The Big Picture: Everything Means Something

[No_Rush]

I really like Bob's observation elsewhere about how our ongoing need to defend the medium against politicians seeking to censor it hadn't created this unwarranted paranoia about criticism altering what is permissible on the medium. The truth is that the criticism being taken to task actually has a damn good point, and only recently have different perspectives snuck into the industry.

And hell yes, that will have an impact, an effect. Tomodachi Life being criticised for its treatment of gay couples will likely make it deal with the subject differently in the future. But here's the thing, it's not a government forcing them to do it. We are just wired to be triggered against criticism because that sword of censorship was looming over our heads for so long.

You'll note, of course, that I never used the word "censorship." To the extent I mentioned anything of the sort, it was to suggest that the Tipper Gore-style censorship of the "moral majority" is less of a worry than ever. But the heavy hand of government censorship isn't the only way that games can change, in a way that will mean many gamers don't get the entertainment that they now enjoy.

Bob often likes to compare "gamer" culture to movie culture, but there's a huge difference both between its customer base, its fan base, and those who work in the industry. Check out political affiliation surveys: gaming companies trend much more libertarian than movie studios or production companies. (They also trend more conservative, but that isn't saying much, because any random 20 people you choose out of a phone book that isn't from central Manhattan or the Harvard faculty will be more conservative than a movie studio.) That has allowed games, for better or worse, to offer entertainment that would be verboten in film. For all that Bob hates Call of Duty--and I'm not a big fan myself, but simply because I don't like FPS--it presents its topic in a way that not even Michael Bay, in his most military-fetishistic mode, would be permitted to direct. (There is a reason that, for all of Hollywood's fondness of remakes, we get the diversity-safe Expendables rather than a straight-up remake of Rambo.)

Gamer culture hasn't become the monoculture present in movies and academia because, until recently, the long march of the progressives through gaming as an institution hadn't begun. There is good reason to fear it, whether or not one fears "censorship." Certainly, America's universities aren't "censored," but they've become such a stultifying monoculture that censorship isn't necessary: the only conservatives who are "out" in academia are those who need to fight, while anyone else (say, a chemistry professor whose atoms combine the same whether Republican or Democratic) just keeps his head beneath the parapet.

In fact, I'd argue that the introspection of critics of the medium actually protects us from that potential for censorship. Remember the Comics Code? The reason it passed wasn't that comics were criticised by culture analysts, the reason it passed was that it became defensible that comics were a product exclusively for children, and thus subject to being regulated as if only children would consume them.

Actually, yes, I'm old enough to remember the Comics Code. Again, given the weakness of the moral majority at present, raising the phantasm of a renewed Comics Code isn't particularly realistic.

GTA is a reasonable thing to censor for a 12 year old, in a medium just for 12 year olds... but if it's just a point in a continuum that also includes Cart Life and Papers, Please it becomes much, much harder to control. Why would the nudity or sex or violence make sense in one place and not the other? How would a democratic government articulate a prohibition of what is clearly a work of art?

Again, the rational worry isn't government censorship. It's the stultifying force of "rightthink." I hate the term "social justice warrior," and wish there were a better term for people who don't merely disagree, but wish to ensure that the object of their disagreement is drummed out of society.

So yeah, Sarkeesian may complain about the accumulation of sexist tropes in the industry and disapprove of it, but in doing that, she's not encouraging censorship, she's helping prevent it.

Also, she continues to be super-easy to ignore.

Again, I simply disagree that Sarkeesian's work is helping to prevent any form of realistic censorship. That's simply not how this process works. Instead, the point is to isolate factions with which one disagrees, and to make certain ideas unacceptable for "the right" company. Have you noticed that the closest you get to a right-wing viewpoint on The Escapist is Yahtzee's "Should Every Game Allow You to Choose Your Gender?" No doubt he'd be offended by that suggestion, but that's the point: it's not very right-wing at all, it's just as close as you get. That's to say nothing of Gawker/Kotaku, whose editorial posture is so far to the left it's amazing they have a right side of their monitor.

