Political correctness and feminism

[Collector]

What the fuck gives Cara Ellison the right to air herself as the spokesperson of rape victims?

Wow, just wow. You realize that there is a pretty high chance that she is a rape victim. Women have a 20% to 25% chance of being raped. It is a danger that all women face. you should probably back off of this one.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

See, that's what I mean when I'm talking about disagreeing with the methods. Disagree with Cara Ellison and you‘re automatically accused of insensitivity towards rape victims. I wonder how many of those 20-25% are cool with having their personal tragedy be used as such a cheap manipulation tactic.

[MusicallyInspired]

Is that sarcasm, Collector?

[drdrslashvohaul]

You're throwing so many balls in the air that I'm at a loss at how to catch them all. You'll have to give me some time to draw up a compelling response, especially since you largely base your point on assumptions (including some dead wrong assumptions about my own personal beliefs).

Which is fair enough. I can only base on assumptions when I have little to go on. This is how your arguments came across. I'll await your reply.

 

- Assuming you played Gabriel Knight 1: If a member of the gaming press calls its content racist and sexist and people in the comment section reply with statements along the line of "Wow, I never played this game, but this sounds absolutely appaling! Won't be playing this dross!" In your opinion, is that a helpful or a harmful situation?

I haven't played it. But my decision to do so is based mainly on not tending to play those sort of games and a lack of interest rather than any reviews or attitudes towards it.

 

A lot of people told me Sim City was a DRM shitfest. So, despite being a fan, I didn't buy it. It seems that was the right call, as a lot of people who did buy it and whose opinion I respect also felt it was a waste of money and time.

 

The question is whether the accusations against Gabriel Knight were baseless or malicious. I wouldn't ever buy/not buy a game on the basis of a single review. However, if someone I respected said that it was sexist dross, I'd be inclined to believe them. That's sort of how making an informed choice about a product works.

 

So, it's neither helpful or non-helpful. It just is. In the same way I would listen to a feminist critique of a game, I assume you wouldn't. So... what changes here? We get our information from trusted sources and make an educated decision.

 

Please read this article (FYI, this is the very piece of writing that tipped my opinion towards the SJW crowd from one of indifference to one of hostility). My question: What the fuck gives Cara Ellison the right to air herself as the spokesperson of rape victims?

 

a) she never claims to be a spokesperson.

B) if she's a woman with either personal experience of rape or experience of working with rape victims that's bound to influence her world view

c) since women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic and sexual violence, it's no wonder many women educate themselves on these issues and become advocates

d) there is nothing wrong with wanting to be an ally or repressed groups - that's sort of how women got the vote and black people stopped being slaves

e) if you don't like that sort of critique, don't listen to it.

 

See, that's what I mean when I'm talking about disagreeing with the methods. Disagree with Cara Ellison and you‘re automatically accused of insensitivity towards rape victims. I wonder how many of those 20-25% are cool with having their personal tragedy be used as such a cheap manipulation tactic.

"Cheap manipulation tactic" - there's the rub. You cannot see how that piece was sincere? It might be garbage (it isn't), and you might disagree with it (fair enough). But "cheap manipulation"? C'mon fella.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

"Cheap manipulation tactic" - there's the rub. You cannot see how that piece was sincere? It might be garbage (it isn't), and you might disagree with it (fair enough). But "cheap manipulation"? C'mon fella.

Yes, manipulation tactic. Conservative politicians like to use the exact same one whenever they attempt to pass a law that would enable them to arbitrarily restrict access to websites however they see fit under the guise of fighting child abuse/terrorism/what have you. Censorship is always easier if it‘s done under the pretense of a just cause. Her saying "The sexual violence at the end of that tutorial will single out a fifth of the female audience who have experienced sexual violence. I’m thinking about them when I turn back to the game." basically equates to Mrs Jovejoy‘s "Won‘t somebody pleeease think of the children!"  Sincerity and manipulation aren‘t mutually exclusive.

 

In your previous comment you stated the following.

 

The arts continue to take risk, and clearly, there are still plenty of games being made which are "edgy" enough to wind people up.

