Black Ops 2 Is Like A Rich Jerk

[Clive_Paddington]

My point was how he related the singleplayer to the game's popularity, making a link between perceived themes of militarism, racism and jingoism and the tastes of the tens of millions who bought the game.

I've said it often enough, my problem is his making that link.

I don't want approval. I never did. I wanted critique. Good or bad, most likely bad. Silence is deafening on a game that is so popular FOR IT'S MULTIPLAYER!

sandbox gameplay experiences tend to be truncated a bit, or why when he talks MMOs he often can only really toss in his first impressions rather than a full review.

Could have done that here.

The persistence argument doesn't explain why he did a full review of DayZ. Inconsistency, you are all making up rules for him to get out of what he's done here, not from past trends.

as you've made it clear such elements matter to you

*rolls eyes*

Always have to make this personal... the point is ABUNDANTLY clear that it is the BROADER millions of this multi-million selling series that it is TO THEM that the multiplayer matters. I want HIM to tell ME why 20 MILLION people buy the game for it's multiplayer, by giving us insight on it's multiplayer... but instead he focuses all on the shitty ancillary single-player plot.

People who don't like JRPGs shouldn't review them. So why is yahtzee reviewing a game whose success is built on it's online competitive multiplayer? But even if someone who didn't like JRPGs did review of such games, they would at least give a few reasons why they were so bad, according to them. But Yahtzee doesn't do that. He doggedly ignores the part that I'D LOVE TO SEE HIM RIP ON!!

Do you REALLY think I'm one of those people who want Yahtzee to review Black Ops 2's multiplayer... to give it a positive review!?!?


I want him to show all those COD fans who love the multiplayer what is wrong with it and the REAL reason why they all play it. And not some BS like they have a military fetish, that obviously doesn't fit or ARMA II would have sold 5x more.

Look. Can I give you an answer to you DayZ question? DayZ is multiplayer, but unlike COD it is completely multiplayer focused with no single player at all (do correct me if I am wrong though, I don't own the game). The multiplayer is the entire game, and due to the massive popularity of the mod and the slow release dates stated in his video gives me more than enough reasons to see why he reviewed it. Not to mention the fact that DayZ's multiplayer is hugely different to CODs own multiplayer. Also, you want to see Yatzee say why COD multiplayer is shit, but if you already know it is shit why do you need his conformation? And do really expect the COD fans to listen to him about the problems? Who cares if the majority of people enjoy the multiplayer, because what Yhatzee cares about is the single player, which is as big of a part of the game as multiplayer. You ask for him to give insight in why people play it, but is it that had to figure out? You could probably answer it yourself.

 

[poiuppx]

My point was how he related the singleplayer to the game's popularity, making a link between perceived themes of militarism, racism and jingoism and the tastes of the tens of millions who bought the game.

I've said it often enough, my problem is his making that link.

I don't want approval. I never did. I wanted critique. Good or bad, most likely bad. Silence is deafening on a game that is so popular FOR IT'S MULTIPLAYER!

sandbox gameplay experiences tend to be truncated a bit, or why when he talks MMOs he often can only really toss in his first impressions rather than a full review.

Could have done that here.

The persistence argument doesn't explain why he did a full review of DayZ. Inconsistency, you are all making up rules for him to get out of what he's done here, not from past trends.

as you've made it clear such elements matter to you

*rolls eyes*

Always have to make this personal... the point is ABUNDANTLY clear that it is the BROADER millions of this multi-million selling series that it is TO THEM that the multiplayer matters. I want HIM to tell ME why 20 MILLION people buy the game for it's multiplayer, by giving us insight on it's multiplayer... but instead he focuses all on the shitty ancillary single-player plot.

People who don't like JRPGs shouldn't review them. So why is yahtzee reviewing a game whose success is built on it's online competitive multiplayer? But even if someone who didn't like JRPGs did review of such games, they would at least give a few reasons why they were so bad, according to them. But Yahtzee doesn't do that. He doggedly ignores the part that I'D LOVE TO SEE HIM RIP ON!!

Do you REALLY think I'm one of those people who want Yahtzee to review Black Ops 2's multiplayer... to give it a positive review!?!?


Video related to my response.

I want him to show all those COD fans who love the multiplayer what is wrong with it and the REAL reason why they all play it. And not some BS like they have a military fetish, that obviously doesn't fit or ARMA II would have sold 5x more.