As I said, I'd love to see the "Gamergate" folks be more civil in their opposition, but Sarkeesian is not "super-easy" to ignore. Or rather, smokers standing outside in the cold and rain, or bakers who find themselves unable to turn down clients even if they disapprove of a wedding might suggest that ignoring the long march through an institution seems perfectly harmless... until it's too late.

 

[4rch1m3d35]

"You could peg that to any group. Hey why should these professional guys allow me to speak? After all I'm "crazy"."
I don't think you even know how insulting that statement is.
I am a rational human being. I have problems but that should not discount my ideas.
This is the real problem. And this is the thing that enrages most people, the hypocrisy.
I used the crazy to make that very point. To try and pretend like the crazy has not been used as an insult to the mentally ill is truly ignorant and under handed.
You shifted the blame to society and then tried to act the very people I was being critical were not a part of it.
I suspect you are part of the problem especially look quickly you shifted the blame to HR workers, society, and even people you say are your friends.
I keep seeing people who have been helpful and kind to me constantly demonized by you and those "professional guys".
If you see anger in what I said that is the reason.

You weren't using schizophrenia to make any good points. You just used it as an appeal to pity and to peg some group with a strawman about how extreme their views were.

If you want a few facts about my comments on HR and society then here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/542517 Believe it or not there is an issue of discrimination for people with mental health issues finding a job in the work place. Perhaps you lucked out in the job search or were already employed during the onset of schizophrenia. That said my schizophrenia and HR comment wasn't off base even if you yourself haven't been on the wrong end of things on that front.

And to expand it to society at large you think I'm blaming folks for that? http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/SchizophreniaSurvey/Analysis_Public_Attitudes.htm
Sorry man but Schizophrenia's still stigmatized in society at large, it's not my view, it's a fact. A rational human being should understand that mental health patients don't recieve half the support they need to function in a society. Especially the ones capable of independent day to day living, which sounds a lot like yourself.

2. I never said that feminist were evil. I only stated that I think they are wrong and I think they are whiny.
3. Also, I never said they(feminist) were hold me down. I said they were dismissing anything I had to say because I am a man or due to the fact that I have schizophrenia.
4. I used "Those whiny bitches" in conjunction with the another qualifier upper-middle class. That is import to what I said.
5. You also an implied false dichotomy between man-children and feminists in the geek community there are other people.

You implied a lot too.

Throwing out "poor person" and "schizophrenia" then blaming "those whiny bitches from the upper middle class". That implies a lot of hostility for a group that's simply "Whiny". And you imply that feminists think you're still better off despite having schizophrenia and a poor income cause you're a guy? I don't know any feminist that would try to make that claim.

I am convinced you are either ignorant or dishonest at this point. I am going to assume ignorant.

You don't think that I know there is a problem in society after stating I have experienced discrimination. I know how hard it is to get help for schizophrenia first hand, I even stated it in my first post. I was pointing out that you and feminists are not above society. Which obviously think you are because you just tried lecturing me on the difficulties of having schizophrenia when I was saying that I have had problems with this.

"I don't know any feminist that would try to make that claim."

Really, because I do and they told me that right to my face not online. They were a feminist not just a woman please do not use the no true Scotsman fallacy.

"You weren't using schizophrenia to make any good points. You just used it as an appeal to pity and to peg some group with a strawman about how extreme their views were."

The reason I brought up my mental illness is because that is my experience with discrimination and the reason my opinions on the topic of discrimination has been dismissed. For some reason you think that is not a good point. Also I do not want your pity.

There are a lot of feminist that are bigots not all but enough that it is worth talking about like Andrea Dworkin, Janice Raymond, and other prominent 2nd and 3rd wave feminist who are transphobic. This is not a straw man. To state that some members of a group are bigots when it is factual and tied to there other beliefs about gender. Janice Raymond has a whole book dedicated to the subject titled The Transsexual Empire. Seriously it is hate speech.

