Journalism and Bias in the Gaming Industry

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you are misusing the word " racism " ...what is your definition of racism in this case?

 

I know I will fail to convince you but its not racist if its intention is to be inclusive and we don't need  other cultures to prompt the white\European race...we already dominate on most levels 

I for one would not have been half as interested in the Witcher if it had not built up a great sense of internal consistency in its gameworld, if it had had the usual boring AD&D setting, or did not include the Slavic cultural mores which made it so unique and exotic. Then again we can't have something unique, distinct and rare can we? We've got to turn everything into a dull paint by numbers politically correct sermon.

 

But its really a fantasy realm so why not just include minorities? It can still be very Slavic but I don't see the big deal?

 

 

The big deal is 

 

1) Is that it is quite racist to include minorities for the sake of them being minorities.

2) The double standard. No one is forcing the Japanese/Asian market to include whites or blacks in their games.

 

 

Racism is still racism despite with "good" intensions, nice try though. Who's "we?" not needing to prompt european race? Who are you talking about? Why is it morally right for any artist pursue this racial/cultural propaganda and why should companies profit from it?

 

 

Why do you feel Japanese games have to now feature European people?

 

 

Answer my questions first.

 

Okay,  "we"  is the general European\White race

I meant to say " we have no need to promote the White race "  

 

 

Hahahaha, i'm done.

 

 

Do you mind sharing why you are done ?

 

 

Because trying to tell whites that their race and culture should not be promoted is quite evil, is it not? Like there is a certain layer of what the human expression of oneself can go before someone else puts an arbitrary stop-sign telling them that their culture just have had enough.

 

I thought that we all worked from on the dream MLK had as a base. Maybe he was wrong after all...

 

 

Dude...seriously?

 

What? Either you judge a man by the content of his character or by the color of his skin. Are you not now judging by the color of people's skin with all these minority quotas and by proclaiming gaming as too white?

 

Based on the latest developments, it seems like that ideal has sailed long ago and replaced by racial tokenism.

 

Call it what you like but if it improves peoples gaming experience and doesn't impact yours why not just support it ?

[Fighter]

"Prejudice plus power" was invented by hypocrites to safe guard themselves when talking about white people and men. When you've got prejudice based on skin color or sex you are a racist or sexist respectively. Period.

 

 

Call it what you like but if it improves peoples gaming experience and doesn't impact yours why not just support it ?

 

Supporting it when it's done and berating people when it's not are different things.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Fighter

[Meshugger]

 

What? Either you judge a man by the content of his character or by the color of his skin. Are you not now judging by the color of people's skin with all these minority quotas and by proclaiming gaming as too white?

 

Based on the latest developments, it seems like that ideal has sailed long ago and replaced by racial tokenism.

Call it what you like but if it  improves peoples gaming experience and doesn't impact yours why not just support it? 

 

 

 

Racism, it just works!

 

[Ineth]

 

video games - affects unconscious attitudes, not behaviors

 

So it's about thought control.

 

 

Yes. Exactly. Congratulations, you have grasped the issue perfectly. That's what it was about all along.

 

Moron.

 

Lol dat snark - having a bad day?

 

On topic, what else would you call McIntosh's and Sarkeesian's (and more generally, the authoritarian left's) obsession with other people's alleged "unconscious attitudes" and the idea of 'correcting' them by lobbying for enforcing ideological purity on the media which those people consume?

[evensong]

It's not especially controversial in psychology today that everyone harbors some amount of racial prejudice, for the most part unconsciously. Some people are in a position where the cumulative societal prejudice works in their favour. Recognising that this gives them some measure of advantage, while giving disadvantage to others, doesn't seem that crazy to me.

 

I guess defining "racism" as encompassing that idea exclusively seems a bit narrow, but a rose by any other name, right? Call it systemic racism if you want, it's still a real thing, it still works in our favour, and it still affects people in ways that make it ridiculous to claim society is currently a level playing field.

 

If you disagree that white people are privileged at all: Here's a thought experiment. You're walking home from work late at night in New York. A police car rolls up and tells you to stop. In the interaction that follows, would you want to be black or white, or do you think it wouldn't matter?

[Fighter]

Ok.... someone explain to me the whole "We are not saying it affects behavior. But it does affect attitudes."

