. In fact, you most likely have better things to do than to read this. Secondly because I've originally typed this out in word there sometimes are question marks where there should be apostrophes. Sorry for that too. Thirdly I tried to write my post in such a way that my frustration was not too visible. I didn't always succeed so sorry for that as well. I was rather annoyed at the OP because I think there are some serious misunderstandings about what free thought is and how to do it.
The word ?we? here can be interpreted in two ways. Either you intend 'we' to mean you and the people you are arguing against. If this is the case you are accusing whoever it is you are arguing against of arguing in bad faith and merely for attention. This is problematic because even if they aren?t, if you believe this, you won?t even try to engage them seriously. If you and they both know you are right and they are just pretending to disagree for attention why would you even bother to have a discussion? The other way to interpret 'we' is as you and other people who agree with you. In this case you seem to be saying to people on your side that the other side is arguing in bad faith and shouldn?t be seriously engaged. In either case the title already told me you weren?t interested in discussion with the people you disagree with before I even knew the subject-matter.gargantual said:
This is not an argument for or against any particular trope or about the discussion of tropes in general. Rather, it is an argument that the whole discussion shouldn?t be had because you are bored of it. Already in the first sentence you are more or less saying the discussion is not worth having at all. This fits in with your notion that media critics (I wasn?t sure how to call the people you disagreed with and decided it would be media critics) are arguing in bad faith for attention and that this is a hype that will go away. I strongly doubt that that is the case. Criticism of media portrayal of certain groups or issues has been a thing at least since WWII. Feminism has been an issue for hundreds of years by now and the rights of sexual minorities is currently a hot topic with more and more places in the world slowly allowing for equal rights of LGBT people. Moreover, this kind of media criticism is defended by many academics in the fields of philosophy, media theory, sociology, etc. Do you really believe that all the thousands of people across several decades who have argued that the media have a responsibility to portray certain issues in a politically conscious way are all arguing in bad faith? Or do you just believe their arguments have no merit? Or do you rather believe, as you seem to say later on that this is just a radical subgroup taking certain things too far. Wouldn?t the interesting discussion be what the difference between good and bad media criticism is?gargantual said:
Here you dish out some insults comparing people to low brow sensationalist media outlets. You use strong language like 'come out of their anuses' and 'witchhunting' and belittling language like 'internet battlefield' and 'something we graduated from.' Indeed, the tone of most of your post sounds very hostile and angry to me. Do you think a feminist who reads your post is going to think: 'hmm, what interesting arguments. I disagree and will politely explain why.' I doubt it. They will most likely feel insulted, leave a snarky comment, or ignore you altogether and go on with their lives not having considered changing their position in even the slightest way for one second. It?s also inconvenient for anyone who might disagree with this that it isn?t at this point clear at all who you are talking about. 'Some press voices' can refer to just about anyone and that means there are no goalposts to argue here. The only way I could prove this wrong would be if I could show that no gaming media outlet has said anything unreasonable about social justice issues at all. So while technically you haven?t said anything you have also most likely made many of your readers feel insulted. An ideal way to start a flamewar and prevent any serious discussion.gargantual said:
Who has said that we can?t discuss those problems? They are in fact discussed quite frequently on this very website. Are you saying that everyone should stop discussing what they find important and interesting and should all look at what you find important and interesting? You seem to be implying that discussing feminism/racism/homophobia in games leads to these other problems not being solved. Is that really the case. If this whole feminism thing had not existed would people have instead spent their time on solving these issues you named or, would they rather have spent their time not discussing any issue at all and playing games they like. I also would like to point out that here again, you are not arguing against any position but you seem rather to be saying that a certain discussion shouldn?t be had because it takes away from some other discussion you find important. This also brings me to the question: why did you make another topic about feminism rather than about DLC pricing? Apparently you don't even seem to think DLC pricing is interesting enough for that yourself or you would have made that other topic rather than this one. This leads me to believe that this is an argument that not even you find convincing enough to act on it. So when speaking of arguing in bad faith, you might not want to use arguments you don?t even apply to your own actions.gargantual said:
