Looking at Depression Quest and Analyzing Male Privilege

[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.

 

[nuttshell]

Jonathan McIntosh...now where did I hear that name again?
Male gamer privilege? Aight.
And this Kate Reynolds...gives us all a lesson on internalized patriarchy? Aight.

So the Escapist has now secured a constant stream of insane bullshit for it's users' amusement?

Adam Saltsman I have no idea about the guy, his article seems...allright.
But Chris Franklin? Do you really need another Moviebob?

 

[whycantijustdeletemyaccount]

.

 

[AuronFtw]

I really can't stand that term. "Male privilege" seems to imply that the mistreatment of women in game culture is the fault of ALL men - that it's my fault for being male or something. This whole "check your privileges" bullshit is a stupid argument and winds me up. The whole thing attacks any non-minority group as being privileged and therefore somehow either evil, or at best someone who's opinions aren't valid because "you're privileged".

I accept the points pointed out in the article (though the checklist was unnecessarily long - it was 8-9 points repeated over and over) but call it what it is. It's not "male privilege", it's "women being mistreated by sexist cunts".

More or less this. The majority of men aren't assholes - we don't mistreat women or insult them based on appearance or status or what have you. We judge, certainly, everyone does that, but the toxic "vocal" crowd on the internet is the tiny minority. It doesn't feel like it, since humans are built to remember pain better than anything else, but that's how it is. Men aren't disparaged based on the possession of a penis; they're disparaged based on literally everything the fuck else. Male developers have been called all kinds of names for decades now, some deserved and some not - but nobody gets all "omg check your privilege" about it because that's just how those twats are going to act, and it's a retarded stance to take. If anything, you're simply giving the internet douchebag crowd more fuel and an easier target.

If you, by some miracle, stop the guttercunts from using sexism in their arguments, they're just going to use any of the ten thousand other equally personal insults to "win arguments" on the internet. Hypersensitive people with no PR skills will still be offended, people who have no business being allowed to post on the net will still post toxic bullshit on the net, and nothing will change. That's why this male privilege bullshit is so tiresome. It's not fighting the good fight, it's just collecting ad revenue for various internet personas without actually solving anything.

It's pretty much the Kony 2012 of gaming arguments. And we're sick of it. Pack that shit in, Escapist. You used to have quality control. Don't be overrun by the tumblr internet justice idiots - they're delusional and will only hurt your site's credibility down the line.

 

[Saetha]

Okay, I've been trying to distance myself from this whole "Feminism and gaming" debate, because it really is just a toxic screaming match that only served to make me more miserable the deeper I delved into it - but that being said, that "review" of Beyond: Two Souls was absolutely awful. The reviewer sounds like some sort of tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist, talking about how the game "rehabilitated" her into "internalized patriarchal beliefs" and "roped her in against her will" - except, lady, you're the one who choose to play the game. Nothing was against your will there, unless David Cage broke into your house, tied you to a chair, and demanded you play this game he made. I realize she probably didn't willingly decide to identify with Jodie, but still, you can't blame the game for invoking emotion in you - because, you know, that's what stories are supposed to do. It sounds like she's blaming the game itself for the attitude she adopted - as though Beyond:TS blasted her with patriarchy-indoctrinating mind rays or something. Seriously, what the hell?

Not to mention it's staggeringly obvious that she didn't finish the game. Which is normally something I'd excuse, if the reviewer didn't like it, but with such a story-based game, and such story-based criticism in the review, not finishing the story seems like kind of a cheap shot. "I didn't see any strong women in the game!" - how would you know if you didn't finish it? "The game's racist because Dawkins is higher-ranking than Cole and presented as better than him in every way!" - Except he isn't, especially towards the end, which you'd know if you had finished the game . "The Navajo story line was racist because it's 'white man saves the day!'" - Except the entire mess was the result of white men in the first place, which you'd know if you finished the game, so really it's "White woman comes back and helps fixes the problem white guys caused in the first place."

I mean, honestly, I didn't even like Beyond:TS and I don't agree with that review. It's a mess of paranoia, feminist buzzwords, and incomplete pictures.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Almost like it's a result of not having any bigger problems to deal with.

Says the man who plays video games in his spare time, then complains about them on the internet. Don't you have bigger problems to deal with?

 

[Shadefyre]

Almost like it's a result of not having any bigger problems to deal with.

Says the man who plays video games in his spare time, then complains about them on the internet. Don't you have bigger problems to deal with?

Which is the reason I don't pretend that I'm crusading against injustice in the world through an anonymous medium that doesn't require me to actually do anything but talk shit about other people online.

 

[PsychicTaco115]

On a side note, I really wish Taco was still with us to make a post about fedoras and misogyny.
[sub/]i still have no idea what in the world could have gotten him banned[/sub]

Did somebody say.... FEDORAS???

*cracks knuckles*

Spoiler: Longest Neckbeard Insult Evar

You Dew-drinking, Cheetos eating, hover-handing, Objectivist leaning, friendzone complaining, ?fundie? debating, katana stroking, thesauraus abusing, STEM jerking, waifu lusting, euphoria having, white knighting, MLP masturbating fedora tipping misogyny prodigy neckbearded ************

Does that do it?

OT: Interesting things and all but is it just a compilation of videos/analysis/critiques from the website? It just seemes like a lazy linking once a week...

But new content I haven't seen/heard of is new content so I'll take it :3