Poll: Should stories be praised for being progressive?

[Silvanus]

Silvanus, this is exactly what I said. It becomes a problem when the subject is approached in an exclusionary manner, in which others are labeled as bad, should they not exhibit the same interest in the 'progressive' part of the material. I'm not talking about people approaching the material and embracing its progressive bend, because I honestly don't know if such people (with a platform) exist. Whenever the subject is approached it is done under ideological and political grounds, in an antagonistic manner and with liberal criticism of people, rather than the work.

Oh, that's rubbish. Most articles I see on this stuff merely tend to report it's happening, or say it's good in some muted way. I don't believe I've ever seen an article actually criticising people merely for failing to exhibit interest in it.

This seems to be jumping at shadows, imagining condemnations where none exist. There's nothing "exclusionary" about praising a story for being progressive.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Oh, that's rubbish. Most articles I see on this stuff merely tend to report it's happening, or say it's good in some muted way. I don't believe I've ever seen an article actually criticising people merely for failing to exhibit interest in it.

This seems to be jumping at shadows, imagining condemnations where none exist. There's nothing "exclusionary" about praising a story for being progressive.

You're pretending these pieces exist in a vacuum. That's just silly.

You write a piece about something and call it 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' on very thin justifications, which are often dictated by a specific ideology. You instantly use incendiary language and associate very negative connotations to both the material and, by extension, its audience. You create certain expectations, because you're building your brand. When you move on to praise something for being progressive, these expectations are going to be met and your praise will be questioned if not outright dismissed. I have not seen a single site, which exist simply to look at the positives and promote progress, without at the same time relying on being antagonistic to material that does neither of the above. In this climate, I'm not even sure there is space for such a place, but if you know of any, please link them to me.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, because it tells you nothing of the content of the story.

 

[Silvanus]

You're pretending these pieces exist in a vacuum. That's just silly.

You write a piece about something and call it 'racist' or 'sexist' or 'homophobic' on very thin justifications, which are often dictated by a specific ideology. You instantly use incendiary language and associate very negative connotations to both the material and, by extension, its audience. You create certain expectations, because you're building your brand. When you move on to praise something for being progressive, these expectations are going to be met and your praise will be questioned if not outright dismissed. I have not seen a single site, which exist simply to look at the positives and promote progress, without at the same time relying on being antagonistic to material that does neither of the above. In this climate, I'm not even sure there is space for such a place, but if you know of any, please link them to me.

Very rarely will articles focusing on the progressive nature of a piece actually use the terms "racist", "sexist" or "homophobic". In fact, very rarely will critical articles use such language; I don't recall any of the articles criticising Tomodachi Life, for example, using the term "homophobic". That "incendiary language" is pretty rare in articles themselves. Again, much more often I'll see people in the comments infer that that's what the article is saying about them, without the article actually saying it (or even implying it), and then getting knickers in a twist.

So, I call bollocks on the antagonistic nature of articles on progressive themes. People are reading things they disagree with and reading antagonism into them. I'd be perfectly willing to look at some examples if you can find 'em, though; I'd be very interested in seeing where you believe this antagonism is in evidence.

 

[Fallow]

This is such a very empty statement. You do not genuinely believe that the potential of art to communicate is no greater than that of toilet paper;

I believe that the potential of art to communicate is 100% in the interpretation. A blind man cannot draw a drop of meaning from a painting, nor can a deaf man feel a single shred of joy from a concert. The entirety of expression from art lies purely in the interpretation of the art itself, more traditionally defined with the aforism "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder". Furthermore, art has no future-predicting powers, else we'd see more of it working in the stock exchange. You are ofcourse free to argue that point, but I have yet to see a study where art outperforms predictive algorithms in any field.

As for toilet paper saying things about us as humans, it again goes back to the interpretation. Without a frame of reference or the ability to interpret within the context (i.e. only an objective measurement), art is as communicating as toiletpaper.

in order to draw that tortured conclusion requires one to reduce art down to what can be claimed of it objectively.

I fail to see how you draw this conclusion, especially in light of my previous post. Waaait, didn't you claim I was a "cynic" for "needlessly" stating that art was purely subjective?

Objectively, yes, art is as meaningful as anything we do, but only a post or two ago you were decrying the idiocy of making objective statements about art.