"You implied a lot too."

You seem to think I have implied a lot, but I did not and even clarified what was meant to you. This is a reflection of your own bias. Also, you just admitted to engaging in the false dichotomy.

I can not see the data you provided me about HR and society. It asks me to log in and I am not a member. I can not comment on it. I will state that I have been helped by people in HR and I do feel the need to say they did help me.

I was diagnosed at age 16 and most people can not tell right away that I have schizophrenia usually I just seem a bit odd which is kind of common for my line of work. It is a common misconception so I understand that you may not know that.

"Throwing out "poor person" and "schizophrenia" then blaming "those whiny bitches from the upper middle class". "

Again you are implying that I am blaming them for being poor and having schizophrenia. My statement had nothing to do with that. I was bring them up because they are the one saying I do not understand discrimination despite being a part of a group that you admitted earlier was stigmatized.

"A rational human being should understand..."

You just implied I am not a rational human being if I disagree with you. You are part of the problem because you think you are above the problem. It is truly disheartening that you do not see your own hypocrisy.

Again I want to state.

"I keep seeing people who have been helpful and kind to me constantly demonized by you and those "professional guys".
If you see anger in what I said that is the reason."

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm reminded of a comic I once saw of these 2 art enthusiasts looking at this painting of a duck and trying to work out the deeper inner meaning and whatever before turning to the janitor standing next to them and asking what he thinks to which he replies "It's a duck, I think." And they're like "How did we not see that?"

That sounds like this joke where the author of the book says "The curtains are blue", and a literary critic interprets that as symbolic of his mood and world-view, and the author's meaning is "The curtains are fucking blue!" It's somewhere on TVTropes.

Sounds familiar. Probably the same idea.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Can I like analysis and hate analyzers?

I actually do like analysis of pop culture and have several books on that front covering the basics of Captain America and Iron Man fight in Civil war as representative of basic ethical policies, to finding the deeper meaning to tentacle porn, to claiming moogles are socialists. However Tolken said something to the effect of people mistaking allegory and applicability, the former being a heavy handed metaphor, the second being an interpretation based on personal views. This is why you can see essays on Bioshock claiming both that it's a rebuttal to objectivism, and a supporter of it.

In and of itself this isn't a problem, but when you get online people forget that their personal view of something isn't gospel, and more often than not can be poorly thought out, stretch logic beyond reason, or require omission or addition of certain data of make fully work. Pop culture is written for entertainment primarily, and if it's serialized, seams in any theory can show. Moreover, personal beleifs and issues color you you view things until you can twist them into a monolithic view without fully grasping that there are other ways to view things. For example, The obvious answer to a loack of female transformers was a lack of concern for the idea, a feminist sees it as sexism, and a realist asks if robots would have had a concept of gender in the first place.

Again, nothing wrong here, but there's a reluctance to acknowledge to ourselves that our interpretations might be , well, wrong because we rushed them out the door, or in our desire to maintain our values, omitted or inserted things to make our theory work better. When this hits online, hostility can arise if a theory is even challenged. No discussion, just accept my thesis on the sexism of whatever or you're a misogynist. It can never be that the thesis was wrong, incomplete, or at least unconvincing.

In many ways, that is a part of the problem: people aren't analyzing something to find deeper truth, they're trying to bend it to what they want it to be to fit a preconceived position, and use this analysis to justify that opinion. We don't look to Mega Man and find a cautionary tale of tech run amok. We think that already and want the fiction to have that value so we can use it to prop up our own belief. In extremes, all ability to see that your opinion on something's meaning isn't certain is gone because it's so strongly supported a preconceived notion that your personal values would fall apart without it. When you encounter this person online and they say they want to have a conversation, you shy away because you eventually get the reality that conversation isn't what they want, but validation of their opinion, superiority over those with different opinions, and a desperate need to beat down the second group.

I don't shy away from hard topics, but I've lost interest in talking when the attitude is agree with me or screw off.

 

[spiffleh]

I want to compliment Bob on some really tight writing. Solid stuff.