Here you seem to be accusing media critics of not caring/knowing about games when they criticize them. So not only is it not clear who you are talking about but you are making ad hominem arguments about whoever you are talking about. Even if someone doesn?t know that much about video games they might make good points when discussing them. And again: no doubt this is true for some people out there but if you phrase it like this any media critic/feminist/whatever reading this might feel spoken to and get upset with you. Is that what you wanted? What you say is, on a close read, not specific at all. 'this 'cosmetic' crusades (sic) is annoyingly reminiscent.' Well, that could refer to anything and anyone but also to no one at all. It might sound like a sweeping generalisation but technically isn?t.gargantual said:
Minions? So media critics do not want people to agree with them because they think their arguments are good but they just want blind adherence to whatever they say. That is a rather strong accusation to be making against nobody in particular.gargantual said:
This is the first actual argument about media criticism you?ve made so far. I?d like to respond to it. To quote George Orwell: 'All issues are political issue'. Media portrayal of anything whatever has the effect of making certain things feel normal. If in most media women are portrayed as being in existence to make men have a hard-on this will colour the perception of people about gender roles in a negative way. This is why media critics argue that women shouldn?t be portrayed like that unless this serves a very specific purpose in the story being told. For example: I?m fine with women being portrayed like that in say 'The Wolf of Wall Street' because I believe the movie tried to make the point that that was how women were viewed by the people the movie was about. I?m not fine with women being portrayed like that in the song 'California Gurls' because there it is really implied that the appearance of women is enough to make one place in the world the best place and that all girls should be like that.gargantual said:
Here you outright say you do not care about the merit of an argument. There is so much wrong with this bit. An argument should just not be made because it makes you feel unpleasant? What this implies is that your desires are more important than the truth and more important than the perpetuation of injustice. Is that really your position? Also at this point it becomes damn near impossible to make sure what you mean. What gets spoiled in gaming discussion? People, the discussion, the games? If you meant to say the arguments are spoiled because they are applied to games where they aren?t applicable than the arguments are just wrong and you should say that. If you meant the games get spoiled I have to ask. Why do arguments spoil your enjoyment of games? Just don?t read them and play the games if you want to do that. Just visit the threads about 'my personal top 5 games' or about 'DLC pricing is too high' if you don?t like discussions about feminism/media criticism. And even if you read an argument, how does this spoil anything for you. Or am I to read this as you saying that it makes you feel guilty and you?d rather not feel guilty of than not be guilty of perpetuating sexism? Again, you are here not even saying that you disagree with an argument, you are trying to say the argument shouldn't be had apparently.gargantual said:
If they very really feel this then your title is wrong. It isn't just sensationalism if it is a real concern someone really has. Also, are you implying that this is something they only feel but are wrong about, or do you think their feelings have some merit? In the first case, please argue that. In the second case, if their feelings have some merit, then lets not ignore them.gargantual said:
The point is that media critics claim there is a problem on a large scale. Why does the volume of claims, or the amount of claims matter. Are you saying it couldn?t possibly be the case that the majority of games is at least somewhat sexist? Even when throughout recorded history most people were very sexist. The accusations made are also usually not of deliberate bigotry.gargantual said:
Who are you to say what is and isn't a 'valid movement.' What does that even mean. Validity is usually a property of arguments, not of movements. You just admitted that representation issues feel very real for some so there is a real concern here. If you believe that concern isn?t justified, lets hear your argument for that. If you believe they have a real concern than what on earth are you talking about. Either way calling a movement invalid is just a vague way to dismiss them without actually engaging with that movement in any kind of meaningful dialogue.gargantual said:
Like I said earlier. Media criticism is done with the thought in mind that media implicitly and sometimes explicitly reinforce or challenge norms even, often especially, when they weren't even trying to do so. I forget who said this but someone once said: 'before star trek there were never any black people in the future.' Reading into shit is not something that media critics do accidentally, but something for which they have reasons which they have thought about (some of them, at least).gargantual said:
Again, the point is that we have an institutional problem. The problem isn't that some games are not doing a good job of representing certain minorities but that most of them are. Picking battles with some things while letting other things slide is not the best way to get across that there is an institutional problem.gargantual said:
