pantsonhead
Member
Just found the series today, already on episode 4 and loving it.
I just finished watching all six episodes, and I think your post sums up a key point nicely.Saw this earlier when someone brought it up in the Phil Fish thread and this mini series is really nice. If you just relax and step away from the conflict to view the video without emotion it becomes clear how unnecessary the hate is and also why the hate is (potentially) happening. Hopefully for some people who still fly the GG flag they will be more understanding of themselves. Because really it's about looking at yourself and realizing why you may be the "angry Jack". You don't have to be angry Jack and double down. If you switch sides and do away with the anger, it's a positive and not a hypocritical thing. We all make mistakes and hold views that we later regret. It is better to admit that than never making the change if we recognize in our hearts it's the right thing to do.
"Angry Jack" being this byproduct of the games industry's sudden heavy marketing shift towards teenage and adolescent boys in the 90's feels very on point. Having been a regular participant on internet communities since 1999, that's pretty much the stereotype of the average "gamer" participating on forums and such which I have built up in my head over the years, and on numerous occasions I do feel this undercurrent of them basically laying claim to gaming culture as a whole being for them. It's a very off-putting feeling, and would certainly explain a lot of the hostile attitudes as the industry keeps growing and encapsulating wider demographics.
DERP, massive typo/missed word there "I DON'T get"...is what it should say..
This series says everything that I've wanted to say but couldn't quite organize eloquently. The progression makes logic proceed in steps instead of leaps, and the focus on, well, removing the focus on right and wrong, is quite refreshing from the normal "this is why the other group are assholes" rhetoric.
In general the slow and pissweak response from the industry was (and still is) really harmful.https://youtu.be/c6TrKkkVEhs?t=727
This is why the ethics policy change certain sites mades made in response to gamergate was so harmful. That and it legitimized the movement so well that it had to take Zoe Quinn posting the irc chatroom to turn it back around.
Gamergate? Nah.
What grinds my gears is the nickle and diming on bullshit that should be free, devs/pubs releasing incomplete games, and patches that cause more harm than good.
Well-made videos, if a bit condescending (the atheist part was rather insulting). Few things are ever monocausal, andSome good points, though.trying to categorize and explain the motivation of an entire group of people the way he does is basically stereotyped thinking.
Is feminism a group identity based on being oppressed?I almost fell over in the GG video when he talked about how the GG's group identity is based on being oppressed and thus GG'ers always has to find the next villain. It's a never ending cycle. A feminist supporter just said that with a straight face. I wonder if he thinks feminism will ever end, or will it always need another villain to feed the group's identity?
I almost fell over in the GG video when he talked about how the GG's group identity is based on being oppressed and thus GG'ers always has to find the next villain. It's a never ending cycle. A feminist supporter just said that with a straight face. I wonder if he thinks feminism will ever end, or will it always need another villain to feed the group's identity?
you're not serious, right?I almost fell over in the GG video when he talked about how the GG's group identity is based on being oppressed and thus GG'ers always has to find the next villain. It's a never ending cycle. A feminist supporter just said that with a straight face. I wonder if he thinks feminism will ever end, or will it always need another villain to feed the group's identity?
*My post isn't about how this applies to GamerGate, it's just about the issue/idea that he's raising in the second video.*
I think he's completely missing some very importance issues regarding identity politics and value judgments. Declining something is not the same thing as expressing your identity and it's disingenuous to act as if someone doing that is completely innocent or not instigating anything on a political level (not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but you're not doing 'nothing'). Your answer and the reasoning for your answer are two very different things, but people act as if an expression of identity/reasoning is somehow undistinguished and default neutral when compared to the decision itself.
My friend says they are hungry and I offer them a bite of my sandwich. They could say "No thank you" or they could say "I'm a vegan". The former applies regardless of your reasoning, it is just an expression of your decision. The latter is not a pure expression of a decision, it is an expression of your rationale/identity. You're not responding to the question so much as you're stating your identity in a passive-aggressive way that puts the burden on me to work through what your identity means and how it applies in the context of my question and what conclusion that should lead me to reach about what your response is. That is not apolitical and neutral.
Now many people are just thinking ahead and assuming that the next question from the person will be "Why don't you want my sandwich?" or some other kind of aggressive political interrogation; they're just trying to shut that down before it happens: "I just want to decline a sandwich without having to make it political". But this is the same kind of problematic thinking that we're castigating the question asker for: "I just want to offer a sandwich to my friend without it becoming political". The difference is that the respondent is the one interjecting politics directly in a flawed attempt to circumvent it, and then complaining that the other party responded to that latent expression of values in a normal way.
If you're going to skip a step in the conversational process and assume that it's going to get political, then there's no reason to be surprised that people's responses will similarly skip a step.
The only reason you don't see it as being apolitical is because of your feelings towards the explanation given for why they don't want the sandwich, there is nothing inherently political about someone's personal choices. That's like, the entire point of that episode.