 

[Strazdas]

I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention.

I agree that that is what a lot of people seem to be afraid will happen if they don't fight the supposed 'Social Justice Warriors'.

My next question would than be, why? Why do they think that this will happen when it's not what anyone who thinks gaming matters enough in the first place to care wants to see?

I may answer this very easily. Why are we afraid? because the so called "social justive warriors" (i use the term ironically since there is no social justice in what they are doing) are actually flat out demanding there to be a checklist. thet has to be POCs, thete has to be female protagonists, ect. I am not against them being there, i am however against them being forced in there and would not otherwise make a game sellable.

After being told by forementioned people how "progressive" they are id gladly be backwards of that means i still stay sane.

 

[No_Rush]

Your concern is heavily partisan and I'd argue not particularly popular among the "gamergate" thing. It's also very, very US-centric. If you're going to look at it in an American "liberal-conservative-libertarian" political scale you're going to be ignoring that EU and Japan politics do not work like that at all.

Wait--you're saying that in discussing something political, there might be partisanship? I'm shocked. We have mostly been discussing the U.S. market, so that's how I've framed it.

(As for Japan and the EU, I'm puzzled as to why you think it's much different elsewhere. Have you ever spent time at a Japanese university? It's literally one of the few places that you can find unrepentant Marxists, and while much of Japanese culture is particularly conservative (the old joke about the Liberal Democratic Party being that it was neither liberal, democratic, nor much fun as a party), Todai and Keio are about as one-sided and lacking in intellectual diversity as you'll get.)

So given that, you'll excuse me if I just don't discuss based on your premise. I was simply using your point to exemplify why the fear I sense isn't about bad criticism, it's about preservation of an art form that has mostly been escapist being used for other artistic endeavours and criticised based on other perspectives.

I think you're right that it's a reaction to criticism of a medium that has mostly been escapist, but there's nothing new about video game criticism as criticism. (You can go search academic libraries, there are dissertations about video games going back before even the late '80s, although that was when things started to get interesting. You'll find critical legal theorists pondering Infocom. And here I'm showing my age.) What has changed--in the U.S., but also in Europe--is the impact that criticism has upon aspects of the culture. There's a lot of big stuff going on here, and it intersects with the influence of critical theory over law and culture, but I'll try to keep focused on gaming specifically.

I don't think the problem is that the medium is being criticized from "other perspectives," per se. If Anita Sarkeesian were doing, say, a naturalist critique of Bioshock: Infinite, it might well be interesting and informative, but we wouldn't be where we are. The "fear you sense" arises from a response of the particular form of criticism--particularly, critical theory and feminist theory--that are not only explicitly political, but aspire to change the mediums that they critique, more often than not by eliminating cultural examples that are outside of the "correct." One doesn't have to go very far into feminist theory (there's a reason I mentioned Robin West in my original post, although Catherine McKinnon is usually the go-to example for this trend) to see this tendency. Much as I don't think the Gamergate and similar "gamer culture" anger is particularly well-expressed or well-focused, I do think it stems from a well-founded concern.

That said, I'll point this out again: "I don't want people in the gaming industry to agree on things I disagree with" is not the way the movement has presented its concerns and is not corrupt or lacking in integrity. Hollywood leaning one way politically is not illegitimate, even if it has problematic aspects (note the recent shunning of mostly EU actors leaning pro-Palestine). You just can't muscle your way into making an art form politically neutral. At most, you can present a different angle in criticism or get creatively involved in presenting a different angle yourself.

Hollywood leaning one way isn't illegitimate--nor did I say it was. But it does serve as a condign example of an industry that will go so far as to leave money on the table in order to exclude groups that it considers "undesirable." There is a market for films aimed at conservative Christians--The Passion of the Christ was the #3 film of 2004--but those stories are told rarely because, despite their profitability, they don't flatter the politics of the likes of MovieBob. Meanwhile, we can have umpteen versions of Lions for Lambs, because Hollywood loves those stories. Dollars from conservative Christians are unwanted by Hollywood, and that section of the country pretty much provides for its own entertainment. To the extent that those who like Call of Duty (to say nothing of much more problematic games like Witcher or Duke Nukem) are content to find themselves a decade or so hence in the same state, exiled from the AAA market, you are correct that they have nothing to worry about from the current "criticism."

