Geeks Should Argue Politics. It's Good For Us.

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
Geeks Should Argue Politics. It's Good For Us.

Should geeks avoid political controversy at all costs? Nope. We're better than that.

Read Full Article
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
Man, I wish I hadn't renewed my Pub Club subscription. I can tell that, within the next year, the Escapist will have fallen to the same shitty level of in-your-face, left wing yellow journalism as sites like Polygon and Kotaku. It's fucking video games and comic books, not a platform for your political opinions.
 

Aitamen

New member
Dec 6, 2011
59
0
0
Geeks have a unique ability to argue politics, in fact *due* to our escapism. We live in worlds with other setups, and have seen how getting there is problematic, and how even the best (Trek's Federation, for an easy example) still have great issues to be dealt with (which allows us to start pondering how to deal with problems we don't have yet).

Following the Trek example, consider TVP and other ideas for resource-based economies... the tech being the main stumbling block (but groups like Chicago Plant working on fixing that, in the mean time), there are other things to fix between here and there. Transporation, education, and the like. Geeks are one of the few groups who, by working on problems we're *going* to encounter, instead of just fixing whatever's worst right now, might help make future transitions smoother.

I mean... hell, look at Google. They're fixing problems in our economic and legal sectors by being moderate in many causes and simply producing a better product, or by working to create tech to invalidate them. Elon Musk's another guy who's pushing more futurist and less play-the-game than google, and he's also doing fantastic. They work so very well together~

And they aren't the only ones... Steve Mann, Pranav Mistry (sorta? Better than many...), Neil Harbisson (and Adam Montandon, for the tech side of that, deserves credit as well)... And that's just in *my* field.
 

ZZoMBiE13

Ate My Neighbors
Oct 10, 2007
1,206
0
0
For the record, no one argues about Han shooting first. We all just accept that he did. END OF STORY.

END.

OF.

STORY.
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
348
0
0
Unless your desire is to turn the site into a bunch of left wing, and right wing nuts shouting at each other it is ill advised to dive too deeply into politics.

Everyone should be politically active, but there is zero meaning in diving in as is suggested. I can see why the author thinks it's good. Something like, "If we all talk about my political opinions everyone will be swede to my side." This would be a naive view of other people, and perhaps the author needs a hard lessen in how cynical one should be regarding politics.

Material like Franks and Allens doesn't persuade a single person to a particular view. Like conservatives who watch Steven Colbert their views only get amplified by watching him. They ether can't see him as Conservative Satire, or they use him as a pinata to justify their view, and hatred of those they oppose. Deep meaningful works always have the meaning the reader wants them to have regardless to what the author intended. We read the material because it's interesting. Not because it agrees or disagrees with our world view, and never with the intent of changing our personal beliefs. Heck, I about tossed out BioShock because it innitially looked like Ayn Rand cult propaganda, but continued after it became so absurd that it could only be a satirical poke at Libertarian views. However, I've run into enough people who think that BioShock is Pro Ayn Rand that I can't be sure.

There is a time and a place for it. Namely the Finnish [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135836-Finnish-Hearthstone-Tournament-Changes-Policy-on-Women-Update] tournament is a good example of a proper time to discuss. Gamer specific political problems are ok to find out what the problems really are.

However, politics in general is just flamebait, and won't end well.
 

zerragonoss

New member
Oct 15, 2009
171
0
0
The Plunk said:
Man, I wish I hadn't renewed my Pub Club subscription. I can tell that, within the next year, the Escapist will have fallen to the same shitty level of in-your-face, left wing yellow journalism as sites like Polygon and Kotaku. It's fucking video games and comic books, not a platform for your political opinions.
Uhmm video games and comics have always contained political commentary, I mean two examples of the top of my head missile command a super early arcade game was commentary on the futile nature of war, and super man was originally about the ideal good man and the american spirit. The whole point of this column is you don't insult the medium by realizing this its that you insulting it by not doing so.
 

ffronw

I am a meat popsicle
Oct 24, 2013
1,401
0
0
Ross and I have always enjoyed debating politics, even though we seldom agree. I thought our geek responsibility was to argue about these things? I don't want to see a bunch of flaming, but reasoned discussion is always awesome.

Of course, it helps that when Ross and I argue I am always right. :p
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
624
0
0
It seems we talk politics and political issues all the time, but things degrade into talking at each other not to each other.

Politics are different that a lot of the usual geek BS. They're bigger. They're real problems not hypotheticals. They don't go away with changing fads. But most of all, they're about things with personal implications. That causes people to entrench themselves because what they're arguing is usually vested in getting something they want, and as such, use the last line of your article without a hint of irony: I want A therefore anyone wanting not A (or thinks A is better achieved in a different way) is awful and evil. This can range from being very obstinate, to being outright hostile, but rarely have I even seen online political discussion take the form of understanding someone's point of view and then telling them why your way is the best way to achieve their wants and goals. Instead it becomes about winning, and these days winning more by the volume (as in number of supporters) of your cause. You don't even have to have an argument if you can get enough of twitter angry.

I mean, I won't name names, but a contributor here is rather outspoken on twitter about how he thinks certain views are "backward", "ignorant", "inferior", "wrong" and "best destroyed". How could you have a discussion with someone that seems to have not interest in engaging, but rather is devoted to squashing your political viewpoints? Moreover, why the fuck would you even want to talk with someone that seems to think your views make you less than human and undeserving of even basic respect (bonus points if at any time that person has complained about someone else being shut out of a conversation)? I used to have a lot of interest in talking politics, and while talking to walls never quite got old, what did kill my interest was the vilification by people that felt that certain views didn't count. This has been magnified the last couple of years in a culture that seems to be very quick to call the opinion of anyone straight, white and male as invalid if it goes against certain views.

To really talk politics we need to re-learn how to act like adults that don't say "with me or against me" when someone comes along to say "no, I think you're wrong about something". That can make a case for their cause that's about how their opponent would get what they wanted by joining your side, rather than finding ways to juvenilly mock opposing views. That can accept a diversity of opinions, rather than trying to silence the "wrong" views. Until then, the country is divided enough without bringing that division into our hobbies, if for no other reason than some of us need the safe harbor from the dinner conversation.
 

WaltIsFrozen

New member
Apr 11, 2014
15
0
0
People who don't have strong opinions are boring, whether it's geekiness, politics, or religion. I pity journalists who are so in love with their own sense of objectivity that they blindly report on absurdity without comment.

One of the great things about comics, video games, sci-fi, and the way these genres/medium allow for oblique, yet biting social commentary. How boring would the Twilight Zone have been if Rod Serling didn't have strong opinions about American society?

So, taken together, what's the point of being a smart, passionate person writing about artistic work that at its best works as metaphor or satire if you're not going to have something, anything to say about it? There's already way too much mindless "he said/she said" stenography masquerading as trenchant commentary out there. If Escapist is too "left-wing" for you, there's a million places that can be your source for safe, opinionless entertainment news.

Also, if you want conservative-leaning commentary on video games or comics, go start a blog. That's how most of the writers on this site probably started. Write and write and write and if your work is awesome, you'll find an audience.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
zerragonoss said:
The Plunk said:
Man, I wish I hadn't renewed my Pub Club subscription. I can tell that, within the next year, the Escapist will have fallen to the same shitty level of in-your-face, left wing yellow journalism as sites like Polygon and Kotaku. It's fucking video games and comic books, not a platform for your political opinions.
Uhmm video games and comics have always contained political commentary, I mean two examples of the top of my head missile command a super early arcade game was commentary on the futile nature of war, and super man was originally about the ideal good man and the american spirit. The whole point of this column is you don't insult the medium by realizing this its that you insulting it by not doing so.
Maybe I should have elabourated. There's no problem with using art to convey political ideas, and discussing these ideas is fine. The problem is the ridiculous over-analysis of works which aren't political to back up your own, prepossessed political views. Of course, Marxist-inspired left wing ideas (e.g. Critical Theory) hold that all works are inherently political because language and construction and privilege and blah blah blah...

