Why do some people get very defensive when discussing social aspects of games?

CannonFodder52 said:

If you want to use triggered, SJW or cuck unironically, that's your prerogative, but people are going to make assumptions about you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Someone saying cuck is basically an instant verification that they are an idiot. SJW I can excuse depending on the context. Triggered however, has basically become the go to word to describe getting annoyed by something. It's hard to make assumptions if someone uses the word triggered since it, along with snowflake, are heavily present in both left and right rhetoric.

00ich said:

"Why do some people get very defensive when discussing social aspects of games?"
"Because the perceived orthodoxy of progressive politics has prompted a backlash among people who feel their speech is being policed."

I'm not calling anybody SJW, it's a pejorative term and can hardly contribute to a fruitful discussion, but implying everybody who uses disqualifies himself as GGer is either plain misinformed or disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Think about your original quote for a second. Someone feels like their speech is being policed by SJWs. What kind of speech do you think they're saying that could upset people? What kind of groups use language like that? What kind of groups insult someone for not wanting them to use that language?

Using SJW unironically implies that the person thinks arguing about social issues is ridiculous and that people who do it are to be mocked for it. Of course anyone with common sense will think you're childish and self centered if you do that lmao.

Also the use of "triggered" is literally a ridiculization of a real mental condition that affects real people and by using and normalizing it you're trivializing their mental illness. Not sure if I have to explain why that's kinda sorta not good.

Accepting different opinions is one thing, but don't go using fascist rhetoric and expecting people to take you seriously.

I don't really mind, honestly.

People have the right to think freely. My first example and the one I hear the most about lately with the topics I visit is the Pyra's outfit case for Xenoblade 2.

True, it is revealing, I also think it's a bit much, but I don't make a huge case out of it since japanese games often are very...permissive with women's cloths. However it doesn't make it right, even less a good thing, but I won't prohibit myself from playing my favorite franchise's new entry for this. Xenoblade games had their fair share of revealing outfits.

I won't start pissing on people doing otherwise though. It's alright to be affected by things like that. It's also totally OK to not play the game as a form of protest. I kinda admire that, too, because it's lining up to be a great game and people missing it for this may miss a very good JRPG.

This is how I see it, having spent a decade on /v/, where this is most rampant. Gamers have been primed to be vigilant to attacks on games by outside forces thanks to the whole Jack Thompson debacle. A lot of gamers who spend the most time online and thus probably have the most power in shaping online gamer culture are probably more likely to have social hangups, which may lead to them blaming normies and women for shunning them, whether it's their fault or not. They decide gaming is "their" retreat, their one space to express themselves with like-minded people. They take on "gamer" as a large part of their identity. Years of existing in these communities where everyone around them is presumed to be white and male (because women and minorities either weren't there in the beginning or were silenced) convinced them all that women are not gamers, both because an elitist "they don't play HARDCORE games" mentality and that they haven't shared the same social woes as them (they think being a woman is incredibly easy because they can just use their body to get anything they want).

So what you have from their perspective is women and minorities, who are outside gaming culture, attacking video games for pretending they're only for white men when white men ARE the only ones playing them, and even further than that, being a gamer means being a white man hiding away from society. They feel their safe space is being invaded by people who fundamentally aren't like them, who will take games away from them and dilute what it means to be a gamer (a large part of their identity).

Opa-Pa said:

Using SJW unironically implies that the person thinks arguing about social issues is ridiculous and that people who do it are to be mocked for it. Of course anyone with common sense will think you're childish and self centered if you do that lmao.

Also the use of "triggered" is literally a ridiculization of a real mental condition that affects real people and by using and normalizing it you're trivializing their mental illness. Not sure if I have to explain why that's kinda sorta not good.

Accepting different opinions is one thing, but don't go using fascist rhetoric and expecting people to take you seriously.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I agree with you that the use of "triggered" can be seen as trivializing mental illness, but the term has been watered down so much by inappropriate usage from places like Tumblr (Halloween, pomegranates, planes) that it was already seen as sort of a joke before the "TRIGGERED" memes came into play. By this point you just have to accept that the term is unsalvageable and is basically going to be associated as another way of saying "I'm Annoyed" or "I don't like this"

You know, like how half of the uses on this site don't use the correct definition of "milkshake duck" but insist on using it inappropriately by saying the meaning of words change over time. The public perception of triggered has changed over time. Nothing you can really do about it.

PKrockin said:

This is how I see it, having spent a decade on /v/, where this is most rampant. Gamers have been primed to be vigilant to attacks on games by outside forces thanks to the whole Jack Thompson debacle. A lot of gamers who spend the most time online and thus probably have the most power in shaping online gamer culture are probably more likely to have social hangups, which may lead to them blaming normies and women for shunning them, whether it's their fault or not. They decide gaming is "their" retreat, their one space to express themselves with like-minded people. They take on "gamer" as a large part of their identity. Years of existing in these communities where everyone around them is presumed to be white and male (because women and minorities either weren't there in the beginning or were silenced) convinced them all that women are not gamers, both because an elitist "they don't play HARDCORE games" mentality and that they haven't shared the same social woes as them (they think being a woman is incredibly easy because they can just use their body to get anything they want).

