@xchairmandrekx: Considering the tone of the thread, I genuinely appreciate it. Somehow, we are having actual conversations!
Commentary on GB Hiring
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@brodehouse said:
@hailinel said:
Then why would you not start and end with their opinions, their articulation, their personality? Instead we're starting with their sex, gender, orientation, religion, marital status, age, etc, and then hoping the end result is the opinions and personalities that entertain you.
as many others have said, yes if we all lived in a perfect world where everyone was the same, and, for example, we all loved professional wrestling, hated yoshi, and played video games, then none of this stuff would matter! seeking people out just because they look different would be bad because we're all the same!
The problem is is that you're not judging people by whether they love professional wrestling, hate Yoshi, or play video games; you're judging them based on your suspicions and opinions about the personalities of people who are straight, white, male, or who knows what else. Are young white men's perspectives more or less "valuable" than old white men's? Is a white woman's opinion on Tennis more less "valuable" than a black man's?
so you don't want to be told that your opinions make you come off as discriminatory, maybe you should examine why you have those opinions, and why someone may so easily interpret them as such.
My opinion is that when you discriminate against me, it hurts me. When you discriminate against anyone based on ridiculous notions such as their sex or their orientation or their ethnicity, it hurts them. I should examine why I have this opinion? Because I'm capable of feeling pain and having empathy for the pain of others.
if you're a white male, it's very difficult to find a place that is actively discriminating against you.
No, it's not. This very thread features people that actively discriminate against white men and call for the legal discrimination of this group or that group, but we're supposed to believe that all the people who promote that kind of hateful rhetoric have no influence over anyone else, and no ability to negatively impact others with their opinions.
In the country I live, we have certain protected groups in employment. It includes women and visible minorities. In other words, every single person in this country besides white men are a protected group (unless they're disabled white men). Being protected means that unfair and undue barriers to their being hired are illegal and investigated. I'm all for this. The government incentivizes businesses to hire candidates from these groups. I'm not for this, I'd rather have no discrimination whatsoever. Now I faced being dismissed because there's too many people who share some aspect of my background, when I want to be judged on my merits.
I understand that you have absolutely no sympathy for certain peoples who are discriminated against, but I have sympathy for anyone discriminated against.
your claims of discrimination when white males aren't viewed as the ideal in the hiring process can easily be interpreted as misguided because, at the moment, the games industry is run by the same straight white males that run almost every other industry.
The existence and lives of other people who share my ethnicity, sex and perceived orientation in positions of authority or privilege do not invalidate what happens to me, least of all to me. Your opinion is that someone else who shares my ethnicity is doing okay, so it doesn't matter what happens to me. Someone who shares my sex is running a business, so therefore, I don't deserve to be treated equally as anyone else.
you think you're being excluded if a place like giant bomb seeks out a woman or person of color before they consider white male candidates?
Yeah, that's actually the definition of discriminatory hiring practices. If they stated that first and foremost they're looking to hire a person of any ethnicity or sex or age or whatever, they need a bona fide occupational requirement. As in, model agency needs members of X sex, film production requires members of X race, etc. You hire based on skills and personality, not on what bigoted opinions you have about a majority or minority group.
How many people here have taken courses in Human Resources?
you're a brick wall! congrats on being so stubborn! i'm so sorry you feel like you're being discriminated against by the proposition that the video games industry is unfairly white and male!!
what do you think should be done to address inequalities in the workplace? since outreach programs like the ones being used currently by well-established companies (WITH human resource departments ;D) seem not to sit right with you, what's your solution? i'd prefer to not hear "anything that doesn't make ME, the white male, feel discriminated against", because at the moment, institutional discrimination of white males is a far off fantasy.
@brodehouse said:
this is ridiculous and not true. those other groups were only created when the system that was already in place was not doing enough for those groups when they were being discriminated. discrimination comes in all forms to all different types of people. but to say that you, as a white male, not represented or if someone discriminated against you your hopeless is completely false.
people are acting like there is some big war against white men that just doesn't exist.
@groverat said:
@giantlizardking said:
Giant bomb is way more about bat fights and Triple A hair than it is about discussing serious social issues, regardless of your background. I can't see how if you are a fan of the site you wouldn't want it to stay that way.
You are not the whole world, bud. Not everyone likes GB for the same reasons you do. When you say "GB is about X" you're trying to normalize it around yourself as the center. Uncool.