And as I said, the multiplayer is irrelevant, both for him and for me. I assume he paid for his copy... does that make his view on the matter inconsequential?

And yes, many people play the multiplayer. Many, no doubt, buy it for only the multiplayer. Bully for them. Hooray. Not all do. Your sentiment that the only reason it is successful is the multiplayer, or that this is all that is played/cared about, stands at odds to the simple fact single-player is there at all. A company like Activision is hardly going to waste the money involved on the campaign if it isn't a significant draw.

As for your desire for critique, again, he isn't really much the sort for it. Granted, I agree, he could have easily done a brief aside first-impression there-of, akin to his MMO reviews I alluded to. But would he have had much constructive to say/material for jokes there-in? I wouldn't much trust his view on competitive multiplayer for the same reason I wouldn't much trust Roger Ebert to decide what games should be viewed as art; existing bias prevents rational discourse.

I will, however, agree that banging on the militarism jingoism drum is hopefully done solely for the lulz, as they say. Again, as a fan of prior games, I can't imagine ANYONE taking away from the CoD series 'Yay patriotism and war!'. MW 1-3 and BO1 make it clear that such viewpoints are either horrifically naive or utterly destructive. But then, again, my interest lies more in the humor from Yahtzee than from the reviews proper, so my mindset is admitted biased.

I do take offense at the more personal digs, however, towards my appraisal. I'm hardly making excuses, merely stating my viewpoint on a matter you clearly feel invested in. Else, I doubt you'd waste this much time typing about it. Yes, he reviewed DayZ. He reviewed the Left 4 Dead games, a WoW expansion, Tabula Rassa, and so on and so forth. Games where online play is either mandatory or strongly expected. I never said he doesn't review such things... rather, I would say he shouldn't review them seriously. He hates competitive multiplayer. This is an established and admitted fact. His interest will never be there, and any competitive multiplayer focus he gives will, aside from jokes, be brutally biased. You wish to see a critique, an honest appraisal of this element. But I say to you he is the wrong person to ask that of because he will not give a fair critique there-of. He would be nightmarishly prejudiced against it.

And if I may say... why DO you care for him to tell you why so many buy the game? You clearly already have your answer, multiplayer. And I assume you purchased the game, so you know for yourself what elements you like and dislike. At this stage, what would his covering multiplayer add? And don't bang on about ARMA II selling more if military shinies were all the franchise was built on. ARMA II didn't have a giant ad plastered all over the side of a building facing the 405. ARMA II billboards and online ads and print ads and the like didn't dominate a majority of gaming-related ads I saw. ARMA II didn't have a theme song by Avenged Sevenfold. If you want to go that route, I'd sooner make the comparison to Medal of Honor: Warfighter, given the real-world expertise involved in its creation and the hefty investments from EA in the advertising.

 

[Baresark]

A well placed argument, no doubt about that. It's annoying to see them exploit what could be awesome game mechanics for a single use. I feel that the whole horse thing was this. They have a single stage with that stupid horse and everyone makes it out like it's the best thing ever. If you are playing a modern military FPS and one of the selling points is riding a horse... well then there really is no accounting for taste. After all of that, my annoyance is they have great ideas and then fall back on the same old shit.

 

[Clive_Paddington]

Hah. poiuppx, you just made the point I was trying to make so much better than I did.

 

[Magmarock]

Hang on Yatzee you live in Australia and over here it's mandatory to vote, so do you note vote and pay the fine?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Not helping your credibility here, Ben.

You don't like talking about politics, yet you do it every time one of these dumbass military shooters lands on your show's table, and it just get's more and more preachy with each entry.

You mention that you grew up under the background hum of guilt....well, brudda, it was people like you before you that inflicted that guilt, and you seem to have little issue continuing the cycle of regarding people as shit just because their ancestors were imperial jerk offs.

The Dead Kennedys song "Holiday in Cambodia" was written about people like you, baby, seeing as you seem to think the 'slums got so much soul' that we privledged and universally powerful whities don't.

Guilt is like the Zombie virus. Those with it will at some point give it to someone else. However, you can't stop it by shooting the infected infected in the head. Because after you do kill them....You'll probably feel guilty about it later.

