TvW Close Look Meta Dialogue Catch-All

Tanglebones wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

What I'm saying is different is that there's no back-and-forth over the years over whether the examples you used are offensive, right? There's not much debate to be had: the more opposed you are to bigotry, the more you say those images should be left behind as history. There's no controversy among people who feel the same way about bigotry on how offensive those images are.

[...] There wasn't an 'off' switch; there were decades of struggle, both academic and otherwise, to convince people that they weren't good for what American society was evolving into.

Well said, Tanglebones.

I think this was posted in the last thread, but it's still relevant:
Stop Asking "Is This Feminist?"

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I think you're just coming in after decades of that back-and-forth have settled those debates, rather than living through them, as we are with issues of feminism. If you go back to the 40s-70s, gollywogs, blackface, minstrel shows and all sorts of things were stridently defended. There wasn't an 'off' switch; there were decades of struggle, both academic and otherwise, to convince people that they weren't good for what American society was evolving into.

You're misunderstanding me--I'm not talking about time, like one day it was okay and the next day it wasn't. I'm talking about that struggle being between bigotry and anti-bigotry. This is a struggle inside the anti-bigotry camp, among equally enlightened people.

I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm declining to agree with your interpretation of history. I don't think Mickey Rooney would have considered himself a bigot. Nor Truman Capote or Audrey Hepburn. Or the vast majority of the audience for Breakfast at Tiffany's (the movie, not the awful song). That said, everyone involved seemed to think that this was a good idea:
IMAGE(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Starring_Mickey_Rooney.jpg)

Societal views change in part by debates among progressives to determine where things *should* change.

Tanglebones wrote:

I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm declining to agree with your interpretation of history. I don't think Mickey Rooney would have considered himself a bigot. Nor Truman Capote or Audrey Hepburn. Or the vast majority of the audience for Breakfast at Tiffany's (the movie, not the awful song). That said, everyone involved seemed to think that this was a good idea:

Starring_Mickey_Rooney.jpg

Societal views change in part by debates among progressives to determine where things *should* change.

Yeah, but did the people who thought it was a good idea think about it a whole lot or with many tools for thinking about this stuff? The disagreements we're having over the stuff we're talking about are among people who *do* think a lot about it and have the same tools. That's the differences I'm talking about.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm declining to agree with your interpretation of history. I don't think Mickey Rooney would have considered himself a bigot. Nor Truman Capote or Audrey Hepburn. Or the vast majority of the audience for Breakfast at Tiffany's (the movie, not the awful song). That said, everyone involved seemed to think that this was a good idea:

Starring_Mickey_Rooney.jpg

Societal views change in part by debates among progressives to determine where things *should* change.

Yeah, but did the people who thought it was a good idea think about it a whole lot or with many tools for thinking about this stuff? The disagreements we're having over the stuff we're talking about are among people who *do* think a lot about it and have the same tools. That's the differences I'm talking about.

Cultural Criticism as a term dates back to the 1930s; as a concept, at least to the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultur...

Gremlin wrote:

I think this was posted in the last thread, but it's still relevant:
Stop Asking "Is This Feminist?"

I'd say that article is what I'm talking about. No one's suggesting (edit: now or then; the closest example I can think of is that Stepin Fetchit is sometimes read as subversive, and even then I don't know if that's modern or was part of the contemporary criticism) we stop asking if the examples you're bringing up are racist, right? If not, there's the difference.

It's still trying to achieve a balance, whether that's a large swing or fine tuning. It's always going to be a slice of the pie that's talking to each other and has differing viewpoints. If we were only discussing what we agree on, it'd normally be a very short discussion - though in this place that's debatable - NO... I TAKE THAT BACK! IT IS NOT DEBATABLE!

Oh no...

Tanglebones wrote:

Cultural Criticism as a term dates back to the 1930s; as a concept, at least to the 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultur...

The vast majority of the audience for Breakfast at Tiffany's were not. You're bringing up stuff we're in agreement on, but it's not relevant to what I'm saying because you're not addressing my point, which is that the struggle we're talking about today is among equally enlightened people with the same tools for criticism in their toolbox.

edit:

LouZiffer wrote:

It's still trying to achieve a balance, whether that's a large swing or fine tuning. It's always going to be a slice of the pie that's talking to each other and has differing viewpoints. If we were only discussing what we agree on, it'd normally be a very short discussion - though in this place that's debatable - NO... I TAKE THAT BACK! IT IS NOT DEBATABLE!

Oh no...

Again, a cross in posting, but it's not just different viewpoints. Like I said to Tangle, it's a difference in viewpoints among people who feel the same and have the same toolsets for doing criticism.

Thank you Tangle, that's really well put.

I've noticed that W&N has been asked by several people as well as myself to provide direct quotes or citations as to where Sarkeesian is calling for any sort of ban or censorship. It seems pretty clear from my views of her videos that she's asking for more games that are inclusive. That seems to be the be all end all of her goals.