(BTW, many people are super mad at Samantha, Leigh, et al because what they are actively trying to do is normalize everything around themselves all the time and that's just a really irritating trait.)
Whoa, you are projecting things on me that I am not saying or doing. I stated what giant bomb does well (joke about dumb shit) and what it does less well (serious heady issues). That's what they excel at. Surely if you are a fan you would like them to continue to excel at what they do well.
I should have specified in my comments that I'm talking about the bomb cast.
@denzelflossington said:
at the same time, asians-americans are STATISTICALLY only hold the highest incomes for CERTAIN socioeconomic brackets because the study i think you're citing measures household income, and, on average, asian-american households tend to have the highest number of working adults under one roof, contributing to that income, and more children and elderly to provide for.
what you're doing is propping up asian-americans as a model minority to invalidate their struggles based on ethnicity in america. while asian-americans do tend to outperform other ethnic minorities, they also face what asian sociologists and economists refer to as the "bamboo ceiling" in the workplace, ensuring that, while asians do end up attaining relatively higher paying positions in the workplace, administrative positions also still are overwhelmingly awarded to whites. if you're interested, you should read up on the problematic nature of asserting asian-americans as a model-minority here! wikipedia
whites still overwhelmingly hold the political power in this country, the wealth, and the professional dominance. i'm trying to make this short, i can't write an essay on every single one of these topics, but you can also check out this article to read about white supremacist hiring practices, and you can also google it see how they measure up against latinos and asians as well! here!
male privilege in the political process is pretty easy to see, though women do tend to vote more often than males, political representation is often predicated on being male, having wealth, and being white. you can check out this little thingy here that i just saw today to see the male dominance illustrated!
i'm happy to answer any of your questions about white or male privilege, and i urge you not to hate yourself or be scared of it if you are white or male. you can also google it if you want answers to your questions faster!
I'm open to learning, but can you give me a source that is not from a socialist website or tumblr? Neither is impartial.
Your link about the amount of men and women in politics is pointless. Men are simply more likely to have an interest in politics. There are few barriers for women to get involved, most simply aren't interested.
@w1n5t0n said:
@mister_snig said:
@w1n5t0n: But GTA5 is incredibly popular. If the images of a certain minority that the public are seeing in entertainment are nuanced, positive, or at least non-stereotypical, hearing what someone from that minority would have to say would be more interesting than someone commenting from the sidelines.
I don't know about that but I'd like to hear a minority's opinion on people watching while I poop.
I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on people watching while I poop.
"What has turned you off the concept, perhaps, is professional ragebabies on social media who form cliques and in-groups based on who can rack up the most victim-points and stir up the most melodrama to gather the most sympathy for themselves among their cliques."
"There are black trans females far more privileged than me, a white male."
Was this really necessary? Like, big ups for recognising that white privilege exists i guess, but PROFESSIONAL RAGEBABIES ON *SOCIAL MEDIA* WHO STIR UP MELODRAMA TO GET VICTIM-POINTS AND SYMPATHY is sexist dog-whistling if ever I've seen it.
Also most black trans women end up homeless, doing survival sex work, in prison, or murdered, so it's a really bizarre thing to go THERE ARE BLACK TRANS WOMEN MORE PRIVILEGED THAN ME BUT I KNOW WHITE PRIVILEGE EXISTS OK unless you were throwing it out there as some kind of shorthand for "the minority-est minority i could think of," in which case it kinda...isn't helpful.
@darkstalker: ya i totally agree, privilege and discrimination are layered! making an effort to raise the marginalized up to the same opportunity level as white male professionals IS NOT discrimination, it's equality!!
@hailinel said:
@brodehouse said:
@hailinel said:
Then why would you not start and end with their opinions, their articulation, their personality? Instead we're starting with their sex, gender, orientation, religion, marital status, age, etc, and then hoping the end result is the opinions and personalities that entertain you.
Why should I not be able to share the opinions of others that are not of my race and gender?
There is nothing in what I said that entails you cannot. Only that you judge based on their personality and not their race and gender.
@xchairmandrekx said:
@johnham said:
@xchairmandrekx said:
@johnham said:
@zevvion said:
@johnham said:
@whatisdelicious said:
@johnham said:
@w1n5t0n: What about a black person providing perspective on that race's portrayal in GTA V via Franklin / Lamar. Is it accurate? Is it illuminating? What would you change about the portrayal, if it were up to you?
