What is the harm of social justice journalism?

[Burnouts3s3]

There's been a lot of debate recently concerning social justice and video games. What I want to know is how will this change anything, business wise.

Feminism has been around for a long time and feminist critique of mass mediums, such as television, radio, movies, music, stage, has been around for even longer. The other mediums are aware of the accusations of sexism and objectification, but sexism and objectification still run rampant. People still make money off of it. So, what's the harm of letting journalists say what's wrong with it in social justice terms.

Even if a work of art is considered harmful or 'bad' or 'not helping', what can criticism do to stop the work from being produced or published? Even if people are aware of its ill effects, won't people consume it anyway? People know that fast food, alcohol, drugs and Michael Bay movies are bad for you, but they're still in business (and I say this as a person who enjoys Michael Bay films. Oh, c'mon, I thought that forest fight in Revenge of the Fallen was sweet).

In the end, what happens? Isn't it more likely that the critics will say their word, the consumer will still consume en masse of the product and at best all that's changed is a token representation or a disclaimer waving responsibility or lip-service will be provided?

What harm will it bring to a business?

 

[Cyberstrike_v1legacy]

Because in the minds of many right-wingers social justice means that they will lose money and power.

I have no problem with social justice warriors since I'll most likely be branded as one by the #gamegater because I don't 100% fall in line with their idealogy and I'm for equality anyway.

 

[Thorn14]

People don't like being told the thing they enjoy is wrong and misogynist and racist.

If said criticism from a popular "social justice critic" who I will not name, offered more examples of POSITIVE examples, we could then move on.

People take gaming seriously and a lot of people define themselves through this hobby, so when the hobby is called things like this, people think its an attack on them and they feel slighted.

 

[RiseUp]

People don't like being told the thing they enjoy is wrong and misogynist and racist.

If said criticism from a popular "social justice critic" who I will not name, offered more examples of POSITIVE examples, we could then move on.

People take gaming seriously and a lot of people define themselves through this hobby, so when the hobby is called things like this, people think its an attack on them and they feel slighted.

I think, rather than saying the entirety of said works are wrong for their representation of women, said unnamed critic takes issue with the prevalence of bad representation of women in gaming. That's not saying that any particular work is bad or that there's anything wrong with someone for enjoying it, it just points to a larger cultural problem.

 

[EpicMike7]

There's been a lot of debate recently concerning social justice and video games. What I want to know is how will this change anything, business wise.

Feminism has been around for a long time and feminist critique of mass mediums, such as television, radio, movies, music, stage, has been around for even longer. The other mediums are aware of the accusations of sexism and objectification, but sexism and objectification still run rampant. People still make money off of it. So, what's the harm of letting journalists say what's wrong with it in social justice terms.

Even if a work of art is considered harmful or 'bad' or 'not helping', what can criticism do to stop the work from being produced or published? Even if people are aware of its ill effects, won't people consume it anyway? People know that fast food, alcohol, drugs and Michael Bay movies are bad for you, but they're still in business (and I say this as a person who enjoys Michael Bay films. Oh, c'mon, I thought that forest fight in Revenge of the Fallen was sweet).

In the end, what happens? Isn't it more likely that the critics will say their word, the consumer will still consume en masse of the product and at best all that's changed is a token representation or a disclaimer waving responsibility or lip-service will be provided?

What harm will it bring to a business?

Hello folks, dedicated #GamerGater about to weigh in on this issue.

Social Justice Warriors are not the elected representatives of diversity and progressiveness in video games, when people attack SJWs, they're not attacking the ideals of inclusivity, they're attacking the self-righteous fanatics who sneer down at the unenlightened masses from their ivory tower while orchestrating their campaign of shaming and bullying at anyone who disagrees with their agenda.

If you're in favour of diversity in the industry and for gaming culture to be more welcoming to women, something I am 100% behind, that does not make you an SJW. A 'social justice warrior' refers to someone with a very misguided and narrow minded outlook on social issues, an extremist who rejects dialogue and believes anyone against them is the enemy.

As for what harm these people cause?

First of all, by taking such an extreme stance on the issue of social justice, SJWs are poisoning the very term. Look at the term 'Men's Rights Activist', the term has been rendered toxic by rampant misogyny and sexism from those that claimed to support it, no sane moderate would be caught dead identifying themselves as an 'MRA' now. The same thing is happening now with the word 'feminist', the word isn't completely toxic yet but you just need to look at the increasing instances of 'feminist' being used as a pejorative. The only people drawn to extreme views are extremists, everyone else is repelled by it, by taking such a hardline approach to progressive ideals the SJWs are alienating people from their cause, and increasingly, indirectly encouraging people to actually take a stance against them.

