next »

[gimymblert]

That's what I'm talking about, they act this way because people act against them first, they were silent for a very long time just making game and be silently harass for doing so. They didn't start this, they react.

[poe]

Gimym I'm just surprised I've been able to follow what you're saying for this long. Anyways that makes a bit of sense but thanks for personally attacking me and saying I'm the kind of people that oppresses. Good to know, looks like I have no place in this community(and I mean big picture, not just TIGs) because I don't believe it's the place for 'social progress'. Funny I thought we were all here for games.

[gimymblert]

Well if you say these people have nothing to do here, you are the one oppressing, that's as literal as you can get without any judgement, they are defending their rights to be treat with dignity!

[s0]

How so? I just think their attention would be better suited elsewhere than a place where everyone mostly agrees with them.

what place? do you remember the backlash that games like gone home and depression quest got? i think videogames need "social justice activism" more than any other "medium" atm.

also you literally said you don't want to hear about "social justice" stuff because you don't care. how is that not egotistical?

also gimmy is right

[poe]

Alright, im wrong, ill just keep to myself then

[JWK5]

The problem I have with a lot of social activism is that they often wind up attempting to shame the same groups they claim to want sympathy from. The most effective ways to reach people are always going to be ways that are inclusive, not exclusive. Mutually understanding and sympathetic, not just understanding or sympathetic to one side. A connection has to happen.

I know for myself the whole "white male" stereotype/trope has made it very difficult for me to be as sympathetic as I could or should to certain issues because before I even get the chance to fully understand a lot of assumptions are made about who I supposedly am. Stepping away from the internet for a good while helped as "out in the real world" most people have more pressing things to do than play the "I'm better than you" game with everyone which makes it easier to reconnect and feel accepted again. Sometimes the internet is a treasure trove of insight but sometimes it is a pool of toxic waste.

There are a lot of "activists" who build little internet cults around themselves and whatever cause the supposedly are passionate about and then use this following to bully others and have fantasy power plays. It is a shame because it can leave a bad taste in other people's mouths about activism in general, especially when it merges or influences a media they enjoy.

I doubt that Poe is indifferent to social issues, or egotistical, I think Poe's feeling about 70% percent of indie game developers being "social activist tards" stems from "activist games" (for lack of better wording) getting a lot of notoriety which might make them seem more prominent, especially the more blatant ones. I would disagree with Poe on this not being the place for social progress, though, because any place of social interaction is a good place for social progress. The problem is everyone's definition of "progress" is different. Where someone might see one step forward another might see one step back.

You do have a place in this community, Poe, and the big picture but you've just got to be the one who puts more of what you want to see into the big picture. Frustration is going to happen because resistance is always present, whether it be others resisting you or you resisting others, but that resistance is only a wall if you stop moving forward.

[s_l_m]

I think that the nature of any social movement is that people will try to hijack it in order to advance themselves. And I definitely do agree that the "white male" stereotype is extremely counter-productive, it is a perfect example of preaching to the converted. Which I think is probably the biggest problem holding back modern North American liberalism, but that is besides the point. That being said though, I think that Gimmy is correct when it comes to the chicken and the egg thing. Most devs (and there are absolutely exceptions, but they are a minority) who get involved in social issues do it as a reaction against people as opposed to being antagonistic initially.

I think the issue is that if you are not (for example) gay and you don't harass gay people then you (not incorrectly) assume that they should not be angry at you. But from their perspective somebody is harassing them, and it is always a straight person, so they should be angry at straight people. That is basic human nature. I mean, I got beaten up by a football player I didn't know in a random act of violence and it was hard to not associate the anger with the entire group even though it was just one jock. I think that everybody (especially us) need to take more responsibility in reigning in the people who are in our group when they are acting antagonistically. I mean, we have all heard some guy harrasing a girl (again, example) online, and even if we didn't do it ourselves from her perspective she went online with a group of guys and got harassed.