And again. Who is 'we'? Who is this community you speak of? Also, why should the arguing settle when you don't understand each other. That seems a good reason to continue arguing to gain better understanding of our mutual positions. Perhaps we should be arguing better, more clearly, less angrily etc. But we shouldn't stop the argument when we still don't even understand the others positions. And if understanding is the goal then assuming in the title of your thread that the people you disagree with are arguing in bad faith isn't the way to go either.gargantual said:
Read your opening sentences again please. Then go and contemplate whether you have demonstrated your rationality with this post. The entirety of your post is angry and tells us that a certain discussion should not be had at all regardless of the merits of the arguments made and now you are suddenly championing the progression of arguments and being calm. You mentioned the old testament so I will quote the new testament: 'Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.' I also don?t entirely agree that there should be LOL?s at the end of every discussion. Not all topics are that funny.gargantual said:
Isn't that a clear sign that these discussions are very productive. The feminists, the media critics, they now have the attention of one of the most mainstream, apolitical gaming sites out there. That's what they wanted from the get go, attention for these issues. Not just the attention from academics or obscure forums but the attention of IGN and Nintendo. The attention of people who really hold some sway in the gaming community. You don't solve institutional problems by staying under the radar, now do you.gargantual said:
HUH? Wha? The hope would be more diverse characters and stories. Really, how many media critics have actually said that they want less diverse stories and characters. How many have said that they want more. Also, those are all examples of games playing to the safest archetypes and themes possible. Perhaps with the exception of mass effect. I mean, fighting pirates on a tropical island, battling aliens and Mario. Those are safe archetypes. Also, not too many people are trying to scare devs into doing anything. Most are trying to argue that they should do certain things. Perhaps argument scares some people but usually an argument is made to convince people, not to scare them. Now I will agree that certain particular criticisms, like that made of Mario cart 8 weren't very well made.gargantual said:
How often are the devs actually called bigots? How does trying to change an institutional problem of perpetuation of harmful stereotypes, intentional or unintentional, trivializes real world problems? Are you trying to say that these stereotypes are not real world problems? Who is doing the trivializing here?gargantual said:
What exactly are you calling subjective? It is an objective fact that most of the totally authored protagonists in video games are white heterosexual males. Even if your 'it's all subjective' stance were true that wouldn't serve your argument. People are fully entitled to explain why they subjectively disliked something and what they would like to see changed.gargantual said:
Which is exactly why some people think it is strange that a disproportionately large amount of games only serves one demographic.gargantual said:
Peoples interests might change because of an argument they read somewhere. People might not make things they could be interested in making because the thought hadn?t occurred to them. Artists aren't just statically interested in one thing, nor are they all solipsists. Their art can be and actually is influenced by the thoughts and the art of other people.gargantual said:
If there is an institutional problem with the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes which isn't solved then people do not have to move on. They have to keep trying to solve the problem, whether this annoys you or not.gargantual said:
Judging from your post you are quite a lot less than 100% in agreement with the people you disagree with. You are openly saying that an entire movement is invalid whatever that means. So that might be why members said movement believe you are against them. You told them you were.gargantual said:
I think you didn't mean to say that it was the words and sentiments which were the problem but that is what you say here. If the fascists and the Spanish inquisition had only used words and sentiments I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with them as I have. The problem with them is that they skipped words and sentiments and went straight to murder, torture, intimidation, burning books, etc. This becomes relevant later in your argument.gargantual said:
