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

[dragonswarrior]

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]

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]

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.

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*

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]

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]

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]

[...] 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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.