Second, video games are first and foremost pieces of art expressed by individual artists or teams of artists. It is important that artists are given a broad range of tools in order to express themselves, SJWs want to deprive artists of these tools if it offends them and have you seen what offends the average SJW? It's a pretty broad list.

Only two outcomes will come from this: developers will feel sufficiently shamed and browbeaten into caving into their unreasonable expectations and artists will begin depriving themselves of their own tools in order to appease them. Or, developers will see there is no pleasing these people and make absolutely no effort towards diversity in their games knowing it will never be enough. Case in point: Ubisoft released a game featuring a black female protagonist in Assassin's Creed III: Liberation. They got modest praise but for the most part it was met with an "about time" attitude from SJWs. Fast forward to the revelation that Assassin's Creed Unity will feature no female assassins and there was an absolute uproar, what little SJW street cred Ubisoft possessed was gone and they were once again fair game in the eyes of the SJW attack dogs, why pander to these people if nothing is ever good enough?

 

[Thorn14]

People don't like being told the thing they enjoy is wrong and misogynist and racist.

If said criticism from a popular "social justice critic" who I will not name, offered more examples of POSITIVE examples, we could then move on.

People take gaming seriously and a lot of people define themselves through this hobby, so when the hobby is called things like this, people think its an attack on them and they feel slighted.

I think, rather than saying the entirety of said works are wrong for their representation of women, said unnamed critic takes issue with the prevalence of bad representation of women in gaming. That's not saying that any particular work is bad or that there's anything wrong with someone for enjoying it, it just points to a larger cultural problem.

I would imagine that focusing on the GOOD aspects and promoting those would be a lot better than saying "Your entire medium is a problem." which gets people defensive.

No one is going to get upset over more Jades from BG&E. People do fear however that they're going to lose aspects of this cultural "problem" that they like Divinity's sexy armor change or Dragon's Crown being "shamed" by Kotaku.

 

[Thorn14]

So you're saying people should focus on the GOOD aspects of rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture instead of pointing out how bad it is? And how is pointing out rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture and pointing out how it's affected something like movies or video games saying "your entire medium is a problem"? I mean, seriously, how does "rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture a problem and here's some examples of it in certain popular video games" translate into "your entire medium is sexist and misogynistic and there's not a single example that isn't"? I'm thoroughly confused.

Well the fact you used the word "Rampant" twice might be a reason as to why some might see that as attacking the entire medium.

And again, there are people who do not like their hobby being attacked for whatever reason as they take it as an attack on them. "You like video games which are misogynistic, therefore you are." (Note, I'm not saying anyone here is saying that but people CAN take it as that way)

 

[Grach]

I don't think it's bad, mainly because I don't really read games journalism. Besides, pushing an agenda in journalism isn't what Fox News does?

 

[generals3]

There's been a lot of debate recently concerning social justice and video games. What I want to know is how will this change anything, business wise.

Feminism has been around for a long time and feminist critique of mass mediums, such as television, radio, movies, music, stage, has been around for even longer. The other mediums are aware of the accusations of sexism and objectification, but sexism and objectification still run rampant. People still make money off of it. So, what's the harm of letting journalists say what's wrong with it in social justice terms.

Even if a work of art is considered harmful or 'bad' or 'not helping', what can criticism do to stop the work from being produced or published? Even if people are aware of its ill effects, won't people consume it anyway? People know that fast food, alcohol, drugs and Michael Bay movies are bad for you, but they're still in business (and I say this as a person who enjoys Michael Bay films. Oh, c'mon, I thought that forest fight in Revenge of the Fallen was sweet).

In the end, what happens? Isn't it more likely that the critics will say their word, the consumer will still consume en masse of the product and at best all that's changed is a token representation or a disclaimer waving responsibility or lip-service will be provided?

What harm will it bring to a business?

The better question is: if it's not gonna change anything why would people still be trying? Isn't that pretty much how Einstein defined insanity?

So you're saying people should focus on the GOOD aspects of rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture instead of pointing out how bad it is? And how is pointing out rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture and pointing out how it's affected something like movies or video games saying "your entire medium is a problem"?

"Rampant misogyny" Are you just trying to parody the social justice cause or was this supposed to be serious?