 

And the difference is? Attitudes affect behavior.

 

To me that is just mascaraing to try and differentiate yourself from sounding like all the would be censors of times past while essentially saying the same exact thing.

[evensong]

Yeah that's a silly thing to say, I agree. It influences both. Culture influences the way we perceive the world, our perceptions inform our opinions, our opinions inform our actions. It has a real effect on the world and people around us.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Not if you go by the definition of racism as "prejudice plus power".

 

Haven't we already uniformally dismissed that definition since it's joke? "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" and all that.

 

 

Translation: "I'm allergic to viewing things in a wider context. Please don't make me do that."

 

 

 

No, it is about having games made by white people in white countries based on white culture to be changed to suit the possible needs of minorities in other countries. That's insanity.

 

Have you even read the article you're talking about in entirety, or just grabbed a screencap that reinforces your biases and launched into a frothing tirade as per the usual modus operandi of this topic?

 

Yes.

 

 

Then I suppose you're just... not very good at parsing text. Let's go over the contents of the article, paragraph by paragraph.

 

- the first 8 paragraphs are about Rust 

- 3 paragraphs about the weird double standard of white players crying "forced politics!" when they're restricted to avatars with skin colors other than their own, but when people of color raise the same issue in relation to the overabundance of white protagonists, they're basically told to shut up

- 1 paragraph about the writer liking TW3

- 4 paragraphs of the writer (falsely) bemoaning the lack of reviews even raising the issue of minority representation

- 1 paragraph about how gender representation is becoming an issue that's actively talked about, and racial diversity shouldn't be any different

- 8 paragraphs about why, in a wider cultural context, saying "it's completely like a game based on Indian mythology not containing whites" is simply wrong

- 2 paragraphs about how the "historical accuracy" argument doesn't hold water in a game of wraiths and magic. Which is where people tend to miss the point and yell "bu-bu-but INTERNAL CONSISTENCY" like they're incapable of even considering that internal consistency means consistency within the framework of the rules the author set up, and there's nothing preventing said author from setting up a set of rules where the presence of non-white people is acceptable. (Note: this is not an argument specifically against The Witcher, and nothing in the text implies such.) 2 more paragraphs touch on the subject a bit later.

- 1+4 paragraphs about how "but the game is dealing with racism! there are elves and dwarves and people are totally discriminating against them!" is a rather weak argument when people of color aren't even allowed to exist within the setting. Or, as the author put it: "I’m not against racism being depicted; the game actually shows racism and bigotry as bad. But even Elves have the opportunity to exist. People of color don’t. Again: This is literal dehumanising of people of color. (...) If anything, making us short, bearded white Scottish men, or very white, pointy-eared thin people reinforces how dismissed we are — by not even being considered human."

- 1 paragraph where the author explains that he just wants to be represented in games, nothing more. (Certainly not an unreasonable request in my book.)

- 2 paragraphs about the frankly inexplicable hostility of reactions to that very simple request

- 1 paragraph where he theorizes it's probably ignorance, not racism that fuels these feelings

- 2 paragraphs about how this problem will probably lessen as more and more people of color gain employment in the games industry

- 1 paragraph about how overlooked the lack of representation is as an issue (debatable)

- 4 more paragraphs about how the real problem we should strive to solve is that these issues can't even be raised without being met with vitriolic hostility

 

There's basically nothing in the article flat-out requesting that The Witcher 3 be changed in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, the number of paragraphs actively discussing issues TW3 had, as opposed to engaging with common counter-arguments in discussions about minority representation is, what, 5? There are more paragraphs devoted to Rust than that.

 

In contrast, there are 19 paragraphs that are essentially all about the gaming community (lack of people considering representation as an issue, and the vitriolic response when people find it objectionable). Hence, in my book at least, this article isn't about The Witcher, much less about "having games made by white people in white countries based on white culture to be changed to suit the possible needs of minorities in other countries".

Edited June 4, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Ok.... someone explain to me the whole "We are not saying it affects behavior. But it does affect attitudes."

 

And the difference is? Attitudes affect behavior.

 

To me that is just mascaraing to try and differentiate yourself from sounding like all the would be censors of times past while essentially saying the same exact thing.