...which brings me to the second problem: We will only ever hear left wing viewpoints. Of course, this is inevitable because most gamers, at least in this sort of community, are left wing, but surely you can see that a constant left wing circle-jerk will only serve to alienate people who don't agree with your politics? Having political balance in these articles would be good, but does anyone want to see right wing, Fox News style "video games are making kids hate America!"? Well, that's how I (a centrist) feel reading all the left wing rubbish that's been infecting games journalism recently. It would be best just to leave politics out.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
2,187
0
0
I don't think anyone should avoid political controversy. I do think that someone should not feel compelled to change every little thing they think is wrong with something, cite racism/sexism/misogyny as the impetus and declare everyone who came before you as some sort of neanderthal who should be locked up.

That Catwoman cover is not only ridiculous, but also ugly. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad "art", it's just not pleasant to look at in my opinion. So... if I were to read that comic, I would probably just not pay any attention to the ridiculous cover. I'm not for sexism or racism or misogyny. I also notice the the pictures like the Catwoman cover not only draw accusation of sexism, but people drop "misogyny" like they are interchangeable, which they are not. But the whole debate is one sided to a ridiculous extent. Women in comics are ultra sexy (usually) and depicted wearing clothing and acting in ways that shows that aspect off too much. I won't disagree. I will say that men are equally mistreated in this sense in comics. Even ugly villains are covered in rippling muscle and presented as being physically far superior to what the average person will ever attain.

I'm torn on the new actor for Johnny Storm. Part of me loves the source material so much, I hate the change. Marvel's first family is iconic, so changing that feels wrong and out of place. On the other hand, I look forward to seeing how the script works with the reboot, and I like Michael B Jordan as an actor well enough. I personally object to the trap this very situation creates and people refuse to see it as that. I like the source material, and the only difference is the race of the characters like this and Heimdall (for example). I want it to be as close to the source material as it can be since I own over 6000 comics, all of which I have read multiple times, and for the most part like very much how they have always been. It doesn't make it worse that they changed the race of the character, but it denies 53 years of history and changes a major part of the character (when talking about FF). And the accusations of racism because you like the original characters is disingenuous and out of place.

And YES, race is a major part of a person or character. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't so "progressive" to change the race of the character. Popularly, from white to black. I'm sure it happened the other way as well, but it's far less common. One of the parts that stand out to me is the different situation when it comes to Michael B Jordan as the Johnny Storm and Miles Morales as the new SpiderMan. In one situation you are taking a character who has historically always one color and color swap him, so it's like he has always been black. In the instance of Miles Morales as SpiderMan, you are passing on the mantle of the character to a new character. These two situations are very different but seem to treated the same by people who "lean left". My girlfriend made a very good point about the ridiculous impetus of choosing Miles Morales as the new Spiderman. They could have simply said it's this guy now. But the creator was saying that it's more believable if the character is not white. It was move believable to have a non-white guy be poor and from the city. This boggles my mind of course. But that being said, then you can also say that Bruce Wayne or Batman can only ever be white because all non-whites are poor people. Both of these are ridiculous ideas and make no sense.


TL;DR

I will always critique the way people on the left and on the right use language as a weapon. Sure, lets talk politics, but how about we leave out language that intentionally and explicitly vilifies anyone who doesn't see it the same way you do. Sometimes people are sickening in their adherence to these concepts without application of any kind of critical thought. No one is making the argument that people aren't racist, or that women aren't under represented in the development community, or that people push "sex" to illogical limits in art sometimes. But every instance of these things or opinions not explicitly hateful towards them is not sexist, racist, or misogynistic. You aren't holding back a tide of racists sexist misogynists by making these accusations, you are making creators afraid to do anything that may be perceived as those things. You will eventually homogenize everything, which is definitively bad. I collected comics all through the 90's and 2000's (no, the 90's didn't suck, Bob just likes to say that a lot). There are books for everyone. If you don't like superhero's, there are books for you. If you hate Marvel or DC or Image, there are alternative. Small press books, independently published books, lots of options. If you want to read classic literature in comic panel form, there are books for you. There is no reason to say everything must change just because of reasons, which is what a lot of this ends up feeling like.
 

WarpedLord

New member
Mar 11, 2009
80
0
0
Baresark said:
I'm torn on the new actor for Johnny Storm. Part of me loves the source material so much, I hate the change. Marvel's first family is iconic, so changing that feels wrong and out of place. On the other hand, I look forward to seeing how the script works with the reboot, and I like Michael B Jordan as an actor well enough. I personally object to the trap this very situation creates and people refuse to see it as that. I like the source material, and the only difference is the race of the characters like this and Heimdall (for example). I want it to be as close to the source material as it can be since I own over 6000 comics, all of which I have read multiple times, and for the most part like very much how they have always been. It doesn't make it worse that they changed the race of the character, but it denies 53 years of history and changes a major part of the character (when talking about FF). And the accusations of racism because you like the original characters is disingenuous and o

And YES, race is a major part of a person or character. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't so "progressive" to change the race of the character. Popularly, from white to black. I'm sure it happened the other way as well, but it's far less common. One of the parts that stand out to me is the different situation when it comes to Michael B Jordan as the Johnny Storm and Miles Morales as the new SpiderMan. In one situation you are taking a character who has historically always one color and color swap him, so it's like he has always been black. In the instance of Miles Morales as SpiderMan, you are passing on the mantle of the character to a new character. These two situations are very different but seem to treated the same by people who "lean left". My girlfriend made a very good point about the ridiculous impetus of choosing Miles Morales as the new Spiderman. They could have simply said it's this guy now. But the creator was saying that it's more believable if the character is not white. It was move believable to have a non-white guy be poor and from the city. This boggles my mind of course. But that being said, then you can also say that Bruce Wayne or Batman can only ever be white because all non-whites are poor people. Both of these are ridiculous ideas and make no sense.
Well put.

I think we're all PAST being sick of the whole "Black Johnny Storm" thing, but then the author just HAD to go and accuse a huge number of comic fans of being racists.

So, he're my two cents to add to the above post. I'm sure the "Social Justice Warrior" is an intelligent person, really I am. I'm sure I share some of his political views. I refuse to subscribe to the whole "left vs. right" thing though, as the idea of splitting everyone neatly into two neat, disparate belief systems is beyond stupidity. That being said, I'll type this slowly, using words everyone (incuding the SJW) should be able to understand:

Recognizing that human beings have different physical characteristics (including skin tone or "color") is not racism. Believing that mostly superficial physical characteristics such as skin color somehow indicate that a person is inferior is racism.

My point? Nobody (other than maybe a few idiots somewhere) said "Michael B. Jordan shouldn't play the Human Torch because, as a black man he is an inferior actor to a white man." THAT would be racist. No... a very large percentage of the posts by people who were "upset" about the casting were upset not that a black actor would somehow automatically suck at playing the Human Torch. They were upset that with Johnny and Sue being certainly one of the most well-known and iconic brother-sister superhero pairs, it's a absolute stupid move to make them NOT biological siblings. So... with the HUGE pool of talented actresses "of color" in Hollywood that would have made GREAT Sue Storms, and the oft-bemoaned lack of high-profile roles for those actresses, it's fairly obvious that the black/white casting of the famous siblings was done to stir exactly the controversy it did.

Sure, we all know that there are a few not-too-crazy ways to explain having siblings of dramatically different complexion, but it's frankly a stupid and unnecessary complication to a fairly straightforward origin story that I'm pretty sure we're all hoping they don't waste half the movie going over AGAIN.

If their goal was TRULY to add diversity to a very "whitewashed" cast, casting a non-caucasian Mr. Fantastic or Thing would have barely registered with most level-headed fans, or... again, casting the siblings from a pool of actors that actually look like they could be... y'know... siblings. Take Heimdall, for instance. Yeah, there were some people with strong opinions about casting the crazy awesome Idris Elba as the traditionally white Heimdall, or casting someone of Asiatic descent as Hogun... but the rumblings were minor, and subsided fairly quickly. Yes, Jaimie Alexander's Sif and Idris Elba's Heimdall are siblings as well, but besides the fact that their familial relationship isn't nearly as central to the plot as Sue and Johnny's sibling status, a bigger point is that they are near-immortal god-like alien beings to whom we have no solid reason to believe the "rules" of human genetics apply.