So what you have from their perspective is women and minorities, who are outside gaming culture, attacking video games for pretending they're only for white men when white men ARE the only ones playing them, and even further than that, being a gamer means being a white man hiding away from society. They feel their safe space is being invaded by people who fundamentally aren't like them, who will take games away from them and dilute what it means to be a gamer (a large part of their identity).

Spoiler

You can see how these people are prime targets for white nationalists looking to spread their ideology, but that's beside the point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Actually, looking back to the 2000's, I can see why some games don't believe that argument that the fictional depiction of woman can lead to sexism, since such a long time was spent promoting the idea that there was absolutely no correlation between violence and video games.

This just makes me miss that 2000's era of gaming. It was a simpler time.

PKrockin said:

This is how I see it, having spent a decade on /v/, where this is most rampant. Gamers have been primed to be vigilant to attacks on games by outside forces thanks to the whole Jack Thompson debacle. A lot of gamers who spend the most time online and thus probably have the most power in shaping online gamer culture are probably more likely to have social hangups, which may lead to them blaming normies and women for shunning them, whether it's their fault or not. They decide gaming is "their" retreat, their one space to express themselves with like-minded people. They take on "gamer" as a large part of their identity. Years of existing in these communities where everyone around them is presumed to be white and male (because women and minorities either weren't there in the beginning or were silenced) convinced them all that women are not gamers, both because an elitist "they don't play HARDCORE games" mentality and that they haven't shared the same social woes as them (they think being a woman is incredibly easy because they can just use their body to get anything they want).

So what you have from their perspective is women and minorities, who are outside gaming culture, attacking video games for pretending they're only for white men when white men ARE the only ones playing them, and even further than that, being a gamer means being a white man hiding away from society. They feel their safe space is being invaded by people who fundamentally aren't like them, who will take games away from them and dilute what it means to be a gamer (a large part of their identity).

Spoiler

You can see how these people are prime targets for white nationalists looking to spread their loser ideology, but that's beside the point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Good post buddy.

Phalk
You still around?
I'm still wondering what site I should join to talk about social issues?

Or were you just telling people to take it off of this site, without caring where else it goes? I know you SAID that wasn't your intention. But it kinda looks like it was, if you can't offer a real recommendation?

PKrockin said:

This is how I see it, having spent a decade on /v/, where this is most rampant. Gamers have been primed to be vigilant to attacks on games by outside forces thanks to the whole Jack Thompson debacle. A lot of gamers who spend the most time online and thus probably have the most power in shaping online gamer culture are probably more likely to have social hangups, which may lead to them blaming normies and women for shunning them, whether it's their fault or not. They decide gaming is "their" retreat, their one space to express themselves with like-minded people. They take on "gamer" as a large part of their identity. Years of existing in these communities where everyone around them is presumed to be white and male (because women and minorities either weren't there in the beginning or were silenced) convinced them all that women are not gamers, both because an elitist "they don't play HARDCORE games" mentality and that they haven't shared the same social woes as them (they think being a woman is incredibly easy because they can just use their body to get anything they want).

So what you have from their perspective is women and minorities, who are outside gaming culture, attacking video games for pretending they're only for white men when white men ARE the only ones playing them, and even further than that, being a gamer means being a white man hiding away from society. They feel their safe space is being invaded by people who fundamentally aren't like them, who will take games away from them and dilute what it means to be a gamer (a large part of their identity).

Spoiler

You can see how these people are prime targets for white nationalists looking to spread their ideology, but that's beside the point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You make a really good point about the events of the '00s sort of priming gaming culture, as a collective, to react negatively to perceived outside influence or what we see as attempts at 'regulation'. The whole "video games don't make you into a mass murderer" thing kind of spun out into "fiction doesn't influence us at all" with our perceived victory there, and that may well have laid the groundwork for what we're experiencing now on some level in retrospect. This is an interesting look into another angle of some of the stuff going on here--much appreciated.

NexusCell said:

Actually, looking back to the 2000's, I can see why some games don't believe that argument that the fictional depiction of woman can lead to sexism, since such a long time was spent promoting the idea that there was absolutely no correlation between violence and video games.

This just makes me miss that 2000's era of gaming. It was a simpler time.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That was more reactionary than anything else. Many of the studies trying to demonize violent games were biased and flawed, but not all studies were. More recent studies found correlations between short term aggression and games, which is completely understandable. Games can and will have effects, just like any medium can. It just isn't the "video games make people violent, drive them to kill" rhetoric.