 

It's an important distinction because people are fond of the strawman "oooh they're saying video games are mind-controlling people into becoming misogynists! WHAT MORONS AMIRITE". Furthermore...

 

It influences both. Culture influences the way we perceive the world, our perceptions inform our opinions, our opinions inform our actions. It has a real effect on the world and people around us.

 

While that is true, as you have pointed out, it's a process with multiple steps, where, with sufficient awareness of your own biases, you can catch yourself and mitigate the effect on your behavior. Which is a pretty significant difference from "it's SATANISTIC MIND CONTROL".

[Fighter]

It's an important distinction because people are fond of the strawman "oooh they're saying video games are mind-controlling people into becoming misogynists! WHAT MORONS AMIRITE". Furthermore...

 

That is not a strawman. It is a crude and ineloquent way of saying the exact same thing. If media can cause people to have misogynistic attitudes then it's causing them to be misogynist and if it works on a subconscious level then mind-control isn't the worst comparison.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's an important distinction because people are fond of the strawman "oooh they're saying video games are mind-controlling people into becoming misogynists! WHAT MORONS AMIRITE". Furthermore...

 

That is not a strawman. It is a crude and ineloquent way of saying the exact same thing. If media can cause people to have misogynistic attitudes then it's causing them to be misogynist and if it works on a subconscious level then mind-control isn't the worst comparison.

 

 

Is anchoring mind-control?

[Fighter]

Is anchoring mind-control?

 

Wouldn't be difficult to describe it as such.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Is anchoring mind-control?

 

Wouldn't be difficult to describe it as such.

 

 

I still think it's a strawman, though.

 

Sarkeesian isn't saying video games specifically are mind controlling you into misogyny, she's saying (western) culture is (which video games are undeniably a part of).

Edited June 4, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Malcador]

But its really a fantasy realm so why not just include minorities? It can still be very Slavic but I don't see the big deal?

Is it a problem if they're not there, though ? And practically - What kinds are needed ? and how many of them is acceptable ? what kind of role do they need to have for the game to not be 'problematic' ? \

 

Oh wait, this is 'faux shoehorning' concern according to Moosa and his ilk Which is a cheap dodge that doesn't want to think further down the line.

[Ineth]

It influences both. Culture influences the way we perceive the world, our perceptions inform our opinions, our opinions inform our actions. It has a real effect on the world and people around us.

 

While that is true, as you have pointed out, it's a process with multiple steps, where, with sufficient awareness of your own biases, you can catch yourself and mitigate the effect on your behavior.

 

Or, instead of sober self-awareness and level-headed self-correction, you could just:

1. Join a political ideology that tells you what (and how bad) your biases are simply based on your gender and race.
2. Listen & Believe.
3. Frantically over-correct your behaviours sans common sense, in order to gain status with the other believers and feel good about how you're "one of the good ones".
4. End up with new biases and intolerant behaviors, that are several orders of magnitude more severe than any you might have had to begin with.

[Meshugger]

 

 

Not if you go by the definition of racism as "prejudice plus power".

Haven't we already uniformally dismissed that definition since it's joke? "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" and all that.

 

 

Translation: "I'm allergic to viewing things in a wider context. Please don't make me do that."

 

 

No.

 

It is that it makes it impossible for anyone else to be racist against white men since they are according to the same theory in position of power. Logically consistent, yes, but the premise itself is too stupid to begin with.

 

Then I suppose you're just... not very good at parsing text. Let's go over the contents of the article, paragraph by paragraph.

 

- the first 8 paragraphs are about Rust 

- 3 paragraphs about the weird double standard of white players crying "forced politics!" when they're restricted to avatars with skin colors other than their own, but when people of color raise the same issue in relation to the overabundance of white protagonists, they're basically told to shut up

- 1 paragraph about the writer liking TW3

- 4 paragraphs of the writer (falsely) bemoaning the lack of reviews even raising the issue of minority representation

- 1 paragraph about how gender representation is becoming an issue that's actively talked about, and racial diversity shouldn't be any different

- 8 paragraphs about why, in a wider cultural context, saying "it's completely like a game based on Indian mythology not containing whites" is simply wrong

- 2 paragraphs about how the "historical accuracy" argument doesn't hold water in a game of wraiths and magic. Which is where people tend to miss the point and yell "bu-bu-but INTERNAL CONSISTENCY" like they're incapable of even considering that internal consistency means consistency within the framework of the rules the author set up, and there's nothing preventing said author from setting up a set of rules where the presence of non-white people is acceptable. (Note: this is not an argument specifically against The Witcher, and nothing in the text implies such.) 2 more paragraphs touch on the subject a bit later.