I can see where you are coming from but in an important sense you are entirely wrong. No one in the history of humanity has ever come to any conclusion entirely of their own accord. They were invariably influenced by the people around them. The problem is not influencing other people and it isn't even telling them how or what to think. It is how you go about doing so. If I say: 'I believe you should believe the Pythagorean theorem because 'insert proof here'' that is an entirely legitimate way to tell you what to think. Someone might have to arrive there at their own accord in the sense that we'd prefer it if he actually saw the merits of the proof before assuming it to be valid. But taking an argument from someone else seems not just not harmful but very helpful. Forums and twitter are used to communicate ideas and ideally arguments. Crusades don't happen there because crusades involve murder. You don't murder over twitter. You communicate over it. Trying to influence other people through communication is a good thing and the best way if not the only way to carry them to enlightenment. Perhaps you think they are using the wrong kind of argument. If that is so, explain to us why their argument is wrong. But you are here trying to tell us that arguments are bad in the name of free thought. Dafuq man.gargantual said:
Which is why it would have been nice if you had named some specific people and issues in your post.gargantual said:
Cheese is just cheese. Gravity is just gravity. Slavery is just slavery. So what? Are you trying to argue that because something is itself it doesn't influence other things or isn't important? Because that is some textbook question begging right there. Fiction is, in an important sense, more than just fiction. Fictional works like 'War and Peace,' '1984,' 'The Odessey,' 'Apocalypse Now,' 'Papers Please' and many others have been used to intentionally comment on real life issues. In fact, most fiction tells us something about reality or the human condition implicitly. Just through what is considered normal by the author.gargantual said:
Why? People have been whining about certain shooters being generic for years now. What social horrors have come from this. I'm still enjoying them. Also, hammering on something, or, to use the appropriate term, criticising it, is not done to harm it but to improve it. To quote the escapists Yahtzee: 'Criticism is a force for good'.gargantual said:
So you are telling me that the people I disagree with are people too and not idiots but the people you disagree with are faking moral panic to get views. Do you not see your own hypocrisy? Also, you said that these issues feel very real to some gamers so that would mean the moral panic is not fake.gargantual said:
Have you considered that the lack of good conversations you've been having might be your fault? The amount of anger, insults and ad hominem arguments in this post of yours is rather high. If this is how you carry yourself about in general then I understand why you won?t have too many mediated mutually understanding discussions.gargantual said:
Yes, how stupid of someone to actually try and solve problems. How can these people even think that you can solve problems with solutions. You get rid of them by not solving them at all trying to shout down the people highlighting the problem. That is much better. I?m going to assume that you meant to say something else here than what you actually said.gargantual said:
What do you mean by 'crusaders'? What do you mean by 'pragmatists'? And assuming I somewhat understand what you are talking about, where is your evidence or argument for this? Socrates wasn't a pragmatist but he has become one of the most influential people in history. In my opinion people with a vision, a good vision or a bad one, are generally better at solving problems than pragmatists who often don?t even recognise that there is a problem.gargantual said:
So the only reason people criticise video games for being sexist in some way is for views? You don?t believe any of them to be sincere at all? You aren?t even interested in any kind of discussion here because these media critics are just faking it? Since this kind of speculation about what people think when they give their opinion is apparently very relevant and something that is totally verifiable I?m going to have me some of that too. It comes across to me as though you are trying to silence a discussion because you don?t like where the discussion tends. You don?t care about truth or justice. Free thought to you means thought free from other people to tell you that you are wrong. Like you said ?Whether the arguments made are right or wrong.?gargantual said:
Ok, I wasn't sure from your OP but I am now fairly sure we can reach at least some common ground so here goes:
To say some things in general. I think you were trying to make some points about how to have rational discourse and some things that are going wrong with discourse in certain parts of the gaming media. Now I don't meet much people who will admit that they were not trying to have a rational discussion. Ussually when a discussion goes the wrong way it happens in spite of the fact that nobody wanted that. If you want people to change their habits it's best to show them were they went wrong on the presumption that they did so accidentally. Your post came of, at least to me, as telling some people that they were being willfully sensationalist. Well, if it was willful, why would they even care about your arguments. They know they aren't doing the right thing but what do they care? I mentioned socrates in my earlier post. He held to the notion that the only cause of evil is ignorance. While that may not always be true, if you believe someone is willfully doing things which he knows to be bad, what purpose does telling them they aren't doing the right thing serve? Either you were right in which case they'll respond, 'I know, I don't care'. Or you were wrong in which case you just accused somebody of malicious intents they did not have. Either way saying 'It's sensationalist and you know it' is not a good way to promote dialogue.