See, I disagree here: there's nothing "edgy" or dangerous about the video games that are currently released. They're a sanitised pastime, a diversion, commercialised to the bone. It's 100% pure escapism. And when I read this:

 

"it hurts that something I enjoy so much would be this problematic, so upsetting. [...] And it starts to make me feel incredibly hypocritical: you liked the violence, I think. You liked, as the game says, hurting people. Why do you feel ugly now, for playing a game where your character rapes a woman? It isn’t even graphic, but implied. These are pixels, Cara. Just pixels."

...I feel that what the author describes is a feeling that pretty much no game ever achieves. It makes you feel shitty about the game, about yourself for playing it, about the makers for shoving this scene down your throat. These moments of (self-)reflection are so completely absent from today‘s video games that they should be cherished instead of censored.

 

I haven't played it. But my decision to do so is based mainly on not tending to play those sort of games and a lack of interest rather than any reviews or attitudes towards it.

What do you mean by "those sort of games"? And just to quickly clarify: So far there haven‘t been any accusations made AT ALL against GK. At this point, this is purely hypothetical: I think the new game will get some shit because of its content (which is identical to the 1993 game, which never had any problems as far as I know) while Frede doesn‘t think it will happen.

[drdrslashvohaul]

Yes, manipulation tactic. Conservative politicians like to use the exact same one whenever they attempt to pass a law that would enable them to arbitrarily restrict access to websites however they see fit under the guise of fighting child abuse/terrorism/what have you. Censorship is always easier if it‘s done under the pretense of a just cause. Her saying "The sexual violence at the end of that tutorial will single out a fifth of the female audience who have experienced sexual violence. I’m thinking about them when I turn back to the game." basically equates to Mrs Jovejoy‘s "Won‘t somebody pleeease think of the children!"  Sincerity and manipulation aren‘t mutually exclusive.

Except the point is not to ban or criminalise these games. It's to criticise them. And, hopefully, make sure that ones in the future aren't as bad.

 

You're right about sincerity and manipulation not being mutually exclusive, and about Mrs Lovejoy. However, there is a massive difference between hysterical wailing and a reasoned argument. The rhetorical flourish about 1 in 5 victims is meant as a reminder that these issues aren't trivial, not a blanket statement that 1 in 5 women will have a problem with the game. It's called rhetoric.

 

Anyway, I suppose this is what I'm trying to get at here. You make wide-sweeping analogies that don't actually seem to fit. Or, at the base level, do you just dislike anyone who tries to campaign to make the world (as they see it) a better place? Be they reactionary (like the people trying to restrict access to the internet) or progressive?

 

(And by the way, I'm using the political meaning of those words - you, of course, don't need to see gender equality as a sign of absolute "progress".)

 

 

See, I disagree here: there's nothing "edgy" or dangerous about the video games that are currently released. They're a sanitised pastime, a diversion, commercialised to the bone. It's 100% pure escapism.

Same could be said of movies, tv shows, musicals and so on (if you change the 100% to 99%). But it's the 1% we hold out for. And, more to the point - fine. If it's escapism for you, or should be no more than escapism, fine. If you want something more from a computer game, fine. But when you want a higher level of complexity and depth you're going to get more complex and deep criticisms of the subject matter and the way it's rendered.

 

If the gaming industry is garbage, it's not because people have started demanding more complex female characters. It's that lazy writers have exhausted their colour-by-numbers scripts and have nothing more to contribute. I believe this analogy was made earlier tin the thread re: situational comedies.

 

I feel that what the author describes is a feeling that pretty much no game ever achieves. It makes you feel shitty about the game, about yourself for playing it, about the makers for shoving this scene down your throat. These moments of (self-)reflection are so completely absent from today‘s video games that they should be cherished instead of censored.

But once again - THE AUTHOR IS NOT CALLING FOR CENSORSHIP. She's expressing her belief that it shouldn't happen (morally, not legally). That's her prerogative.

 

This idea that criticism is "censorship" is absolutely ludicrous. I'd love to know what it stems from.

 

Self-reflexivity is, of course, a good thing. Getting an emotional reaction out of people is something to encourage. But you can get those base emotions out of a snuff movie too. It doesn't necessarily make them right.

 

And, again, the author doesn't say the game should be banned. She says she doesn't like it, it made her feel uncomfortable because of her politics, and (by extension) maybe it ought to be avoided by people who think similarly to her. But that isn't censorship. That's debate. Judging by the comments on the article, she didn't convince that many people to go along with her. So... what's the issue?