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

No one likes being preached to. Even more so by people who review videogames for a living.

 

[DC_78]

I don't think it's bad, mainly because I don't really read games journalism. Besides, pushing an agenda in journalism isn't what Fox News does?

Yes. Yes it does and it leads to all kinds of misinformed individuals because it only presents one side of an argument. If you are okay with this type of spin in the "news" then good on you Haus. Personally I find it the same as propaganda and liberals are not innocent of doing this either. Look at some shows on MSNBC. These networks are divisive and often demonize the other side without addressing each other's arguments in any meaningful way.

And to what harm this political correct policing of artistic endeavors makes I leave this blog post by an autistic game developer.

https://twitter.com/CrownedDaemon/status/511730196412907520

TLR The dev fears either he will be made a pet cause of the politically correct crowd. That he will then get preferential treatment for his work instead of meaningful criticism, that his art should stand or fall by its own merits not its creator's condition or critic's biases.

Then on the flip side he wants to write a compelling Muslim character, but worries some will be offended. That the pressure to do it "right" almost makes him want to not bother to do it at all. Does that promote diversity? No it does not and that is the harm of this politically correct nonsense.

 

[Muspelheim]

People don't like being told the thing they enjoy is wrong and misogynist and racist.

If said criticism from a popular "social justice critic" who I will not name, offered more examples of POSITIVE examples, we could then move on.

People take gaming seriously and a lot of people define themselves through this hobby, so when the hobby is called things like this, people think its an attack on them and they feel slighted.

That is probably right at the core of it. The main gaming audience is fairly young, and there is a lot of insecurity involved. That is no doubt why bad reviews of popular games tend to upset so many people, as they interpret it as an attack on their character, their totem. Them.

Social justice criticism is going to trigger the same reaction, only much greater. Partly because of the "Outsider" effect and partly because an uncomfortable suggestion that things will be made differently on the whims of the same outsiders. Along with many other small factors, I am sure.

Personally, I believe one should be careful with what they define themselves through, or it's easy to be tangled up in a position where such a large, fluxating concept like "gaming" becomes an extention of one's self. Rigid tribalism has always been a rather difficult elephant in the room in geek spheres, it must be said, and the tendency to build one's self image on gaming or comics or whatnot is without a doubt at the bottom of it.

Games should enrich your life. Not be the sole means through which you identify yourself.

(Note; my english is rather poor, and I mean "you" as in general terms rather than directly as the OP or Thorn. Just to avoid misunderstandings)

Oh, and I'm convinced that the same mechanics are behind things like football hooligans or sports riots. They don't just cheer for and follow a team. They are the team. The team is them. An attack or a slight against the team is a slight against them.

 

[Thorn14]

Well the fact you used the word "Rampant" twice might be a reason as to why some might see that as attacking the entire medium.

And again, there are people who do not like their hobby being attacked for whatever reason as they take it as an attack on them. "You like video games which are misogynistic, therefore you are." (Note, I'm not saying anyone here is saying that but people CAN take it as that way)

Actually, I used it three times, but the rampant part, in all three instances, was an adjective of the entirety of popular culture, not of gaming specifically. It is not an attack on the hobby, it is not calling the hobby misogynistic, it's not even particularly calling a specific game misogynistic, it is simply used as an example of a wider problem that exists beyond the game, beyond the hobby, and therefore, influences the hobby. The fact that some people can't comprehend that and throw a fit is a problem with those people who feel the need to be personally insulted simply because they cannot understand what someone else is saying. Just because these people are irrational and have a poor grasp of the English language doesn't mean criticism of sexism and misogyny has no business using their hobby as an example of a wider cultural problem. Why should games be off limits to such criticisms when movies, books and music are not? Are you seriously arguing that gamers are more immature and unable to handle criticism than people who love to watch movies, listen to music or read and therefore, they should be treated like children rather than adults? Oh, wait, even children's toys such as Barbie dolls are criticized in such ways and don't get this kind of backlash...

All-in-all, the fact that you believe that games should not be criticized in such a way despite everything in popular culture being so, because some gamers might take it as a personal attack and get their feelings hurt really doesn't paint a very positive picture of gamers. I, for one, give us far more credit than that, and say let the critics criticize, even if it makes the whiners whine.

Fair enough, you did say for all of culture. But for me, I always found the word "misogynist" to mean a lot more than some people use it for. To me, that word means "Actively hating women and putting them down" like refusing to pay them the same amount of money as a man earns, or other non entertainment issues I could go on about.

