A reviewer saying as much as "you can wear a sombrero and we think that's adorable" is a political statement. I think the problem is that you associate politics with criticism and negativity.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The Escapist getting relaunched, "leaving politics at the door"
- Thread starter KoolAid
- Start date
A reviewer saying as much as "you can wear a sombrero and we think that's adorable" is a political statement. I think the problem is that you associate politics with criticism and negativity.
This is like saying that not discussing politics with co-workers is also political, so therefore you can't avoid it, or choosing to not follow / engage in politics is a political statement. Sure, you can label it that way, but it's pretty clear what people mean when they say that they don't talk politics at work / with their family / wherever. No one seriously considers it political when they go buy sushi made by immigrant Chinese people for lunch.
I played the game and I didn't see any of that.
I don't think the game touches on those things at all.
I think it's just a fun game with no deeper meaning than just a fun way to pass the time.
Where do they say these kinds of things? What exactly do they say?
And you have the right to think that. But just like it's valid to look at, say, race and gender in Hollywood films, it's just as valid to look at cultural appropriation in Mario Odyssey. That doesn't mean your enjoyment of either Hollywood or Mario is any less, it's just given extra depth, if you choose to engage with it.
The word's extremely meaningful, as this thread pretty obviously presents. That said, most people don't really know what it means, and while its primary meaning is frequently used for relationships purely about exercising influence, such as those actions taken by heads of state, it's not limited to that. And politics, importantly, is still about a relationship. One that you have with both the world and with others.
And just because everything is political, it doesn't mean there aren't degrees. Objective information is generally considered less political than subjective information, as an example (though obviously, there can be exceptions).
And finally, just because something is pretty much what we do every day, it doesn't mean it's meaningless. We all exercise power every day, and nobody's going to debate power as meaningless, just because it's something that occurs every day in our lives.
Last edited:
I don't know where the "it's all about you" sentiment. I saw another post with that same "not everything is about you" comment as well.
I never said it was about me.
As I said in my post, using Super Mario Bros as an example, I think it is often assumed that the player is playing the game because they actually want to rescue the princess and that's what keeps them coming back. If you asked "what is Super Mario Bros about" then the answer could be "it's about rescuing a princess". The player may say "well I want to rescue the princess so lets-a go".
However the player may not consider the princess at all. Maybe the reason for playing Mario is not to rescue the princess but to kill time on a Saturday afternoon or to relax after a hard day at work. It could be both too but whatever it is the player will know what they want from the game.
The political element of Super Mario is only relevant when the player engages with it. They could actively choose to engage with it by seeking out and identifying the political elements or they could stumble across it in some way. Or they could play the game and never notice.
The reasons why a player plays a game becomes an important part of this conversation. If a player chooses to play Mario Bros for the story then clearly the political discussions that come with that are relevant. If the player chooses to play Mario Bros because "it's just fun" and ignores the story entirely then the larger political discussion falls by the wayside so long as the player is not actively engaging.
I believe that there is a large element of elitism at play here and I believe we have seen similar in relation to movies and music.
Some people totally love mindless popcorn entertainment and they take nothing away from it. Going to the movies is what they do on a Saturday night and if the movie happens to be a Michael Bay Transformers or some low budget horror film it doesn't really matter because they just want mindless entertainment.
Oftentimes these people are scoffed at because there is an idea that movies should be more than this. People who just want to be entertained are seen as less than the folks who watch a movie for 2 hours and then spend 2 weeks dissecting it to the nth degree.
Folk deride a lot of pop music in the same way. It's just shallow entertainment for "the masses". So what?
So if I say I think Mario Odyssey is just mindless fun to me then I wonder if I would be seen as a bit of a dummy by someone who thinks there is a much grander meaning to the game. Then again, maybe not. Maybe that's my own insecurity about just having fun with a game and not being able to see a deeper layer to the whole thing.
It is interesting to see the reactions to the idea that a discussion on games can be apolitical. There is seemingly a lot of mockery.
This creates some kind of hierarchy among the community. If you really just want to play the games for the fun of it then you can't really say that because the people who insist that "everything is political" are not willing to accept that sometimes there is no deeper motivation to a players gaming habits.