[s0]

I doubt that Poe is indifferent to social issues, or egotistical

good because i never said that. i just said his statement was egotistical, i wasn't attacking him as a person.

also social causes aren't somehow invalidated because some people are bad at arguing for them or use them to feel good about themselves.

also also there's a difference between "white males" as a dominant social group (full disclosure: im white and male and i live in a country where white ppl are the majority) and white males as individuals. people who use "white male" as a stereotype to attack other ppl with are just bad activists, which, again, doesnt make "white privilege" and "male privilege" not exist

[poe]

Don't worry I got what you meant sinclair. Anyways I don't entirely want a place in the community if it's my way or the highway with social issues here, and I don't expect people to change if they're genuinely the majority (and the minority isn't being oppressed, just going to tack that on so someone doesn't take these words of context as a blanket statement for an ad hominem attack against me).

[JWK5]

which, again, doesnt make "white privilege" and "male privilege" not exist

This is true, but "privilege" is not so black and white. What privileges you have as a white male are going to be drastically different whether you have a rich, middle class, or poor income. What privileges you have will be drastically different deepening on where you live, if the community is predominantly not-white your "privileges" can easily become a severe disadvantage depending on the demeanor of the community. Your "privilege" in social issues regarding equality can easily be a stark disadvantage. "Privilege" is an ideal, in reality everyone has privilege only depending on certain circumstances or situations.

The social discord happens because people are heavily focused the privileges an individual has and not acknowledging the disadvantages they've been allotted. A good example is "affirmative action" which breeds contempt because many are focused on the unfair advantage rather than the fact that aside from that advantage the individuals often suffer other disadvantages. Yes, people have advantages/privileges, but that does not invalidate their suffering, their humanity, and their deserving of respect and decency. You judge a person by their character, not by their privilege or lack thereof. When you can do that the potential for connection is much greater and with that connection you will find the means to equality and empathy. A good person is a good person regardless of whether they are a rich person or a poor person, a white person or oherwise. Equality and justice is the product of passionately empathetic people, not witch hunters and zealous politicians. It takes a oonnection, not a pointing finger.

[JWK5]

Don't worry I got what you meant sinclair. Anyways I don't entirely want a place in the community if it's my way or the highway with social issues here, and I don't expect people to change if they're genuinely the majority (and the minority isn't being oppressed, just going to tack that on so someone doesn't take these words of context as a blanket statement for an ad hominem attack against me).

The thing you may not realize is that, I am willing to bet, at least 50% of TIGS probably agrees with your "make games not activism" stance, and it is not necessarily a wrong view. A lot of people play games because they want an entertaining experience, not to be "preached at". You're not the odd man out here (I myself am half-and-half, I like the idea but I feel they are too blatant about it, a good message is an unravelling mystery). If you feel the activism stance is "my way or the highway" then ignore it and let them do their thing. They are promoting what they are enthusiastic about, so focus on promoting what you are enthusiastic about. Do what you do and do it well and you will likely see the like-minded individuals coming out of the woodwork.

My agenda = this is games so let's just make games and not deal with other shit unless we want to.

I like your agenda, see it through. If people like you don't all I am left with is a bunch of "activist games", and that will get trite very quickly. I like variety and your particular video game sensibilities could very well be just what I am craving.

[SirNiko]

Internet forums are a poor place to deal with activism. The connections people form online are far weaker than the ones in the real world, leaving activists powerless against even casual acquaintances of their targets. The only way to get a reaction from somebody is to aggressively attack them, and as a result you wind up with discussions that lean towards the destructive, putting people on the defensive and closing them to your arguments. It also provides cover for griefers who just want to take a jab at others and get praised for it.

Video games are also a weak format to push social activism. One major dilemma is that game worlds are complete constructs of the developers, so the situations and results can be tweaked to accomplish whatever goal the developer wants to push. I can just as easily program a game where raising taxes and instituting centralized planning creates a happy, long-lived populace as I can make one where it ushers in Soviet Union style oppression. At best, you can present the player with scenarios and then follow them up with discussion and comparison to real world corollaries, but that once again leaves the ultimate power in the hands of real world acquaintances and not the game designers or internet forum discussions.

You can possibly overcome this weakness by directly connecting with individuals through the internet after establishing a connection over other matters, but you're looking at exhausting one-on-one efforts and still you have a handicap over real-world friends.