I don't think that one can make an art form politically neutral, just as scholarship isn't neutral. But academia--and in particularly, critical and feminist theorists--have shown that they can make art forms and other cultural institutions almost entirely exclusionary. That "fear you sense," to my mind, arises out of the realization, usually badly expressed, that the presence of Anita Sarkeesian doesn't portend a future in which we have really cool Call of Duty games, but also fantastic games exploring more complex topics. Instead, it heralds a future in which we may have games, even good games, but not the games we enjoy today, because those games represent wrongthink.

 

[hentropy]

When China, Japan, etc... make games and movies they really don't give a crap about the whites, blacks, Spanish, etc... that live there, they don't go out of their way to be inclusive.

That's a pretty glaring false equivalency. East Asian countries tend to be extremely racially homogeneous, many people have not even seen or worked with a racial minority outside of news media and television. If the US had 98% racial dominance, then no one would have to go out of their way to pander to anyone. Really there aren't a whole lot of countries which are so homogeneous.

However, around 35-40% of the US can be considered some sort of ethnic minority. When the media likes to pretend that only the majority exists in such a situation, it could be considered problematic. Not that western media is quite THAT bad.

The answer here is to encourage and empower these various underrepresented groups to make their own material.

 

[KasraF]

Wow.
I think we'd all agree agree that regardless of our opinions on the subject matter of this episode, this has been one of the most... useful episodes in the series.
Thank you MovieBob!

 

[Groverfield]

Here's a tough one to examine in the lights of politics: Pokemon (the game, TV show not included.) Sure you have Fascist Giovanni and his Team Rocket, radical environmentalists in Team Magma/Team, unethical scientific corporations in Team Galactic representing a totalitarian philosophy (with scientists being portrayed in a generally positive light with all of the pokemon professors and such over several games,) Team Plasma with overwhelming religious undertones and morality based strong-arming, and Team Flare as a critique of capitalistic Objectivism, but the question isn't what does it oppose.

The question is, what does pokemon support? The closest thing to government shown are the gym leaders and occasional police officers, ineffective at best. The social structure promotes friendship, but friendship with your pokemon above other humans. They're always with you, but you kinda force them to be, out of hundreds that you catch... but that's if you see pokemon as having human-level awareness. It says to treat your pokemon with kindness, but that could be as simple as "Don't kick that dog." The lack of anything solid on what is good at a large scale, as opposed to what is bad has several possible implications. Is there nothing good beyond a general pattern of small communities with shops and hospitals? Is there nothing that can be good but the individual? Do the pokemon secretly run the world and the humans within mere pawns of their hyper-intelligent overlords? Can a political body other than a senatorial representation of gym leaders be right in the world?

 

[Therumancer]

When China, Japan, etc... make games and movies they really don't give a crap about the whites, blacks, Spanish, etc... that live there, they don't go out of their way to be inclusive.

That's a pretty glaring false equivalency. East Asian countries tend to be extremely racially homogeneous, many people have not even seen or worked with a racial minority outside of news media and television. If the US had 98% racial dominance, then no one would have to go out of their way to pander to anyone. Really there aren't a whole lot of countries which are so homogeneous.

However, around 35-40% of the US can be considered some sort of ethnic minority. When the media likes to pretend that only the majority exists in such a situation, it could be considered problematic. Not that western media is quite THAT bad.

The answer here is to encourage and empower these various underrepresented groups to make their own material.

Not really, a minority group is a minority group when you get down to it. Especially when you consider that large pool of minorities is made up smaller, very distinct, groups, and it's unlikely you could ever represent them all, not that many of them exactly want to be represented to begin with.