TL:DR? Stop throwing the "racism" card at people just because they disagree with you. It makes you look like an idiot.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
ZZoMBiE13 said:
For the record, no one argues about Han shooting first. We all just accept that he did. END OF STORY.

END.

OF.

STORY.
You know that Futurama episode where they purged Star Trek from existence?

They should do that with all of the Star Wars updates and the prequels.

The Plunk said:
Maybe I should have elabourated. There's no problem with using art to convey political ideas, and discussing these ideas is fine. The problem is the ridiculous over-analysis of works which aren't political to back up your own, prepossessed political views.
Who is to say that they're apolitical? To assume they are is to assume that the form of art itself is create within a vacuum where there are no political ideals, no beliefs about anything, which is obviously impossible. What about when the artist says that they meant one thing, but most people interpret it differently?

Even videogames, on some level or another, express the ideas of its designers. Take, say, Civilization V, a game which is supposedly about celebrating the history of humanity. How do you win Civilization V? By promoting world peace? Solving world hunger? Having the healthiest, or most educated, or happiest population on the planet? How about nuclear deproliferation, creating artificial intelligence, or curing disease? None of those are valid victories in Civilization V. Hell, the aforementioned happiness is a modifier for the efficiency of your civilization, and that the happiness of the people is only really important for productivity. What are valid victories in Civilization V? Defeating every other Civilization on the planet, having your culture (which you in no way have any way of representing, its a number, not a reflection of your civilization at all) pervade every other civilization on the planet, regardless of the actual quality of the culture, winning the next Space Race, electing yourself as a single, solitary World Leader, and winning via points, and the amount of points you have is decided by how large your empire is. It doesn't take much effort to see that, besides the problem that Civilization V itemizes most human achievement in a shallow, soulless way, the game's idea of "victory" has been hugely influence by the history of the country it was made in. The studio that made Civilization V resides in the US - the same US that is the military powerhouse of the world, is considered to be the world's only SuperPower nation, has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, was one of two main competitors in the Space Race (and has promptly stopped giving a fuck once its remaining competitor dropped out of said race), and dominates the world with cinematic achivements.

None of that is to say that Civilization V is bad, or that those are bad goals, but those certainly aren't goals for all of humanity, yet, the creators of the series say that the Civilization is about celebrating human achievement. I don't doubt their sincerity - just their ability to proclaim with any sort of authority what constitutes as achievements in humanity.

Obviously, you don't buy any of this stuff, but the great thing about Critical Theory is that we can speculate on why you don't believe it. For example, you used "Marxist" as a negative-connation, which gives us an idea about some of your views without even having to ask you about them. See, Critical Theory at work!

...which brings me to the second problem: We will only ever hear left wing viewpoints. Of course, this is inevitable because most gamers, at least in this sort of community, are left wing, but surely you can see that a constant left wing circle-jerk will only serve to alienate people who don't agree with your politics?
That is why we have forums - to discuss these things. You're posting on a forum, right now, on an article that basically said "Hey people, PLEASE ARGUE WITH EACH OTHER!" Nobody is required to advocate for any ideas, especially those they don't hold, and if somebody's particular view isn't being challenged one way, you're right that its likely going to be challenged and refined by somebody who shares more similar beliefs. You can have an argument between a liberal and a conservative about affirmative action, and you can also have an equally valid argument between two liberals or two conservatives about affirmative action.

And by the way, journalism is in of itself political, even "objective" journalism. Even when trying to give just the facts, no opinions, you are, yourself, inevitably going to give a reflection of your own ideas. Nobody goes interviewing an Islamic theocrat whenever an issue about gay rights shows up in the United States. Why not? Their religious beliefs are as valid as anyone elses. Isn't that omission in journalism an admission that they don't think an Islamic viewpoint is as relevant as that of a Christian? How about that we here in the United States never hear from the leaders of governments opposed to the United States? That omission from news media outlets is an omission that they don't consider the ideology of governments opposed to the United States' interests as being worth mentioning because they're automatically wrong.
 

TheRiddler

New member
Sep 21, 2013
672
0
0
I agree, obviously. Political discussion is generally necessary in any art form, and games can't really be excluded from that. And if one needs to take an overtly political stand when talking about a game, so be it. That said... I think that heavily framing any work of fiction in political terms forces people to see it in black and white terms. There's less measured talk about what makes a game/film/etc work if a political agenda is all you can read into it.

To use Ross Lincoln's example, yes, the political views of Alan Moore do merit discussion in talking about Watchmen. But it becomes increasingly hard to calmly observe the interpersonal relationships and emotional subtleties of Moore's characters if you can only see them as political caricatures.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
1,350
0
0
Y'know, it's actually possible to discuss these things without being crazy. Maybe some people could try a bit harder?
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
Nice clickbait headline...again.

OT: The gaming community primarily is here to do 2 things.

1: PLAY VIDEOGAMES.
2: DISCUSS SAID VIDEOGAMES.

It is not about politics, the geopolitical landscape, etc. Inviting political discussion into a forum not made for said discussion is like inviting a bear into a fine resturaunt. Keep political debates on political sites. Keep religious discussion on religious sites. And keep geek/nerd discussion on geek/nerd sites. I mean really people.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
3,151
0
0
No, its just too polarizing and devolves into irrationality. The amount of shit-flinging that happens when folks discuss politics, the volatility of believing one is right about how things should be run or what one should even believe isn't good for us. It always ends up toxic. Journalism is dead once everything is an opinion piece and not a straight reporting of facts. Facts are often distorted now by agendas, truth is often left behind because it doesn't fit with the current popular political theory. I distrust everything I read and see because I don't believe there's any objectivity anymore. Especially when one admits they're writing an opinion based on one sided viewpoints. No, I can't do this because its just going to cause a lot of crap and arguments and I just can't do that anymore. Let me enjoy my games, my movies and not think so much on what the hell the artist(s) is/are trying to comment on society. Let me form my own damn opinions for myself, and not have to air them out as if its some great epiphany everyone must have as well in order to validate it. Art isn't about the artist, its about what the art says to you. Its meant to be subjective, its in the eye of the beholder (unless that eye happens to be the disintegration beam, then don't look).
Basically we're all going to form our own views on things and attempting to subscribe to one group or the other and dismissing the side we're not on isn't progressive, its regressive.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
2,257
0
0
Please please change the title of this new article type of escapist, or is it purposely trolly and click-baity?

Escapist isn't Kotaku and I like it that way.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
281
0
0
The Escapist as of late, who's name is now misleading because it's no longer offering any kind of escapism, but instead bombards you constantly with articles about issues and how they relate to games, how they relate to comics, how they relate to movies, and more often then not derailing entirely into a full throated non "geek culture related political rampage. And for the record I'm not just saying this because I disagree, again I agree with a lot of points, I am saying this because, absolutely Ubisoft said something thoughtless and frankly stupid, but nearly every single writer, contributor, and reporter on the escapist through in their two sense on the issue, so much so to the point where regardless of how good the point was it got annoying.

Social justice has its place in geek culture because it is an industry that has long since been plagued with sexism, racism, and a lack of diversity and is slow to catch up with our quickly changing culture. That's why your column should be here. I just wish it didn't sound so condescending every time you bring this up.

I come to the Escapist because I want to hear opinions about video games, TV, Movies, etc. I go to Real clear politics, or other sites to hear news about politics. Of course there will be some overlap, this is the real world after all. But create a politics section if you want to rail on about it all the time.

And before anyone chimes in with accusations of me trying to "silence" decenting opinions, that's not my point. There is a "place" for these things in entertainment media, but the constant drone of allegations flying back and forth is detracting from the real issues which are, are these things any good?

The TV and Movies podcast has this tendency to be little more then rambling about Sexism, and this week we were tuned into a special treat of Old people and republican bashing because Jon Stewart goes too far for Gary Oldman but not far enough for you. I know what Bob's politics are. When not on the Escapist, he wears them on his proverbial internet sleeve, but I watch the big picture because 90% of the time he talks about an area in which he has expertise and I undoubtedly respect and am interested in his opinions in those subjects.