 

What do you mean by "those sort of games"? And just to quickly clarify: So far there haven‘t been any accusations made AT ALL against GK. At this point, this is purely hypothetical: I think the new game will get some shit because of its content (which is identical to the 1993 game, which never had any problems as far as I know) while Frede doesn‘t think it will happen.

 

The Gabriel Knight series in general has never interested me, for reasons that are not necessarily rational. It just never has. I've never been actively recommended that I should try it by people close to me, so I've never gone near it. Indeed, I haven't played a huge amount of adventure games in general, certainly when compared to many of the people on this site. With the adventure genre I've tended to play the handful of games that I've had in great depth rather than spreading over lots of different titles. So I haven't ever really "sought out" those games.

 

I'll have to confess ignorance on this one as to whether GK is or isn't sexist. Since you were talking hypothetically, however, I think my point stands.

 

Maybe I ought to play it? Are you recommending? :D

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Getting an emotional reaction out of people is something to encourage. But you can get those base emotions out of a snuff movie too.

No, you can‘t. You can‘t say „These are pixels, Cara. Just pixels.“ about a snuff movie. I‘ll let David Cronenberg explain on my behalf.

[Frede]

You could say "It's all fake, Cara. All fake.", though, if we're dealing with that kind of snuff movie. Nine Inch Nails' "Broken" movie springs to mind.

 

Mind, if we're dealing with the kind where you're looking at genuine, unsimulated violence, you can rightfully go "I'm sick in my head."

 

I think the Cronenberg link is broken, so it doesn't factor into the above, I'll admit.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Odd, the link works fine for me. Maybe try this instead? If that doesn't work either, go to youtube, search for "VIDEODROME (1983) Interviews with David Cronenberg, James Woods, Rick Baker and Deborah Harry", skip to 6:54 and listen to the King of Venereal Horror's words of wisdom.

 

Ahh, the "Broken" movie! Not exactly what I'd call snuff (Doc probably had something more akin to "Saudi Candid Camera" in mind), but a nice bit of transgressive nastiness indeed. The soundtrack of my youth! I remember once showing the "Closer" video in a music lesson (couldn't bring myself to show "Happiness in Slavery" and didn't have access to the internet for the full "Broken" bootleg, unfortunately), out of pure spite for our music teacher, who would always, every single time, nag about what shitty music the students brought along to play. Sure enough, he hated "Closer" and turned the DVD off after about three minutes, talking some shit about "S&M symbolism" and "Who's that supposed to appeal to?". Instead of quietly taking the abuse, I retaliated full force, with stuff along the lines of "This is one of the most important bands of the Nineties!", "Have you ever even HEARD of industrial rock?!", "This is ART, you're just an illiterate if you can't see that!" After some back and forth between me and the teacher, some other students, who've had their favourite songs shat upon during previous lessons, started chiming in "You always hate the music we bring along! You don't even give it a chance!" It led to complete chaos for the rest of the lesson, it was glorious! Those were the days!

[shoptroll]

Apologies in advance if my post comes off like I'm firing from both barrels without warning.  Because this has been irking me all day and I wanted to chime in.

Wow, just wow. You realize that there is a pretty high chance that she is a rape victim. Women have a 20% to 25% chance of being raped. It is a danger that all women face. you should probably back off of this one.

Yup.  The article Fronzel linked points that out later on: "The sexual violence at the end of that tutorial will single out a fifth of the female audience who have experienced sexual violence".  There's also this October 2013 report from the World Health Organization which shows that number jumps up to 35% on a worldwide scale for general sexual violence.

 

Look Fronzel, this isn't some sort of moral panic like the ones you're equating it to.  No one is saying people need to stop making these games because bad things will happen if they don't.  People want the industry to shift away from a very entrenched worldview.  This isn't a hobby that is the domain of only adolescent white males these days.  There are other people playing games, and they are all minorities who are very underrepresented by the medium.  You say "It's 100% pure escapism".  How is it escapism for women if the majority of the time they're forced to play as a male character?  How is it escapism for a person of color when the vast majority of game characters are white?  Or LGBTQ players who want to have a non-heterosexual relationship option in a game but the developers didn't think to include one?

