Journalism and bias in the gaming industry

[Hurlshort]

 

Whoever drew that comic has as many psychological issues as an angry feminist.

 

It was drawn by Kate Beaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Beaton

 

Considering her other comics, i think that it is a tungue-and-cheek joke. She's more of a based mom-feminist.

 

 

Ah, context and voice can be important.  That's good to know.  It wasn't signed, from what I can tell, so I had no idea who it was.  

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Instead of usual /pol/-influenced infographics in GG, i present you one from /leftypol/

 

 

It's great when people who never really engaged with privilege theory beyond the most superficial manner make infographics about privilege theory.

[Malcador]

Well, enlighten then. Too often it falls into a competition of the oppressed

Edited April 5, 2015 by Malcador

[Namutree]

Instead of usual /pol/-influenced infographics in GG, i present you one from /leftypol/

 

WTF is class if not wealth? Shouldn't that be the same category? Also shouldn't sex and gender be the same category?

[Zoraptor]

Class and wealth are separate concepts in some countries. While aristocrats/ higher class people tend to be wealthy their wealth is usually old money and often not disposable, merely being wealthy doesn't imply the Patrician 'worth' that being able to trace your heritage to Claude Coup-de-Pied, first duke of Chipping Norton b 1044 d 1099 with his own entry in wikipedia and a seat in the House of Lords implies.

 

It's great when people who never really engaged with privilege theory beyond the most superficial manner make infographics about privilege theory.

 

 

It's just an infographic, not a masters dissertation. They aren't really supposed to be nuanced, nor to be taken as purely accurate. Besides, privilege theory is turgid and wants me make to stick a fork through my head when I'm not Richard_Castle.gifing about the statistical analyses.

 

Strips never work when they get political, and before you mention political satire strips, they're all terrible too. 

That's a mortal insult to Polandball strips. Some of which actually are funny.

 

(and any mention of political satire comics forces me to link to David Low semi compulsively)

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Well, enlighten then. Too often it falls into a competition of the oppressed

 

Class and wealth privilege are pretty much universally understood to be the most significant factors. But they also tend to coincide with other sources of privilege more often than not.

 

That said, pretty much all privilege signifies is that you never had to deal with crap from that particular source (so maybe please don't think you're an absolute authority on the subject of what it is like for people without your privilege).

[Namutree]

Class and wealth are separate concepts in some countries. While aristocrats/ higher class people tend to be wealthy their wealth is usually old money and often not disposable

Not disposable!? WTF is the point then? Just to gawk at it? Aristocrat looks at his wealth, "Yup, still rich. That matters for some reason even though I can't use it because reasons." The concept of aristocrats/high class people is dumb. Having wealth is pointless if you don't use it.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Namutree

[Fighter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia4iKP6T97g

 

The conversation those people are having is just so... ugh...

[Meshugger]

Privilige, inequality, whatever doesn't matter as it is an inherent part of human nature to excel one's station and trancend oneself to a higher position, mentally and physically. Inequity however, is disasterous, as it will not stand in a social group and will lead to robesperrian bloodbath. From what i get from the video i linked before, is that people seem to be confused about these concepts and wants to force 'good values' through subversion.

 

Hipsters being dumbasses, basically.

[Meshugger]

 

Class and wealth are separate concepts in some countries. While aristocrats/ higher class people tend to be wealthy their wealth is usually old money and often not disposable

Not disposable!? WTF is the point then? Just to gawk at it? Aristocrat looks at his wealth, "Yup, still rich. That matters for some reason even though I can't use it because reasons." The concept of aristocrats/high class people is dumb. Having wealth is pointless if you don't use it.

 

 

Maybe this concept is new to americans, but in europe there are all these old societies and country clubs consisting of people from old families and lineages. Meaning that even you're not rich, you will have good connections to great wealth through your name and lineage alone.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Privilige, inequality, whatever doesn't matter as it is an inherent part of human nature to excel one's station and trancend oneself to a higher position, mentally and physically.

 

...When the very concept of privilege (as used by those you criticize) is so inherently tied to factors other than excellence, this complaint rings a tad hollow.

[Meshugger]

 

Privilige, inequality, whatever doesn't matter as it is an inherent part of human nature to excel one's station and trancend oneself to a higher position, mentally and physically.

 

...When the very concept of privilege (as used by those you criticize) is so inherently tied to factors other than excellence, this complaint rings a tad hollow.

 

 

Elaborate.

[Malcador]

Class and wealth privilege are pretty much universally understood to be the most significant factors. But they also tend to coincide with other sources of privilege more often than not.

 

That said, pretty much all privilege signifies is that you never had to deal with crap from that particular source (so maybe please don't think you're an absolute authority on the subject of what it is like for people without your privilege).

Heh, typical. But ok, that's about as much as I've gleaned is the high level of it from the screeching lots online (though some of it is this pathetic self-loathing guilt some feel for it). So many flavours of privilege out there, too, hah.

Edited April 5, 2015 by Malcador

[Zoraptor]

 

Class and wealth are separate concepts in some countries. While aristocrats/ higher class people tend to be wealthy their wealth is usually old money and often not disposable

Not disposable!? WTF is the point then? Just to gawk at it?

 

Well yeah, pretty much. I mean, they generally aren't hard up and can usually afford to send the kids to an Eton equivalent plus replace the Range Rover every once in a while while having staff on retainer, but quite a few aristocrats do end up with big problems when their stately manor needs its lead replacing on the roof or whatever. Asset rich, cash poor basically, plus there is usually an estate tax on death plus often limitations on what can be done with your property due to cultural heritage etc which the merely rich don't have to deal with. They're generally the people who have been running the country for most previous centuries whereas the straight wealthy are those who run it now; as Meshugger says, they've got connections based on their bloodlines rather than just being wealthy.