NexusCell said:

I agree with you that the use of "triggered" can be seen as trivializing mental illness, but the term has been watered down so much by inappropriate usage from places like Tumblr (Halloween, pomegranates, planes) that it was already seen as sort of a joke before the "TRIGGERED" memes came into play. By this point you just have to accept that the term is unsalvageable and is basically going to be associated as another way of saying "I'm Annoyed" or "I don't like this"

You know, like how half of the uses on this site don't use the correct definition of "milkshake duck" but insist on using it inappropriately by saying the meaning of words change over time. The public perception of triggered has changed over time. Nothing you can really do about it.



Actually, looking back to the 2000's, I can see why some games don't believe that argument that the fictional depiction of woman can lead to sexism, since such a long time was spent promoting the idea that there was absolutely no correlation between violence and video games.

This just makes me miss that 2000's era of gaming. It was a simpler time.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Nah, I'm not cool with handing those fuckers the ability to be ableist with abandon. That's not how language changing works, particularly when part of the reason they use "triggered" like that is they know that they're using it incorrectly, because that's aggravating.

Also, none of those usages from Tumblr, etc. "waters it down". If you see them as a joke you're either 1. laughing at someone who's mentally ill and clearly dealing with something even if they're not going about it in an ideal way, or much more likely 2. falling for a troll post that then gets trotted out as an example to justify this behavior.

On the topic of the term "SJW", it absolutely has entered the nerd culture zeitgeist. To deny that is similarly living in a bubble. If you want to say it's because nerd culture has become extremely toxic, I agree. Places like pre-apocalypse gaf, Era or Gamerghazi are in the VAST minority. Youtube, Twitch, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, the comment section EVERYWHERE; these are what influences the direction the community at large takes and those places are dominated by that kind of language.

That being said, while the usage of the term bothers me a lot, I do think how widespread it is makes it easier to give someone a break depending on the context. We can't get rid of these people if we want to interact with the gaming community to any large extent.

It happens in other forms of media too.

Perhaps opposite to the OP but I was recently called an intolerant racist for questioning why not only the new MJ Parker was a brown girl but also Peters other lover in interest. Not to mention flash being an Asian lad.

I found this very funny as I happen to be a black guy

A lot of people play video games to escape the problems of the real world. When playing a game, they do not want to think about these kinds of things because its suppose to be their escape from it. With that being said, those people can easily not click on a thread.

cosmicblizzard said:

On the topic of the term "SJW", it absolutely has entered the nerd culture zeitgeist. To deny that is similarly living in a bubble. If you want to say it's because nerd culture has become extremely toxic, I agree. Places like pre-apocalypse gaf, Era or Gamerghazi are in the VAST minority. Youtube, Twitch, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, the comment section EVERYWHERE; these are what influences the direction the community at large takes and those places are dominated by that kind of language.

That being said, while the usage of the term bothers me a lot, I do think how widespread it is makes it easier to give someone a break depending on the context. We can't get rid of these people if we want to interact with the gaming community to any large extent.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ah, yes, Twitter, comment sections, YouTube comments, 4chan, and Reddit...if a term is used commonly there, we should definitely just accept that the usage isn't so bad anymore and doesn't have such a negative connotation as it used to.

If anything, if certain terms are used frequently in those circles, it should be a sign that we shouldn't take the usage of the term for granted or give it the benefit of the doubt.

cosmicblizzard said:

On the topic of the term "SJW", it absolutely has entered the nerd culture zeitgeist. To deny that is similarly living in a bubble. If you want to say it's because nerd culture has become extremely toxic, I agree. Places like pre-apocalypse gaf, Era or Gamerghazi are in the VAST minority. Youtube, Twitch, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, the comment section EVERYWHERE; these are what influences the direction the community at large takes and those places are dominated by that kind of language.

That being said, while the usage of the term bothers me a lot, I do think how widespread it is makes it easier to give someone a break depending on the context. We can't get rid of these people if we want to interact with the gaming community to any large extent.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I agree with your first paragraph, but not your second. It is unfortunately definitely become common enough that its usage does not indicate that they're tied to Gamergate or even know what it is. However, its usage still indicates agreement with the same hateful misunderstanding at best that Gamergaters believe in.

I'm willing to give people the slightest benefit of the doubt - particularly if English isn't their first language - that they used it for shorthand when they don't really agree with its full implications and really didn't know any better. But that's harder and harder to believe as more of these discussions happen in these communities, and I'm not going to say that its usage overall should be excused. They absolutely should shape up or get out. I am completely fine with being exclusionary of people who push regressive ideas; my "gaming community" does not include these people.

NexusCell said:

I'm pretty sure these sorts of arguments are less of an effect of "bad faith" and more of an effect of the wide spectrum of opinions regarding sexism in games. You have plenty of people thinking that female nudity in any form is bad, and plenty of people who think that it can be empowering if it is framed correctly.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, no, you can't just say "plenty of people thinking female nudity in any form is bad." Find the posts that are objecting to nudity itself, and not the objectification around it.

Something something when you're accustomed to privilege equality feels lle oppression, and as we know there's no worse oppression than taking away white manbabies' digital bewbs.

I don't agree that we shouldn't try to avoid the usage of words with bad connotations behind them though. Like using "retarded" as an insult is super common and a bunch of people probably think it's harmless but that doesn't make it any less shitty.