I will, for the rest of this post try to adress arguments about other things than arguing itself. I think we agree more often on things than I had presumed so I will try to follow my own and your advice and try to reach some common ground.
I agree with this and I think we are in agreement that open dialogue, finding common ground and a certain ethics of discourse in general are important. What rubbed me up the wrong way about your OP was that it was a rather bad example of all those things. What room is there for shared understanding when you call an entire movement invalid? When your opening sentence is:
Does this establish some common ground? Is it polite? Wouldn't you rather start out by saying something like: 'Though I sympathise with some of the arguments made by media critics, I believe some of them argue in a way that is antagonistic to free thought and not helpful to their cause'? This would, in my opinion, have been more polite, it would have established some common round, it would have been more to the point. I would normally not have focussed on the tone of your post so much except for the fact that you made a point of arguing for civil and rational discourse. I think if you are going to do that I am entitled to point out when you are doing that wrong yourself. No doubt none of us are perfect in that regard and I did a lot of things wrong as well, but that was kind of my point. It's easy for me to point out your flaws and for you to point out the flaws of media critics. It is a lot harder to see our own.
That's funny because that is how I read your OP. I don't think however you were tacitly attacking people. You were very explicitly doing that.
I can't read your mind, but I can read your post. Maybe you are still very open-minded but your first post didn't show that. (your reply to me did, though) Accusing others of arguing in bad faith merely for views is a great way to build walls and rationalising not learning from those other people. And I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say here that I don't buy that you weren't trying to attack people. The word sensationalism implies that people are saying things that they don't really care about just for views. Whether something is sensationalist or not depends on the person saying it and their mental states. So using that word implies that you are talking about the people making the argument and not just the argument itself.
To say some things in general. I think you were trying to make some points about how to have rational discourse and some things that are going wrong with discourse in certain parts of the gaming media. Now I don't meet much people who will admit that they were not trying to have a rational discussion. Ussually when a discussion goes the wrong way it happens in spite of the fact that nobody wanted that. If you want people to change their habits it's best to show them were they went wrong on the presumption that they did so accidentally. Your post came of, at least to me, as telling some people that they were being willfully sensationalist. Well, if it was willful, why would they even care about your arguments. They know they aren't doing the right thing but what do they care? I mentioned socrates in my earlier post. He held to the notion that the only cause of evil is ignorance. While that may not always be true, if you believe someone is willfully doing things which he knows to be bad, what purpose does telling them they aren't doing the right thing serve? Either you were right in which case they'll respond, 'I know, I don't care'. Or you were wrong in which case you just accused somebody of malicious intents they did not have. Either way saying 'It's sensationalist and you know it' is not a good way to promote dialogue.
I think you and I have extremely different definitions of the word 'pragmatist'. Anyway, I'll stick to your definition for the sake of argument. If this is what you mean by pragmatism than I'm all in favor of that and I agree that 'pragmatism' in your sense of the word is the best way forward. I'm not quite sure though, what you mean by 'imposing opinions.' How do you go about doing that. As far as I'm aware there isn't much actual censorship going on, just people arguing online. (and offline) I do believe a lot of people online argue in a way that is unlikely to convince anyone but that seems to me more the result of the way internet discussions are structured than the result of media critics being especially bad in this regard.
You are entitled to have any opinion you want and I am entitled to express my opinion that you are wrong. I do believe I gave actual arguments to support my opinion so getting the answer 'well I can say whatever I want' was a little disappointing.
My problem wasn't that this acknowledgement wasn't long or clear enough but that it seemed to outright contradict other things you said. I repeat, either issues feel very real, or the moral panic is fake, but you can't have it both ways.
Well, it's one thing to say. People who make posts on the internet want attention. That is obvious otherwise they wouldn't have put their thoughts on the internet. It's another thing to presume they want attention only for attentions sake which is what I thought you meant with 'sensationalism.'
I will, for the rest of this post try to adress arguments about other things than arguing itself. I think we agree more often on things than I had presumed so I will try to follow my own and your advice and try to reach some common ground.