The Division and Bioshock may indeed be games with highly political undertones but if a player chooses not to engage with them then it's perfectly reasonable for the game to just be perceived as fun and nothing more.
So if a player wants to play The Division but also buries their head in the sand regarding the wider themes they should be scorned?
If you say "Bioshock is all about X, Y and Z" and I say "don't talk rubbish it's just a fun shooter" well are we saying there is going to be no sense of superiority there from the players who think they understand the themes or the political statements being made?
We see it over and over. People mocking others who are supposedly saying "keep politics out of games".
Would it better if I said "listen I just don't engage with games on a political level"? Or would I be told I'm wrong for doing that?
I was thinking if I went to a political event in London that was quite left leaning but once the debate got going I said "you know what I am not interested in politics" then it would be reasonable for the people there to conclude I am saying that because really I am trying to hide right wing views.
That's how it looks to be going here. The very act of saying "I am not interested in politics and don't care for politics in games" is seen as not just political itself but actually as far-right politics.
What does that say about the community as a whole when we see "let's leave politics at the door" but we read it as "the far right are welcome here"?
The conclusion I have come to is that people have become very entrenched in the belief that "games are political statements" that gamers who say "I don't see the political statement here and frankly I don't care to" are treated as some kind of enemy.
"Everything Is Political" is only true to the extent that a political lens can be applied to everything and anything.
The deeper meanings in Mario could be read in MANY different and maybe even contradictory ways. Or it could just be about killing time when you are bored.
If the player doesn't view the game through one of those lenses then the game becomes apolitical by default.
Let's say there's an undiscovered species of life out there in the universe. Untouched by man.
When it swims or floats or crawls or walks or eats or breathes... are those political acts?
It's not that everything is political it's that everything little thing has aspects that are political. Which makes it near impossible to avoid the subject.
Of course there are lots of reductionist black and white statements being thrown around because this is Era, but that's the truth of it.
Gravity, much like an undiscovered species, is not in and of itself political. But us theorizing about them? Us discussing them? That's political.
I say everything is political because humans are inherently political beings. We do not have a way of conveying information that escapes this.
So a thing is apolitical until viewed through a political lens?
By your definition it is quite literally meaningless.
If everything is political then what information does the use of the word add?
I think it adds quite a bit, in that it typically contextualizes a discussion. Much like everything we do requires power, the term doesn't become meaningless simply because it's something we will always have to do or be a part of in order to exist.
edit: if it makes you more comfortable, perhaps it would make more sense to consider the statement, "Human beings are political."
Last edited:
The part where you said it would be impossible to review Mario without making a political statement.
Ultimately I think this is more or less what I touched on before. I do agree that every human act is political, but I personally use the word political to create distinctions between things overly political and things not. I see Selma as an inspiring and fantastic political film, a label I wouldn't give to, say, Ed Edd n Eddy (although there's definitely some pretty great political themes in many of the episodes). It's entirely possible to believe that all human things are political, and still use the term only to refer to overt political pieces. Otherwise, we'd just preface everything with 'political', like, "here is my daughter's political drawing of her dog" or "here is my political review of the raspberry pi 3" and the word just loses meaning, in my opinion.
How does it contextualise anything?
If everything is political then it must be a given that everything we do is already within that context.
The idea that everything humans do is political is frankly ridiculous. Not everything relates to the running of society or one's power within society.
Ironically, the stretching of the definition of the word political that we are seeing in this thread, is entirely political.
But I guess that shows how hard it is to get away from the subject!
Considering the website's previous welcoming stance towards right-wing/gamergate rhetoric, you'd think people would probably be welcoming a more neutral stance even if it just means that they are going to stop being a mouthpiece for the harshest voices.
Instead they just chose to be annoying little pedants. "Ummmm, well actually everything is political in some manner and therefore it is impossible to avoid politics." Thanks for dropping that Freshman year knowledge on us all.
Instead they just chose to be annoying little pedants. "Ummmm, well actually everything is political in some manner and therefore it is impossible to avoid politics." Thanks for dropping that Freshman year knowledge on us all.