I'm not "against" the use of SJW per se either, it's definitely become popular for better or worse but the intent of the word is there and if you go around using it people are gonna assume things about it and rightfully so. I don't think anyone who says SJW is a person with progressive beliefs after all.

As for "triggered", this one I kinda understand that slips by, so when someone close to me uses it I simply explain to them where it comes from, and if after that they still insist on using it then yeah, that says something about them.

Morrigan said:

That is not what happened at all.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"Yes it is."

I mean, just because you're a moderator and say something in a terse definitive way isn't going to impress me into being convinced you're right. It wasn't that long ago that neogaf (the community) handled the whole incident with the pedophile moderator, someone a lot more involved in the community than the owner, with barely a flinch. There were definite changes in the overall attitude of the community leading up to the harassment issue, which I believe was probably a lot more obvious to someone who wasn't a part of it. A change that without which I sincerely believe would not have caused the site to collapse the way it did.

The whole unforgiving moral righteousness schtick can survive exactly as long as it takes for someone to realize you aren't perfect, either.

Einbroch said:

I can only speak from my perspective, but being called a creep, pervert, loser, man-child, pedophile and so on because of an opinion immediately puts me on the defensive and there is hardly any recourse for said person who throws out such hurtful insults.

I'm all for discourse and discussion, but I don't enjoy engaging in such debates. I've been reading the women in gaming thread here, and some users have had some wonderful things to say, but won't engage because of what some insults some users there are throwing out.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This, I feel like I'm being put down whenever this kind of discussion occurs and the criticism that's not personal almost feels personal because it attacks a multitude of things I love.
It makes me extremely defensive. I also feel like alot of times when discussions are being had I get shut down because I'm male, although I'm not white(I'm Asian)

Sometimes I feel like people are not treating other cultures seriously enough, because lots of times people just say things like "No being Japanese or whatever doesn't excuse it"
I feel like alot of times people saying that don't even know the social climate and values overseas, and dismissing it also feels disrespectful to me. The gaming landscape is hugely different overseas.
I would like to first engage in talking about the gaming landscapes oversea and then try to see where it goes from there and what is a more valid course of action rather than me saying
"This is because over there their social climate is different"
and then I get a response of "Just because it's ok there doesn't mean it's excused"
Lots of things are tied together and it is really hard to talk about these things sometimes.

More_Badass said:

Ah, yes, Twitter, comment sections, YouTube comments, 4chan, and Reddit...if a term is used commonly there, we should definitely just accept that the usage isn't so bad anymore and doesn't have such a negative connotation as it used to.

If anything, if certain terms are used frequently in those circles, it should be a sign that we shouldn't take the usage of the term for granted or give it the benefit of the doubt.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You say "those circles" as if they don't represent the community at large. They do. They ARE what gaming is right now. The developers know it, so they have to skirt a fine line. Youtubers know it because they can be exploited. Journalists know it because they're constantly being attacked. The most mainstream gaming award show caters directly to these people.

I don't want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but by not doing so I'm also accepting that the vast majority of my hobby is infected by awful people. Seeing as the majority of the games I play are niche Japanese stuff, that makes it worse. I'd rather see these people as misguided that can be convinced otherwise after getting more life experience than monsters. Because the alternative is indeed living in a bubble.

deepFlaw said:

I agree with your first paragraph, but not your second. It is unfortunately definitely become common enough that its usage does not indicate that they're tied to Gamergate or even know what it is. However, its usage still indicates agreement with the same hateful misunderstanding at best that Gamergaters believe in.

I'm willing to give people the slightest benefit of the doubt - particularly if English isn't their first language - that they used it for shorthand when they don't really agree with its full implications and really didn't know any better. But that's harder and harder to believe as more of these discussions happen in these communities, and I'm not going to say that its usage overall should be excused. They absolutely should shape up or get out. I am completely fine with being exclusionary of people who push regressive ideas; my "gaming community" does not include these people.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I only give these people the benefit of the doubt when I think there's an actual tangible miscommunication going on, which I think is what happens a lot of the time. If someone uses "SJW" for a keyboard warrior whose sole existence is to complain on Twitter or Tumblr with absolutely zero indication of any kind of attempt to change what they're complaining about, whether it be through the internet or activism or both, then I'm not going to go off on the person. If someone uses the term SJW for people that actually make an effort even if not everything lands just the right way, well that's a whole lot different unless they just flat out haven't been educated on it and are buying into skeptic outrage without actually doing any research themselves. The problem is the latter is extremely prevalent because outrage without having to think about it feels good; it's a cathartic experience. That's why outrage culture is a thing everywhere on all sides regardless of the topic, and it being part of the human condition likely won't go away.