The problem is there are lots of people who say she is for censorship and who try to throw shade at her "gamer cred." The former I've never seen even an iota of evidence about (and I've watched all of her videos.) Perhaps in the Close Look thread we'll come across something I missed. The latter is ridiculous, and the type of allegation that gets bandied about by someone who doesn't have a substantial case.

So, I'll ask again for some evidence or quote that Sarkeesian would like to ban or take away or censor. If you don't have that, then cool. You're entitled to be as paranoid as you want, but you'll have to acknowledge that it isn't rooted in anything substantial.

Also, for what it is worth, I really hope we can stop lumping people into groups and then making broad judgments about those groups and applying it willy nilly. There are actual people here who are saying specific things. When someone lumps all "progressives" or "feminists" (or all "anythings" really) into a magic bucket and then applies traits to that bucket, my eyes roll so much that they get buttered and served with dinner.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

So, I'll ask again for some evidence or quote that Sarkeesian would like to ban or take away or censor. If you don't have that, then cool. You're entitled to be as paranoid as you want, but you'll have to acknowledge that it isn't rooted in anything substantial.

I think a clearer way to ask this question is:

1) What would Sarkeesian like video game culture to look like;

and

2) What does she say/can we reasonably infer should be the means by which that is accomplished?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

It's still trying to achieve a balance, whether that's a large swing or fine tuning. It's always going to be a slice of the pie that's talking to each other and has differing viewpoints. If we were only discussing what we agree on, it'd normally be a very short discussion - though in this place that's debatable - NO... I TAKE THAT BACK! IT IS NOT DEBATABLE!

Oh no...

Again, a cross in posting, but it's not just different viewpoints. Like I said to Tangle, it's a difference in viewpoints among people who feel the same and have the same toolsets for doing criticism.

Well then I'm glad I wasn't being specific enough to rule that out.

LouZiffer wrote:

Well then I'm glad I wasn't being specific enough to rule that out. :)

; D

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

So, I'll ask again for some evidence or quote that Sarkeesian would like to ban or take away or censor. If you don't have that, then cool. You're entitled to be as paranoid as you want, but you'll have to acknowledge that it isn't rooted in anything substantial.

I think a clearer way to ask this question is:

1) What would Sarkeesian like video game culture to look like;

and

2) What does she say/can we reasonably infer should be the means by which that is accomplished?

I'd say the question is pretty clear as Harpo put it: if you say that Sarkeesian wants to ban or take away or censor, can you point to any evidence of that?

What she wants "video game culture" to look like is a tangent; what we can "reasonably infer" is laughable, considering the subject.

Thanks Chumpy. Yeah, the questions you are asking are different than the ones I (and others) are asking, Cheeze. Your questions you said "would be clearer" are actually a lot more muddy.

I'm asking - concretely - what has Sarkeesian actually said that indicates she supports censorship or banning of certain types of games? I don't care if someone has an opinion about what they believe Sarkeesian believes a "good video game culture" would look like. That question is a recipe for people inserting their own spins. I want to hear a quote, like an actual source that's clear - I don't care to hear more slippery slope extrapolations, thank you.

Though feel free to ask your own questions instead of asking me to change mine.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

So, I'll ask again for some evidence or quote that Sarkeesian would like to ban or take away or censor. If you don't have that, then cool. You're entitled to be as paranoid as you want, but you'll have to acknowledge that it isn't rooted in anything substantial.

I think a clearer way to ask this question is:

1) What would Sarkeesian like video game culture to look like;

and

2) What does she say/can we reasonably infer should be the means by which that is accomplished?

I'd say the question is pretty clear as Harpo put it: if you say that Sarkeesian wants to ban or take away or censor, can you point to any evidence of that?

You're right--a more accurate way to say it would be something like "a way that doesn't make the discussion just 'ban or take away or censor' vs. not"

What she wants "video game culture" to look like is a tangent; what we can "reasonably infer" is laughable, considering the subject.

This is the thread for tangents.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Thanks Chumpy. Yeah, the questions you are asking are different than the ones I (and others) are asking, Cheeze. Your questions you said "would be clearer" are actually a lot more muddy.

I think you're taking people who are asking questions closer to what I am, and treating what they as if they're asking the much more narrow question you are asking.

Like, let's just ask your question and see if anyone here is saying that:

does she support censorship or banning of certain types of games? Yes or No? and if yes, where's your evidence?

I say no.

Christ, Cheeze, I say "no" too. But I'm asking the specific person who does believe that she wants to censor or ban certain types of games where she has said that. If this individual doesn't believe that, then they're welcome to say they don't think Sarkeesian wants to ban or censor games.

Maybe you're trying to play Devil's Advocate? Is that what you're doing?