There are typical uses and atypical uses for just about everything, and politics is no different. You don't similarly preface these same statements with, "here is my human review of the raspberry pi 3" or "here is my human daughter's drawing of her dog". Just because something is true doesn't mean you have to necessarily make it a focus.
It provides focus. What we typically mean when we say politics is not the entire context of politics.
That's exactly my point. It's why the statement: "The Amazing World Of Gumball is a fantastic political show" is communicative of the distinction between that show and others. Of course you could reply "but everything's political!", but I'd feel like you'd be sort of missing the point of the statement. The word political can be used to create distinctions. A lot of people use it that way, and understand what it means in that context. That doesn't mean those people don't recognize the inherent politics in all human expression.
Sounds like you need to come up with a new word because those seem like two very different concepts.
Pretty sure the vast majority of discussion regarding "politics" is of the more focused version.
Yep, this sounds about right to me!
Yeah weird right? Almost as if language itself is abstract, and has more typical meanings, even if the meanings themselves cover a much wider spectrum!
Why is there no like function!?It's a whirlpool of politics. A poliwhirl, if you will.
I think most people basically believe this, but semantic battles have been bringing out a lot of misunderstanding.
There are a shit ton of good posts in this thread...and yet, I have the feeling no one is coming out of this with a different opinion on any matters whatsoever. Le sigh.
On topic, dude should have said nothing at all and kept his game the same as it always was. By saying anything about politics, he has already defeated his own purpose by making the statement in itself political.
Way.
To.
Go.
On topic, dude should have said nothing at all and kept his game the same as it always was. By saying anything about politics, he has already defeated his own purpose by making the statement in itself political.
Way.
To.
Go.
Let's be real here. I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing when he made that statement.
I feel like, especially given GamerGate, you'd have to be a fool to make such a statement and not be aware of the implications.
Heh. Nice.It's a whirlpool of politics. A poliwhirl, if you will.
Okay, so you agree that the word "politics" can have quite distinct meanings? And perhaps that one such meaning can be focussed on a particular subset of topics? Yes?
Surely then by simple logical deduction statements such as "leaving politics at the door" must be referring to a more focussed meaning of the word because the alternative would be a meaningless statement. Thus responses along the vein of "But everything is political!" are pretty much pointless in this context because both sides of the debate are referring to quite different meanings of the word.
People were saying everything is political in response to those who were stating their desire for something "apolitical", but in the course of human discourse, such a thing doesn't exist, and as such is an unrealistic ask. Regardless of whether it's The Escapist site or someone else's.
Additionally, people stating that you can't "leave politics at the door" are correct, and were similarly correct in stating that making the statement was itself a political act.
Finally, people saying "everything is political", though true, in the absence of context it is not a terribly meaningful statement (though I'm unsure if it's actually possible to make any statement "absent of context"). Politics being a result of human expression and discourse does not make its use in the context of a discussion meaningful in and of itself.
Last edited:
Now I've not read all 35 pages, but I'm not sure why this is problem. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but reputable sources will at least try and keep editorial and news reporting separate and a gaming focused version of reuters sounds like it could work on the face of it.
Sure, I can easily see that but i have also seen people be stupid and naive the entirety of my existence on planet earth so, were he to actually hold these beliefs, it would not surprise me. A surprising amount of people either are unaware or do not care about the implications unfortunately, even when in the middle of going on about how important these types of things are sometimes. People sometimes have zero self reflection when it comes to their own actions.
Still, the way in which this has all unfolded definitely backs up your opinion.
Well, Trump is president, so I think it's definitely possible that there are egos completely void of self-reflection. (and for some reason this stupid country seems to admire such traits...)
Last edited:
The fact that everything is political is what lets people use it as a blanket term when they want to avoid specific discussions about specific things but don't want to outright say "we're sweeping GamerGate, feminism and harassment under the rug"
Look at how it went down on NeoGAF, how the press statement after the fallout was essentially saying "from now on, no more politics".