This is just a really awful place to be pushing social activism, and the way it's pushed hard in many threads (especially with moderators condoning or encouraging antagonistic posters because they have the 'correct' opinions) just winds up reinforcing negative opinions of opponents.

I also want to reiterate that JWK5 has it right - the only way to win people over is with inclusiveness. That's the single most useful comment in this discussion thus far. Coercion can win battles, but it won't end a war.

[gimymblert]

It will be interesting to see which game have a "preach" gameplay, there are some like molleindustry and generally most people are fine with it ...

A lot of argument above are just flat out wrong and misinformed, which show there is no desire to really understand the problem and reduce it to essentially an issue about "me". I attribute to the Gen Y narrative in which we were raise with the idea we are unique snowflake that can't be wrong the "I" became so much important ...

It's ironic to oppose the suffering of some to other because that's exactly what the argument end up doing. And actually ignore the real problem.

But let's talk about the harassing problem. A lot of people just don't understand the problem. It's not that "you" came there to be an asshole to systematically oppressed people. It's just that when they voice a concern (resident evil 5 is racist) they are met with dismissal, denial and rejection. The problem is that there is plenty fact and evidence that representation is harmful, borderline life threatening to some people, destructive of whole community and with NOWHERE to escape because it's the whole god damn society, that is the problem.

When they say please don't make your black character a thug and and a target and all response can be sum up as fuck you do you own things, and that when they do their own things they are said this is wrong and should not exist, that's the harassment they are talking about. That's similar to native american, they don't want to be reduce to stereotype of the past (noble savage with a feather in the head) and in trope that is used to make the oppressed culture (that have conduct a genocide on them after they taught them to feed and survive) seen only in a good light by erasing and not acknowledging their bad deed to their expense. Something they cannot fucking escape, that their land, dead remains and sacred items are sold and denied ownership to them. They just say please don't step on their toes, it hurts.

Worse is that people who do that think they are not really doing harm that they have their own right to do so! And they say why so angry, why so mean, why INVADING MY CLEAN PLACE and ask for inclusion when they themselves do not include and say they would rather take care of people close to them instead, ie drawing a wall altogether, and yet ask for being include? nonsense.

An example is that narrative about black not doing enough in america, that's why they are in poverty, i mean look at asian, they work their ass .... except black women have the highest rate of education, work earlier and longer and have the lowest rate of income ... It's not about moralizing, it's about all the bullshit that is said again and again by people who feign interest but aren't really interested except to defend themselves. They speak of connection yet avoid any of it, and cry fool when we point this to them, NO stop it! I'm privilege myself and can stand it and not feel ashamed. It's not about the random innocent white dude, that's a false narrative that don't stand scrutiny.

Their is no coercion from social activism, the coercion is the erasure of the problem and the silencing of those who suffer from it.

And saying is not the place to discussion fail at evidence like the discussion about women representation in game, art games and other who have grown to actual actions and awareness, and many correction that are improving with time. So that's a barrel roll fail 

[pottering]

pro-militarism is NOT activism?
pro-US, anti-Russia is NOT politics?

people don't want activism in their games?
BULLSHIT
they don't want activism they don't like

gamers complain about gaming not being taken seriously, then complain even more about gaming being taken seriously, pick one for godssake

and it is natural for people living off gaming(devs or not) and personally(real life) associated with it, to want gaming to be taken more seriously

[JWK5]

I'm privilege myself and can stand it and not feel ashamed.

Is anybody shaming you because you have privilege?  I think that is the part you are consistently overlooking. When someone, for example, says "white male is playing life on easy mode" what else are they doing but dismissing an individual because of their skin and gender. It speaks nothing of their character, their lot in life, their personal trials and struggles. It is a commentary on their being based solely on a stereotype. You are privileged yourself and can stand it, but who is shaming you for it? Who assumes because of your skin you have it easy? Who assumes because you have privilege you have it easy?

[s0]

uhhh privilege is a model to explain social dynamics, not a measure of your moral worth as a person.