 

This isn't the gestapo coming by and saying we need to burn these games.  This is criticism.  This is a reviewer doing her job and saying that she had a very negative reaction to a specific scene in a game that she didn't think was handled properly by the developers.  This is a reviewer who clearly enjoyed the previous game and is pointing out to the developer and the community that she thinks a specific scene weakens the product and will likely negatively impact other players too.  Criticism allows people to have a dialogue about issues.  Censorship does not.  Shouting down people who bring up valid points is not how you have a dialogue such as this follow-up interview with Dennaton on RPS.  What Cara's doing is no different than someone pointing out they didn't think the voice acting was good on a specific character, or something in the story doesn't make sense.  She's not doing it because she hates the game, she's doing it because she wants this to be a good experience for anyone who plays it.  People don't get better at making things unless people are willing to explain the faults in their work.  And considering rape isn't usually handled well in a lot of fiction, it's a good criticism to levy because it can encourage the authors to revisit their work and see if they can handle it better or use a different scene to convey the same information (see the above interview).

 

She's also doing other people a favor by highlighting content that might be problematic for them.  With 1 out of every 5 women having suffered from rape (and the real statistic is probably higher because it's an underreported crime for various reasons) there's real reason to let victims who might not be aware of the content in the game (especially considering the previous game didn't have any sexual violence in it).  Rape victims often suffer from something akin to PTSD like soldiers (and this is true of other abuse victims as well) and stuff like this can cause a very physical response for them.  That's being an empathic human being and looking out for others.

 

No one is saying you can't enjoy these things.  I enjoyed the Larry games because I found them funny, but I also acknowledge there's some problematic bits in them as well (and a lot of this is due to the age in which the games were made).  I also like Game of Thrones which is also problematic in spots.  Does people pointing out the problematic bits diminsh my enjoyment of them?  Not really, but I also don't think people shouldn't voice their opinions and criticisms when there's something problematic going on.

 

As for why it seems like this is all you see about games these days... Well it's a combination of factors.  The main one is that there's a lot more gamers out there from all walks of life and it's no longer the 80's or 90's where many of the minorities were unwilling to speak up.  The Internet has given a lot of groups their own safe spaces to gather and discuss issues without fear of retaliation.  Some of these people are now writing for game publications, running their own sites, or just being vocal on social media.  So a lot of opinions that were being kept underground before are now out in the open and finding there's an audience of likeminded people.  There's also the fact that a lot of people are dissastisfied with the current stagnation in the market and encouraging developers to write for different demographics is one way of addressing this.  And some people are growing older and looking around and noticing that "hey, there's very few games with good female characters for my daughter to look up to".  (Great post here by Jeff Vogel of Spiderweb Software if anyone's interested)

 

I'm 31 and have been gaming since I was 5.  I know I'd much rather live in a world where more people feel empowered by games because they can find characters to relate to other than buff macho white guy with a gun.  I love games and I want more people to enjoy them.  I also want to live in a world where hopefully my offspring will be able to enjoy a large variety of games regardless of their gender (or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, or ethnicity, etc.).

 

So I ask you, Fronzel, what the fuck gives you the right to air question another person's opinion in such a callous manner?

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Ugh, having a difference of opinion is getting to be a full time job.

No one is saying people need to stop making these games because bad things will happen if they don't

No, instead you‘re saying that your offspring won‘t be able to enjoy a large variety of games regardless of their gender (or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, or ethnicity, etc.) as long as they‘re the domain of adolescent white males.

 

 

Shouting down people who bring up valid points is not how you have a dialogue such as this follow-up interview with Dennaton on RPS.

Seriously, if you think that is a dialogue, I feel sorry for you. The interviewer‘s questions are worded in a very accusatory manner, like they commited a crime or something. Instead of starting with, say, "Did you expect such a reaction?", it's straight to "What are you doing about it?“. He refers to elements of the games as issues“ (as in "issues that need to be resolved“) and contemplates that "the whole thing just felt icky". The implication that permeates this "interview" is that Dennation did something wrong. It's not a dialogue, it's a witch hunt. "Do you relinquish the errors of your old ways and accept Jesus Christ as your new lord and saviour?" When Wedin replies that he kinda understands the point and that the scene has been removed for now, the "reporter" feels good about the whole thing because his confirmation bias has been validated.