Hell, even as you call out Yahtzee about making people feel guilty, you do so by telling him things that will probably make him feel guilty later. Even if only for a brief moment. Truly, guilt is unstoppable.

Even if we can remove the problem, there will be people who feel guilty that there was a problem in the first place.
So then, what's the point of guilt after the problem is over? To see that we don't forget the problem, and try to keep it from happaning again? Maybe. But has that ever really stopped any problem?
We still have war, crime, and many ways to "legally" hurt each other. Things we have had since we started.

So then, what is the point of guilt after the problem is gone, but not stopped forever?

Spoiler: >_> Maybe.....

There is no reason other than what we give it!

But really, you could say that about amost anything.
Truly the sociopaths are the lucky ones. Immune to guilt (In truth that is a hell I wish on noone. ).

It's true that wasted potential does seem to be a big issue amongst AAA games these days. I still don't agree with Yahtzee's take on "white privilege" or "hite guilt" though.

Yeah...I'm coming to realize more and more that white, middle-class to upper-class American men are made out to be the devil in the rest of the world. It's a weird thing that I've kinda just started noticing. Maybe it's becoming more prevalent, maybe not. Either way, I don't get why.

Funny thing about that. Part of the reason people think white, middle-class to upper-class Americans are evil is that many don't know WHY they think that.

Ha! It would be more funny, IF some of the metals that make up our fancy electronics didn't fund ethinic cleansing.
But heck, even if we did stop buying conflict minerals and stop using sweatshops then the most likely outcome is that the people who sadly need those jobs would die from the loss of the jobs.

Not that this issue is impossible to solve, but I wouldn't hold your breath. It will take a while.
It seems for some to live in luxury, others must live in hell. For some to live, others must die.
It seems that maybe it has always been this way.

For there to be light, ther must be darkness.....Until we figure out how to wire the whole house correctly, at least.

Also, good article Yahtzee. I really like how you compair how the game is made to how some of the rich flaunt their wealth without any class. I do wonder however what they will be doing now in COD. I mean, they already have gone into future warfare (near future, but still future), so what are they going to do now? Something more fun next time? I hope so. I mean people who like COD will probably buy it no matter what they do with it. I mean heck, they almost have done nothing with it and it still sells great. You would think they would use that as a safe way to try something new, and maybe fun.

Oh well, we don't have to wait long to see what they do next at any rate. So that's good.

As for everyone else here (people I have quoted to), hope you all have a good day.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

I think you're taking it to extremes here. Backing off the potential strawman ('all success is bad if there's anyone unsuccessful'), what he's really talking about is imperialism. Look at the British Empire at its height, and how it treated its colonies. Now look at the many third-world countries that the US has interests in. See a parallel? These games that cast all nonwhite characters as cardboard-cut-out-evil just exacerbate this problem.

Right...because Germans and Russians have plenty of characters that are not just "cardboard-cut-out-evil".
*Looks at past COD game modes called Nazi Zombies and see's the character Edward Richtofen*.

I think its less to do with racism and more to do with modern politics. If tomorrow Estonia starts killing innocent Americans and wages war on America, you can bet that the next COD game will have White, blonde haired people as the enemies that you shoot.

Wait, don't James Bond games basically do the same thing? Giving you gadgets that only have one use over the course of the game?

Come to think of it, doesn't the James Bond film series do the same thing?

Well you see that's different because...um.. well because, you see James Bond.... dammit, your right!

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Wait- he doesn't vote? In Australia? Isn't it mandatory?

On topic, the gist of this article is why, when the Driver series went from 4, to 3, and finally to only having one city in them... I was okay with that.

Though Multiplayer shooters should not get off so easily. Back in my day you had at least 15 multiplayer maps to play with at launch or else. These days devs think they can get away with 6 or so, and the consumers mindlessly prove them right.

Shit... was that politics I was just speaking?

Hmmm. My guess would be he's still a British citizen, enjoying his 'freedom' and his 'rights' to let others decide on the future of both him and his country of origin.

Yes, Australia knows compulsory voting, but I am not privvy to the specifics of that.

In Brazil, if you didn't vote under Lula, you were basically banned from getting a passport or travelling abroad. It's a shitty system for shitty people.

Yahtzee is roughly the age of my kid brother. I hope he'll stick to his opinions, but I also hope he'll remain open and inquisitive enough to question himself, the world and the bullshit he's being fed for a long time to come.