- 1+4 paragraphs about how "but the game is dealing with racism! there are elves and dwarves and people are totally discriminating against them!" is a rather weak argument when people of color aren't even allowed to exist within the setting. Or, as the author put it: "I’m not against racism being depicted; the game actually shows racism and bigotry as bad. But even Elves have the opportunity to exist. People of color don’t. Again: This is literal dehumanising of people of color. (...) If anything, making us short, bearded white Scottish men, or very white, pointy-eared thin people reinforces how dismissed we are — by not even being considered human."

- 1 paragraph where the author explains that he just wants to be represented in games, nothing more. (Certainly not an unreasonable request in my book.)

- 2 paragraphs about the frankly inexplicable hostility of reactions to that very simple request

- 1 paragraph where he theorizes it's probably ignorance, not racism that fuels these feelings

- 2 paragraphs about how this problem will probably lessen as more and more people of color gain employment in the games industry

- 1 paragraph about how overlooked the lack of representation is as an issue (debatable)

- 4 more paragraphs about how the real problem we should strive to solve is that these issues can't even be raised without being met with vitriolic hostility

 

There's basically nothing in the article flat-out requesting that The Witcher 3 be changed in any way, shape or form. Furthermore, the number of paragraphs actively discussing issues TW3 had, as opposed to engaging with common counter-arguments in discussions about minority representation is, what, 5? There are more paragraphs devoted to Rust than that.

 

In contrast, there are 19 paragraphs that are essentially all about the gaming community (lack of people considering representation as an issue, and the vitriolic response when people find it objectionable). Hence, in my book at least, this article isn't about The Witcher, much less about "having games made by white people in white countries based on white culture to be changed to suit the possible needs of minorities in other countries".

 

Read the Moby ****, the Bible, or whatever the same way and you will find the same result, which is it that it will be different than the overall message. For that, you have to read between the lines.

 

The author used the Witcher 3 as an example for a greater overreaching agenda that race in games need to be more diverse and it is quite sinister (maybe i am giving the guy too much credit here) that he chose this game of all games as a platform to start from. Basically, it is subversion/deconstruction of what they percieve as the dominant culture and games are no different.

[evensong]

 

While that is true, as you have pointed out, it's a process with multiple steps, where, with sufficient awareness of your own biases, you can catch yourself and mitigate the effect on your behavior. Which is a pretty significant difference from "it's SATANISTIC MIND CONTROL".

 

 

I kinda disagree. Talking about "steps" seems weird to me when we're constantly steeped in our culture. We've never not been exposed to this stuff. There isn't a linear progression between watching a dumb thing on TV and adopting a dumb opinion, the program is just a drop in the cultural ocean, constant around us. Because of this I often think discussions about single instances of sexism or racism are more symbolic than constructive - we're missing the forest for the trees a lot of the time. It's much easier to talk about single crystallised aspects of our culture instead of looking at where it's coming from, but it's also a lot less useful.

 

Talking about "mind control" is a ridiculous reduction of what's going on here. It seems common to think that anyone critiquing culture from a feminist/anti-racist point of view has in mind some pure, self-contained soul that gets corrupted by racist or sexist culture, and that we must purge our culture of anything that can taint this fragile core inside of us through censorship. That's not what anyone is trying to do, that would be insane, because that core doesn't exist. This is the point: Our minds are already controlled. Not by anyone in particular, but by the cultural influence of our society. That is our default state. There is no pure internal atom of reason. So this is the point of cultural critique: we are all affected by the culture that surrounds us, and figuring out how it affects us can tell us something about ourselves and our society. If we also have an idea of what we want our society to look like - we generally do, as most people prefer level playing fields and all that - it can also tell us something about where our culture is headed, and lets us talk about what we can do to influence it.