I'm asking you as a fan, to ease up and enjoy the Hobby and use your strong words sparingly because the more you use words the less meaning they have, and your specific brand of social justice is starting to loose meaning to the point where it seems to set the movements you support back, as they invite more aggravate more moderate sympathizers then they convince those who disagree, and the echo-chamber of like minded individuals still nets you nothing.

[edited] toned it down a bit, but still I'm hoping you guys will have some fun.
 

VVThoughtBox

New member
Mar 3, 2014
44
0
0
I believe that it is unhealthy for geeks to argue politics. A lot of the stuff that the article mentions like the Catwoman cover, or a black man being cast as the Human Torch doesn't even sound like politics. It sounds more like a consumer who's dissatisfied with the quality of the product, or don't like the changes made to a character. In order for geeks to argue politics, they would have to be comfortable and very knowledgeable with talking about social issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and death. Geeks will also have to come to terms with the fact that an episode of Star Trek, or an issue of Superman doesn't have the answer to these social issues, and cannot solve something that has been plaguing humanity for centuries.
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
194
0
0
I just want to say that I unequivocally approve of this article and series. Keep up the good work Mr. Lincoln, and if you say something I disagree with I will GLADLY point out how you are wrong. ;)
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
655
0
0
Here's something you said on the first page that makes the term "Social Justice Warrior" a much-deserved pejorative: "Sometimes it's because some of us do or say something really stupid, forcing a strong rebuttal, not only to stop a bad idea from becoming conventional wisdom, but to make it clear that no, not all of us are assholes. Like when some people objected strenuously to the casting of Michael B. Jordan as The Human Torch for reasons that can only be characterized as completely racist." So, when SOME people makes a racist comment about the casting of Fantastic Four. That means EVERYBODY who objects to the casting of Michael B. Jordan MUST BE RACIST. Not that anyone could object because they thinks he is not a good actor, randomly race-switching characters smacks of tokenism, or the movie makers showed complete disregard to the source material by casting 2 people of different races as brother and sister.

You can be completely ignorant of the writer's politics and still enjoy their works. I had no clue what Frank Miller's & Alan Moore's politics were. Yet, I still enjoyed Sin City and V for Vendetta graphic novels and the movies based on them.

My biggest issue with people trying to conflate serious political issues with videogames, comics, and other forms of escapist mediums is that 99% of the time it's complaining about first world problems. Combined with the casual accusation of bigotry to anyone who dares to disagree with them makes the people crusading on "Social Justice" issues look vindictive and petty.

If you want a better understanding what real bigotry is, and why people had to stand up and be social justice warriors, I recommend watching this movie.

http://youtu.be/UH8jA2nm5Vo
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
14,303
0
0
ZZoMBiE13 said:
For the record, no one argues about Han shooting first. We all just accept that he did. END OF STORY.

END.

OF.

STORY.
I'm confused. Why would anyone think otherwise? I've seen the movie, the only version of the movie ever made, and it's clear he shot first.

MarsAtlas said:
You know that Futurama episode where they purged Star Trek from existence?

They should do that with all of the Star Wars updates and the prequels.
I don't know, I quite liked the dance number at Jabba's pa....*gets trampled by angry fans*

MarsAtlas said:
And by the way, journalism is in of itself political, even "objective" journalism. Even when trying to give just the facts, no opinions, you are, yourself, inevitably going to give a reflection of your own ideas.
Depends on what you're reporting on.

For example:

Nobody goes interviewing an Islamic theocrat whenever an issue about gay rights shows up in the United States. Why not?
Depending on whether or not you count Catholics (Who are sort of Shrodinger's Christians), Christians are over 70% of the country. The next largest group is "unafiliated" with 19, and then other religions occupy about 6% of the population. Muslims are about half of one percent of the United States population.

There are several reasons that might go to the "bias" reflected here which may have nothing to do with personal bias. If you need a few, I can offer them, but I suspect this will be long to begin with.

Their religious beliefs are as valid as anyone elses. Isn't that omission in journalism an admission that they don't think an Islamic viewpoint is as relevant as that of a Christian?
I can't speak for everyone who's ever written for some sort of news medium, but just speaking personally? I'm an atheist. I probably would be more likely to interview a Christian than a Muslim just by the numbers alone. One group is almost three quarters of the country and the other isn't even one percent.

Are Christian opinions more valid? No, but they're more prevalent and likely more relevant. In the case of homosexuality, the fact that almost 3/4 of the nation is impacted by one religious system makes them a bigger issue here. Do I think that Jesus is more correct than Muhammad? Hell no.

How about that we here in the United States never hear from the leaders of governments opposed to the United States? That omission from news media outlets is an omission that they don't consider the ideology of governments opposed to the United States' interests as being worth mentioning because they're automatically wrong.
Or, alternatively, they correctly believe their market doesn't give a crap about foreign markets. We rarely consider the opinions of governments that are in favour of us, either. We under-report foreign affairs, period. One could argue personal or editorial bias, but the more likely reason is that it just doesn't sell. In fact, I bet you could find some neat causal relationship in which the media is led by what the consumer wants to hear about with regards to foreign news. I'm still a little baffled by Ukraine getting so much press, as I doubt most of the people interested could find it on a map. And now with social media, it seems that reporting on what's already trending is now a thing.

And that's a damn shame, but that doesn't necessarily mean "personal bias."

That being said, this is a column. Its goal is editorial. Expecting it to be unbiased is absurd.

And worse, in games and comics, which often do have political issues addressed in them. And games are becoming less shy about it.
 

Saetha

New member
Jan 19, 2014
452
0
0
For the record, if you had ever met an actual SJW (Such as those that infest the bowels of Tumblr, not the more politically minded folks on this site that get slapped with the label unfairly) there's pretty much a zero chance you'd ever want to assume the same name as them.

Honestly, I try my best to stay out of those debates, but even I can tell you that people are a little quick to label around here. It's a tendency that goes both ways, and many people who calmly and logically argue the diversity debates get called an SJW simply because their opponent can come up with no better argument. If that's one's only real encounter with the term, I can understand why some might think it's not that bad of a term and claiming it for something like this is a clever way of "owning" the point of your blog (Or editorial, whatever)

But speaking as someone who has been to the bowels of Tumblr and seen the sorts of things actual SJWs claim and think, I can not only tell you that few on this site even come close to the label, but it is nonetheless something you'd NEVER want to willingly associate yourself with. And the fact that you are has... left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least.

As for the blog itself... well, I hate politics and would prefer they keep themselves as far away from my hobbies as they please. But I rather doubt that my opinion would stop you.
 

DRTJR

New member
Aug 7, 2009
430
0
0
I believe that bringing up politics is a generally bad idea. Because nothing here will change an opinion. If someone(like myself) is very conservative then I will avoid articles that just exist make liberals feel superior, hence why I no longer watch Comedy Central. While both I and a liberal can enjoy Dragon Age we might have enjoyable debates on the ethics of blood magic the instant we shift to IRL topics we will likely end up going for the jugular and stop having that fun.
 

shirkbot

New member
Apr 15, 2013
206
0
0
DRTJR said:
[...] While both I and a liberal can enjoy Dragon Age we might have enjoyable debates on the ethics of blood magic the instant we shift to IRL topics we will likely end up going for the jugular and stop having that fun.
But isn't that kind of up to the parties involved? I'm liberal to the point of actual anarchism (IE all interactions should be voluntary. ALL.) but I see no reason to go for the jugular, and part of what facilitates that view is where we're talking: A Video Game Site. We're communicating in an inherently chill place, where when the debate gets too heated we can all agree that video games are awesome. Though those are just my feelings on the matter, and I'm an inherently political person.

Also, blood magic is totally moral as long as you're using your own blood, the blood of the uncoerced, using it in self-defense or if used combating a clear threat to almost all living things like the Darkspawn.