I mean, if someone says "oh no thanks, I'm on a diet at the moment" do you immediately assume they're calling you a fatass?
"Do you want to come to my Christmas party?" "I'm an atheist" "So is that a yes or a no?"
You being an atheist tells me nothing in of itself about whether you want to attend my Christmas party or not. Only if it carries latent values associated with it can it even be understood as a response to my question, "Oh, I guess atheists disapprove of holidays with religious history or overtones, therefore, you probably don't want to attend my party which will be Christmas themed." Saying no or yes is not the same thing as stating your identity.
Well, from my experience, if you don't refuse a drink and tell people you don't drink, they'll offer you a different alcoholic drink - because that's the polite thing to do. They are trying to give me something I'll enjoy, I appreciate the gesture, but I need to politely tell them I don't drink. Whoever thinks there's anything political about such situation is in the wrong, IMO.*My post isn't about how this applies to GamerGate, it's just about the issue/idea that he's raising in the second video.*
I think he's completely missing some very importance issues regarding identity politics and value judgments. Declining something is not the same thing as expressing your identity and it's disingenuous to act as if someone doing that is completely innocent or not instigating anything on a political level (not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but you're not doing 'nothing'). Your answer and the reasoning for your answer are two very different things, but people act as if an expression of identity/reasoning is somehow undistinguished and default neutral when compared to the decision itself.
My friend says they are hungry and I offer them a bite of my sandwich. They could say "No thank you" or they could say "I'm a vegan". The former applies regardless of your reasoning, it is just an expression of your decision. The latter is not a pure expression of a decision, it is an expression of your rationale/identity. You're not responding to the question so much as you're stating your identity in a passive-aggressive way that puts the burden on me to work through what your identity means and how it applies in the context of my question and what conclusion that should lead me to reach about what your response is. That is not apolitical and neutral.
Now many people are just thinking ahead and assuming that the next question from the person will be "Why don't you want my sandwich?" or some other kind of aggressive political interrogation; they're just trying to shut that down before it happens: "I just want to decline a sandwich without having to make it political". But this is the same kind of problematic thinking that we're castigating the question asker for: "I just want to offer a sandwich to my friend without it becoming political". The difference is that the respondent is the one interjecting politics directly in a flawed attempt to circumvent it, and then complaining that the other party responded to that latent expression of values in a normal way.
If you're going to skip a step in the conversational process and assume that it's going to get political, then there's no reason to be surprised that people's responses will similarly skip a step.
That particular one is a bad example, Christmas is arguably a secular holiday at this point, but the rest work to his point.
Well, from my experience, if you don't refuse a drink and tell people you don't drink, they'll offer you a different alcoholic drink - because that's the polite thing to do. They are trying to give me something I'll enjoy, I appreciate the gesture, but I need to politely tell them I don't drink. Whoever thinks there's anything political about such situation is in the wrong, IMO.
I just want to try to distinguish the point I'm trying to make here. I'm arguing that yes, the personal is political, and personal choices, actions, and even speech carries latent values associated with them. I'm not trying to argue that this is necessarily a bad thing or something that we don't want to occur. I'm just taking issue with an argument that proceeds from "This action has no subtext associated with it" when it clearly does (in my opinion anyway).
If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum). That doesn't mean that saying you're a vegan is a 'bad' or 'wrong' response, but it's certainly not a 'neutral' response. A neutral response is simply "no". Take his car/environmentalist example. I offer my friend a ride in my car, he says "I'm an environmentalist". That can't tell me anything about his decision unless the context is supplying a negative relationship between environmentalists and the use of cars. Else I could simply ask "Do you as an environmentalist want a ride in my car?" and he might say yes, after all perhaps he only strongly limits, not entirely excludes, the use of cars in his life.
There's a spectrum of political behavior with that of the individual on one hand and that of governments on the other.
If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum).
Everyone has their own biases, on any subject you want to name - that's where politics originates from. GGers have their own biases, as do those who oppose them, and that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is patently, empirically wrong.I would say he betrays the idea that any of these positions are apolitical in the first part with his loaded description of getting coffee. Heck the implicit premise throughout the second video is that the default position is taken without thought and that the opposition to alternates positions can simply be explained by guilt or cognitive dissonance.
If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum). That doesn't mean that saying you're a vegan is a 'bad' or 'wrong' response, but it's certainly not a 'neutral' response. A neutral response is simply "no". Take his car/environmentalist example. I offer my friend a ride in my car, he says "I'm an environmentalist". That can't tell me anything about his decision unless the context is supplying a negative relationship between environmentalists and the use of cars. Else I could simply ask "Do you as an environmentalist want a ride in my car?" and he might say yes, after all, perhaps he only strongly limits, not entirely excludes, the use of cars in his life.
There's a spectrum of political behavior with that of the individual on one hand and that of governments on the other.