But is a focus on the demographic of younger males really misogynistic? Why get upset at people making games like Dragon's Crown when all it does is separates people into a "us vs them" crowd? Why not instead try to solve the problem by promoting successful females in video game development as well as good female protagonists in games?

When people go "Oh man Lolipop Chainsaw is so sexist!" what do we gain out of it? The logical conclusion is the removal of games like that....and why should we want LESS games?

 

[Supdupadog]

From what I can tell, the big problem with articles on social justice is that they make some people feel bad for liking a thing.

Like when the level design gets criticized in a game they like, but they get to pretend a large social conspiracy is at work to censor their stuff, and not just call the critic biased.

 

[Thorn14]

People don't like being told the thing they enjoy is wrong and misogynist and racist.

If said criticism from a popular "social justice critic" who I will not name, offered more examples of POSITIVE examples, we could then move on.

People take gaming seriously and a lot of people define themselves through this hobby, so when the hobby is called things like this, people think its an attack on them and they feel slighted.

That is probably right at the core of it. The main gaming audience is fairly young, and there is a lot of insecurity involved. That is no doubt why bad reviews of popular games tend to upset so many people, as they interpret it as an attack on their character, their totem. Them.

Social justice criticism is going to trigger the same reaction, only much greater. Partly because of the "Outsider" effect and partly because an uncomfortable suggestion that things will be made differently on the whims of the same outsiders. Along with many other small factors, I am sure.

Personally, I believe one should be careful with what they define themselves through, or it's easy to be tangled up in a position where such a large, fluxating concept like "gaming" becomes an extention of one's self. Rigid tribalism has always been a rather difficult elephant in the room in geek spheres, it must be said, and the tendency to build one's self image on gaming or comics or whatnot is without a doubt at the bottom of it.

Games should enrich your life. Not be the sole means through which you identify yourself.

(Note; my english is rather poor, and I mean "you" as in general terms rather than directly as the OP or Thorn. Just to avoid misunderstandings)

Oh, and I'm convinced that the same mechanics are behind things like football hooligans or sports riots. They don't just cheer for and follow a team. They are the team. The team is them. An attack or a slight against the team is a slight against them.

(Whats the rule on double posting here if I want to respond to new posts? Continue or Edit? Sorry.)

And of course I know you don't mean me. Though the whole "gamers are loser nerds" came from the 'journalists' I felt quite insulted. Though I think your argument that its all because gamers are "younger" isn't fair, as you mentioned, sports people do the same thing (Oh MY team lost/won.) and they can be full grown adults.

Its easy to say that people shouldn't base their lives on their hobby but how many hours do you think some of us put into our hobby? So when we see something that attacks something we put a lot of love and time into, we're going to take it personal.

Do I think we need more inclusiveness in gaming? Of course, but I don't think criticism that leads to nothing other than "these things are bad" is going to get us anywhere.

 

[Agayek]

So you're saying people should focus on the GOOD aspects of rampant sexism and misogyny in popular culture instead of pointing out how bad it is?

Now I'm not them, so I can't speak for them, but I would answer yes. Or rather, instead of focusing on the "good aspects" of sexism and misogyny, people should be productive in their discussions of the issues, rather than destructive.

How about instead of "This thing is bad because it's misogynistic!", we try and turn the conversation to "This other thing is good because it's inclusive!"? That's what wins converts, honey better than vinegar and all that. If you really, honestly want to affect change, you should be setting an example and encouraging people to follow it, rather than attacking everything based on poorly-defined and unshared standards. To borrow a quote any dedicated social activist should recognize immediately, "We need to be the change we wish to see in the world".

For example, in the realm of video games, you should go out and make a game. Do the best you can, and design the game from the ground up to have diverse, interesting characters just like you've always wanted AAA games to. Put together interesting mechanics that speak about the social or philosophical issues you want to discuss. Assemble a crew of like-minded, creative, and dedicated people to put together the best damn game with all the right boxes checked. Then go out and market it. Get people to play it and, if it's a good game, people will love it. Units will fly off the shelves in record numbers, even without advertising budgets (see: Minecraft).

Then, the AAA publishers, scenting blood in the water, will take a look and start minting copy cats, just like they always do (see: CoD-clones, Minecraft knockoffs, etc). Suddenly, the entire market will be inclusive, progressive, diverse games, just like you always wanted.

Or you could make YouTube videos calling a game misogynistic and make people hostile and defensive and ultimately accomplish nothing.

Which one seems more effective?