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Christ, Cheeze,

Such a missed opportunity to say "Cheezus Christ!"

I say "no" too. But I'm asking the specific person who does believe that she wants to censor or ban certain types of games where she has that.

Okay, and here's your answer:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I chose my words carefully in this case and it does represent perhaps a small shift in my position. She may not be calling for a ban. But her idea of a feminist world would involve far less games in which people are empowered to commit violence.

Okay, so let's try this again:

@WideAndNerdy: Where is the evidence that she will ban or censor or "take away" games? Would you mind quoting her as to the specific place she mentions that "her world" would "magically involve"* less games?

(Be this magic in the form of banning, censorship or a third type of thing which removes or limits things from existence.)

@AnyoneElseWhoMightWantMeToRephraseMyQuestion: Hi, I'd like to ask the question I'm asking as I have faith that if the person I'm asking it of has taken umbrage with a specific way I've asked my question, they themselves can gently make a correction as a reasonable and responsible adult, fully capable of discourse. That said, you are welcome to ask your own questions as well.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I'd say the question is pretty clear as Harpo put it: if you say that Sarkeesian wants to ban or take away or censor, can you point to any evidence of that?

You're right--a more accurate way to say it would be something like "a way that doesn't make the discussion just 'ban or take away or censor' vs. not"

It's not. It's really, really not.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I say "no" too. But I'm asking the specific person who does believe that she wants to censor or ban certain types of games where she has that.

Okay, and here's your answer:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

I chose my words carefully in this case and it does represent perhaps a small shift in my position. She may not be calling for a ban. But her idea of a feminist world would involve far less games in which people are empowered to commit violence.

Cheeze, did you read both the question and the answer? Because they don't actually relate. The question was, "Where - specifically - has Sarkeesian said that she wants to censor or ban or take away?" What WaN replied is very definitely not pointing to specific things that she has said that relate to his conclusion of a desire for less violent games; it's more hand-wavey interpretation. (I'm now ready for your semantic moving of the goalposts.)

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Okay, so let's try this again:

@WideAndNerdy: Where is the evidence that she will take away or ban or censor or "take away" games? Would you mind quoting her as to the specific place she mentions that "her world" would "magically involve"* less games?

(Be this magic in the form of banning, censorship or a third type of thing which removes or limits things from existence.)

Now your question is expanding ("'her world'"; "'magically involve'") into issues of what they believe Sarkeesian believes a "good video game culture" would look like. You said you don't care if someone has an opinion about that.

@AnyoneElseWhoMightWantMeToRephraseMyQuestion: Hi, I'd like to ask the question I'm asking as I have faith that if the person I'm asking it of has taken umbrage with a specific way I've asked my question, they themselves can gently make a correction as a reasonable and responsible adult, fully capable of discourse. That said, you are welcome to ask your own questions as well.

You may like to ask the question that way, but I see no reason why that obligates someone to answer it that way. If that person wants me to shut up and get out of the way, then I will gladly do so.

edit:

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

The question was, "Where - specifically - has Sarkeesian said that she wants to censor or ban or take away?" What WaN replied is very definitely not pointing to specific things that she has said that relate to his conclusion of a desire for less violent games; it's more hand-wavey interpretation

crossed in posting (I think the above addresses your issues), but a person can have "a desire for less violent games" without resorting to "censor or ban or take away."

Just so we're all on the same page here, we mean "censor or ban" in the legal sense, right? And when we say "take away"...I'm not sure what we're saying. We're not just talking about creating a "good video game culture" that does stuff like put pressure on designers to stop making these kinds of games, are we?

(I'm now ready for your semantic moving of the goalposts.)

I'm sure you don't mean it like this, but this kind of stuff gets threads shut down and makes me look like the disruptive one. Other people say stuff like this in a very cruel (or maybe just angry) way, and it doesn't lead to good results for anyone. So I think we should steer clear of it.

Okay, so you are playing Devil's Advocate. That's really awesome for you, as you get to muddy the waters and distract from my actual question, which is a perfectly reasonable call for more clarity. I'm glad that you'll happily "shut up and get out of the way" for someone else but as you won't extend the same offer to me then I guess I'll just have to ignore you here until you are done playing Devil's Advocate and semantically moving goal posts around.

It would be mildly interesting to see that Anita Sarkeesian says she wants the world to work that way. It would be far more interesting to read the tale of how she's going to make that happen.

A word of warning: I want to live in a world where machines provide for all of our basic needs and pretty much free the population to explore, innovate, and live as they wish. Once I understand this power that Anita Sarkeesian wields, I will be prepared to make that happen.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Okay, so you are playing Devil's Advocate.

It's only Devil's Advocate if the accused is not in the room.

Also, crossed in posting, so here's the thing: I'm sure you don't mean it like this, but this kind of stuff gets threads shut down and makes me look like the disruptive one. Other people say stuff like this in a very cruel (or maybe just angry) way, and it doesn't lead to good results for anyone. So I think we should steer clear of it.