I enjoy playing Black Ops 2. It's not the 'new' mind-blowing stuff as the first proper CoD, the first Nazi Zombies or the first Modern Warfare was, but it's an OK entry in the series and it's pretty much still a brilliant and outstanding competitive shooty-shooty game.

I've said it before and I'll gladly say it again. Stick to games when it's all about games, politics is a shit-covered and maggot-filled apple that only really tastes sweet in the sweet spot, and that's about two millimetres between maggot-poop filled cavities and the cyanide-filled fun pips.

I love Charlie Brookers stuff and I wouldn't want to miss him as a creative artist and critical mind, but the only proper ludicrous stuff he puts in essays and guest writing bits in newspapers, which is usually well away from his standard, not-so-daily business.

Users on the Escapist are instructed to take their R&P worries, thoughts and verbal incontinence to the brightly lit dark corners of R&P, I wished that in the post Extra Credits times, some standards and guidelines would be upheld for contributors as well. I don't care if Yahtzee calls for another bloody revolution or the raping of goats in the name of Che Guevara in, say, his books, but game reviews that target a decidedly different audience should steer somewhat clear of that. He's got a clean record of delivering quality material and plenty food for thought, so I see little sense in breaking with that habit now. It's a loss for the Escapist and the community, even before Yahtzee gets real and acknowledges that it's time to move on and do something else.

 

[poiuppx]

Hah. poiuppx, you just made the point I was trying to make so much better than I did.

Thanks, but I think we both hit on roughly the same point. Besides, your analysis of the DayZ review was more spot-on. There's a sharp difference between a game where multiplayer is one element and the game can be played for other things, and a game where the multiplayer is the be-all end-all, not to mention a sharp difference between the actual game styles.

 

[In Search of Username]

Dat trouser analogy

Very good article, it perfectly describes the problems with spunkgargleweewees; it's the fact they just try to pack everything in without consideration, rather than gradually building you up like a good game does. And the whole 'rich jerk' analogy works perfectly for the game's attitude towards politics too, when you think about it.

I'd say it's making too much of a point of where the trousers came from than of the trousers themselves.

Calling a soldier "rich" because they use expensive military equipment is rather ignorant of the reality of soldiers lives where they are little more than workers, it never was their equipment, it was always government property and they only used it under orders to kill and to die.

What, you think soldiers get to keep that equipment after the war? They aren't rich, have you any idea how many of the homeless and destitute were handling multi-million dollar pieces of equipment when they served their country, but when their country was done with them they struggle to re-adapt.

That's not a "rich jerk", that's a socialist tragedy of the exploited labourer.

Yes but when does Call of Duty treat it as a 'socialist tragedy'? It treats it as a gung-ho 'FUCK YEAH AMERICAAAAA!' situation in which all the soldiers are like superheroes fighting off the evil foreigners. I know what you mean, but the game does not treat it like that, so the analogy still works; the game is from the point of view of a rich jerk, even if in reality the average soldier is nothing like what they are in CoD.

 

[Mel Theofficegamergirl]

Actually I think that both the middle class guy and the rich guy are both douche bags because neither of them has had to endure any REAL hardship in their lives, and they are dumb enough to give a shit about the quality of their trousers rather than be appreciative to have trousers at all. But no, people in western civilizations don't have to worry about that at all, do they? WRONG. ...(I'm going to also not talk about politics now)

 

[inkheart_artist]

Did anyone else catch that high school drop out part? I'm a bit surprised by that if its true.

I reckon it is, he is not the person who conforms to society and rules.

Good for him. Most people could never hope to get very far without a high school education. He really lucked out with this gig.

 

[Clive_Paddington]

Dat trouser analogy

Very good article, it perfectly describes the problems with spunkgargleweewees; it's the fact they just try to pack everything in without consideration, rather than gradually building you up like a good game does. And the whole 'rich jerk' analogy works perfectly for the game's attitude towards politics too, when you think about it.

I'd say it's making too much of a point of where the trousers came from than of the trousers themselves.

Calling a soldier "rich" because they use expensive military equipment is rather ignorant of the reality of soldiers lives where they are little more than workers, it never was their equipment, it was always government property and they only used it under orders to kill and to die.