The problem was never that these so called SJWs don't exist (it was a term created by the left even if it's been co-opted), it's that their power and reach is VASTLY overestimated to the point strawmen need to be constructed.

cosmicblizzard said:

On the topic of the term "SJW", it absolutely has entered the nerd culture zeitgeist. To deny that is similarly living in a bubble. If you want to say it's because nerd culture has become extremely toxic, I agree. Places like pre-apocalypse gaf, Era or Gamerghazi are in the VAST minority. Youtube, Twitch, Twitter, Reddit, 4chan, the comment section EVERYWHERE; these are what influences the direction the community at large takes and those places are dominated by that kind of language.

That being said, while the usage of the term bothers me a lot, I do think how widespread it is makes it easier to give someone a break depending on the context. We can't get rid of these people if we want to interact with the gaming community to any large extent.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I still see pushback from it's use in a lot of those places. People in some of the large gaming Reddits that I use will tell users to screw off if they start going on about SJWs, same with a few other fairly toxic gaming communities that I occasionally check in at.
In the Youtube comments sections of a lot of smaller communities or content producers, people will usually get lambasted for using SJW.
On Twitter I'm definitely in a bubble, but I still see majority pushback from it's use.

I agree that the prevalence of the term means new users to this site may deserve a bit of a break, but eh.

Persephone said:

Something something when you're accustomed to privilege equality feels lle oppression, and as we know there's no worse oppression than taking away white manbabies' digital bewbs.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah but... I'm black, and I don't think you can really be a manbaby when your 18 and play Varsity Football.

I just want to tell you that using that kind of antagonizing and patronizing language is really shitty and is what cosmicblizzard was talking about earlier when it comes to discouraging language, fucking stop it already, you are not helping.

HypedBeast said:

I don't think you can really be a manbaby when your 18 and play Varsity Football.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To be fair you can be a manbaby or manchild at anytime. It has nothing to do with age or sports you play or your profession. My father who is a 63 year old computer technician is a manbaby (not because of videogames but because of other things)

It has everything to do with your behavior. If youre acting like a decent person then you're all good and what persephone said has nothing to do with you. If youre someone who gets visibily upset and angry at the idea of video games even trying to be more inclusive and considerate, then yeah you're a manbaby.

00ich said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior#In_popular_culture

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/social_justice_warrior

It's in wide use.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That and

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism.[1] In 2011, when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Exactly what I've said in my first post about social medias, because until then it was a "philosophy" / progressive movement, then it went to shit thanks to Twitter and Tumblr, where people over identified with a label (once again) in order to claim some truly stupid stuff. Power of language used by the majority over basic perception, but I'll reiterate : at the base, it wasn't pejorative

I've never heard someone use "SJW" outside of the internet.

Persephone said:

Something something when you're accustomed to privilege equality feels lle oppression, and as we know there's no worse oppression than taking away white manbabies' digital bewbs.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not white, socially and financially independent and generally well adjusted so probably not doing great at the manbaby thing. I do like digital bewbs though, so I guess that should count for some manbaby points.

Potater said:

I've never heard someone use "SJW" outside of the internet.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

that's normal, you d hear social activist instead.

CannonFodder52 said:

I still see pushback from it's use in a lot of those places. People in some of the large gaming Reddits that I use will tell users to screw off if they start going on about SJWs, same with a few other fairly toxic gaming communities that I occasionally check in at.
In the Youtube comments sections of a lot of smaller communities or content producers, people will usually get lambasted for using SJW.
On Twitter I'm definitely in a bubble, but I still see majority pushback from it's use.

I agree that the prevalence of the term means new users to this site may deserve a bit of a break, but eh.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It definitely depends on the place. Though I think this discussion kind of goes beyond the "SJW" discussion and more into their being "tiers" of this stuff. I think Era and pre-apocalypse Gaf take hardline stances on things I don't think deserve one, at least as far as the social climate goes and the assumptions made about certain people as if they aren't multi-faceted human beings that have their own variable views. It's always one extreme or the other with no middle ground. And don't misunderstand that as me saying that some things deserve a middle ground, because there are absolutely "correct" sides to certain arguments, but not everything is like that.

Like, where do you put someone that supports LGBT rights, minority rights, is pro-choice, pro-gun control, etc, pretty much all their views are super progressive, but they make a lot of edgy jokes and will absolutely not budge on that one subject? Because those are the kinds of people that embody internet gaming culture from what I see, though they're unfortunately falling behind on the "T" part of LGBT rights, even people in that group like Blaire White.

Juan29.Zapata said:

Do you follow other news outlets? Like non gaming ones? I ask because non-gaming outlets talk a lot about this topic plus others. I don't see why gaming outlets can't talk about it without seemingly frustrating people. Are we that immature as a community that certain topics widely discussed by other communities are like taboo for us?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I read two newspapers pretty much every day. (Guardian, Irish Times) News isn't entertainment, though. I don't follow the news to relax, I follow it to be informed. With gaming, it's a relaxation leisure time hobby. Whether playing it or talking about it on here, the majority of the time I'm not looking to be challenged mentally or morally or what have you.