But isn't this exactly what media critics have been saying all along. Even well intentioned authers can make works that reinforce stereotypes. If you say that media critics shouldn't argue about the author but about his works then we are in agreement there. A work of art can have effects the author did not want it to have. One of the advantages of media criticism is that it makes authors think of the message they are putting out there. Outright calling ubisoft racist over that recent picture is pointless. Trying to explain to ubisoft why their picture has unintentional racial tones which can be taken the wrong way is not. (for the record, I didn't see much of a problem with the picture but that is another issue entirely) So, I believe we are in agreement here.
I agree entirely. That does seem like the best way to make games more diverse.
The problem is that according to media critics, fiction influences the way we think. And in turn the way we think influences the way we act. The crimes perpetrated on real people are in part the result of stereotypes believed in by the perpetrators. Those stereotypes are the result of certain depictions of people and groups in the media. Media critics, the ones that have put some thought into it, don't think the media is more important than what happens in reality but they do believe that what happens in reality is in part the result of what happens in the media. They don't want to trivialize real issues, they want to avoid them.
Obviously not everyone is doing criticism right and sometimes people just plain read too much into things. The interesting discussion seems to me to be how far we should and should not read into things. Maybe an argument can be made that we should not read anything into advertisements without taking the full game into consideration. Certainly an argument can be made that we shouldn't try to read into what the devs were thinking.
Again, I think we can agree here. Politics isn't the only lense but it is a lense that is always there. Sometimes in the background, sometimes very obviously. Things might exist for their own fun and lunacy but that doesn't mean the authors shouldn't think about the potential politics of what they are saying. I don't think I'm screaming at a wall. If I did I wouldn't write these walls of text. Maybe some other people think they are screaming at walls and that can be a problem.
Personally, i find 'offense' to be an almost 'self-important' concept, because we all know, that the developers and such aren't physically going out to offend anyone through complete spite or malice, it's more the fact that's its just shock entertainment (which we all demand of course) so i think for the community and others to feel offended by something, that's their battle, and their ability to spill their poison over all of us and give the medium a bad image. They chose to be offended, it's not their right, so i don't see why they should destroy it for everyone else. Part of me feels that this kind of image is drawing attention away from real problems in the industry, like piss-take season pass 'deals', pre-order bonuses and the sheer audacity of some of the publishers who take the piss out of the consumer.
I think the kneejerk rejection of such issues is as sensationalist as the more extreme nit-picky forms of social awareness - the latter of which I tend to find almost always has a kernel of truth.
How polite does it have to be? Some people were okay with it. You know whats considered inappropriate on a forum because its banned. This is real talk. I'm not Jay Carney in the White House press room at 7 AM in this venue worrying over stumbling on how to say it and not open a can of worms, and none of us should have to resign to the demands of professional speech on an entertainment site forum. Everyone has their thresholds. We can talk shit about internet media all we want without seriously implying personal things about their authors. I read someone on Gamespot calling Motomu Toriyama a creep because of his FFXIII Lightning fetish, and FFX-2's dress up mechanics. Do they know the guy well enough in his personal life to confirm it? Probably not. But its permissible opinion in that venue. We dont have to exalt everything to have our opinions considered worthy.Pseudonym said:
Oh! A sense of humor! Well let me throw away these defribulators then 'cause youre showing sone signs of life. You can find stuff funny. I'm genuinely happy to read that. Bur Who? Tell me who plaintiff. You can talk about an idea and not necessarily attack a person. Again, making it too personal. I read yours as someone who makes up their mind about people prematurely based on how closely they identify with your politics. Theres more to people than that.
I can't read your mind, but I can read your post. Maybe you are still very open-minded but your first post didn't show that. (your reply to me did, though) Accusing others of arguing in bad faith merely for views is a great way to build walls and rationalising not learning from those other people. And I'm sorry but I'm going to have to say here that I don't buy that you weren't trying to attack people. The word sensationalism implies that people are saying things that they don't really care about just for views. Whether something is sensationalist or not depends on the person saying it and their mental states. So using that word implies that you are talking about the people making the argument and not just the argument itself.
