djpretzel

I almost always tiebreak into a yes/approval, but in this case I'm going to have to side with the NO's. It's not that this is an absolutely verbatim cover, but it's VERY conservative, and when you couple that WITH the brevity of the piece, it makes it worse. Crunchy sound, good concept, but just needs to do a little... bit... more. Seems like this should be REALLY straightforward to expand a bit & add some original material to, or extend with a variation. NO

Labels can describe. How & where & when they are applied, and by whom, contributes to an identity war. If you call an action racist, you've got an obligation to explain why it is racist. If you call a person racist, you've got a much larger obligation to show a pattern of behavior. "SJW" can't really describe an individual action, per se, as it is almost always applied to people, not actions/statements. This is bad news, because it makes it less likely to be employed specifically, as you've pointed out. The obligation is larger; you'd need to show a pattern of hypersensitivity & knee-jerk reactions & going from 0 to 60 on myriad issues and conflating someone's worth with how much they agree with you & characterizing all of your opponents as biased, backward bigots without arguing the points. I think that demographic phenomenon does exist, just as I think real, actual, 110% certified racists and misogynists exist. I'm not really speaking to the productivity or counter-productivity of employing the label in conversation, I'm saying I think it DOES describe a certain cross-section of the population. Its usage is often every bit as lazy, if not moreso, than the overuse of identifying anything & everything as misogynist or patriarchal. I think we basically agree; these are charged, difficult words that are often counter-productive and applied without due diligence. The only difference is that, while almost everyone seems to agree that hardcore racists & misogynists exist, some folks seem to think that the construction of the "SJW" identity is completely fabricated. I do not. It depends on both parties - it depends on the "attacker" keeping things on topic and refraining from ad hominem attacks, and the defender being fair & not conflating their own identity with the topic. It's difficult but not impossible; I think we've seen it happen on this thread, which is something to be reasonably proud of.

It feels a bit like splitting hairs, still, though... my only point was to be wary of situations where you're making value judgments about methods/tactics that either side of an ideological schism might ultimately employ. What's interesting to me is that motivating a collective response to these occurrences seems difficult... once an advertiser has become convinced that it should distance itself from a publisher due to their ideological stance on a topic, how do members of a competing ideology attempt to dissuade them of this notion? Has anyone organized an outreach to Intel to try and make a case? I don't have anything to add/ask, I'm just quoting this to say: VERY well said. I just got into it a bit w/ Star Salzman on Facebook over whether "SJW" is EVER a valid insult/label.... He thinks that it isn't; I think that it is. I think there ARE people who fetishize the taking of offense, whose skins are phyllo dough-thin, who white knight at the drop of a hat, and who define themselves too much by what they can object to on any given day of the week. I think that as both a label and an insult, it CAN be accurate/descriptive of a certain personality type that the Internet has encouraged & emboldened, semi-legitimized by the pseudo-academics of bad sociology. That being said, as with almost any label, it CAN also be abused & applied far too widely. In other words: If you think that EVERYONE arguing for equality or social change can be dismissed as an SJW, you're full of shit. If you think that EVERYONE arguing for equality or social change is being reasonable, honest, and not making hypocritical and/or bad faith assumptions, you're ALSO full of shit. Thus the need for, you know, like, analysis. And stuff. "For a brighter, less-full-of-shit tomorrow!!"™

Just pointing out something interesting, to me at least - you CAN find this sort of insane reaction in the more enthusiast gaming communities, and you're kinda dismissing it as being par for the course, but on the other hand, (some of) the same people making (some of) the same threats against Zoe, Anita, etc. are taken deathly seriously & given the full weight of their potential implications. If the same sorry lot that send death threats over CoD patches also send them to Anita, is it the different audience/context that dictates the legitimacy & publicity? I just think that you might see similar campaigns against advertisers coming from the other "side" at some point, objecting to sexism, racism, etc., and the justification will be similar, so damning the method now is probably setting yourself up for disappointment when it is employed by those you otherwise might agree with.