But honestly, your characterization of my opinion as a "warped crusade" really makes it clear that you're not looking for me to actually answer your questions.
What are you talking about?
Seriously, please stop assuming all white people are alike and all black people are alike. How is a black guy going to know if the portrayal of Franklin and Lamar is accurate unless he grew up on the fucking streets?
This is a legitimately racist viewpoint you're expressing here.
A black person would have an inherently more valuable perspective on how a black person is characterized in a video game.
A doctor would have an inherently more valuable perspective on how a complicated surgery is represented in a video game.
It's not a racist statement, but thanks anyway.
That is not even close to the same thing. A doctor went to school to get a medical degree. Giving him actual knowledge about surgery. A black person isn't by definition grown up on the streets as Franklin and Lamar were. Any person growing up around people akin to Franklin and Lamar would have inherently more valuable perspective on that stuff than the mere fact of being black. Yes, you are being totally racist, even if unintentionally.
"Any person growing up around people akin to Franklin and Lamar would have inherently more valuable perspective on that stuff than the mere fact of being black."
I agree with this; a person who experienced the exact same things as those characters would have an even better perspective than someone who is "merely" black.
That doesn't change the fact that a black person living in the US automatically has some small degree of shared (virtual) experience with those characters and is thus better suited to commentary than a white person would be, assuming everything else is equal.
But before everyone gets hung up on calling me a racist, I want to bring this back around to the original source of the comment; does anyone here really think that there's literally zero unique perspective on games that a minority could bring to the table? Seriously?
Still sounding pretty racist there. You are saying that for example, given two identical upper class people, one black and white, the black person would just happen to have a better perspective about living in the conditions that Franklin and Lamar lived in, simply due to their race? You are literally making assumptions about people based on the color of their skin. That's text-book racism. Even if you don't realize it.
The hypothetical black person in your example would not have better perspective on the "conditions that Franklin and Lamar lived in" because that topic is specifically related to location and socio-economic status (things that are also tied up in race, but we can put that aside). But that same black person WOULD have better perspective on the ways that they are treated, and portrayed in the media, as a function of their skin color, which is something that is reflected in those characters. Therefore they would probably be more-qualified to provide that perspective.
I am not saying all black people know more about being poor.
I am not saying all black people know more about being in a gang, or street culture generally.
I AM saying that black people inherently have a different perspective on how black people are treated and perceived in our society. On what it IS to be black in a modern US context. It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated.
Apparently I misunderstood. That makes more sense. Although you didn't quite make as obvious as your claiming. There were other people confused by what you were saying as well.
No, it doesn't make more sense. His original argument was that a black person would have better perspective for, specifically, Lamar and Franklin because he is black. The core reasons why Lamar and Franklin are the characters they are has everything to do with their personalities, social surroundings and life choices. It has nothing to do with the fact of them being black. His last sentence makes sense out of context. Of course a black person would have a different perspective on how black people are treated. But we're talking specifically about two street thugs. That makes it a different situation entirely. Again, being black has nothing to do with that.
Missed all the political uproar that took place, and if there was any evidence that giantbomb hired a white male over a female/ black/ asian/ muslim/ disabled person i would have some words to say. A s this is not the case i would like to welcome dan and jason to the site, i watched the sniper elite quick look and really enjoyed his participation he was funny and talked all the way through with jeff as if he had being at giant bomb for some time so i look forward to seeing more of him and what he brings to the site.
@johnham said:
@getz said:
Persons A-D: Video Games are a boys club and that is unacceptable. We need to change things up so that everyone is included!
Persons E-Z: But changing things arbitrarily will make it less inclusive to ME. DIE IN A FIRE!
One of these is a reasonably stated opinion, even if you disagree with it.
The other one is telling someone to die in a fire.
They are meaningfully different and saying "neither of them have a leg to stand on" is creating a false equivalency between the two actions/statements. One is definitely, unequivocally more wrong, and unacceptable, than the other, is it not?
That's fair point made by A-D. If only they tried to make that point instead of using the new hires as some sort of example. Giant bomb is run on personality and chemistry. Dan had the most experience, best on screen personality and great chemistry with the crew. That made him the best candidate for the job and you (general you) should't be ''disappointed'' they hired the best person for a job at a website you probably don't even visit ever.