And I still do. I think you have taken a turn in some direction other than the way I was going. If art has no objective meaning, how can it have an objective interpretation of any meaning? Judging a table on how well it can fly is possible, but it doesn't seem like a worthwhile exercise outside of some archaeology exhibit long after we're dead. Jousting windmills is an equally meaningless task.

Sophistry, in modern usage, refers to ostensibly intellectual arguments with very little of substance or relevance underneath. The above fits that to a tee.

Exactly! Wait, what are you referring to?

Perhaps, using your definition here, one could also appropriately label a statement so vague and open to interpretation that it could mean anything at all, as sophistry...

Please tell me you recognise the irony in this statement. Please. I'll lose all faith in humanity if you said this unironically.

Sorry, I haven't spent a single night in an ivory tower yet, and I can't afford an arm-chair.

 

[Dizchu]

What I find so frustrating about the whole "should stories be praised for being progressive" discussion is that people are eager to dismiss things because they seem like "pandering", and they like to assume that any praise a certain work gets is because it has LGBT characters or a cast with multiple ethnicities, or prominent female characters etc.

It's pure cynicism. People love to trash Gone Home for being "SJW pandering", however the story wouldn't have even worked if the subplot didn't have gay characters because the whole reason there's a complication is because of homophobic prejudices. People love to take films about gay characters and insist "hey, if they were straight nobody would care!" But being straight and being gay aren't the same, because the latter has been an extremely taboo subject until only fairly recently and the former don't face persecution for their sexual orientation. There's also the fact that there's a whole lot more straight people in the world.

When it comes to the original question, I think having progressive morals in stories is a good thing though the effectiveness largely relies on how it's handled. Similarly, having stories with only straight male characters isn't exactly a sin like many believe it is.

But this whole cynical "well it's just pandering!" mentality is infuriating because nobody gives a shit when straight people are pandered to. Probably because it is so common that people stop noticing.

 

[Vanilla ISIS]

No.
Progressivism is just a popular ideology of today.

It's like when in USSR, fiction was praised for being communist.
It's not a good idea.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

A story should be praised if it is praiseworthy. It should stand on its own merits. I don't agree with the quote unquote "progressive"/liberal movement that has this current generation crusading, at all. I actually consider it regressive, not progressive as it is an un-democratic movement that stifles free speech and discriminates severely in the name of anti-discrimination. Pandering a political ideal in the form of art is the right of the artist, but not something I care for. People may have the right to speak but everyone else has the right to ignore them.

Baldur's Gate got an expansion courtesy of SJW devs and pushed a "progressive" agenda. It has been panned almost universally. Ghostbusters seems to be doing the same thing and isn't getting favourable comments, tho it at least has the benefit of being unreleased till now. I don't care for it. I play a game or watch a film for entertainment, escapism and enjoyment, I don't want your or anyone else's political agenda assailing me from there. I have no objection to minority characters, but I'm tired of the left's victim Olympics and the witch hunt against anyone not conforming to the rabid "progressive" mind set with their "safe space" bullshit.

Praise a story for being well written and realised, for creating sympathetic, believable characters OF ANY background, gender, sexuality, colour or creed and for entertaining you. Don't praise it because the writer is a leftist/liberal/progressive who adheres to the same mentality. That's the exact problem with the extreme-left, this cliquey nonsense.

That's not to say art cannot be political; consider Banksy as just the most topical example. Making a political point is one thing and sublime when done well. So called progressives force conformity to THEIR idea of what things should be like, elevating "victims" and putting them in a "safe space" where they can never be offended or have to hear any idea contrary to their own, is not subtle or clever and helps no one.

 

[Dizchu]

Not too mention how pandering is only bad when not aimed at straight men. People lose their shit because Kung Jin in Mortal Kombat is pandering to gay people but don't care that DOAX exists solely to give nerds boners.

"Come on now, Dead or Alive is a symbol of freedom of speech. Don't you dare attack it! Damn SJWs trying to take our games away."

"Hey that character doesn't need to be gay. SJWs are always trying to push their ideology on others! Why do games have to be about politics anyway?"

 

[StatusNil]

Not too mention how pandering is only bad when not aimed at straight men. People lose their shit because Kung Jin in Mortal Kombat is pandering to gay people but don't care that DOAX exists solely to give nerds boners.

"Come on now, Dead or Alive is a symbol of freedom of speech. Don't you dare attack it! Damn SJWs trying to take our games away."