Well, you're keeping this fiscal, whereas I was pointing out that some developers may simply avoid certain design decisions entirely due to not wanting to have to engage or deal with mob mentality... you kinda dodged my question, or I suppose your answer is that, in terms of the potential chilling effects on speech, things only matter if they can be clearly traced to $$$? Sure, sure. There's a difference between individual free speech and coordinated, incited free speech though, and so-called "social justice" mob attacks are a thing, and do happen. When dozens to hundreds of people are simultaneously shouting at you, yes, it's still free speech... but it's more about a contest of wills than the conveying of information & discourse. I agree that thick skins are necessary for artists.... but hell, if everyone had thick skins.... this entire thread would be unnecessary I'm confused as to why the mob attacks on individual devs aren't also disproportionate, then? I'm again confused... 100 people can attack a dev for boobies in his/her game, and 100,000 can be completely okay with it, but say nothing. Your entire point here seems to be that it's worse because it's harder to detect, i.e. not public, and that it's more explicitly fiscal? It's fiscally worse, I agree; as far as its potential effect on speech, I'm not sure you've made that case. I'm pretty sure you haven't, actually. At any rate, words matter. Scaring advertisers semi-publicly vs. scaring devs publicly... not sure I know how to properly compare the two other than to say that I don't like either. With regards to $$$, the former might be more effective, but I'm not really buying your argument that it's far worse ("an entirely different beast") ethically... to me it just seems like if the roles/actions were reversed, you'd argue the opposite. It almost just seems like you're criticizing the approach due to its comparative efficacy...

Right. And yes, it's a long thread. At any rate, I looked for the Jack Thompson stuff, and apparently this is the most relevant video (??): And, you know... okay, whatever. I don't think it proves much of a point; he still comes closer to advocating what I'd call censorship, in the form of age restrictions, than anything I've heard Anita *directly* advocate. Indirectly, the implications of her statements might suggest otherwise, but that level of indirectness is relatively important.

You spent the whole time talking about how shitty Jack Thompson is and how stupid GG is for supporting anything he says, without actually mentioning... what he said. Ad hominem is not a substitute for substance; what did he say? However much I oppose his actions in the past, I'm not going to disagree with him on principle without actually knowing what I'm disagreeing with... I take the impression you're too lazy/busy to read this thread, and have seen fit to lump me in with one side of an argument that I've criticized for being unnecessarily polarizing & too much about identity as opposed to ideas, thus proving my point. You've also implied that your personal anecdote trumps anyone else's while managing to insult the hypothetical "mouthbreathers" who you foresee objecting to your not-yet-achieved accomplishments. Sorry to be blunt, but there it is.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I'm working on it, I've got about 30 seconds done and a pretty good idea of how to work out the rest. However, it's not just my track - we also need additional art assets, and then a trailer, and then a website. We are working on these tasks in parallel and will be launching an art competition of some kind, probably through gamearthq, shortly. The album really deserves presentation to go along with the music - people DO just books by their covers, even if they shouldn't, and we wanna do this one right.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Okay, and you're right to point out the difference between a traditional boycott and what they're doing, but... with regard to a vocal minority having undue influence... isn't this then similar to the twitter shaming & mob mentality being employed against certain devs whose games aren't 110% politically correct? The target is larger and the goal more explicitly fiscal, but in terms of curtailing speech, between scaring a company into not running ads and scaring an individual developer into not making the game he or she wants to make, which frightens you more? Just to clarify, I don't think either act is censorship... but you made the claim that the GG ad campaign stuff is CLOSER to censorship, and to me that just seemed like a weird, partisan observation to make. When fire is being fought with fire, it just seems silly to criticize one side's flames for being 3 degrees hotter... Both actions can make speech riskier, and silence those unwilling to pay the potential price, but are still more indirect than actual censorship. I prefer to think of TB as someone caught in the middle, who sees a balance of power problem in that the GG movement has no prominent voice of reason to interact with game journos. It just seems to me that he's diligently trying to squeeze SOME truth/progress out of a polarized situation. Isn't being charitable a good thing, though? Anyways, that's not quite what I believe... I believe in the supreme power of self-delusion. It's a human thing, and not quarantined to any one side or demographic. It's not a question of whether people are "honestly fighting for equality" as long as they've convinced themselves that they are, as I think so many have. Once you've convinced yourself that your side is just, and righteous, and you've anchored your own identity to the cause, anything that looks, smells, or tastes like a compromise, however reasonable, smacks of ideological treason. I find this explanation far more plausible than a loosely affiliated group of people on the Internet making a concerted effort to present a facade of arguing for equality as a political weapon. There might be some puppeteers like that out there, or folks who consider themselves as such, but self-deception is a lot easier and arguably more effective than intentional manipulation.