What, you think soldiers get to keep that equipment after the war? They aren't rich, have you any idea how many of the homeless and destitute were handling multi-million dollar pieces of equipment when they served their country, but when their country was done with them they struggle to re-adapt.

That's not a "rich jerk", that's a socialist tragedy of the exploited labourer.

Yes but when does Call of Duty treat it as a 'socialist tragedy'? It treats it as a gung-ho 'FUCK YEAH AMERICAAAAA!' situation in which all the soldiers are like superheroes fighting off the evil foreigners. I know what you mean, but the game does not treat it like that, so the analogy still works; the game is from the point of view of a rich jerk, even if in reality the average soldier is nothing like what they are in CoD.

I think you guys missed the point of the rich man analogy. The game is the rich man, not the soldiers.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Do you know what, if the argument is that white people should feel guilty because our ancestors were imperialists, than shouldn't we also get credit for our ancestors being the inovators that drove the industrial revolution and much of modern science? Plus you have to admit, conquering and subjugating most of the non-white world might not be moral but it is pretty impressive. If you are going to ascribe guilt for the crimes of Europeans on to everyone of European descent than at least also give ample credit to everyone of European descent for all the good Europeans have done. On a side note my own view is that we should ignore race, afterall everyone is human. I hardly see being born white is any more of a privlage, even if most whites are better off than most blacks (though thats changing, with social intergration and latin-Americans taking the uneducated, slum-living, high crime rate spot balcks used to occupy in American culture.) Seriously race doesnt matter.

 

[In Search of Username]

Dat trouser analogy

Very good article, it perfectly describes the problems with spunkgargleweewees; it's the fact they just try to pack everything in without consideration, rather than gradually building you up like a good game does. And the whole 'rich jerk' analogy works perfectly for the game's attitude towards politics too, when you think about it.

I'd say it's making too much of a point of where the trousers came from than of the trousers themselves.

Calling a soldier "rich" because they use expensive military equipment is rather ignorant of the reality of soldiers lives where they are little more than workers, it never was their equipment, it was always government property and they only used it under orders to kill and to die.

What, you think soldiers get to keep that equipment after the war? They aren't rich, have you any idea how many of the homeless and destitute were handling multi-million dollar pieces of equipment when they served their country, but when their country was done with them they struggle to re-adapt.

That's not a "rich jerk", that's a socialist tragedy of the exploited labourer.

Yes but when does Call of Duty treat it as a 'socialist tragedy'? It treats it as a gung-ho 'FUCK YEAH AMERICAAAAA!' situation in which all the soldiers are like superheroes fighting off the evil foreigners. I know what you mean, but the game does not treat it like that, so the analogy still works; the game is from the point of view of a rich jerk, even if in reality the average soldier is nothing like what they are in CoD.

I think you guys missed the point of thebrich amn analogy. The game is the rich man, not the soldiers.

Yes but the game is putting you in the position of these soldiers and clearly expects you to feel like they're justified, so the analogy still works if you're going to apply it to the political side of things.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

It is indeed like a rich jerk; instead of using said position of wealth and power to try and do something new and push boundaries, Activision just sits on its fat, dumb ass. It's actually a way you can describe a LOT of huge developers. Except for Nintendo. They're actually RESPONSIBLE

 

[Waffle_Man]

snip

Look, I don't come to his videos just for the humour, because he isn't that funny. I appreciate his humorous insight into games that can be quite revealing in the way humour can be, but not sacrificing everything for everything else at the expense of gags.

Coming to something for a peripheral reason and getting mad? This sounds familiar. Granted, I don't have the authority to say definitively that Yatzee's insight is peripheral (as it serves his humor incredibly well), so I can't tell you that it's wrong to feel upset when he doesn't deliver, but I'm not going to blame him for your feeling upset in the same way that I can't blame a wal-mart for not carrying graphics cards.

Covering zombies and multiplayer would be part of the bohemian insight that I expect from all the insight he give into other game he reviews, he doesn't skip out on huge proportions of other games that were the main selling points. He did look at Zombies for Black Ops 1, but not for BO2.

First of all, he has skipped plenty of multiplayer and mini game components in various games. I can't remember him talking about the firefight mode in Halo Reach or the hoard mode in gears of war.

Secondly, BO 1 was probably the exception against the rule. To be honest though, his opinion on zombies probably hasn't changed all that much. Would it have made his video or column any more insightful?