OT: Hi-Ho Politics! I mentioned this last column as well, but I think it bares repeating: If you do not like the left-wing bent of a lot of Escapist materials, please write something that follows your own politics and submit it for publication. I will do whatever I can to support you in this, including petitioning and reading the column/article simply because I like a variety of viewpoints.
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
43
0
0
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/index/528-Religion-and-Politics

Threads: 9925
Posts: 550901

I don't think this is really telling us anything we don't know.

Not only that but it's not like we haven't had political articles before. What was the topic of sexist Xbox live chat getting you banned from Halo, which there was an article about, if not political - based on the opposing notions of free speech versus people's right to be protected from abuse?

DRTJR said:
I believe that bringing up politics is a generally bad idea. Because nothing here will change an opinion. If someone(like myself) is very conservative then I will avoid articles that just exist make liberals feel superior, hence why I no longer watch Comedy Central. While both I and a liberal can enjoy Dragon Age we might have enjoyable debates on the ethics of blood magic the instant we shift to IRL topics we will likely end up going for the jugular and stop having that fun.
I've changed people's opinions about political issues. Just yesterday on the forums I got someone to change their opinion on the Iraq war from one where they were certain that the war was needed, inspectors were useless, etc to one where they were unsure.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,329
16
13
Kameburger said:
The Escapist as of late, who's name is now misleading because it's no longer offering any kind of escapism,
I always assumed the name was meant to be ironic.

Because, so very often, I find myself wanting to escape from this place.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
1,723
0
0
It's hard to discuss politics with the right wing on a site like this, when they tend argue fairy tales and conjecture. Once upon a time the stereotype was that the left wing would accuse detractors of being "Nazis", but ever since the internet gave a voice to virginal 15 year old boys, it seems like everything is now "Marxist".

"I hate my mom, I hate people telling me what to do, I don't pay tax but if I did then blacks and latinos would live like kings from my meager offerings. Small government! Brian from Family Guy is such a libtard, I like guns, if you try to take them away from me you're like Hitler, that's what he did dontcha know, you yellow cultural marxists..."

Sure geeks should discuss politics, but I don't think the forum of this site is the best environment for it. Everyone has a political opinion, but only few have enough conviction to research and commit to what they supposedly believe in. Therefore you'll get a lot more of the above bollocks from both sides of the debate.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
1,723
0
0
As for Johnny Storm, he shouldn't be changed. I detest this idea that the left apparently are pro the change. I'm left and I hate it, because it underlies the racism in the film industry.

First, they change a character to be black to try and get the black dollar. Racist and insulting.

Secondly, there's a wealth of races, genders and creed in comics, but the industry isn't willing to drop money on any of these titles.

When the issue of race literally boils down to the most demeaning way of obtaining maximum profit, I think you'll find it has "American Conservatism" written all over it.

Calling people who don't like the change "racist" is a straw man argument at it's finest.
 

Ipsen

New member
Jul 8, 2008
307
0
0
IceForce said:
Kameburger said:
The Escapist as of late, who's name is now misleading because it's no longer offering any kind of escapism,
I always assumed the name was meant to be ironic.

Because, so very often, I find myself wanting to escape from this place.
I larfed, because I believe this myself...now.

I also believed it when I came to this site very close to 6 years ago. Back then, I took 'The Escapist' title as ironic because anyone can superficially call this medium mere 'escapism', yet its articles, staff, and community were all about connecting games and life; living with games. Sure, the articles never got as many views or attention as the bullshit of the industry (leading to what we have now), but for articles like those to be gone (survived pretty much solely by Rob Rath's excellent Critical Intel) just... leaves me not coming to this site as much anymore.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
387
0
0
I also will not be renewing my pub club subscription. Politics is not "fun", now I could stomach it if people were really discussing things intellectually but frankly people don't know as much as they think they do. Most editorials are littered with implied political and philosophical assumptions that are simply taken as given when they are the heart of the real issue. People think that what makes them uncomfortable is the same as "immoral" behaviour.

For instance calling that catwoman poster "sexist" is simply intellectually lazy. There's nothing "sexist" in it, it's a picture of a single woman, unless you mean it should have equal male representation but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is offensive to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it is exaggerating sexual characteristics for the titillation of the presumed male audience (in which you are erasing the possibility of lesbians and bisexuals), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.

Don't bother replying with the "explanation" I know what is going to be said, just pointing out an example of what ticks me off about polemic articles.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
I think this is a very good development.
The fact that a column has been commissioned on the site that is to be called "Social Justice Warrior" and only the second entry in the column is indeed full of SJW talking points is very illuminating.
It shows that the SJW ideology to be found on Tumblr is being accepted by the site as an integral part of the brand, and that the site will be actively pushing it within its articles, Jim Sterling has obviously been an SJW for some time, but the inclusion of a specifically SJW column is a much more drastic step.

Such a clear declaration of intention is rare, frankly, and it makes it very easy for potential readers to know beforehand that The Escapist is a hostile community that has bought into the ideology of the extreme left.

This is great, it really does give the best of both worlds. Those of us who are able to actually think about things and as a result reject SJWism for the toxic nonsense that it is can find other sites to patronize.
Those of us who are not able to think about things and uncritically accept the SJW ideology are free to have a Tumblr-esque circlejerk all day long without worrying about anybody oppressing their feels with heteronormative, cisgendered, patriarchal facts.

I'm pleased, as I've only been able to read Yahtzee's column for quite a while now because he still talks about fucking games, when every other article seems to be able to be paraphrased as "look at me, look at how feminist and enlightened I am, please won't somebody love me?" with a veneer of relevance to video games hastily glued on the top.

This marks my departure from this site and the end of any possibility of me subscribing, I sincerely hope that non-SJW members do the same. I have been getting my actual gaming news from Destructoid as of late, and I have found that even when dealing with games that are undergoing SJW-nontroversy (like AC:Unity) they stick to the facts and remain open-minded and neutral in their reporting.
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,080
0
0
So many articles every week are about "issues" in games. And the quality of articles his dropped sharply in my opinion. Instead of hearing stories of adults who still love Disneyland. We have 3 pages of zombie crap some guy shilling his zombie book. Every second video MovieBob does is a TERRIBLE attempt at tackling social issues in the most ham handed way. I remember back when he was angry at football player (I think) about dogfighting and changed up his article because he wanted to comment. That's cool. That's a break in the routine. But now it has become the routine. I agree with biting gamer above me on his point about zero punctuation. I also have to say I have started watching Lisa Foiles. I never had anything against her. I just don't like list videos. But at least she just talks about games with obvious passion and doesn't try and tell me what she thinks about whatever issue. For me the clincher was the embarrassingly bad article written by the list guy about how Aliens 'killed' a franchise.

I can see the Escapist dying a quick death at some point in the next few years. Someone will snatch up Yahtzee. (you can't tell me he is not sick of doing those videos week in week out.) The LRR guys will go off and do their own thing, maybe to penny arcade. And the site will stagnate and die. Thanks to the clickbait articles and news stories and absolutely nothing to separate it from other gaming sites where the same rhetoric is copy pasted again and again and again. It would be a terrible shame to see it happen. The pub club guys joined back when Russ Pitts and Susan Arndt ran the show. And their vision is totally different from the current one, I can see them leaving in droves.
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
43
0
0
wizzy555 said:
For instance calling that catwoman poster "sexist" is simply intellectually lazy. There's nothing "sexist" in it, it's a picture of a single woman, unless you mean it should have equal male representation but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is offensive to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it is exaggerating sexual characteristics for the titillation of the presumed male audience (in which you are erasing the possibility of lesbians and bisexuals), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
"Never hold any value judgements ever because you always have to explain all of them and even then everyone won't agree so it doesn't count".