"Hey that character doesn't need to be gay. SJWs are always trying to push their ideology on others! Why do games have to be about politics anyway?"

Nothing wrong with pandering to gay people. It's that thing where people are singing praises for the supremely noble cause of gay sexiness out of one side of their mouth, and simultaneously have nothing but foam and bile spewing out of the other for the pernicious crimes of the hetero gaze that tends to piss lots of people off. You know, fashionable heterophobia. Much of it seemingly internalized in the case of the "progressive" gaming press.

 

[Dizchu]

Nothing wrong with pandering to gay people. It's that thing where people are singing praises for the supremely noble cause of gay sexiness out of one side of their mouth, and simultaneously have nothing but foam and bile spewing out of the other for the pernicious crimes of the hetero gaze that tends to piss lots of people off. You know, fashionable heterophobia. Much of it seemingly internalized in the case of the "progressive" gaming press.

"Heterophobia"... right.

When things are accused of "pandering to gay people", often those things aren't pandering to gay people, they just feature gay people. If you had a game where the protagonist is heterosexual and you had no way of changing it, most gay people wouldn't be able to care less. Some might find it frustrating, but you'd hardly see a backlash. If you had a game where the protagonist is gay and you had no way of changing it, people would be sending the developer death threats.

 

[Something Amyss]

T

What I'm trying to say is, things like this seem token.

And they seem token because of the effect you already referenced with black people. They may exist, but they don't in media and thus are treated as a character trait rather than just treating them as humans. The exact problem is this notion that there needs to be a reason to not be a straight, white, cis male. They will seem token as long as this idea persists.

I live in a state that's 96% white and I see more diversity daily than I do in a lot of the media I consume. The only reason I say a lot is because I actively have to seek out media on issues I care about. I mean, think about it honestly. Are you at all bothered when a character's whiteness doesn't inform their character? Really, why should anything else need justification?

Not too mention how pandering is only bad when not aimed at straight men. People lose their shit because Kung Jin in Mortal Kombat is pandering to gay people but don't care that DOAX exists solely to give nerds boners.

Hell, it's more than that. People lose their shit when straight males aren't pandered to, are pandered to slightly less, or it's suggested that maybe the pandering might be a little excessive. If there's one thing that really bothers me about "progressive" things it's how absolutely low the bar has to be to count. It really seems like anything not pandering directly to the straight white dude is considered pandering and quite likely "SJW," whatever that really means.

In short, I think it goes beyond not caring to the point of active antipathy.

 

[StatusNil]

"Heterophobia"... right.

When things are accused of "pandering to gay people", often those things aren't pandering to gay people, they just feature gay people. If you had a game where the protagonist is heterosexual and you had no way of changing it, most gay people wouldn't be able to care less. Some might find it frustrating, but you'd hardly see a backlash. If you had a game where the protagonist is gay and you had no way of changing it, people would be sending the developer death threats.

The post you quoted was talking about "pandering" specifically, claiming that it's only accepted (presumably by "gamer culture" or something) when it's aimed at straight men. Which I feel is a seriously mistaken assumption. So I too am talking about "pandering", in a "fan service" sense, and I'm not using it in any accusatory way. The way I see it, games are in some ways closer to enacting fantasies than traditional notions of "Art", so it's only natural they would pander.

And let's face it, the games press does in fact exhibit the hypocrisy I mentioned. Dragon Age is lauded because of its gay sex scenes (and many of the self-hating straight beardoes who wrote about it were careful to mention they pursued the gay "romance option"), while it's safe to say we're at least waist high in shrill condemnations of the "objectification" inherent in fan-servicing the straight demographic, penned by the very same individuals. This is a double standard, and not one excused by considering exclusionary history, since the people of here and now weren't there to revel in the privilege/endure the marginalization. Reversing prejudices is still embracing the principle.

 

[Dizchu]

The post you quoted was talking about "pandering" specifically, claiming that it's only accepted (presumably by "gamer culture" or something) when it's aimed at straight men. Which I feel is a seriously mistaken assumption. So I too am talking about "pandering", in a "fan service" sense, and I'm not using it in any accusatory way. The way I see it, games are in some ways closer to enacting fantasies than traditional notions of "Art", so it's only natural they would pander.