It's disgusting, really.

 

especially considering the previous game didn't have any sexual violence in it

Well, yeah it did. Remember that boss fight where you threw a trophy into a scantily clad woman's face, bashed her head on the floor, watch her crawl around helplessly and then bash her head in some more? It might not be sexual violence, but it sure as shit is sexualized violence.

"Sexualized" violence in Hotline Miami 1
"Sexual violence" in Hotline Miami 2

 

Frankly, I don't see much of a difference between the two, apart from the fact that the one in the sequel is actually supposed to be a ham-fisted meta comment about the role of women in slasher movies.

So I ask you, Fronzel, what the fuck gives you the right to air question another person's opinion in such a callous manner

 

As I said before, I‘m just an asshole on an obscure forum. Feel free to disagree with me on my own (cynical) observations, I won't be the one to force you into accepting my worldview or accuse you of "thinking like an idiot" because you disagree with me. I'm not into the whole "You're either with us or against us" mentality.

 

Just explain to me what's so great about the world you're defending.
 

Depite your (wrong) assumption that I must be a conservative anti-PC bore, I not defending any world. In my opinion, it would probably be best if we tore it all down and started all over again. Same goes for this thread.

 

"Fire away, Mr Kim!"

[drdrslashvohaul]

No, you can‘t. You can‘t say „These are pixels, Cara. Just pixels.“ about a snuff movie. I‘ll let David Cronenberg explain on my behalf.

OK. We're veering away now from what I'm trying to get at, so let's go with this.

 

Fine - you think there was artistic merit to Hotline Miami 2. For argument's sake, let's say you're right (and since I haven't played the game, that seems reasonable).

 

And let's just say for argument's sake that the reviewer was "wrong" - either because you disagree with her stance, or feel that she's "missed the point" (both reasonable objections).

 

This just brings us back to an earlier point - that people are free to criticise, and game makers (and fans) should be able to justify their editorial decisions. If they can, and it's a good product, it will stand up.

 

So... again. What is your issue here? A person criticises a game. You find that criticism invalid, and criticise it in turn. And... well... what? What is your problem?

[Fronzel Neekburm]

So... again. What is your issue here? A person criticises a game. You find that criticism invalid, and criticise it in turn. And... well... what? What is your problem?

Certainly not the criticism itself. Truth be told, I think that the RPS article shoptroll posted is much, MUCH worse than the Ellison piece. Because that one pretty much explicitly calls for a removal of the things she objected to (or, at the very least strongly implies that this would be the right thing to do).

 

Hotline Miami 2. For argument's sake, let's say you're right (and since I haven't played the game, that seems reasonable).

And that's the other problem I have: NOBODY's played the game because it isn't even out yet! Dismissing a game wholesale because of one scene that made you queazy is one thing. But asking for that scene to not to be in the finished game because it, well, made you queazy, THAT I think IS a problem. Because then, the game as it was originally intended never gets to stand up. The decision whether or not it's still a good game despite (or even because of) that scene is no longer up to the players, because Cara Ellison and the RPS crowd have already made that decision for them. And I object to that.

[drdrslashvohaul]

To clarify (since we were writing at the same time), the "anti-PC bore" stuff came primarily from what you said. And the whole point of this latest exchange has been to try and understand why you believe you aren't an "anti-PC bore", and to try to understand where you're coming from.

 

And the "conservative" part again is in inferred from the things you've said. But I don't mean as in you're a Republican voter, religious or somehow a typical right-wing person; rather that in the specific world of computer gaming you seem to imply that there was a better time and that recent changes (including the gender equality stuff) has ruined that - and that you appear to be resisting that change.

 

I think we're way past the point that you'll ever accept any of the "PC brigade" points as valid; what I want to understand is why you have such an angry, visceral reaction to it. It doesn't make any sense to me; so I want to understand what mindset drives it.

[drdrslashvohaul]

Certainly not the criticism itself. Truth be told, I think that the RPS article shoptroll posted is much, MUCH worse than the Ellison piece. Because that one pretty much explicitly calls for a removal of the things she objected to (or, at the very least strongly implies that this would be the right thing to do).