 

British Royal Family would be the best example, they're not particularly important inherently apart from breeding and are well off financially- but not as much so practically as other rich people nor as much as you'd expect if you simply ran through their list of property and the like with no context. The Queen may still be listed as one of the richest people in the world in some lists but she'd have trouble raising anywhere near as much money as even a fairly run of the mill multi millionaire, practically, because she can't actually sell Buckingham Palace/ Balmoral/ Windsor Castle or do much apart from charge 20 quid to visitors.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Privilige, inequality, whatever doesn't matter as it is an inherent part of human nature to excel one's station and trancend oneself to a higher position, mentally and physically.

 

...When the very concept of privilege (as used by those you criticize) is so inherently tied to factors other than excellence, this complaint rings a tad hollow.

 

 

Elaborate.

 

 

Elaborate on what? Race, gender, sexuality - these are significant sources of privilege, and none of them is related to excellence in any way.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Privilige, inequality, whatever doesn't matter as it is an inherent part of human nature to excel one's station and trancend oneself to a higher position, mentally and physically.

 

...When the very concept of privilege (as used by those you criticize) is so inherently tied to factors other than excellence, this complaint rings a tad hollow.

 

 

Elaborate.

 

 

Elaborate on what? Race, gender, sexuality - these are significant sources of privilege, and none of them is related to excellence in any way.

 

 

I still do not get your point. I already stated that inequality is tolerated to a certain degree as long there is little to no inequity.

[Longknife]

 

Well, enlighten then. Too often it falls into a competition of the oppressed

 

Class and wealth privilege are pretty much universally understood to be the most significant factors. But they also tend to coincide with other sources of privilege more often than not.

 

 

This would be true for African American culture within the USA, but gender? Sexual orientation...? None of this matters if you have wealth. Race only comes in as a factor because unfortunately the path to race equality came in step by step, with each step providing only so much as to ensure a gap remained.

 

 

Furthermore, one could argue it's woefully inobjective to try to label it race privilege. Why? If you have a black guy who's ballin' and a multi-millionaire and he runs around screaming race privilege, well then wtf he's flat out wrong. If you have another who's poor and he shouts race privilege, then race privilege really only offers the potential to explain how his family remained in the lower class for so many generations. As for the here-and-now however, it's his lack of wealth that affords him no privilege, and were he to win the lotto tomorrow, suddenly he would have tons of it.

Edited April 6, 2015 by Longknife

[kirottu]

[Meshugger]

^Who is this reactionary pissbaby? Doesn't [the preferable pronoun] know that [the preferable pronoun] invites toxic commentary and attitudes that marginalizes the already marginalized ones? Toxic and vitrolic ideas influence society indirectly and normalizes violence against sexual and racial minorities. It makes the voiceless even more voiceless. It makes art an unwelcomed space and ensures the status quo. It's the enemy of free speech.

 

I suggest that we contact this immature fascist and expose this cis-het to [the preferable pronoun] employer, families and friends. 

[HoonDing]

Pillars of Tumblr.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I still do not get your point. I already stated that inequality is tolerated to a certain degree as long there is little to no inequity.

 

 

 

My point is that your original complaint - ie. "SJWs are wrong because they confuse inequality with inequity" - is pretty much arguing over semantics instead of engaging with what they're talking about.

 

 

 

 

Well, enlighten then. Too often it falls into a competition of the oppressed

 

Class and wealth privilege are pretty much universally understood to be the most significant factors. But they also tend to coincide with other sources of privilege more often than not.

 

This would be true for African American culture within the USA, but gender? Sexual orientation...? None of this matters if you have wealth. 

 

 

Wait what?

 

The point is that white cishet guys are more likely to acquire class and wealth privilege than, say, black people, or trans people.

 

 

 

Furthermore, one could argue it's woefully inobjective to try to label it race privilege.

 

 

 

...Woefully inobjective? 

 

 

 

If you have a black guy who's ballin' and a multi-millionaire and he runs around screaming race privilege, well then wtf he's flat out wrong. If you have another who's poor and he shouts race privilege, then race privilege really only offers the potential to explain how his family remained in the lower class for so many generations. As for the here-and-now however, it's his lack of wealth that affords him no privilege, and were he to win the lotto tomorrow, suddenly he would have tons of it.

 

 

I'm not sure it's helpful to compare black multimillionaires to white non-multimillionaires when explicitly talking about race privilege.

 

Also, when race privilege (or rather, lack thereof) makes it less likely for someone to acquire wealth privilege from any other source than winning the lottery, saying that it's meaningless except as a way to explain how they ended up their current situation seems... woefully inobjective.

[Volourn]

"SJWs are wrong because they confuse inequality with inequity" -

 

\No. SJWs are wrong because they are hateful, meanspirited,  bullies, nasty, nazis, who hate people becuase of their skin colour and their sexual organ (all stuff that can't be chosen) who also attack, harass, maime, and threaten those they pretend to fight for. But, SJWs aren't for equality. They're about power, control, and slavery. AKA They are worse than nazis and ISIS combined. )

[Malcador]

Will have to look up good solutions to this privilege problem.

[Fighter]

Meanwhile in Sci-Fi and fantasy. Eerily familiar.

 

http://edwardwillett.com/2015/04/thoughts-on-the-hugo-awards/

[Malcador]

That is just sad really on both sides.