HammerFace said:

To be fair you can be a manbaby or manchild at anytime. It has nothing to do with age or sports you play or your profession. My father who is a 63 year old computer technician is a manbaby (not because of videogames but because of other things)

It has everything to do with your behavior. If youre acting like a decent person then you're all good and what persephone said has nothing to do with you. If youre someone who gets visibily upset and angry at the idea of video games even trying to be more inclusive and considerate, then yeah you're a manbaby.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That may be what she intended to do in her post, but she didn't explain any of that, and her post sounds just like every other passive aggressive "shit on people who get tired of these circular discussion" reply from the other thread (why women criticize female designs).

I just really hate passive aggression and snark in text form. I can ensure you that people who type this stuff wouldn't say their ideas like that to a real live human, so why would you talk that way to someone on the computer.

It is just that lack of netiquette that really pushes away anyone who they are trying to get on their sides.

I mean as a Black man I would love to see more Black characters in games, but every single time I go into a thread, the people arguing for inclusiveness sound like the most obnoxious, snarky motherfuckers. It just makes want to argue with them just because how much of an asshole they sound like.

Mind you Persephone isnt the worse person spewing this bullshit, I just happen to see her post and go off.

HammerFace said:

To be fair you can be a manbaby or manchild at anytime. It has nothing to do with age or sports you play or your profession. My father who is a 63 year old computer technician is a manbaby (not because of videogames but because of other things)

It has everything to do with your behavior. If youre acting like a decent person then you're all good and what persephone said has nothing to do with you. If youre someone who gets visibily upset and angry at the idea of video games even trying to be more inclusive and considerate, then yeah you're a manbaby.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

All of this ^^^^

If you're not upset that someone online is criticizing those digibewbs, then you're probably not an aforementioned manbaby even if you enjoy said bewbs

Persephone said:

Something something when you're accustomed to privilege equality feels lle oppression, and as we know there's no worse oppression than taking away white manbabies' digital bewbs.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This is the type of discourse that makes having conversations about social issues so hard. Let's stop with these sort of cheap shits alright?

CannonFodder52 said:

I still see pushback from it's use in a lot of those places. People in some of the large gaming Reddits that I use will tell users to screw off if they start going on about SJWs, same with a few other fairly toxic gaming communities that I occasionally check in at.
In the Youtube comments sections of a lot of smaller communities or content producers, people will usually get lambasted for using SJW.
On Twitter I'm definitely in a bubble, but I still see majority pushback from it's use.

I agree that the prevalence of the term means new users to this site may deserve a bit of a break, but eh.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They are also just as likely tell you to go away or downvote you if you go on rant and say something like "fuck white people" or "white male fragility"

Most people don't always want to talk about these issues, and people are able to recognize opinions that can, and usually will, start a shitstorm or argument in the comments.

Is legit something i do not get, the feeling attacked, "leave politics out of videogames" like i feel there are situations where the criticism isn't deserved and people should defend their views if the discussion is good hearted.

The problem is when you have fast heated discussions, is easy to get carried away.

Bán said:

I read two newspapers pretty much every day. (Guardian, Irish Times) News isn't entertainment, though. I don't follow the news to relax, I follow it to be informed. With gaming, it's a relaxation leisure time hobby. Whether playing it or talking about it on here, the majority of the time I'm not looking to be challenged mentally or morally or what have you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And yet some people do take the industry very serious and want it to grow as a medium and art form. Not having those articles would be a disservice towards that goal.

Steamedhams said:

"Yes it is."

I mean, just because you're a moderator and say something in a terse definitive way isn't going to impress me into being convinced you're right. It wasn't that long ago that neogaf (the community) handled the whole incident with the pedophile moderator, someone a lot more involved in the community than the owner, with barely a flinch. There were definite changes in the overall attitude of the community leading up to the harassment issue, which I believe was probably a lot more obvious to someone who wasn't a part of it. A change that without which I sincerely believe would not have caused the site to collapse the way it did.

The whole unforgiving moral righteousness schtick can survive exactly as long as it takes for someone to realize you aren't perfect, either.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

While I don't especially care about convincing you of anything, I must repeat that no, this isn't what happened. Most of the community knew nothing about Amir0x, this was all on the owner, as was the "implosion" you spoke of.

In any case, since that wasn't clear, my "terse definitive" moderator post was basically me trying to tell you to drop this line of argumentation because it's not only off-topic and against our rules, but you're also essentially severely distorting the events in a way that does not appear honest to begin with. In any case -- stop derailing the thread with your "hot takes". If you're insisting on pursuing this NeoGAF debacle debate, you'll have to take it to PM.

weemadarthur said:

Phalk
You still around?
I'm still wondering what site I should join to talk about social issues?

Or were you just telling people to take it off of this site, without caring where else it goes? I know you SAID that wasn't your intention. But it kinda looks like it was, if you can't offer a real recommendation?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You should stick with what I said.

Also, Google is your friend. I won't advertise.