To say some things in general. I think you were trying to make some points about how to have rational discourse and some things that are going wrong with discourse in certain parts of the gaming media. Now I don't meet much people who will admit that they were not trying to have a rational discussion. Ussually when a discussion goes the wrong way it happens in spite of the fact that nobody wanted that. If you want people to change their habits it's best to show them were they went wrong on the presumption that they did so accidentally. Your post came of, at least to me, as telling some people that they were being willfully sensationalist. Well, if it was willful, why would they even care about your arguments. They know they aren't doing the right thing but what do they care? I mentioned socrates in my earlier post. He held to the notion that the only cause of evil is ignorance. While that may not always be true, if you believe someone is willfully doing things which he knows to be bad, what purpose does telling them they aren't doing the right thing serve? Either you were right in which case they'll respond, 'I know, I don't care'. Or you were wrong in which case you just accused somebody of malicious intents they did not have. Either way saying 'It's sensationalist and you know it' is not a good way to promote dialogue.
If you come after someone they get defensive. You also have to consider what you define as the line and what others do may not be similar from the start. You dont have to imply anger on behalf of others. I know not everybody sees eye to eye. Its a video games and entertainment forum. The LAST place on earth anyone sees eye to eye. I went on dogsonacid.com years ago rarely posted there and my greeting was 'welcome to the butthole of the internet'. Ever write a topic and say how much should I pretty this up or fuck it. I'm tired, and thats what replies are for. It got you here all piping upset didnt it?
I think you and I have extremely different definitions of the word 'pragmatist'. Anyway, I'll stick to your definition for the sake of argument. If this is what you mean by pragmatism than I'm all in favor of that and I agree that 'pragmatism' in your sense of the word is the best way forward. I'm not quite sure though, what you mean by 'imposing opinions.' How do you go about doing that. As far as I'm aware there isn't much actual censorship going on, just people arguing online. (and offline) I do believe a lot of people online argue in a way that is unlikely to convince anyone but that seems to me more the result of the way internet discussions are structured than the result of media critics being especially bad in this regard.
You are entitled to have any opinion you want and I am entitled to express my opinion that you are wrong. I do believe I gave actual arguments to support my opinion so getting the answer 'well I can say whatever I want' was a little disappointing.
My problem wasn't that this acknowledgement wasn't long or clear enough but that it seemed to outright contradict other things you said. I repeat, either issues feel very real, or the moral panic is fake, but you can't have it both ways.
Well, it's one thing to say. People who make posts on the internet want attention. That is obvious otherwise they wouldn't have put their thoughts on the internet. It's another thing to presume they want attention only for attentions sake which is what I thought you meant with 'sensationalism.'
I will, for the rest of this post try to adress arguments about other things than arguing itself. I think we agree more often on things than I had presumed so I will try to follow my own and your advice and try to reach some common ground.
yeah. pretty much effective and ineffective entertainment comes from the same source. You won't know how it goes till you put it out there and get tomatoes thrown at you. To this day Metal Gear Solid still has Reading Jefferey Yohalems interview with rock paper shotgun was a bit cringeworthy. I can imagine John Walker being irritated with his lofty leftfield explanations, but people get better with experience.
I agree entirely. That does seem like the best way to make games more diverse.
many things influence human action. Significant life experiences shape a person and surpass the power repeated fiction has over an individual. If someone's gonna say a video game was the foremost avatar for them commiting a serious crime, theyd better have a good insanity defense. And even then real world factors have to be accounted for. Their environment, who allows their negative behavior. Put anyone in a loony bin chamber with no input barely any food or water for a certain amount of days and see how
limber their mind is when they're finally out. Everyone comes from their place of comfort and wont even devote a phrase or word to acknowledge their opinion isnt the only one in the room.
Thats all Im saying. We agree on that. Awesome. Anything after that is just our opinions. None of us have to sugarcoat everything.
the ability to re contextualize things as silly or serious is a common and strong human power. You may see someone laugh at a joke you'd consider offensive but they're choosing to not contextualize in the same way. While still being aware of the seriousness of the topic. you should be allowed to caricature all sorts of topical issues or at least have the free attempt to without it being considered personal. It might not work as well. Somebody'll get mad but eh. Can't guage everything.