Looking at Depression Quest and Analyzing Male Privilege

[Nurb]

The majority of people who throw the "privilege" stuff around the most are usually young middle-to-upper-class white women who want to claim victimization over everything.

The game industry media has been fanning the flames for years to avoid being labled "sexist woman haters" for questioning any claim.

The foolishness of all this internet tumblr activtism should be obvious with the CancelColbert thing backfiring on them.

Women of color have taken issue with the over-sensitivity shoving problems for women who aren't white aside over stupid complaints over video games when white women make more money than hispanic and black men.

Spoiler: The infighting started over this article

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Protip: Instead of saying "White male gamers are privileged/advantaged", try saying something like "X are still facing a certain amount of discrimination".
This way it says that you'd like to raise the attention and respect that "X" gets in gaming culture, instead of coming off as "Privileged white cis male scum have too much privilege".

So instead of saying you want to lower the "privilege" of a certain gender/race you want to elevate the "privilege" of another. See how much better that is?

 

[L. Declis]

I'll just say I agree with Scrumpmonkey

You see, i wish more sentences started this way

if you are out to fix the world's ills like the savior you consider yourself to be, you likely want to do it in a way that doesn't involve telling people they're shit every ten seconds. Such "internet vigilantism" only serves one's own ego, it's appalling.

This kind of armchair messiah talk ultimately isn't part of the solution. They think it is. Much of the philosophy I've seen is that you have to be a sword wielding social justice evangelist or you are a hateful, over privileged, ignorant part of the patriarchal machine. There is no in between. You either actively support their philosophy or you are part of the problem. You can't simply say "I have never sent abuse to anyone. I don't recognize this. I don't want to make myself part of this destructive polarized debate" . This is what makes some people angry, they feel they are being branded as guilty simply for existing. Staying out of the debate is seen as "Exercising your privilege" or a form of guilt by inaction.

Funny how all this social justice, tumblr preaching nonsense only comes from people already living in the most "privileged" countries in the world. Almost like it's a result of not having any bigger problems to deal with.

Don't get me started on some of the cozy first world Femanism/LGBT 'crusades' we've seen online. Just seek out some of my posts regarding 'elevator gate' or the firing of Mozilla's CEO. The folding of Feminism into Atheism and into the general self righteous blog culture is something that has poisoned the well for many people.

My response to these sorts of things is that I feel it:

1) Drowns out serious issues. Everyone is raising a fuss over every little casette in a video game that when something big comes along, it seems no bigger an issue than the tiny, insignificant things which leads me to:

2) Leaves me feeling bored and numb to the whole thing. Do I hate sexism? Of course I hate sexism. But when I get shouted at in every direction from games journalism because a video game I bought has a male in it, or not enough females, or I watch white knights and SJW warriors fight with MRA over the burning remains of the thread, I just stop caring.

Take Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. I liked that. I was happy to discuss it. And I discussed it again. And a third time. And then a fourth time by copying a response from a different thread. And I have simply stopped reading anything to do with it because it's the same complaint about the same thing and I now don't care. Congratulations, I no longer give a crap. I generally oppose rape and such, but I don't want to discuss and I don't want to read it anymore because I am constantly told that by being a male, I am therefore supporting rape if I don't hate myself for the ownership of the penis.

And I'm getting a little sick of how much the Escapist is constantly touching itself over this kind of thing. I used to come here for actual video game reviews, and interesting discussion about video games. If I want interesting discussion, it seems I wait for Shamus Young. I'll tell you what, Susan Arendt at least kept the forum moving and not stagnating.

And it's only this forum I see it on; no other forum gets such a hard-on for a single topic for about a year. Most people get bored after a few weeks. This forum just jumps into the peanut butter filled pool of self-righteous.

 

[BreakfastMan]

if you are out to fix the world's ills like the savior you consider yourself to be, you likely want to do it in a way that doesn't involve telling people they're shit every ten seconds. Such "internet vigilantism" only serves one's own ego, it's appalling.

This kind of armchair messiah talk ultimately isn't part of the solution. They think it is. Much of the philosophy I've seen is that you have to be a sword wielding social justice evangelist or you are a hateful, over privileged, ignorant part of the patriarchal machine. There is no in between. You either actively support their philosophy or you are part of the problem. You can't simply say "I have never sent abuse to anyone. I don't recognize this. I don't want to make myself part of this destructive polarized debate" . This is what makes some people angry, they feel they are being branded as guilty simply for existing. Staying out of the debate is seen as "Exercising your privilege" or a form of guilt by inaction.