Yeah and games designed for "straight men" (more like teenage boys, but whatever) aren't considered "pandering" unless they have excessive fanservice or appeal to the dumbest teenage wish-fulfillment fantasies, while games that happen to have non-optional LGBT themes are considered to be "pandering to gays and SJWs" by default.

And let's face it, the games press does in fact exhibit the hypocrisy I mentioned.

That's quite an extraordinary claim. Demonstrate it.

Dragon Age is lauded because of its gay sex scenes (and many of the self-hating straight beardoes who wrote about it were careful to mention they pursued the gay "romance option"),

Why do straight men who play gay/bisexual characters have to be "self-hating"? Does this logic apply to gay people that play straight characters? I think the idea of straight people who play as gay/bisexual characters is pretty commendable, they're people who are willing to overcome the "ick" factor to have new experiences.

But as for "lauded because of its gay sex scenes"? Most of the praise I've seen has come from people admiring the amount of variety, and this has been true since the first Mass Effect which allowed a lesbian romance. There's nothing wrong with having straight sexual relationships in video games, when done right they get lauded as much as any gay romance does. The problem is that often when heterosexual romance or sexuality is portrayed in video games it's for the sake of empowering the player rather than offering an interesting character dynamic.

The truth is, when a game has a variety of romance options (like Dragon Age or Mass Effect) it's usually because it's taken a lot more seriously as a core aspect of the game. When a game uses sex and romance as a reward for the player being a badass it's usually depicted in a much more one-dimensional way, and is almost always a straight dude banging a hot chick. While the first Witcher caught some heat for the whole "trading card" thing, the series actually does straight romances pretty well in comparison to most other games and people have given praise where it's due.

while it's safe to say we're at least waist high in shrill condemnations of the "objectification" inherent in fan-servicing the straight demographic, penned by the very same individuals. This is a double standard, and not one excused by considering exclusionary history, since the people of here and now weren't there to revel in the privilege/endure the marginalization. Reversing prejudices is still embracing the principle.

What "prejudices"? You have yet to demonstrate any prejudices, you've just asserted that heterosexual sexuality in video games is usually criticised and homosexual sexuality is often praised. But you haven't considered why this might be the case. You haven't considered that a vast majority of video games that feature sexuality feature heterosexuality exclusively and statistically there's bound to be more prominent examples of shitty straight romances and sex scenes than gay ones just because gay romance and sexuality comprises such a tiny percentage.

 

[Silvanus]

I believe that the potential of art to communicate is 100% in the interpretation. A blind man cannot draw a drop of meaning from a painting, nor can a deaf man feel a single shred of joy from a concert. The entirety of expression from art lies purely in the interpretation of the art itself, more traditionally defined with the aforism "Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder". Furthermore, art has no future-predicting powers, else we'd see more of it working in the stock exchange. You are ofcourse free to argue that point, but I have yet to see a study where art outperforms predictive algorithms in any field.

Of course it's 100% in the interpretation; again, that goes without saying. That doesn't mean its potential is identical to that of toilet paper. There is a lot more depth and meaning to be interpreted in a well-crafted novel than a blank sheet; its ability to communicate isn't even comparable.

As for toilet paper saying things about us as humans, it again goes back to the interpretation. Without a frame of reference or the ability to interpret within the context (i.e. only an objective measurement), art is as communicating as toiletpaper.

Obviously. Thankfully, we do have those frames of reference, so the art is free to exceed toilet paper. It's no use imagining ourselves as blind mole-rats trying to interpret the two side-by-side; we're not. We're not stuck here relying on pointless objective measurements like cretins.

I fail to see how you draw this conclusion, especially in light of my previous post. Waaait, didn't you claim I was a "cynic" for "needlessly" stating that art was purely subjective?

The only way you can reduce art to the same level of communication is by removing all interpretation, and judging the two solely on objective measurements-- you even said so yourself above ("Without a frame of reference or the ability to interpret within the context (i.e. only an objective measurement), art is as communicating as toiletpaper [sic]").

The difference is that you actually did refer to objectivity.

If art has no objective meaning, how can it have an objective interpretation of any meaning?

It can't, which is why we're perfectly happy with subjective meaning.

 

[Queen Michael]

I believe we should praise stories for being progressive, but I don't think we should mistake it for artistic quality. Making a story more inclusive of minorities is like making a paperback novel out of recycled paper--it's a good thing, but it has nothing to do with its quality, or lack thereof, from an artistic point of view.