 

An analogy: We can picture mind control as being pressganging. Cultural criticism is not about pressganging, it's about trying to explain that we are all already on a ship, and we can try to figure out collectively how the ship works and how to get it where we want to go. Of course, you could sit down on the deck and pretend you're on dry land. It'd probably a lot more comfortable, but you'd be deluding yourself.

Edited June 4, 2015 by evensong

[evensong]

Also, Moby **** was about seamen.

[Fighter]

Talking about the complexities of media influence and it's place as part of the general culture influences sounds more like an explanation of the basic statement of "Games make you X". It is the how not the I'm actually saying something different.

[evensong]

Well, yes, that's what I was trying to do. I was trying to explain how video games change the way we think, namely as part of our broader cultural tapestry. It affects both the way we think and, consequentially, how we act. Do you disagree that culture affects how we think and act?

 

Edit: I guess I'm kinda struggling to understand what you're saying here, could you explain it briefly? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here.

Edited June 4, 2015 by evensong

[Nonek]

 

I for one would not have been half as interested in the Witcher if it had not built up a great sense of internal consistency in its gameworld, if it had had the usual boring AD&D setting, or did not include the Slavic cultural mores which made it so unique and exotic. Then again we can't have something unique, distinct and rare can we? We've got to turn everything into a dull paint by numbers politically correct sermon.

 

But its really a fantasy realm so why not just include minorities? It can still be very Slavic but I don't see the big deal?

 

 

One, it is a fantasy realm built upon a series of novels that prioritise internal consistency, so one must have a reason for minorities to be present not just token representations clumsily inserted for the sake of racists.

 

Two, Minorities are represented: There are green Dryads, the problems with the Elder races which is a central theme of the novels, the heritage of the Vran lizardmen buried throughout, the post conjunction creatures, Geralt the protagonist is himself a mutant that is technically a new species, Ciri is a genetic timebomb crafted by fascist inter dimensional elves etcetera.

[Nonek]

 

Abused morals as well such as Foltest's relationship with his sister, frowned upon and birthing mostrosities such as the Striga as just punishment.

 

...That's not what happened at all.

 

 

According to the mores of the people of Vizima, which is what we were talking about, it was. Foltest himself thought this to be true, Velerad and his coterie did, as no one knew of Ostrit's infatuation with Adda senior. This is why DeWett resurrected Ostrit's schemes to turn Adda into a Striga, as part of Jacques plans to seize the throne and discredit Foltest.

 

Edit: My apologies for the double post, didn't notice the second reply immediately.

Edited June 4, 2015 by Nonek

[Fighter]

Well, yes, that's what I was trying to do. I was trying to explain how video games change the way we think, namely as part of our broader cultural tapestry. It affects both the way we think and, consequentially, how we act. Do you disagree that culture affects how we think and act?

 

Edit: I guess I'm kinda struggling to understand what you're saying here, could you explain it briefly? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you here.

 

There is this thing that people like Anita S. and others do when they get compared to let's say Jack Thompson. Which is they differentiate themselves on the basis that as I paraphrased before, "We are not saying it affects behavior. But it does affect attitudes."

 

And my stance is that it's bs. Because what they are saying is just in essence a more nuanced explanation of Jack Thompson's crude and clumsy arguments.

 

It is nothing more than PR.

[evensong]

Alright, I get you. I kinda disagree, though. Admittedly I haven't watched that much of A. Sarkeesian's videos, but I don't recall her ever saying that it doesn't influence behaviour - her deal is cultural criticism, and as far as I know she's never said that culture doesn't influence behaviour, neither explicitly nor implicitly. That would be a totally ridiculous thing to say.

 

At least to my mind, there's a huge gulf between Jack Thompson's arguments (is he still around? I remember he was a big deal in like, 2006?) and Sarkeesian's. Thompson's arguments are/were explicitly about censoring and prohibiting the release of certain games, he claimed direct connections between playing games and real violence, as well as people using video games as "murder simulators" in which they practiced murdering people in real life. All these things are ridiculous claims, and not really on the same level as examining the cultural impact of video games. I've never heard Anita Sarkeesian explicitly call for prohibition of any games, and I would be surprised (and disappointed) if it turns out she has.

[Hurlshort]

Very few people would have cared if Jack Thompson was just making arguments.  He filed lawsuits and pushed for legislation to change the industry.