The thing is people have been encouraging and empowering minorities to do things for a very long time, but as a general rule most of them don't care. Indeed blacks in particular are especially bad because the culture they have built is vehemently anti societal, and anti education. Basically it teaches that it's okay to be part of the top 1% or on the bottom living like a thug trying to take that 1% by force on your own terms, anything else is selling out. Guys like Bill Cosby (PHD in Children's Education) have analyzed it heavily. In cases like that you need to deal with the cultural issues first before you can even bother to consider serious representation in certain areas. It's not a case where your going to encourage tons of blacks, Hispanics, etc... to all flock to drama classes and start learning game design because there are black characters in movies or seen in video games to be representative. That's been tried for a long time and at the end of the day it doesn't work, because they as a group just don't care. As I've pointed out before, you see less blacks leading in movies and stuff because at the end of the day when people make movies like that, it doesn't put black butts in seats, the only time when they show up is when it's very counter-cultural in terms of gang
experience movies and things like Tyler Perry films. Purely with video games you've seen people try this kind of thing by say making the lead character in "Crackdown" default to black, a black hero in "San Andreas", and the careful selection of the cast of many ensemble video games to ensure there was a decent amount of color available rather than just white and Japanese (fighting games, super hero games, etc...). None of which has exactly had blacks, latinos, and others beating down the doors of game design studios, or has catapulted these games into some kind of unprecedented sales territory by tapping that market. This isn't to say that "minorities" don't game at all, just that they don't care enough about gaming to make game, and don't seem to particularly care about representation... that's mostly for loudmouths and those afflicted by white guilt.

Of course then again a big part of it is again, cultural, most people seriously into video games tend to be in the "middle" classes as opposed to at the very top or the very bottom. The exact place where a lot of minorities do not want to wind up. A big part of it is also that you can't just take some minority with basic skills and put them down as a designer and expect a great product. To do it right you pretty much need enough minorities to all enter into the business with the same dreams, 99%+ of which will fail, and then over time you'll see a few drag themselves through the rat race with the talent and vision to start producing stuff. It's always an upwards battle and something everyone goes through, and really the only ones who roll those dice in any real numbers seem to be whites and asians. With minorities the big exception culturally seems to be music, it's pretty much okay to try and work hard and risk failure with music and sports, but anything intellectual and winding up in the middle of society as another cog, living paycheck to paycheck? That's looked down on.

Not a popular point, but the bottom line is that being inclusive isn't a big part of the problem. The white western world, because of feelings of guilt, seems to be the only country that cares much about things like this. In fact of major civilizations "white" countries are pretty much the only ones that aren't racist and don't strive to keep their country 98% or more ethnically pure. Indeed it's been argued that there aren't really any white countries out there, hence the quotes.

If you think back over the years you'll notice across the media there have been tons of attempts to reach out to minorities, encourage them, and get them involved. Minority heroes in comics, leads in movies, etc... at the end of the day nobody showed up, a lot of money was lost, and except for a few people afflicted with misplaced guilt and ivory tower ethics nobody much cares, though that doesn't really stop the incessant whining. Indeed as odd as it might sound I actually see far more white people screaming about things like a lack of diversity, needing more minority characters in comics, games, etc... than I do actual minorities. The only "minority" so championed that seems to be on that bandwagon in any major way is the gays. Sure there might be blacks, Hispanics, etc... out there making the same points somewhere, but not in any numbers. Mostly I see white, social justice warriors like Bob Chipman taking up issues like this, I guess convinced that somehow he's speaking for people that can't speak for themselves... something which is kind of funny since when the bigger minorities in the US (Blacks, Hispanics, etc...) actually want to represent on an issue they can make plenty of noise without needing the SJWs to fight for them.

 

[daxterx2005]

Wait....Did I just see Angry Birds Transformers...?
What the heck?

 

[No_Rush]

I don't think Hollywood is leftist because it has been made leftist, I think artistic elites tend to lean left where industrial elites tend to lean right, so critics of art lean left for the same reason it's kinda hard to find leftist coverage about Wall Street minutia.