Right. Again... I'm failing to see the issue here. Explain to me what the problem is of someone demanding change. The developer is under no obligation to acquiesce. Whatever the accuser's moral position, there's no need for the developer to agree.

 

I'm struggling here. I think the only way to ever have a debate is to try to understand the other side of the argument, but I'm really struggling to see what the point is.

[shoptroll]

No, instead you‘re saying that your offspring won‘t be able to enjoy a large variety of games regardless of their gender (or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs, or ethnicity, etc.) as long as they‘re the domain of adolescent white males.

What I'm saying is that not all games need to cater strictly to the adolescent white male demographic.  If I my hypothetical daughter and she comes to me asking for games that have a female protagonist because she wants to play as a woman, I could probably count on my fingers the number of modern mainstream games which I could give her.  I would not have this problem if my hypothetical son asked for a game with a male protagonist.  I'd have an even harder time if either of them were LGBTQ and wanted a protagonist to relate to.

 

It's fine if we still have games that cater to adolescent white males.  But variety is the spice of life, and that is what part of the community is asking for.

 

 

 

the one in the sequel is actually supposed to be a ham-fisted meta comment about the role of women in slasher movies.

(emphasis added in previous quote) And there's one of the reasons people are asking for change.  Some of us don't want ham-fisted stories or commentary.  If you have commentary to make, do it right.  Don't fall back on lazy tropes or stereotypes for plots and characters.

[Troels Pleimert]

As I said before, I‘m just an asshole on an obscure forum.

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Obscure? Okay, now it's personal.

 

 

 

winning small battles over time will cause more widespread and more meaningful change

Not going to happen this way. All that is going to accomplish is that you get the illusion of „progress“ while everything stays the same.

 

Or, at the base level, do you just dislike anyone who tries to campaign to make the world (as they see it) a better place? Be they reactionary (like the people trying to restrict access to the internet) or progressive?

No, I just loathe the ignorance and self-importance of people who think that reshaping the world in their image will autimatically make it a better place. Especially if they‘re working from a position that people are thinking like idiots who need to be "educated".

 

you, of course, don't need to see gender equality as a sign of absolute "progress"

I‘m not sure if „you" is supposed to refer to me personally, feeding into the ridiculous notion that I‘m somehow conservative or anti-equality or anti-women. Or even anti-feminism, for that matter. Frede did a good job at pointing out that there‘s both perfectly reasonable feminists and that there are raving lunatics.

 

Some of us don't want ham-fisted stories or commentary.

Maybe you should consider avoiding the Hotline Miami series then. Subtlety certainly isn‘t one of its strengths. You‘ll miss out on a great game with an awesome soundtrack though, but at least you won‘t have to face the lazy tropes or stereotypes that the game is playing with.

 

If I my hypothetical daughter and she comes to me asking for games that have a female protagonist because she wants to play as a woman, I could probably count on my fingers the number of modern mainstream games which I could give her.

Reminds me of this:

 

Point taken about the lack of LGBTQ protagonists in games though. (I can come up with two: Moebius and Phantasmagoria 2, possibly three if my theories about BioMenace‘s protagonist turn out to be true. Oh yeah, and then there‘s The Sims). Still, I think it‘s silly to assume that LGBTQ lack the capacity to relate to video game characters that aren‘t explicitly introduced as gay. In turn that would mean that if a company released a game with a LGBTQ lead, then the heterosexual players would avoid this game, because they can‘t identify with the main character. And I don‘t think that‘s the case, unless you‘re talking about homophobic shitheads, but there‘s no helping those either way.

 

I say make the game you want to make, just don‘t make any lazy, half-hearted concessions just to get on the right side of a particular crowd of people. If someone wants to make a game that deals with LGBTQ issues and characters, by all means they must make that! Because you‘re absolutely right when pointing out that there are too few about these games and that variety is the spice of life. On the other hand, what I don‘t want to see is random alterations merely for the sake appeasement. Don‘t say: „There‘s too few characters that the LGBTQ crowd can relate to in Street Fighter, so let‘s make Honda gay and Chun-Li transgender.“ The same goes for including token female characters („Let‘s replace Ken with a new character named Barbie“) or token coloured characters („Let‘s make Guile black“). It‘s lazy, hypocritical and insincere and it doesn‘t amount to anything.