Cant do quotes on the tablet :
@mister_snig: Yes, exactly.
@make_me_mad said:
@johnham:
But... I dunno, to me that's where it all goes back to. When I want to see something new and interesting from the site, I don't have a notion that it needs to be a person with a certain race or gender or orientation... and maybe that's bad of me, apparently? I don't know. To be honest, I don't honestly care that much what the person they hire looks like, how they identify, I'd just want someone who's gonna bring something cool and interesting to the dynamic. Or, maybe it's less that I don't care, and more that... I guess I just don't think ahead enough to expect something? It's hard to explain, but I just didn't think about that kind of thing. I was just hoping for someone who wasn't going to be "Jeff 2.0". Or worse, "Brad 2.0".
You absolutely, definitely, one hundred and ten percent should not feel bad about this not being top of mind for you. I get that this diversity conversation hasn't entered into the way you think about the site, and that's not bad. I think these things are important, but if you just want someone who won't shit on Kingdom Hearts, that's a totally fair criterion for you to have
_______________ End of quote
This is precisely where I am coming from with all this. I read through a lot of these responses yesterday (even had an admittedly silly and out of order sarcastic comment deleted _ sorry @rorie ), and I have the same problem I always have with internet arguments - because its on a web forum on the internet, people dont argue like they do in real life. In reality, when you argue with someone or debate with them over an issue the conversation does not last an entire day, people actually concede points as well as make them, and playing devils advocate is recognized as just that.
Online, both sides of the argument get so muddled and conflated that I just stop caring after a while. The style of argument gives the issue a very unreal quality and I guess I naturally move away from it and remember times when I have dealt with real world sexism and racism, in my own life. Clear cut and also systemic, that I could see and hear. The conversation here will not help me in those situations. Not one bit. You dont get an entire day to think about what to say next. I trust my instinct in those situations and that has always worked. I think part of me feels that arguing anything, especially the big topics like racism etc on the internet never really leads to anything because both sides are too protected by anonymity. It is too impersonal and does not encourage enough empathy to help people see things from other viewpoints (ironically enough).
End result? All this uproar has made me care less about diversity at GB than I did before. You can say that makes me a horrible person if you want, but I am just happy they have finally filled out the staff, and they can do the work that they want to do. They may hire a woman or minority somewhere down the line, and that will be great, but I am sure at that time plenty of folks will have a lot of perfect opinions with unimpeachable facts. Maybe another 30 pages worth.
@dreamndayunite said:
@denzelflossington said:
at the same time, asians-americans are STATISTICALLY only hold the highest incomes for CERTAIN socioeconomic brackets because the study i think you're citing measures household income, and, on average, asian-american households tend to have the highest number of working adults under one roof, contributing to that income, and more children and elderly to provide for.
what you're doing is propping up asian-americans as a model minority to invalidate their struggles based on ethnicity in america. while asian-americans do tend to outperform other ethnic minorities, they also face what asian sociologists and economists refer to as the "bamboo ceiling" in the workplace, ensuring that, while asians do end up attaining relatively higher paying positions in the workplace, administrative positions also still are overwhelmingly awarded to whites. if you're interested, you should read up on the problematic nature of asserting asian-americans as a model-minority here! wikipedia
whites still overwhelmingly hold the political power in this country, the wealth, and the professional dominance. i'm trying to make this short, i can't write an essay on every single one of these topics, but you can also check out this article to read about white supremacist hiring practices, and you can also google it see how they measure up against latinos and asians as well! here!
male privilege in the political process is pretty easy to see, though women do tend to vote more often than males, political representation is often predicated on being male, having wealth, and being white. you can check out this little thingy here that i just saw today to see the male dominance illustrated!
i'm happy to answer any of your questions about white or male privilege, and i urge you not to hate yourself or be scared of it if you are white or male. you can also google it if you want answers to your questions faster!
I'm open to learning, but can you give me a source that is not from a socialist website or tumblr? Neither is impartial.
Your link about the amount of men and women in politics is pointless. Men are simply more likely to have an interest in politics. There are few barriers for women to get involved, most simply aren't interested.
LOL ohhhh i didn't know men were just more likely to have an interest in policy, is it genetic? and what website would like me to link you to? you should check out some wikipedia articles, they're well sourced and tend to be worked on by some dedicated people! your point about bias is well founded though, 87% of wikipedia users are male!! surprising that they would have a page on male privilege, that doesn't fit the narrative! darn socialists!