It's a ridiculous standard to hold to and hypocritical too, because see if this sounds familiar:

There's nothing "intellectually lazy" in it, it's an article of a single topic, unless you mean it should have been published in a peer reviewed journal but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is intellectually lazy to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it doesn't offer enough depth and proof to satisfy the conditions for intellectual rigor (in which you are erasing the possibility of people with different standard of intellectual rigor), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
 

briankoontz

New member
May 17, 2010
321
0
0
Politics can't be separated from games, since political reality *produces* the content of games. So we're already discussing politics when we discuss games, and it's a good idea to discuss politics directly as well.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
387
0
0
Overhead said:
wizzy555 said:
For instance calling that catwoman poster "sexist" is simply intellectually lazy. There's nothing "sexist" in it, it's a picture of a single woman, unless you mean it should have equal male representation but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is offensive to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it is exaggerating sexual characteristics for the titillation of the presumed male audience (in which you are erasing the possibility of lesbians and bisexuals), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
"Never hold any value judgements ever because you always have to explain all of them and even then everyone won't agree so it doesn't count".

It's a ridiculous standard to hold to and hypocritical too, because see if this sounds familiar:

There's nothing "intellectually lazy" in it, it's an article of a single topic, unless you mean it should have been published in a peer reviewed journal but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is intellectually lazy to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it doesn't offer enough depth and proof to satisfy the conditions for intellectual rigor (in which you are erasing the possibility of people with different standard of intellectual rigor), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
Sexism isn't a value judgement, you can objectively identify discrimination in controlled situations. And that's precisely why people like to conflate it with value judgements, it makes their opinion seem final.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
829
0
0
Overhead said:
wizzy555 said:
For instance calling that catwoman poster "sexist" is simply intellectually lazy. There's nothing "sexist" in it, it's a picture of a single woman, unless you mean it should have equal male representation but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is offensive to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it is exaggerating sexual characteristics for the titillation of the presumed male audience (in which you are erasing the possibility of lesbians and bisexuals), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
"Never hold any value judgements ever because you always have to explain all of them and even then everyone won't agree so it doesn't count".

It's a ridiculous standard to hold to and hypocritical too, because see if this sounds familiar:

There's nothing "intellectually lazy" in it, it's an article of a single topic, unless you mean it should have been published in a peer reviewed journal but I don't think you mean that. What you could say is that is intellectually lazy to you, but then that requires more explanation and justification. You could say it doesn't offer enough depth and proof to satisfy the conditions for intellectual rigor (in which you are erasing the possibility of people with different standard of intellectual rigor), and you would be correct. But then you have to explain why that is bad. etc etc. And good luck getting everyone to agree to a consistent interpretation.
The problem is when you grab any topic, label it, and it is over you only get more discussion.

If team Orange calls team Blue poopy-heads the only thing that happens is that team Orange gets smug self-satisfaction and team Blue gets more defensive in their position. In the Cat Woman example, saying it is sexist and ending it there, only made his team happier and the another team angrier.

A more concrete example. One of the main reasons many people (including me) have bought Dragon's Crown and even asked Team Ninja to keep the breast mechanics of Dead or Alive was to give a middle finger to people who keep calling them sexist.

Or in how many of the Critical Miss comics you get only mutual hate in the forums, instead of mutual understanding (I like the comics, disagree with some, but this is the main problem).

Basically, it is what my mother always told me, and I have taken long to learn. Proper form of discussion.

For example, a good part of the article was him giving praise to a guy of the other team. You rarely see this.
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
43
0
0
wizzy555 said:
Sexism isn't a value judgement, you can objectively identify discrimination in controlled situations. And that's precisely why people like to conflate it with value judgements, it makes their opinion seem final.
This should be good.

Please offer me your full explanation of how, say, sexist language can be objectively analysed when language is full of nuance, subtext and subjectively changes from individual to individual? Please note I'm not saying it can't be analysed and if you want I can provide plenty of examples, I'm asking how it can be done objectively without it being involving value judgements. It's not like there's even one single feminist philosophy, with their being various different thoughts and analyses which hold differing stances on differing aspects of sexism based on - you guessed it - the individual values the people involved hold.

By "Controlled situations" I can only imagine you're thinking of the most clear-cut and simplistic examples, which doesn't even begin to stretch into real world analysis where sexism is rampant in a plethora of overlapping and often subtle ways. You might find unanimous agreement for "If a man refuses to hire women because he thinks they're stupid is he sexist" but you'll find disagreement on "Is a man visits a stripper, is he sexist" based on whether it's viewed as sexist or empowering. This is in turn based on a number of different factors both unique to the person holding the view (their personal values) and the exact details of the situation (is the woman obligated to be there, is she choosing to be there but under financial pressure, etc).

But please, no, you know exactly what is objectively sexist so can you save all of humanity some time and effort and just lay it all out for us? At the moment we all argue about it and have to go to court to sort out whether isntances count as sexist or not, etc, but if you could explain ti all that would save a lot of bother.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
387
0
0
Overhead said:
wizzy555 said:
Sexism isn't a value judgement, you can objectively identify discrimination in controlled situations. And that's precisely why people like to conflate it with value judgements, it makes their opinion seem final.
This should be good.

Please offer me your full explanation of how, say, sexist language can be objectively analysed when language is full of nuance, subtext and subjectively changes from individual to individual? Please note I'm not saying it can't be analysed and if you want I can provide plenty of examples, I'm asking how it can be done objectively without it being involving value judgements. It's not like there's even one single feminist philosophy, with their being various different thoughts and analyses which hold differing stances on differing aspects of sexism based on - you guessed it - the individual values the people involved hold.

By "Controlled situations" I can only imagine you're thinking of the most clear-cut and simplistic examples, which doesn't even begin to stretch into real world analysis where sexism is rampant in a plethora of overlapping and often subtle ways. You might find unanimous agreement for "If a man refuses to hire women because he thinks they're stupid is he sexist" but you'll find disagreement on "Is a man visits a stripper, is he sexist" based on whether it's viewed as sexist or empowering. This is in turn based on a number of different factors both unique to the person holding the view (their personal values) and the exact details of the situation (is the woman obligated to be there, is she choosing to be there but under financial pressure, etc).

But please, no, you know exactly what is objectively sexist so can you save all of humanity some time and effort and just lay it all out for us? At the moment we all argue about it and have to go to court to sort out whether isntances count as sexist or not, etc, but if you could explain ti all that would save a lot of bother.
This is your problem, you want sexism to mean "bad" or "unjust" or "pertaining to misogyny" all at the same time. If you didn't you would have an easier time. Your questions are certainly genuinely difficult issues but you are hamstringing yourself with language.

I'm not saying everyone should listen to me, I'm saying people should say what they mean.

Is the man visiting the stripper sexist? Well he may well have a discriminating sexuality giving him a preference to a certain gender. Is that sexist? yes. is that bad or unjust? No - unless you want to posit that anything except bi-sexuality is unjust.
Does the man consider women inferior - who's to say you haven't offered the information
If the woman is or not obligated to be there doesn't seem to having bearing on the sexism of the man just the social justice of the situation which indeed may need addressing - sexism is not the only sin.
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
43
0
0
wizzy555 said:
This is your problem, you want sexism to mean "bad" or "unjust" or "pertaining to misogyny" all at the same time. If you didn't you would have an easier time. Your questions are certainly genuinely difficult issues but you are hamstringing yourself with language.

I'm not saying everyone should listen to me, I'm saying people should say what they mean.

Is the man visiting the stripper sexist? Well he may well have a discriminating sexuality giving him a preference to a certain gender. Is that sexist? yes. is that bad or unjust? No - unless you want to posit that anything except bi-sexuality is unjust.
Does the man consider women inferior - who's to say you haven't offered the information
If the woman is or not obligated to be there doesn't seem to having bearing on the sexism of the man just the social justice of the situation which indeed may need addressing - sexism is not the only sin.
Ah, you seem to have a very limited definition of sexism that you seem to think overrides any other people's definition of sexism, so far simply because you say so rather than because you've shown evidence that it should do so. Can you give any rationale for this that isn't based on value judgements?

Objectification, both of fictional women in media and real women, is regarded as sexist from your typical feminist viewpoints. The reasoning for this isn't because it's "bad" or "unjust" as you claim, which is just a simplification with no bearing on on the arguement being made, but rather because it involves the commodification and stripping of personhood from women individually and collectively. As an action it collectively degrades women, sometimes in the singular sense (a stripper) and sometimes in the collective sense (The cultural view of women it helps create). Thus sexist.