Yeah, as much as you don't want this to be a thing... This is still a thing. The silent majority can't be silent if they don't want the vocal minority to speak for them. If a christian in the US doesn't want people to assume Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for them, they have to make it known that those men don't speak for them. And in order to remove the assumption that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for all US christians, there needs to be a mass outcry against them.

 

[VVThoughtBox]

What the fuck is male privilege? I've heard this term tossed around the internet a couple of times, but I rarely see a definition of the term. It sounds like something white folks made up.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yeah, as much as you don't want this to be a thing... This is still a thing. The silent majority can't be silent if they don't want the vocal minority to speak for them. If a christian in the US doesn't want people to assume Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for them, they have to make it known that those men don't speak for them. And in order to remove the assumption that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for all US christians, there needs to be a mass outcry against them.

Nobody except me speaks for me.

There, I've settled that tab. Now, how often do I need to repeat myself in order to make sure that people know that the only person to speak for me, is me?

 

[BreakfastMan]

Yeah, as much as you don't want this to be a thing... This is still a thing. The silent majority can't be silent if they don't want the vocal minority to speak for them. If a christian in the US doesn't want people to assume Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for them, they have to make it known that those men don't speak for them. And in order to remove the assumption that Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell speak for all US christians, there needs to be a mass outcry against them.

Nobody except me speaks for me.

There, I've settled that tab. Now, how often do I need to repeat myself in order to make sure that people know that the only person to speak for me, is me?

If you want to avoid misunderstandings, a hell of a lot.

 

[Vegosiux]

If you want to avoid misunderstandings, a hell of a lot.

It's really hard to misunderstand someone who hasn't said anything. That is, if you're not assuming and/or making up stuff about them. It's really not hard to get anyone's opinion on any particular issue if they happen to be around and involved in a discussion. It's common courtesy not to just go assuming shit about them.

Also, one'd think it was common sense that people speak for themselves.

 

[BreakfastMan]

If you want to avoid misunderstandings, a hell of a lot.

It's really hard to misunderstand someone who hasn't said anything. That is, if you're not assuming and/or making up stuff about them. It's really not hard to get anyone's opinion on any particular issue if they happen to be around and involved in a discussion. It's common courtesy not to just go assuming shit about them.

Also, one'd think it was common sense that people speak for themselves.

Well, certainly. But we also assume that a person in a group shares opinions with others in that same group. That is how we are able to talk about groups. Like assuming that American conservatives are against gay marriage. Or that feminists are for equal-pay. Or that socialists are for socialized medicine.

 

[Euryalus]

-snip-

Skype chat The spirits inform me it was school and other life/responsibility things. He requested the ban initially for april fool's then never appealed to come back.

I'll stand in for him *ahem*

Depression quest? More like Oppression Quest! Amiright?

...Yeah ok, I'll leave.

OT: The culture wars spread... I'm glad to be apart of this. Bring on the flames!

The only thing I'll say is this... The quantic dreams piece was sorely lacking in examples and arguments specificly concerning the game. A lot of it she expects you to just have to take at face value. The game portrays the black scientist as inferior ect.

I don't know, I want more in depth critique than that.

 

[Vegosiux]

Well, certainly. But we also assume that a person in a group shares opinions with others in that same group. That is how we are able to talk about groups. Like assuming that American conservatives are against gay marriage. Or that feminists are for equal-pay. Or that socialists are for socialized medicine.

Unless it's a group with some sort of hierarchy in which it's expected there's some sort of representative/spokesperson, that assumption isn't reasonable. I'll give you that in case of groups like political parties, religious sects, unions, fan clubs, inhabitants of an area of administration, yes, it's reasonable to assume that whoever is the "leader" or "spokesperson" for such a group, speaks for the people in that group, unless the people state disagreement. Such groups tend to be "opt-in".

But there is no leader/spokesperson for "men". There's no leader/spokesperson for "feminism" (at least not that I know of). There's no leader/spokesperson for "gamers". There's no leader/spokesperson for an entire ethnicity, an entire gender, or any other kind of demographic that's only a demographic because its members share one particular attribute, be it skin color, what they have in their 23rd chromosome pairs, or what kind of entertainment that enjoy.