@denzelflossington said:
@darkstalker: ya i totally agree, privilege and discrimination are layered! making an effort to raise the marginalized up to the same opportunity level as white male professionals IS NOT discrimination, it's equality!!
i think too many people are treating this as an attack on them or as way to give someone not qualified an unfair advantage.
this is an extremely complicated issue with no clear right-with-no-backside answer but we cant just do nothing because of that. you cant ignore it and keeping the discussion alive is a great way to start.
@dreamndayunite said:
There are rich white people and poor white people. Same as any race. You are much more likely to be born into a rich family and get accepted into college if you are Asian-American, so why don't people call it "Asian privilege"? Men and women face problems in society, I don't think one has an easier time over another
There is absolutely such a thing as white privilege and male privilege. A common miscommunication here is that people think "privilege" means good fortune. When we say privilege in these discussions, we don't mean how good you have it in the world in general. We mean the subtle benefits that you gain by being recognized as a part of a group. It's also not something anyone is asking you to apologize for. It isn't something that you can control. I'm a straight white man. No matter how enlightened I am I will still have that privilege. And that's fine. The important thing is I'm aware of it and aware of the benefits I get and the benefits that many people don't.
And yes, there is such a thing as Asian privilege. There was a great article in Slate by Philip Guo talking about his experiences studying programming. Everyone just assumed that he'd probably been doing it since he was little (he hadn't). No one told him "maybe this just isn't your thing" or reacted to him having trouble with a problem set by telling him "That's OK. Lots of Asian men can't hack it as programmers, you'll be happier if you switch majors." He didn't have to struggle to find a role model. None of that makes him a bad person or is under his control, but it is privilege. And it is important, as he is, to be aware that not everyone gets the benefit of all that.
Privilege isn't (primarily) about the things you have. It's the way people see you, the access they grant you, what they expect from you, and whether you have to overcome someone's surprise that you are really good at what you do because you don't look like 99% of the people who do it.
@brodehouse said:
@hailinel said:
@brodehouse said:
@hailinel said:
Then why would you not start and end with their opinions, their articulation, their personality? Instead we're starting with their sex, gender, orientation, religion, marital status, age, etc, and then hoping the end result is the opinions and personalities that entertain you.
Why should I not be able to share the opinions of others that are not of my race and gender?
There is nothing in what I said that entails you cannot. Only that you judge based on their personality and not their race and gender.
Race and gender (intrinsic elements of an individual's background) do play a role in personality as it is shaped.
@denzelflossington said:
@darkstalker: ya i totally agree, privilege and discrimination are layered! making an effort to raise the marginalized up to the same opportunity level as white male professionals IS NOT discrimination, it's equality!!
Bringing the marginalized up to the same standard as others is one thing, but the way it is being done in society is not good. Affirmative action for example is racist and discriminates against Asians and white people.
@sparky_buzzsaw: I have no idea how I wrote Triple A. I have Triple A maybe? Oh well doesn't matter, ban my account for this transgression. Or just consider my public shame enough.
@dreamndayunite said:
@denzelflossington said:
@darkstalker: ya i totally agree, privilege and discrimination are layered! making an effort to raise the marginalized up to the same opportunity level as white male professionals IS NOT discrimination, it's equality!!
Bringing the marginalized up to the same standard as others is one thing, but the way it is being done in society is not good. Affirmative action for example is racist and discriminates against Asians and white people.
interesting that you would say so, never fear though, american higher education is still dominated by upper middle class whites and asian-americans!
since it's too radical for you to have affirmative action, how else would you address they systemic inequalities that exclude the impoverished, people of color, etc.. from higher education?
do your feelings extend to financial aid? that treats people differently by awarding them with MONETARY COMPENSATION rather than just access to college to address inequality, do you have a problem with that?
@denzelflossington said:
LOL ohhhh i didn't know men were just more likely to have an interest in policy, is it genetic? and what website would like me to link you to? you should check out some wikipedia articles, they're well sourced and tend to be worked on by some dedicated people! your point about bias is well founded though, 87% of wikipedia users are male!! surprising that they would have a page on male privilege, that doesn't fit the narrative! darn socialists!
Yes it is most likely genetic. As for sources, how about The Christian Science Monitor or Reuters? I don't trust wikipedia for most things because a quick glance at the "talk" and "view history" shows the amount of infighting and politics at work behind the scenes at that website. Sources are constantly contested on the site, it is becoming a mess.