But then not everyone agrees, what with it being based on personal values and all.
 

RossaLincoln

New member
Feb 4, 2014
313
0
0
Actually I would say all the liberal left wing circle jerks are driving people off this website I know one or two who have said it was why they left. It's get tiring and anyone who argues against it slowly heads towards a ban. I preferred when game websites were about games.
 

wizzy555

New member
Oct 14, 2010
387
0
0
Overhead said:
wizzy555 said:
This is your problem, you want sexism to mean "bad" or "unjust" or "pertaining to misogyny" all at the same time. If you didn't you would have an easier time. Your questions are certainly genuinely difficult issues but you are hamstringing yourself with language.

I'm not saying everyone should listen to me, I'm saying people should say what they mean.

Is the man visiting the stripper sexist? Well he may well have a discriminating sexuality giving him a preference to a certain gender. Is that sexist? yes. is that bad or unjust? No - unless you want to posit that anything except bi-sexuality is unjust.
Does the man consider women inferior - who's to say you haven't offered the information
If the woman is or not obligated to be there doesn't seem to having bearing on the sexism of the man just the social justice of the situation which indeed may need addressing - sexism is not the only sin.
Ah, you seem to have a very limited definition of sexism that you seem to think overrides any other people's definition of sexism, so far simply because you say so rather than because you've shown evidence that it should do so. Can you give any rationale for this that isn't based on value judgements?
You are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying "never make value judgements" I'm saying unwrap your value judgements from your objective statements. I will say it is better because I value clarity as this facilitates clear communication. See, all nicely unwrapped.
Objectification, both of fictional women in media and real women, is regarded as sexist from your typical feminist viewpoints. The reasoning for this isn't because it's "bad" or "unjust" as you claim, which is just a simplification with no bearing on on the arguement being made, but rather because it involves the commodification and stripping of personhood from women individually and collectively. As an action it collectively degrades women, sometimes in the singular sense (a stripper) and sometimes in the collective sense (The cultural view of women it helps create). Thus sexist.

But then not everyone agrees, what with it being based on personal values and all.
Well that's a better unwrapping than simply calling it sexist and leaving it to my imagination whatever you mean. So another meaning for "sexist" is anything that you believe perpetuates what you consider a negative view of women in society. I'll add that to the list. Although all that stuff about being forced into stripping doesn't come into it.
 

James Crook

New member
Jul 15, 2011
273
0
0
I - like many people on this website in the last few weeks - have been seeing The Escapist changing into a website not about games but offering clickbait articles cashing in on the eventuality of a left-wing circlejerk, something MovieBob's article on Gary Oldman epitomizes.
I used to like Bob but his hamfisted way of seemingly cramming his political views everywhere has now made me not want to watch or read him anymore - not even The Big Picture.

I am a mostly centre-right, mixed-race Frenchman.

I find racism completely irrational and as such shouldn't be levied at people who thought the casting for Johnny Storm was wrong - like me.

I find sexism pretty stupid but don't think Ubisoft has sexist attitudes - they're lazy and fucked up at justifying their laziness when they saw the shitstorm incoming.

I am starting to be really annoyed to what has become of The Escapist. For a while I was starting to consider this to be kind of a home on the internet.
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
194
0
0
To the Escapist Staff:

I would hope you are not too worried about the three or so people who decided to cancel their Pub Club subscriptions due to this column. In case you were however, I have just gone and purchased said subscription, in direct support of this article and in direct opposition of those who are leaving in protest (while of course still respecting their rights to leave in protest.)

I feel in some ways it is long overdue. I have loved this website and its political take on a culture I am so deeply invested in for years now.

Keep up the good work,

dragonswarrior
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
2,503
0
0
God damn, the reactions to this article are kind of glorious. You don't like people who don't agree with you actually expressing opinions? You want to leave? Good. Would rather not want to read whatever you have to say anyway.

 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
2,390
0
0
IceForce said:
Kameburger said:
The Escapist as of late, who's name is now misleading because it's no longer offering any kind of escapism,
I always assumed the name was meant to be ironic.

Because, so very often, I find myself wanting to escape from this place.
Considering that the majority of your posts (that I see anyway) are complaints of one form or another, I must ask, why exactly do you come here?

Anyway, on the subject of the article itself, I agree. Not much more to say than that.
 
Aug 1, 2010
1,838
0
0
Personally, I'm not completely against the column, but I do have two issues.

First, the title, as you mentioned, is pure flame bait. Whether you like it or not, the term "Social Justice Warrior" has some extremely controversial connotations for some people. Naming the column this is just waving an explicit body part in their face and daring them to say mean things. It serves no real purpose other than to create false preconceptions in some minds when reading the title and drawing discussion away from the actual content of the article.

Second, I think my only real issue with the concept of this column is that it's somewhat redundant. Between The Big Picture, Jimquisition, Critical Intel (Or, God help you, the occasional Critical Miss), and basically every news article written by Bob Chipman, social issues are already handled extensively on the Escapist. I'm not saying it's terrible to have more, I'm just not sure what this can offer that's really all that different.

As for the content of [i/]this[/i] piece, I partially agree. It's certainly true that certain people that are part of the geek culture nowadays have a strange phobia to political issues.
At the same time, I can absolutely understand people who purely want to have fun with something and stop thinking about it further than that. It's just as unreasonable to expect every nerd to care about sexism as it is to expect the average moviegoer to worry about the social problems of action movies.

BreakfastMan said:
You don't like people who don't agree with you actually expressing opinions?
BreakfastMan said:
Would rather not want to read whatever you have to say anyway.
Oh the ironing
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,084
0
0
Verlander said:
It's hard to discuss politics with the right wing on a site like this, when they tend argue fairy tales and conjecture. Once upon a time the stereotype was that the left wing would accuse detractors of being "Nazis", but ever since the internet gave a voice to virginal 15 year old boys, it seems like everything is now "Marxist".

"I hate my mom, I hate people telling me what to do, I don't pay tax but if I did then blacks and latinos would live like kings from my meager offerings. Small government! Brian from Family Guy is such a libtard, I like guns, if you try to take them away from me you're like Hitler, that's what he did dontcha know, you yellow cultural marxists..."

Sure geeks should discuss politics, but I don't think the forum of this site is the best environment for it. Everyone has a political opinion, but only few have enough conviction to research and commit to what they supposedly believe in. Therefore you'll get a lot more of the above bollocks from both sides of the debate.
This is why the more intelligent and level-headed of us don't even bother: people believe what you believe, that we're all angry and stupid no matter what we say. All you have done is insult and oversimplify. I make this offer a lot, and have never been taken up on it; do you want a real, level-headed political and philosophical debate? One where no insults are hurled and your opponent actually does research and takes time to think about implications and ramifications of policy? If so, message me. We can have fun discussing the world and everything about it.
If all you want is a religious Right-Winger to knock around, or you think my beliefs automatically make me a juvenile, then debate just isn't for you, and so you shouldn't bother.
 

remnant_phoenix

New member
Apr 4, 2011
756
0
0
Lono Shrugged said:
The pub club guys joined back when Russ Pitts and Susan Arndt ran the show. And their vision is totally different from the current one, I can see them leaving in droves.
I've had this niggling in the back of my mind that Susan leaving was the end of an era. It seems like the Escapist just hasn't quite been the same since. Of course, it didn't become really noticeable to me until recently with the site design and a bunch of old hands exiting the staff and a bunch of new hands being given more clout and presence on the site.

It's nice to know that it's not just me.
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,080
0
0
remnant_phoenix said:
Lono Shrugged said:
The pub club guys joined back when Russ Pitts and Susan Arndt ran the show. And their vision is totally different from the current one, I can see them leaving in droves.
I've had this niggling in the back of my mind that Susan leaving was the end of an era. It seems like the Escapist just hasn't quite been the same since. Of course, it didn't become really noticeable to me until recently with the site design and a bunch of old hands exiting the staff and a bunch of new hands being given more clout and presence on the site.