Well that's a bit of a strawman, though, right? No one was claiming that either the act of making videos OR putting them on YouTube constituted censorship in any way... some, myself included, were simply pointing out that what Anita was SAYING - more specifically, the WAY she was saying it and the causations she was claiming - were similar to pro-censorship arguments made surrounding, for example, violence in games. Obviously simply making something and then putting it somewhere isn't censorship; this seems like an empty sentence/argument, to me. I'm not sure why you wrote it. Furthermore, the alternatives to censorship in support of Anita's arguments that were proposed in this very thread included gamers "voting with their wallets" and simply not buying (i.e. boycotting) any games that featured sexual objectification, misogyny, etc. Isn't the GG campaign surrounding ads more similar in nature to that - a boycott of sorts... just from the other side? If you're going to condemn the method itself, that means it's off the table for your own "side" or perspective, otherwise we're wandering into double-standard land, where hypocrisy reigns supreme.... I'm a pro-regulation, pro-welfare guy who sees plenty of problems with unchecked capitalism, but even I think that ultimately the market ends up deciding many issues of this nature. Censorship is stopping someone from saying something - like the university death threat. On the other hand, refusing to give someone your time or your money - resources which you rightly control - because of what they're saying, well... that's freedom itself, no? I'm personally surprised Intel caved like that; I have to think it was more of a question of not wanting to get involved than of any explicit/implicit endorsement. Do we want to discus Leigh Alexander's article? Because I think it was extremely stupid, insulting, poorly-timed, and irresponsibly fomented things beyond where they needed to go... It is, but my point was that it was a two-way street, with BOTH sides entrenched and incapable of acknowledging even an iota of validity in the perspective of the "other".

Here's a meta-irony for you, then: Often, those fighting for equality fail to realize that they've really already achieved it: they have become equally as convinced of their opponents' lack of humanity & worth as vice versa.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

I feel like I have, actually. I feel like I could distill my posts on this very thread into a "greatest hits" album that more-or-less summarizes what I believe a coherent argument - primarily aesthetic in nature - would be. I honestly feel like if I expanded on it, dressed it up a bit, and put it out there, I'd be told to "check my privilege," and my entire position would be discredited on the inarguable grounds of "heterosexual white male"... no? Too defeatist/cynical? Ideas need to trump identity. How do you make THAT happen? That's a MUCH bigger quagmire than our little niche... and in that specific regard, both sides of this dogfight are terribly, horrifically flawed.

Looks good!! I'm hoping that Nintendo will realize that projects like this only serve to promote & celebrate their brands. Graphics look slick; hope the gameplay/mechanics match 'em!