PKrockin said:

This is how I see it, having spent a decade on /v/, where this is most rampant. Gamers have been primed to be vigilant to attacks on games by outside forces thanks to the whole Jack Thompson debacle. A lot of gamers who spend the most time online and thus probably have the most power in shaping online gamer culture are probably more likely to have social hangups, which may lead to them blaming normies and women for shunning them, whether it's their fault or not. They decide gaming is "their" retreat, their one space to express themselves with like-minded people. They take on "gamer" as a large part of their identity. Years of existing in these communities where everyone around them is presumed to be white and male (because women and minorities either weren't there in the beginning or were silenced) convinced them all that women are not gamers, both because an elitist "they don't play HARDCORE games" mentality and that they haven't shared the same social woes as them (they think being a woman is incredibly easy because they can just use their body to get anything they want).

So what you have from their perspective is women and minorities, who are outside gaming culture, attacking video games for pretending they're only for white men when white men ARE the only ones playing them, and even further than that, being a gamer means being a white man hiding away from society. They feel their safe space is being invaded by people who fundamentally aren't like them, who will take games away from them and dilute what it means to be a gamer (a large part of their identity).

Spoiler

You can see how these people are prime targets for white nationalists looking to spread their ideology, but that's beside the point.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Very well said.

There are lots of factors: ignorance, lack of empathy, bad education and/or character. It hurts people when they have to face their flaws, specially when media always portray these people in good light compared to other groups lacking representation, they think they're some kind of superior authority because culturally it's what is implied in our psychopathic society. Slowly we're moving towards progress though, and slowly these elitist mindsets will die together with people that had this kind of primitive education.

Although we can't blame these people for what they are (since they are as much a product of a variable education as we are, some of us are lucky to be exposed to people that change our minds for the best, some of us not so much, living forever in a bubble), it's always worth the effort to try and shed light on ignorance, so more people can enjoy equally the results of entertainment and also gaming. The industry is always looking forward to deliver what makes money, the developers have a role in permeating a healthy mindset in their games, but we as a community also need to evolve in order to demand better representation and equality in gaming.

Western media in general is notably evolving these social aspects recently, because it sells. It shows how much people are beginning to feel free to enjoy their own lives, their own truths, and demand in turn that this real life is represented, because entertainment in general is about this, if you can't relate to what you're experiencing as a general pattern, you might as well not give a damn about it.

Phalk said:

You should stick with what I said.

Also, Google is your friend. I won't advertise.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well, gosh. This site gives me recommendations for robot vacuum brands, specialty ink and paper, pressure cookers, video games that are one sale today only, and I can't get a good place to talk about social issues in video games?

Your post just feels harsh to me, man.

Only skimmed the thread and feel most of the common elements have been covered, but personally I feel a big part of it is an inability to process nuanced perspectives on social issues. Racism, sexism and every other ism become binaries. Hence, critiquing Cuphead's design tropes becomes "people are saying Cuphead is racist!" It gets turned around too, so if you're arguing for say, greater female representation, then you somehow have to prove that it would ensure that a specific little girl would become president due to this representation otherwise there's no point and it's clearly a non-issue.

I guess part of this can be attributed to society's reactions to instances of racism/sexism, which can often be uncritical and performative, but given how widespread the cries of "keep politics out of thing!" are, I feel the bigger contributor would have to be general political/critical illiteracy.

I'm of two minds.

On one hand, I think representation matters and that people should be able to play as characters they identify with or someone they can latch on to. Video games are very powerful medium regarding that. I play fighting games, and the amount of diversity in that genre is kind of unparalleled in my experience. I think it's really cool you can choose to play about any race under the sun, lgbt people. Guilty Gear has a black man who is gay and in love with another man. I think stuff that like matters towards equalizing software so that it shows a more equal approximation of life so that people of different backgrounds can find appeal in them. I also find certain types of "causes" (if I could call them that) in the industry, such as being against over sexualization of female characters, to be pretty worth fighting for.

On the other hand, I think people can take it too hard sometimes. These things I described above are pretty important, but it feels as if many people who fight for games to be inclusive sometimes go out of their way to demean something. I think Dragon's Crown is a good example. At the time of release there was lots of uproar about how it was demeaning to women. It's okay for people to express these beliefs, because it's everyone's right to hold their own opinions. But it becomes a problem when you start insulting the artist, for example, in a professionally published article, labeling them as "a fourteen year old". Don't get me wrong. Left leaning gamer's aren't the only ones prone to this.

There was the infamous DOAX3 situation where thousands screamed censorship because the title wasn't being released in western territories.

Or when it was announced the main character of GTA: San Andreas was going to be black. The same mess happened again with Mafia 3.

If a game offends people - whether because a character is black or because one of the female characters huge breasts - it feels like people go out of control with it. That's not to say these are remotely on par with each other, seen as being mad about a character being black is cold cut racism, but it reaches a point where the signal to noise ratio just gets out of whack. Where people who, at one point decried the very real problem of over sexualization of female game characters, now have a problem any time they see a video game character with big breasts - as if the mere idea of any sexualization period is enough to offend. And now any time Nintendo deems something inappropriate such as sexualizing a 12 year old female character so they scale her down to be more appropriate there's a whole legion of people screaming CENSORSHIP because they didn't get another character for their wank bank. Even if the causes are legit, sometimes it's hard to give a fuck and you just want to play video games.