@dreamndayunite: "not a link from a socialist website or tumblr" hahahahahahahahaha
real talk though, why is all of tumblr inherently biased and unreliable
also people saying that men are just naturally more interested in politics and women don't face systemic barriers but just aren't interested isn't a new argument. The same thing comes up with the lack of women in tech! And, uh... http://valleywag.gawker.com/this-is-why-there-arent-enough-women-in-tech-1221929631
It's less that women are innately disinterested in stuff and more that, y'know...systemic barriers and discrimination. And other stuff too but blah bluh lazy
@johnham said:
@getz said:
Persons A-D: Video Games are a boys club and that is unacceptable. We need to change things up so that everyone is included!
Persons E-Z: But changing things arbitrarily will make it less inclusive to ME. DIE IN A FIRE!
One of these is a reasonably stated opinion, even if you disagree with it.
The other one is telling someone to die in a fire.
They are meaningfully different and saying "neither of them have a leg to stand on" is creating a false equivalency between the two actions/statements. One is definitely, unequivocally more wrong, and unacceptable, than the other, is it not?
False equivalancy? So I'm not allowed to compare the two sides of an argument? Or are you suggesting that the angry gamers have NO reason to be angry? They may be troglodytes and unwilling to construct an argument but there is an underlying sentiment to their rage that must be addressed past "oh well these guys clearly hate women and that's all there is to it"
The civility of the argument does not impact its validity. They are both wrong, one side is just more eloquent. I already told you why I think the feminists have no argument: they're antagonizing a group of people and then when the shit storm begins they come out of the woodwork and claim misogyny, when really the gamers are just mad at THEM, not women.
@binhoker said:
Giantbomb reminds me of that nice 1970's kind of internet, all smoking in airports and slapping secretaries asses and such.
How?
@johnham said:
The hypothetical black person in your example would not have better perspective on the "conditions that Franklin and Lamar lived in" because that topic is specifically related to location and socio-economic status (things that are also tied up in race, but we can put that aside). But that same black person WOULD have better perspective on the ways that they are treated, and portrayed in the media, as a function of their skin color, which is something that is reflected in those characters. Therefore they would probably be more-qualified to provide that perspective.
I am not saying all black people know more about being poor.
I am not saying all black people know more about being in a gang, or street culture generally.
I AM saying that black people inherently have a different perspective on how black people are treated and perceived in our society. On what it IS to be black in a modern US context. It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated.
No.That is wrong.
It is NOT inherent. It is learned. Black people are not born into the black perspective. Black people that live in areas where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective. That being said, anyone living in the area where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective.
This may sound like I'm splitting hairs with you, but I promise you I am not. There is a world of difference in what I'm saying.
@giantlizardking said:
Giant bomb is way more about bat fights and Triple A hair than it is about discussing serious social issues, regardless of your background. I can't see how if you are a fan of the site you wouldn't want it to stay that way.
Yeah, I don't get it either. If you want to see a bunch of articles about how the new Assassin's Creed is sexist or whatever, there are sites for that like Kotaku. This site has always mostly been about funny dudes talking about or talking over games. This site's so popular because there is a huge audience of people that don't care about that political stuff (especially in video games) and just want to be entertained. To do the content that they excel at I think Dan is absolutely the best and most qualified choice.
oh darn, beaten. HEY @denzelflossington YOU'RE PRETTY RAD
@giantlizardking: Hah, so long as you're aware of the glory of HHH's hair, you're good. His hair understands what you meant, and that's all that matters.
@sarisa: it's biased and unreliable because it isn't a peer reviewed credible source. Use tumblr or wikipedia in a college paper and watch what happens.
@zevvion said:
No, it doesn't make more sense. His original argument was that a black person would have better perspective for, specifically, Lamar and Franklin because he is black. The core reasons why Lamar and Franklin are the characters they are has everything to do with their personalities, social surroundings and life choices. It has nothing to do with the fact of them being black. His last sentence makes sense out of context. Of course a black person would have a different perspective on how black people are treated. But we're talking specifically about two street thugs. That makes it a different situation entirely. Again, being black has nothing to do with that.
So you're suggesting that the black-ness of Lamar/Franklin is completely irrelevant to their characterization in the game, and that for that reason it's impossible for a black person to have unique perspective on those characters?