I just want to try to distinguish the point I'm trying to make here. I'm arguing that yes, the personal is political, and personal choices, actions, and even speech carries latent values associated with them. I'm not trying to argue that this is necessarily a bad thing or something that we don't want to occur. I'm just taking issue with an argument that proceeds from "This action has no subtext associated with it" when it clearly does (in my opinion anyway).
If I offer you a sandwich and you say "I'm a vegan" instead of "yes or no", you're inherently making the issue political (the degree or severity to which you do so is obviously minor in the grand scheme of the spectrum). That doesn't mean that saying you're a vegan is a 'bad' or 'wrong' response, but it's certainly not a 'neutral' response. A neutral response is simply "no". Take his car/environmentalist example. I offer my friend a ride in my car, he says "I'm an environmentalist". That can't tell me anything about his decision unless the context is supplying a negative relationship between environmentalists and the use of cars. Else I could simply ask "Do you as an environmentalist want a ride in my car?" and he might say yes, after all, perhaps he only strongly limits, not entirely excludes, the use of cars in his life.
There's a spectrum of political behavior with that of the individual on one hand and that of governments on the other.
I wouldn't even say I care that much about feminism in gaming in the sense that social critique and other non-gameplay focused write ups are hard for me to really get into on a personal level and I have mixed feelings about Anita's views on a variety of topics, though the overall arguments in her videos were on TVTropes for a decade without the idiotic outrage. I don't think you have to come from a social-minded background to know GamerGate was way more about social-politics than actual games journalism. Hell, I openly dislike Polygon at this point but I don't feel it's due to dumb conspiracy shit or /pol/ style 'ironic' rants about progressives; I just feel it's sensationalist and any interesting articles are drowned out by more ones I dislike. Still knew GG was bullshit by the time the IRC chatlogs and screencaps of the original /v/ and /pol/ threads got spread more, and before then I wouldn't have said I was 'pro' so much as "I have no clue what the fuck is going on here and everybody gives a completely different account of events".That was excellent. The environment matters, and if I wasnt on NeoGAF since 2011, then I probably wouldnt see the perspective of feminism, as before I would not have contact with the problems in our world so why do these other people care so much about this which was a non-issue to me as a hetero dude. It sounds silly but sometimes you feel all the same stuff you care about should and only that stuff be universally cared about, otherwise it's "outrage culture amirite".
Yeah. It matters who the talk comes from, like Ian Danskin says in part 6 of this series. Similar in real life, if it comes from people you're familiar with (like Tim Schafer or David Jaffe or many videogame developers on Twitter), then you're more likely to hear them out and reflect.I wouldn't even say I care that much about feminism in gaming in the sense that social critique and other non-gameplay focused write ups are hard for me to really get into on a personal level and I have mixed feelings about Anita's views on a variety of topics, though the overall arguments in her videos were on TVTropes for a decade without the idiotic outrage. I don't think you have to come from a social-minded background to know GamerGate was way more about social-politics than actual games journalism. Hell, I openly dislike Polygon at this point but I don't feel it's due to dumb conspiracy shit or /pol/ style 'ironic' rants about progressives; I just feel it's sensationalist and any interesting articles are drowned out by more ones I dislike. Still knew GG was bullshit by the time the IRC chatlogs and screencaps of the original /v/ and /pol/ threads got spread more, and before then I wouldn't have said I was 'pro' so much as "I have no clue what the fuck is going on here and everybody gives a completely different account of events".
David Jaffe's a pretty good example of not needing that background to sniff out BS, plus it's interesting to note the reaction towards him was quite a bit more mild despite him openly calling them fucking idiots and thinking what happened to Anita was tragic. Probably a combination of him being too big an icon to go after even after months of trying to convince him to little effect, and there being nothing particularly big drama-wise to hook onto afterwards to discredit him, unlike Schafer who they wasted no time on latching onto that Space Base clusterfuck or the drama around Broken Age being split into two games.
In an alternate universe GG ignores all that because Schafer supports them, trumps up him and Double-Fine being gaming icons and instead goes after that horrible SJW anti-GG'r developer Mark Kern for Firefall's development drama. I can't entirely blame developers, especially smaller ones wanting to stay far away from talking about this one way or the other because no matter what you're somewhat fucked.
Gamergate? Nah.
What grinds my gears is the nickle and diming on bullshit that should be free, devs/pubs releasing incomplete games, and patches that cause more harm than good.
This.
Gamergate, though over blown over God knows what, was an isolated incident that no one will care about a year from now, let alone by the end of the year. People are angry, and most of the time, rightfully so, over questionable, poor or downright anti consumer business practices.
This.
Gamergate, though over blown over God knows what, was an isolated incident that no one will care about a year from now, let alone by the end of the year. People are angry, and most of the time, rightfully so, over questionable, poor or downright anti consumer business practices.