 

To clarify (since we were writing at the same time), the "anti-PC bore" stuff came primarily from what you said. / I think we're way past the point that you'll ever accept any of the "PC brigade" points as valid; what I want to understand is why you have such an angry, visceral reaction to it.

Wrong, have a look at page 1, that was because of something PurpleTentacle said. Maybe you should be having this whole discussion with him instead. I‘m probably the last person you want to ask, since (as I wrote time and again) I‘m at least partially sympathetic to the cause. I simply get fed up with people who are convinced that their way is the right way and that everyone else must adhere to their every whims or else they‘re backwards troglodytes who need to be "educated". It‘s odd that you‘re telling me that I‘m having an angry, visceral reaction, while you seem to be the one can‘t get past the idea that there are people out there who might disagree with a PC agenda that they consider to equate to censorship. You might think otherwise, which is fine. We both don't know the real motivation behind the examples I brought up. You see benevolence (a sincere attempt to make video games, therefore the world, a better place), I see malice (instead of actually changing the world for the better, a vocal minority indulges in de facto censorship by pressuring designers into catering to their demands). You agree to disagree and move on.

[Frede]

Depite your (wrong) assumption that I must be a conservative anti-PC bore, I not defending any world. In my opinion, it would probably be best if we tore it all down and started all over again. Same goes for this thread.

 

"Fire away, Mr Kim!"

 

Gareth already answered for himself regarding the intention of him calling you "conservative", so I'm going to stay out of that. As for the suggestion - humorous as it is - that we nuke the thread, I do hope you realise the superb irony in you calling out for censorship of a discussion you've helped start and keep alive. 

 

I must confess I've personally given up on the discussion. I find myself unable to come up with anything worthwhile. Gareth has just about said it all. Even if it's partially my fault we got it going again. But I will say that I would've stopped poking you long ago if it wasn't for the "There shall be PC brigade outrage!"-statement you seem to want to slip in every time a particular game - currently the Gabriel Knight remake - is being discussed. You could always argue that I should've looked away to begin with, but there's no reason to post stuff in public if you don't want it to be read (into).

 

I find it curious and more than a bit hypocritical that as soon as you don't get to have the last word, you call for the discussion to be shut down. Which may eventually happen till you bring up another game you think will send the "politically correct" players reeling. I don't really think anyone here gets to have that prerogative; if you don't feel like being challenged for your controversial opinions (which I get, because some discussions just never fucking end), don't flaunt them at every given chance when you know the end result. This is the third or fourth time this escalates.

 

That's just a piece of advice, btw. Not an order for you to shut up. I like to think we're all still getting along despite the obvious differences.

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Nah, that was just my own hyperbolical way to say that as far as I‘m concerned the thread has run its course. I for one don‘t really have anything else of substance to contribute and I think that both Gareth and I will agree that we‘re just running in circles now. And yeah, while it‘s nice to have the last word, I don‘t think I‘ve done a good enough job at getting my point across so far for me to warrant keeping the discussion going any further. At this point, the thread just frustrates the hell out of me.

[Frede]

Well, we can at least agree that Kim Jong-un is an asshole and that his hairdresser ought to be in one of his internment camps.

 

I'm off to start a "Do you support Israel or Palestine?"-thread with a poll. See you in a bit!

[JimmyTwoBucks]

In that comic strip, shouldn't it be "Lara Croft" and not "Laura"?

 

I hear that "Laura Croft" is the name of a nude model, apparently, according to some, allegedly.

 

I mean I haven't been researching it for the past 45 mins or anything, that's just something

I heard through the grapevine.

[Troels Pleimert]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen.

[Frede]

Yeap, I have to comment. I love how a comic strip that might've been able to make a point once throws it away at the last panel by implying that "rape" is a word that women like to blurt out when they lose a discussion. I'm not against using the word or the act for a bit of raunchy black humour, but honestly, this is a crock of shit.

 

Unless it's some sort of clever meta-comment, but I don't buy that. Looking at that comic, I smell fratboy scrotum sweat and not pipe smoke.

[Collector]

Exactly. I would have probably spread this around, but that last panel blows it. It turns what could have been a good argument for a point that I have often made into a brainless misogynistic rant.