I think we can part ways here because you are clearly living in your own little world. It's hard to find leftist coverage of Wall Street? Paul Krugman. Gretchen Morgensen. Matt Taibbi. That's in five seconds off the top of my head, and includes absolutely no academics. Add in academic commentators, and I could probably get to two dozen without hitting Google. If you're having a hard time finding leftist coverage of minutia (and Taibbi has written about, for instance, the use of swap options as potentially speculative investments in the equities markets), you simply aren't looking very hard.

As for worrying that CoD would go away, again: go back twenty years, and you will find commentators from the left saying that, even were same-sex marriage permitted, it would be unthinkable that anti-discrimination laws would be applied so that a baker would have to choose between shutting down or violating their conscience by baking a cake for a same-sex wedding. Somehow, the unthinkable occurs with remarkable regularity.

 

[No_Rush]

We all live in our worlds, but I resent the implication that mine is "litte". There's certainly plenty of right wing movie coverage, too. We're talking about trends and majorities here. You're also focusing on the example rather than the point.

You are literally the only person I have ever heard state that it's difficult to find left-wing coverage of Wall Street. So, yes, I mean it when I said your own little world on that point.

And I would also point out that, while I haven't heard the baker story that you allude to repeatedly, the comparison you're making (same sex marriage being normalized versus conservative media being shunned into nonexistence) is deeply flawed. Refusing service is not speech, let alone protected speech. Media arguing against gay marriage is plentiful and unimpeded, even if I (and most nice people) think it's wholly reprehensible and unfounded.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/01/21/3184691/oregon-bakery-guilty-discriminating-sex-couple/

Again, I haven't been speaking about censorship, but about whether someone who is concerned about their lifestyle being changed should be worried about the presence of Anita Sarkeesian and her ilk. I agree that it's unlikely that we will ever find that CoD is censored. It's far more likely that EA will be strongly encouraged to start having the "right" people on its Board; and that those people will then hire the "right" CEOs; and that the cheeky, irreverent games like Duke Nukem or the sexual-politics-of-a-viking-raid games like the Witcher then don't get made.

Sometimes society as a whole moves past some customs and taboos so thoroughly that there is not much left of them to represent. The underlying conservative ideology persists, though, and it is not in danger of going away either in real life or in media as long as free speech is upheld, even if it becomes unpopular.

Which is why, of course, Proposition 8 passed by a solid margin, and same-sex marriage is allowed in California only because the political elites refused to defend it and the judicial elites struck it down. Yes, clearly you speak for "society as a whole."

That's one reason I became a conservative after a youthful dalliance with liberalism. I can deal with the crazies on my side. The vast, oppressive undeserved smugness of yours leaves me needing a bath.

 

[hentropy]

When China, Japan, etc... make games and movies they really don't give a crap about the whites, blacks, Spanish, etc... that live there, they don't go out of their way to be inclusive.

That's a pretty glaring false equivalency. East Asian countries tend to be extremely racially homogeneous, many people have not even seen or worked with a racial minority outside of news media and television. If the US had 98% racial dominance, then no one would have to go out of their way to pander to anyone. Really there aren't a whole lot of countries which are so homogeneous.

However, around 35-40% of the US can be considered some sort of ethnic minority. When the media likes to pretend that only the majority exists in such a situation, it could be considered problematic. Not that western media is quite THAT bad.

The answer here is to encourage and empower these various underrepresented groups to make their own material.

Not really, a minority group is a minority group when you get down to it.

I'm not really arguing with you about all the other stuff. But comparing minorities in Japan to minorities in the US is a false equivalency and a fallacy due to the sheer disparity. A minority which takes up less than 1% of the population should not expect to be treated the same as a minority which takes up 20% of the population.

You shouldn't try to build arguments based on logical fallacies.

 

[HanFyren]

Over 200 episodes and this still hasn't gotten old. - Well done whoever decided to give moviebob this show.