So yes, if I'm a Catholic, it's a reasonable assumption that the Pope speaks for me, unless I state otherwise. If I'm a member of a political party, it's a reasonable assumption that its leader speaks for me, unless I state otherwise.

But it is not reasonable to assume that any particular white guy speaks for me just because I happen to be a white guy too. I did not choose to be a member of this demographic, I just happen to be one. There is no hierarchy I am beholden to, and nobody who speaks for me in it.

 

[The_Echo]

Oh, good.

The Escapist wants to start talking about privilege now.

Greeeeeeeeeeeat. This can only end well.

There's a reason the Webby winning streak stopped this year.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Well, certainly. But we also assume that a person in a group shares opinions with others in that same group. That is how we are able to talk about groups. Like assuming that American conservatives are against gay marriage. Or that feminists are for equal-pay. Or that socialists are for socialized medicine.

Unless it's a group with some sort of hierarchy in which it's expected there's some sort of representative/spokesperson, that assumption isn't reasonable. I'll give you that in case of groups like political parties, religious sects, unions, fan clubs, inhabitants of an area of administration, yes, it's reasonable to assume that whoever is the "leader" or "spokesperson" for such a group, speaks for the people in that group, unless the people state disagreement. Such groups tend to be "opt-in".

But there is no leader/spokesperson for "men". There's no leader/spokesperson for "feminism" (at least not that I know of). There's no leader/spokesperson for "gamers". There's no leader/spokesperson for an entire ethnicity, an entire gender, or any other kind of demographic that's only a demographic because its members share one particular attribute, be it skin color, what they have in their 23rd chromosome pairs, or what kind of entertainment that enjoy.

So yes, if I'm a Catholic, it's a reasonable assumption that the Pope speaks for me, unless I state otherwise. If I'm a member of a political party, it's a reasonable assumption that its leader speaks for me, unless I state otherwise.

But it is not reasonable to assume that any particular white guy speaks for me just because I happen to be a white guy too. I did not choose to be a member of this demographic, I just happen to be one. There is no hierarchy I am beholden to, and nobody who speaks for me in it.

Well, I wasn't really thinking of "white guys", I was more thinking of "gamers/nerds"...

But just because they aren't any "official" spokesperson for a groups doesn't mean one can't reasonably make assumptions about the opinions of those groups. Groups very often have many important figureheads and pundits (like AngryJoe or TotalBiscuit), as well as works that many in the group deem "important" or "valuable". Additionally, groups have exceedingly common opinions that appear all the time on message boards and the like (like "DRM is bad"). It doesn't seem unreasonable that one can make assumptions about a group based on those factors.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

-snip-

Skype chat The spirits inform me it was school and other life/responsibility things. He requested the ban initially for april fool's then never appealed to come back.

I'll stand in for him *ahem*

Depression quest? More like Oppression Quest! Amiright?

...Yeah ok, I'll leave.

That makes sense then. Much less dramatic than I had fantasied though.

I'm sure you'll do a wonderful job!

 

[NeutralDrow]

Well, that definitely seems interesting. Still, I dunno about one thing.

One particularly astounding theme I?ve noticed running through online discussions surrounding these incidents has been a consistent denial that there is any real problem with the way women are treated in gaming. Despite the abundance of evidence, I?ve seen many of my fellow male gamers, in comment thread after comment thread, dismiss the issue as "no big deal" and insist that everyone is essentially treated the same.

Is that really the case? Surely, we have some self-aware peopl--

*glances at rest of thread*

...oh, so it's already drowned out by the "men (by which I mean me) have it just as bad," "they're all faking it to play the victim," "men talking about feminism are just trying to get into womens' pants," and "you shouldn't feel disadvantaged because other countries/races have it worse" rigamarole? Gotta admit, I was expecting at least a little bit of thought before it sank into denialist shit. Eh bien.

 

[Ninjamedic]

...oh, so it's already drowned out by the "men (by which I mean me) have it just as bad," "they're all faking it to play the victim," "men talking about feminism are just trying to get into womens' pants," and "you shouldn't feel disadvantaged because other countries/races have it worse" rigamarole? Gotta admit, I was expecting at least a little bit of thought before it sank into denialist shit. Eh bien.

Unless the "thread" you're talking about was in those links, you're going to have to back this generaslisation up with more than "Oh, aren't you all fools!" . Most of the posts here have been criticising the articles on their merits/argurements.

IT'd be nice if you actually consider what people have to say before dismissing it so quickly.