I hope I've articulated myself well here as it's for me to do so regarding this subject. But, I'll try again: I get wanting the social justice in video games and making it important. But it gets to a point where it feels like people care more about the identity aspects and less about the actual game, to which is starts to feel more of an agenda rather than out of a place of love or care for the hobby.

RE: Social justice warrior, I admit that I use the word. I have found a specific type of person that I think fits the description of it. I know people among all political allegiances who use it. I don't think social justice warrior is the best way of saying it but it's the description for what we've got currently when observing a specific type of person's mannerisms and behaviors. I was told it was only the alt-right who use it, but my liberal and fellow leftist friends also use it.

Morrigan said:

People using the term SJW non-ironically tell us everything we need to know about them.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

This isn't fair at all.

Himuro said:

This isn't fair at all.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It certainly is. I've genuinely seen nothing of value come from someone who uses terms like SJW without a hint of irony. On top of that when you're using the term in the same way that fuckbois like Paul Joseph Watson do, you're immediately associating yourself with that type of person/rhetoric, even if you try to provide a "both sides" anecdote.. Discourse is in general much better when terms that are solely aimed at demonizing people who give a shit about social issues, represention, LBGT rights, etc. aren't allowed.

Himuro said:

This isn't fair at all.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yes it does. Why would you use the term non-ironically otherwise? It's used as a pejorative.

A More Normal Bird said:

Only skimmed the thread and feel most of the common elements have been covered, but personally I feel a big part of it is an inability to process nuanced perspectives on social issues. Racism, sexism and every other ism become binaries. Hence, critiquing Cuphead's design tropes becomes "people are saying Cuphead is racist!" It gets turned around too, so if you're arguing for say, greater female representation, then you somehow have to prove that it would ensure that a specific little girl would become president due to this representation otherwise there's no point and it's clearly a non-issue.

I guess part of this can be attributed to society's reactions to instances of racism/sexism, which can often be uncritical and performative, but given how widespread the cries of "keep politics out of thing!" are, I feel the bigger contributor would have to be general political/critical illiteracy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The Cuphead being racist thing is the exact shit I'm talking about.

This game was known about for years, and no one batted an eye. But it's released and suddenly they talk about how it's racist, despite no racist elements of the Fleischer era within it. It's like they're creating controversy for the sake of it. Stuff like the Dragon's Crown situation remind me of that.

Crossing Eden said:

It certainly is. I've genuinely seen nothing of value come from someone who uses terms like SJW without a hint of irony. On top of that when you're using the term in the same way that fuckbois like Paul Joseph Watson do, you're immediately associating yourself with that type of person/rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I disagree. Never seen nothing of value? That seems hyperbolic and like is extremely tribal. I don't see why using it places you among those people, either, and it's unreasonable to suggest that it is. I'm sorry, but that word and phrase has spread through the internet like wildfire. Tons of people use it and I think this is a reductionist manner of handling it rather than understanding why some people use it, what you could do to improve the situation. But this thing where you just dismiss anyone? I find it highly infantile.

massoluk said:

Yes it does. Why would you use the term non-ironically otherwise? It's used as a pejorative.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Have you considered that term might have become earned along the way?

There's literally nothing validating about a word being widely used, it has the same connotation whether it's 100 people using it or a million. Do slurs not tell you anything about the person using them? Or does the fact that a lot of bigots use them somehow make it any different?

And no, I'm not implying SJW is one, lol.

Himuro said:

I disagree. Never seen nothing of value? That seems hyperbolic and like is extremely tribal. I don't see why using it places you among those people, either, and it's unreasonable to suggest that it is. I'm sorry, but that word and phrase has spread through the internet like wildfire. Tons of people use it and I think this is a reductionist manner of handling it rather than understanding why some people use it, what you could do to improve the situation. But this thing where you just dismiss anyone? I find it highly infantile.

Have you considered that term might have become earned along the way?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, I do not. Never. Why was it earned along the way. Entertain me.

Opa-Pa said:

There's literally nothing validating about a word being widely used, it has the same connotation whether it's 100 people using it or a million. Do slurs not tell you anything about the person using them? Or does the fact that a lot of bigots use them somehow make it any different?

And no, I'm not implying SJW is one, lol.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

You're right. The number of people who use a word doesn't mean anything. I'm merely articulating that the idea that it's merely an alt-right whistle is false and that you just create more enemies by drawing this line in the sand at the point.

Calling anyone who uses it alt-right or nazi, also doesn't do any favors and further divides people to unironically call others SJWs because in their mind, they're acting the exact way they they expect. Certainly, if people are going to point fingers and say using SJW is so, so awful, they'd cool it on calling anyone who disagrees with them as alt right scum, right?