It's an assumption, agreed, but it's not unfounded. If you're looking around and seeing an atmosphere receptive to discussion, that hasn't been further polarized beyond what I would (again) assume was an initial starting position, I'm not sure what you've been looking at... my assumption is founded on personal observation, the observations and statements of others, and the vox.com article I linked. Is that an interesting question, the answer to which - if conclusively obtainable - will provide actionable insight of any kind? I believe she has polarized gamers, that this was entirely avoidable in conveying most of her message, and that stripping away the dated/fringe ideology and armchair psychology would ALSO have made her points more persuasive. I believe that there's a demographic discrepancy between game journalists and gamers at large, and that most game journos lean left to varying degrees, whereas gamers at large are more ideologically diverse. I believe it was probably inevitable, to some extent, that this discrepancy would result in a schism/conflict of some ilk. I believe that Anita probably played some role in expediting that schism. Whether she's "responsible" or not doesn't interest me, personally. I can believe all of the above while not seeking to assign the brunt of responsibility or blame to any one person or thing.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything Pretty much, this. So many earnest folk want to make this a war of ideas. So many mock #Gamergate's claim that "it's about ethics in game journalism" without realizing that there's also not really a counter-position... just a counter-identity. This has all been about identity, the whole time... which in turn makes it the same sort of polarized mess that has come to characterize American politics and public discourse, which in turn means that any position of nuance that acknowledges complexity is doomed from the outset. I've never been interested in anything other than responding to specific arguments & ideas with analysis... I do not believe Anita's arguments & ideas withstand analysis, nor do I believe they represent the more pragmatic & egalitarian voices of third-wave feminism. They are a regression to a vein of discourse that was tried before, was highly polarizing at the time, and whose wings melted when it flew too close to the Sun of censorship. What I'm seeing now is that even reasonable voices (who otherwise see the myriad faults in Anita's points) wholeheartedly support her simply because the sides have been set, the identities have been cast, and it's no longer about specific ideas... just a vague set of principles that can be argued around in circles until each side is even MORE convinced of the irredeemable stupidity of the other. There's a vein of optimism recently expressed on this thread that suggests that Anita's started a fire, and however imperfect that fire may be, it's up to us to carry the torch forward. Okay, let's just say that's true... doesn't that mean we should START by improving on what she's saying, pointing out the fallacies, and recrafting a more modern, coherent message? Ask yourself... is this the climate where that can happen? The situation on the ground now seems to me to more closely resemble polarized cults of groupthink, where questioning Anita is synonymous with supporting death threats and hating women. The only context in which torches are carried in an environment like that is by a mob, toward whoever's going to be lynched next... Count me among the pessimists; we don't need polarizers, we need unifiers. What could have been a conversation about improving the medium has become a war of identity; if you think that's a good thing, I question your sanity.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.

Is it the same file? The Terminal Velocity mix? Or something different?

I was planning to Are you talking about this thread, or the larger discussion? I was just talking about this thread, and I was just talking about sexualization/objectification in games, specifically, and more generally in art, but NOT in everyday life. I'm one of those folks who thinks people are actually rather GOOD at compartmentalizing, which seems like a dirty word and/or a foreign concept to would-be cultural critics in the gaming world at this moment in time. They need to catch up with cultural critics of other art forms, who more or less let this ship sail & put on their big-boy/big-girl pants decades ago, realizing that objectification in and of itself is a valid form of expression and has been since art itself existed. The CONTEXT of said objectification CAN be misogynist, offensive, sexist, etc., but the objectification itself should not elicit the knee-jerk reactions that it does, which embarrass both the medium & other more legitimate grievances surrounding the topic. It's funny, because I think a lot of reasonable people would look at video games with scantily clad female characters and just dismissively say "grow up!!" - which is fine by me, this stuff is often just immature & silly. But for the others who choose to make a big academic fuss and get all up in polemical, righteous arms, my response is identical: "grow up!!"

I kinda liked his worksheet, personally. Better than the comic strip, which is a pretty terrible metaphor for anything related to the thread topic, in my opinion. There's an implicit message of censorship that it conveys - if you're arguing for something you feel is important, and others arguing for the same thing are using means & methods that are unethical or even downright despicable, you have a duty to shut the hell up?? I don't agree with that at all... I'm not sure, but I think he was being sarcastic in the first paragraph, and earnest in the second. I'm a little bummed that once this thread went GG, it seems like discussing Anita's arguments became uninteresting to everyone. I feel like we did at ONE point have some pretty staunch supporters of EVERYTHING she was saying, including arguments about sexual objectification & sexualization in general. That would have been the time to really dig into Paglia & the failures of second-wave feminism in arguing against pron, but it never happened, because all those folks either left or were eventually persuaded that Anita is full of crap a significant % of the time... Does anyone want to mount a serious "Sexual Objectification is WRONG!!" argument? Does anyone have that in them? Is anyone besides me even interested in that topic?