"having privilege" = benefiting from social rules and norms that put a group you're part of at an advantage.

[JWK5]

uhhh privilege is a model to explain social dynamics, not a measure of your moral worth as a person.

Yet it is more often than not used as a measure of moral worth and as a weapon to shame. It is also a poor model of social dynamics because the actual dynamics vary wildly region to region, community to community, person to person. Signs of its failure are not hard to see.

Also, there is a very specific reason why people take the exclusive approach to a cause rather than an inclusive approach.

[s0]

It is also a poor model of social dynamics because the actual dynamics vary wildly region to region, community to community, person to person. Signs of its failure are not hard to see.

who ever said privileges are exactly the same everywhere? where are you getting that from?

person to person.

dynamics between social *groups*, not individuals. if you think a social theory is a "failure" because it doesn't account for every single case you're just misunderstanding sociology.

EDIT:
as i see it this sort of "appeal to the individual" argument is an attempt (conscious or not) to explain away real large scale problems (in this case systematic oppression) using semantics.

[s_l_m]

uhhh privilege is a model to explain social dynamics, not a measure of your moral worth as a person.

Yet it is more often than not used as a measure of moral worth and as a weapon to shame. It is also a poor model of social dynamics because the actual dynamics vary wildly region to region, community to community, person to person. Signs of its failure are not hard to see.

I think that is an interesting point, because it is true that there are exceptions to everything. In this case, quite a lot of exceptions. But I am going to defend a model that I do not entirely believe in here, because I think that is a good thing too do every once in a while.

Saying "white privilege" isn't supposed to imply that every white person has had it easier than every black person. The idea that that is its meaning is why I think so many people get mad at it. It only is meant to show that on average white people are starting with the upper hand in North American society and we need to remember that when dealing with racial relations. You can't directly compare violence or poverty levels in two communities when one of them only got their freedom ~150 years ago. It is like being right handed, left handed people can still do way better than them in life, or vice versa, and nobody even thinks twice about it. But that doesn't change the fact that on average society is tailored for right handed people and they will always have a slight advantage in that way. That is a very small example compared to racism but I hope it makes sense.

[gimymblert]

Tss of course all the time, I do something strange, I listen and informed myself, god where do you think all my argument came from? they came from making mistake and being corrected, it works like drawing, your perspective is wrong? go back to training and studying, what's the problem? no need to break down because my art/knowledge are wrong ... You know what we consider artist who break down onto those condition? why it would be different for any other subject? A lot of what I say is also fucking first hand witness, as I paid attention to what happen.

It's not about just having or not having it easy, a similar minority with your exact same condition will often be much more worse, especially because many opportunity will be close and also because there isn't even a way for escapism because even their the offering is toxic (which is the principal discussion within game) and that they are denied of positive role model. What do you think when people in a minority constantly have experience of being dismiss just by being different since they are fucking born?

I'm male, i identify myself as black but I'm on the lighter scale so people sometimes miss that part and I don't enjoy stereotypical black things either so it is easy to miss that. In fact I had to discuss with people on the darker side to notice the difference, especially when some of them outperform me on every single area and yet have a lot of hardness in life just because of their name and skin color. I'm privilege fuck yeah, I can literally blend within "white culture" folk if I want and see the difference. I also have this experience of being very poor among poor people, that's when I got the notion of privilege, at that time, just after my company sunk, I had no money, no light, no water, no heat in winter, yet noticing the despair of people around me just because I knew I have perspective and no glass ceiling. That's also when I decide to pursue indie dev not as a way to toy around but achieving specific goal no matter time it will take me, because I knew then any excuse would be just that. I also follow many minority people to have a clue about their everyday life and I can contrast it with my own life and I'm fucking happy I'm lighter on skin so I can enjoy a society of freedom and not a police state like darker people are living under LITERALLY, even with france. I have automatic sympathy because I'm tall and light skin and male, I can fucking see it. Of course I will listen to other, I use not to I get call on it.

Also notice you only became a white privilege male when you overstep on a privilege and act as if it's a right in itself. A luxury many minority don't even have, whatever they said they are just the freak, angry or not.