Reuters isn't apolitical. They try to not editorialize too much but they do report on political subjects and just the act of choosing what to report on and what not is subjective and political. They don't stick their heads in the sand like these "keep politics out of muh vidya geimus" people do and act like there is no political dimension to the games they enjoy.
The specific meaning in this context is clearly "we don't give a single fuck about how badly women, gays and POC are treated in games and the game industry so we don't want to think about those subjects in relation to the games we review or industry people we talk about".
Is is incredibly rude to try to drown opinions under a wall of text that repeats the same concepts over and over like you've been doing this over and over in the thread. Nobody wants to wade through your hollow diatribes and argumentum ad nauseam.
If you feel threatened that people are analyzing games in more depth than you, then that's entirely your problem. Asking people not to do this so that they don't feed into your insecurities is ridiculous. We're not asking for everyone else to play games from a political viewpoint; we're asking professional game journalists to keep in mind that political point of view. Big freaking difference that you're disingenuously and actively ignoring entirely for the sake of validating your persecution complex.
Why exactly are you asking professional game journalists to keep in mind a political point of view?
What if they don't want to?
Because it's there. You don't see movie reviewers out there trying to hide from realities of the world like childish gamers do. They engage with and challenge the messages movies put out there.
Like, imagine if the next Mission Impossible movie had the most amazing action choreography, insane stunts, incredibly good camera work and cinematography (that would presumably make it a fun movie to watch) but then Tom Cruise's character was fighting against an all black threat of terrorist who rape the only women in the movie and Cruise went through the movie throwing around racist n-word insults and comparisons of his adversaries as dirty apes. Do you think movie journalist would not find that news worthy and movie reviewers wouldn't criticize the racist shit in the movie by hiding behind "keep politics out of my movie( review)s"? Do you think they'd be all "that was such a fun movie, I really enjoyed the action"?
Because that is what these politics avoiding cowards are essentially doing or wanting to do.
This Mr. Pitts didn't say that politics should no longer enter the discussion about games - he quite plainly said that doing so 'would be unnatural'.
Rather, he stated that he wants to 1) prevent writers from ramming their political agendas down people's throats, and 2) not to judge a person's worth based on their political platform, be it to the far left or to the far right.
I'm struggling to understand why anyone would disagree with such a pledge?
When I read a game review I'm not reading it to have the reviewer preach to me his or her personal political beliefs. Nor do I want to be shut out of the conversation because my views don't harmonize with those who control the power button.
It's a perfectly sane policy, and one that I fully endorse.
Rather, he stated that he wants to 1) prevent writers from ramming their political agendas down people's throats, and 2) not to judge a person's worth based on their political platform, be it to the far left or to the far right.
I'm struggling to understand why anyone would disagree with such a pledge?
When I read a game review I'm not reading it to have the reviewer preach to me his or her personal political beliefs. Nor do I want to be shut out of the conversation because my views don't harmonize with those who control the power button.
It's a perfectly sane policy, and one that I fully endorse.
It makes total sense to me, and I know there is a market for it.
I personally don't like it though.
So you don't want them to present their political beliefs, but you also want your views to be respected?
That's a pretty fiercely internalized contradiction you've got going on there. (I'm allowed to present my views, but you're not allowed to present your views!)
If that political platform is literal white supremacy/neo-nazism, I can understand being upset about someone not denouncing it.
It must be horrible when someone points out the rampant sexism, racism & bigotry in some games. Poor you. Such horrible politics being shoved down your throat. Woe am you.
Because you're removing the context from the policy. The site was bathing in GamerGate and instead of denouncing it he pulled bad faith both sides bullshit. Even now he won't call it by it's name.
GG is literally a hate group. Not calling it out because that would be "politics" is the exact problem with "leaving politics at the door."
Why should I or anyone put faith in them, when they are already coddling their white male demographic gate-keepers with their "politics at the door" policy. Their mission statement is tainted and exclusive when they would have you believe its inclusive. His purposeful vagueness IS politics.
Last edited:
You are struggling to understand why anyone would disagree with "not to judge a person's worth based on their political platform, even if it's far right"?