It's nice to know that it's not just me.

There is a reason I never discuss religion and politics with my friends. Best case we bicker horribly, worst case you discover something terribly unpleasant about them. I don't mind some politics and sociology in my game discussion every once in a while, it can be nice to talk about how great it is to have such a strong protagonist as Clementine (Notice I didn't say 'black' or 'female') or how 'Papers Please' is a pretty sweet satire as well as a fun game.

My theory on what has happened here is that the site is less focused on content and more on clicks. Look at the way they tried to introduce sub headings to videos like Yahtzee's to get people to click on them. Notice how articles are named nowadays. If you look at the comments you will see that people are noticing this shift in content.

This "social justice" schtick is people realising the age old rule of journalism, sensationalism sells. Say that woman are oppressed and it's like chucking chum into the water. Anita really helped spearhead this. (alongside a lot of other people to be fair) People fucking love martyrs, it really is a microcosm of society. They self identify with these so called 'outsiders' (Because who doesn't feel like an outsider?) And people can't help but get sucked into this cyclical argument about race, gender, sexuality etc. All in aid of making themselves feel better about themselves. But it should be remembered that gamers are a group of people joined together by a common love of a hobby and nothing else. I don't care about your race/ gender/ equality issues, I know people with real problems with all those things and I play games to get AWAY from all that shit and depressing reality. I am here to talk about games not provide ad revenue. You have to earn my loyalty and insulting my intelligence is not the way. Not saying I don't care. Just that I don't care what you have to say about it.
 

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,329
16
13
Andy Shandy said:
Considering that the majority of your posts (that I see anyway) are complaints of one form or another, I must ask, why exactly do you come here?
You know, I've been asking myself that very same question.

Every time I try to have a discussion here, I get passively-aggressively insulted, harassed from thread to thread, baited and provoked, and told that my opinions don't matter or that no one cares about them.

Since you're such a devout follower of my posts, you've no doubt noticed that I have significantly reduced the amout of time I spend on this site, and the amount of posts I make.

So don't worry, I hear what you're saying.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
2,390
0
0
IceForce said:
Andy Shandy said:
Considering that the majority of your posts (that I see anyway) are complaints of one form or another, I must ask, why exactly do you come here?
You know, I've been asking myself that very same question.

Every time I try to have a discussion here, I get passively-aggressively insulted, harassed from thread to thread, baited and provoked, and told that my opinions don't matter or that no one cares about them.

Since you're such a devout follower of my posts, you've no doubt noticed that I have significantly reduced the amout of time I spend on this site, and the amount of posts I make.

So don't worry, I hear what you're saying.
Eh, I'd hardly consider myself a devout follower of anyone on here, it's just I don't think I've seen you ever make a positive comment about anything here. Perhaps you have and I've missed it. In which case, I'm definitely not a good "devout follower" =P
 

T'Generalissimo

New member
Nov 9, 2008
242
0
0
The issue isn't the combination of geeks and politics, it's the combination of ad-funded content, internet forums and politics; it encourages click-bait articles and tends to produce valueless bickering in the comments instead of well reasoned and researched content and interesting discussions. I mean, it's not impossible to avoid such a scenario if you're careful and smart about - oh wait, you named the series "Social Justice Warrior", never mind then.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
1,723
0
0
Nieroshai said:
Verlander said:
It's hard to discuss politics with the right wing on a site like this, when they tend argue fairy tales and conjecture. Once upon a time the stereotype was that the left wing would accuse detractors of being "Nazis", but ever since the internet gave a voice to virginal 15 year old boys, it seems like everything is now "Marxist".

"I hate my mom, I hate people telling me what to do, I don't pay tax but if I did then blacks and latinos would live like kings from my meager offerings. Small government! Brian from Family Guy is such a libtard, I like guns, if you try to take them away from me you're like Hitler, that's what he did dontcha know, you yellow cultural marxists..."

Sure geeks should discuss politics, but I don't think the forum of this site is the best environment for it. Everyone has a political opinion, but only few have enough conviction to research and commit to what they supposedly believe in. Therefore you'll get a lot more of the above bollocks from both sides of the debate.

This is why the more intelligent and level-headed of us don't even bother: people believe what you believe, that we're all angry and stupid no matter what we say. All you have done is insult and oversimplify. I make this offer a lot, and have never been taken up on it; do you want a real, level-headed political and philosophical debate? One where no insults are hurled and your opponent actually does research and takes time to think about implications and ramifications of policy? If so, message me. We can have fun discussing the world and everything about it.
If all you want is a religious Right-Winger to knock around, or you think my beliefs automatically make me a juvenile, then debate just isn't for you, and so you shouldn't bother.
Oh I do, but not on this forum. My point was less "people of x political persuasion are stupid", and more "people of x political persuasion on this forum don't elevate above this level".

This site attracts people who are interested in games, comics, film etc. Which means when political discussion rears it's ugly head, people give opinions, and not discussion or debate. Everyone has an opinion, few people (on here) have an informed one.
 

Overhead

New member
Apr 29, 2012
43
0
0
wizzy555 said:
You are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying "never make value judgements" I'm saying unwrap your value judgements from your objective statements. I will say it is better because I value clarity as this facilitates clear communication. See, all nicely unwrapped.
Except now your arguement is unravelling because you've already stated that sexism is not a value judgement.

Well that's a better unwrapping than simply calling it sexist and leaving it to my imagination whatever you mean. So another meaning for "sexist" is anything that you believe perpetuates what you consider a negative view of women in society. I'll add that to the list. Although all that stuff about being forced into stripping doesn't come into it.
I didn't say anything along those lines. I'd suggest you read the post again. I'm honestly not sure how you can misread what I've written but if there's anything I can clarify then let me know.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
175
0
0
The Plunk said:
Man, I wish I hadn't renewed my Pub Club subscription. I can tell that, within the next year, the Escapist will have fallen to the same shitty level of in-your-face, left wing yellow journalism as sites like Polygon and Kotaku. It's fucking video games and comic books, not a platform for your political opinions.
There's a subforum for it, but once you've been around there long enough you do understand how disastrous it is to give geeks the podium on politics.

Think about it: geeks debate/discuss subjective material all the time, and nearly all of it is grounded in opinion. What you get is a giant political Op-Ed section, and in accordance with geek culture it's common they believe they're right and not only have more forms than a final boss to fight you but it becomes a game in itself to debate the worst of them who will just keep trying to bring you down like they see a health bar next to your name.

But I don't think it's limited to geeks, it's just so much of what doesn't belong in politics.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
3,462
0
0
Well that's just stupid. He argued this to justify publishing a political piece on an entertainment website. This is an entirely different matter from whether or not geeks should participate in political discourse. Of course geeks and nerds should participate in political discussions. We all should, politics effect us all deeply. That doesn't mean that you should publish political pieces on a website dedicated, not only to entertainment, but to escapism in specific. That's stupid.
 

Kameburger

Turtle king
Apr 7, 2012
281
0
0
RossaLincoln said:
Geeks Should Argue Politics. It's Good For Us.

Should geeks avoid political controversy at all costs? Nope. We're better than that.

Read Full Article
I had my rant on this subject already so I'll just keep it brief. I'm a bit bothered that after how many days of posting you haven't responded to any comments. I think we talk about engaging in debate but when it comes to engaging it is easier to start a flame war and let other people fight it. Please respond, because I find that it is completely useless to talk about politics if we are not willing to listen to other opinions, and if we don't engage and speak to each other on an honest level we can't debate. I understand it might be unpleasant but this kind of a recurring article could use some participation.

Although I think while I don't disagree with the premise of what your saying, that we shouldn't avoid talking about politics, we are approaching what looks like another contentious election in 2016 and I am frankly not comfortable with the escapist trying to use my hobby as a wrench with which to change my opinions.

What you're saying wouldn't be bad if this was a community blog, but it's you, an editor trying to project your values onto your readers, and as a paying customer, I'm not comfortable with that. I don't want to cancel my pub-club subscription but I don't like the turn the site is taking and the only way I can think to vote, is with my wallet.