That's really awesome for you, as you get to muddy the waters and distract from my actual question, which is a perfectly reasonable call for more clarity. I'm glad that you'll happily "shut up and get out of the way" for someone else but as you won't extend the same offer to me then I guess I'll just have to ignore you here until you are done playing Devil's Advocate and semantically moving goal posts around.

I'm not extending the offer to you because it's not your place to tell someone else they can't have others chime in and help them explain themselves more clearly. If your goal is not to understand that other person more clearly, then what is your goal?

It's starting to seem like you want to talk only to the person you can more easily win the argument against.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

@AnyoneElseWhoMightWantMeToRephraseMyQuestion: Hi, I'd like to ask the question I'm asking as I have faith that if the person I'm asking it of has taken umbrage with a specific way I've asked my question, they themselves can gently make a correction as a reasonable and responsible adult, fully capable of discourse. That said, you are welcome to ask your own questions as well.

Have you met Cheeze? Unpossible.

Even if Anita wants what she allegedly wants to happen in video games, so what? I'm having a hard time understanding why it raises concerns. If said dream comes true, it will be the result of market forces, not one person's, or even one movement's, ideology.

Last I checked the shooters and street fighters still sell millions of copies each year, despite almost zero innovation. And I love the consistency personally, because I'm a mostly a boring shooters kinda guy. Anita hasn't said anything that makes me worry these kinds of games will be taken away.

cheeze, do you really not see how you answering a slightly different question as a stand-in for WaN doesn't actually answer Harpo's direct question to him?

If I said, "Cheeze, what should we make for supper?", it's unhelpful for Harpo to say, "Cheeze likes cereal with no milk on it for breakfast. Not everybody likes warm food."

In other words, you're speaking for WaN to "clarify", but nobody has asked for that, and it's not really serving to clarify. You're not actually "chime[ing] in [to] help them explain themselves more clearly"; you're actively preventing Harpo's goal of understanding WaN more clearly.

LouZiffer wrote:

It would be mildly interesting to see that Anita Sarkeesian says she wants the world to work that way. It would be far more interesting to read the tale of how she's going to make that happen.

A word of warning: I want to live in a world where machines provide for all of our basic needs and pretty much free the population to explore, innovate, and live as they wish. Once I understand this power that Anita Sarkeesian wields, I will be prepared to make that happen.

You're paving the way for the machine revolt. I won't be a party to the genesis of the Butlerian jihad!

On topic -- there was something mentioned a few pages ago that I've been mulling over:

WideAndNerdy wrote:

...progressives have this presumption about what exact form progress will take and believe that a change is going to go in a certain direction because of changes in the past, and that they should. Progressives seem to think that because they are pushing for a certain kind of change that they are the only ones interested in change and the rest of us are trying to cling to the past.

I'm for progress and change, I just differ in many cases with "progressives" on what that change should look like (and no its not heading back in the other direction either, there are multiple paths away from the past towards the future.) Fearing the consequences of specific changes does not make one afraid of change and that is frankly one of the more dismissive arguments progressives and liberals make.

I'd be curious to see this idea fleshed out without using a single straw man. I consider myself a progressive, yet I've yet to see more than one self described progressive that agreed on 100% of all things. (note -- unlike many, I believe that both science and religion can be forces for progressivism.)

The only things that seems to hold most progressives together is that 1) the past had less justice equality for everyone, and 2) the future should have more justice and equality for everyone. And really, even #1 can be debated, given how many reproductive rights we've stripped from women in the couple years, and the galactic regression of freedoms and increase in atrocities in the middle east since the rise of ISIS. So let's just say that Progressives believe the future should have more justice and equality for everyone -- which by definition means focusing on marginalized and oppressed groups.

So where does that put you, WaN? What would your definition of progress look like? I'm asking because, based on what you've said, I wouldn't call your stances supportive of "believing the future should have more justice and equality for everyone." (you can also feel free to discard my definition. I'm sure someone will. :))

Chumpy_McChump, what I see is that WaN has moved off from saying she wants to ban games, and has moved on the the question of what he believes Sarkeesian believes a "good video game culture" would look like. Harpo has said he doesn't care if someone has an opinion on that second question.

It's that simple: WaN has answered Harpo's question, WaN has moved on to a question Harpo has said he doesn't care about, yet Harpo is still engaging with WaN. When someone answers your question and moves on to stuff you say you don't care about, it's time to stop trying to engage them.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It's time to stop trying to engage them.

Lessons I have difficulty putting into practice.

Tanglebones wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

It's time to stop trying to engage them.

Lessons I have difficulty putting into practice.

I think a lot of people do, myself included. It's easy to say we want a good-faith argument, but good-faith arguments take work if we want them to happen.