Lastly, if you're looking for far more insightful critiques of games, you're probably looking the wrong place. I'd suggest looking at gamasutra articles or something along the lines of Errant Signal or Shamus Young if you want a well thought out critique of something.

I never said his assessment of the singleplayer was wrong, it's his own ridiculous opinion, it's the conclusion he draws from the false assumption of how others view the singleplayer that I disagree with as irresponsible.

Is his assessment of a franchise's unfortunate implications any less of an opinion? If I were being more specific and a hell of a lot more pretentious, I'd actually call it a conjecture or inference, but that ship has sailed... I'm fully willing-- hell, I would love-- to have a discussion on the idea of unfortunate implications when it comes to media, but I'm not going to casually dismiss Yatzee's opinions as just being wrong because they're wrong.

I can also tell when he is being facetious, just because he was obviously being facetious when he said "And Hitler was right" isn't licence to dismiss any other sustained attack he makes against larger groups of people.

True, it does only go so far, but his "rightwing gun nut" reference seems unqualified enough to seem a tad bit facetious. If you want to make an argument, I'm fully willing to hear it and discuss it. Until then, it essentially amounts to "nu uh."

COD gamers are hardly noble laureates, but their vice is apathy and ignorance, not jingoistic racial hatred as he alleges. He can say all he likes about the singleplayer, but he then said a lot about the type of people who would buy such a game, making an unfair link between the single-player and he game sales as if the singleplayer - including his stated perception of racism - as reason for it's success.

Again, I suppose it's worth discussing the such problems, but out right dismissing such charges isn't rhetorically sound. Have you thought of trying to make a thread debunking the various claims of jingoism made towards Call of Duty? Have you read up on any of them (they extend to more than yatzee)? I'm not using this as a way of trying to debunk your claims, but because the subject interests me and II'm always willing to hear well made arguments.

Lies or truly believing it, joking or not, I don't think it's right for him to say that. And that's my opinion on that.

Fair enough, but many people hold opinions. Fewer people are able to argue effectively for them. What makes it wrong?

Now don't say anything about "force", because I think someone is unethical in saying something is NOT the same as advocating or actually forcing anything on anyone.

I must admit that I was using hyperbole when I used the word "force." Still, my point stands. Such an exercise is better suited for a more academic or decidedly less bile driven personality.

 

[the clockmaker]

Also very well put. Not trying to make this thread political, but this is a huge trend I'm seeing emerge. The socialist mentality that anyone who isn't poor is evil, as long as there are people who are more poor. If you're successful, that isn't ok because there are people who aren't successful. Personally, it makes no sense to me; but it seems to be very popular around the world.

I think you're taking it to extremes here. Backing off the potential strawman ('all success is bad if there's anyone unsuccessful'), what he's really talking about is imperialism. Look at the British Empire at its height, and how it treated its colonies. Now look at the many third-world countries that the US has interests in. See a parallel? These games that cast all nonwhite characters as cardboard-cut-out-evil just exacerbate this problem.

Spoilers ahead
Just want to note that this game does not do that to non-white characters. Menendez is evil because the US made him evil, a fact which is hammered home fairly often. Salazar seriously believes that what he is doing is in the best interests of everybody. Farid is the most unambiguously moral person in the game, sacrificing himself for others in both stories. The Pakistanis just want the superpowers to notice how much they are suffering in the floods and the main enemy of the game the cordes die network is shown to be completely global, in one of the endings it has yanks burning down the white house as part of the revolution. The only bad non-white people are the Muj, because to show them as what they were ( a loose coalition of both tribal warriors and foriegn jihadis, one small part of which was the taliban, who, at the conclusion of the Soviet occupation, fell into a civil war with itself, which was then 'won' by the taliban) would take up a whole game.

As to the article I had to stop reading when he mentioned guilt. Nothing annoys me more than the concept of inherited guilt (white guilt is not the only manifestation of this). It is the one of the most profoundly self centered attitudes
that I know of, people who would rather sit there and stew in the old days of what their race did than try and pay attention to the thousand quiet atrocities and genocides that still happen today, ostensibly under the guise of 'anti-imperialism'. 'No no no, we can't pay attention to Papua, that belongs to brown people and it would be imperialist for us to care you bigot'. It plays into the idea that white people are the be all and end all, some how separate from the rest of the world.