If my house is on fire, I don't care if the firefighters are ethnically diverse, gender neutral, religiously exclusive, or balanced in sexual orientation.
All that is barely a consideration in comparison to my true needs; I simply want people most capable of pulling my ass out of the flames.
I come to Giant Bomb for interesting video game content. If you feel that your criteria for interesting video game content includes minorities being forced into the mix simply for the sake of diversity, you're clearly in the wrong place and should seek out such content or make your own.
As someone who's grown up as a minority where I live, I can tell you that special treatment is just as demeaning and insulting as discrimination. Both would imply I'm less capable as a minority so I need extra attention and consideration. I'd want to be recognized despite being a minority, not because I am one.
7
@denzelflossington said:
This is moving the goalposts, you're arguing the generality to prove a specific. Also, fairness results from investigating circumstances and cases, of which my country has many employment equity investigators and it's good that we do. Fairness does not result from racially motivated discrimination being inflicted on actual people who have actual lives in order to 'balance the scales' in the public perception, and adults working in those fields are fully aware of it.
what do you think should be done to address inequalities in the workplace? since outreach programs like the ones being used currently by well-established companies (WITH human resource departments ;D) seem not to sit right with you, what's your solution? i'd prefer to not hear "anything that doesn't make ME, the white male, feel discriminated against", because at the moment, institutional discrimination of white males is a far off fantasy.
We weren't talking about outreach programs or corporate charity, which should be done anyway and in a manner that provides the most positive outcomes for the maximum amount of people, we were talking about instigating legally mandated discriminatory hiring practices.
In this thread, you are not treating people as individuals, and you are not treating them as if their personality is what's valuable about them. You are treating individuals as the results of their backgrounds, and of different backgrounds having more objective quality than others. You are behaving extremely thuggishly, and resorting to sarcasm and imputing malice, and attempting to get people to default to treating people differently based on their background. You are not arguing against discrimination, you are arguing for the positive ethical outcomes of discriminating against a majority.
@getz said:
@johnham said:
@getz said:
Persons A-D: Video Games are a boys club and that is unacceptable. We need to change things up so that everyone is included!
Persons E-Z: But changing things arbitrarily will make it less inclusive to ME. DIE IN A FIRE!
One of these is a reasonably stated opinion, even if you disagree with it.
The other one is telling someone to die in a fire.
They are meaningfully different and saying "neither of them have a leg to stand on" is creating a false equivalency between the two actions/statements. One is definitely, unequivocally more wrong, and unacceptable, than the other, is it not?
False equivalancy? So I'm not allowed to compare the two sides of an argument? Or are you suggesting that the angry gamers have NO reason to be angry? They may be troglodytes and unwilling to construct an argument but there is an underlying sentiment to their rage that must be addressed past "oh well these guys clearly hate women and that's all there is to it"
The civility of the argument does not impact its validity. They are both wrong, one side is just more eloquent. I already told you why I think the feminists have no argument: they're antagonizing a group of people and then when the shit storm begins they come out of the woodwork and claim misogyny, when really the gamers are just mad at THEM, not women.
Though a more eloquent argument may be wrong, if the person arguing against them is acting like a troglodyte, no one is going to pay them any serious mind except other troglodytes. If they indeed have the superior argument, then they need to learn to express it in an eloquent manner. Validity is undercut by a lack of civility.
@rangers517: I want to hear MST 3Ks take on the student load debt bubble. The people need to know.
@dreamndayunite said:
@denzelflossington said:
LOL ohhhh i didn't know men were just more likely to have an interest in policy, is it genetic? and what website would like me to link you to? you should check out some wikipedia articles, they're well sourced and tend to be worked on by some dedicated people! your point about bias is well founded though, 87% of wikipedia users are male!! surprising that they would have a page on male privilege, that doesn't fit the narrative! darn socialists!
Yes it is most likely genetic. As for sources, how about The Christian Science Monitor or Reuters? I don't trust wikipedia for most things because a quick glance at the "talk" and "view history" shows the amount of infighting and politics at work behind the scenes at that website. Sources are constantly contested on the site, it is becoming a mess.
ooo fun choices! so obviously they're not the most inclusive websites in the world, a little too traditionally liberal for my tastes, but your choice of news sources says a lot about you! don't worry too much about wikipedia, if you think something's sus, check out the source!
here's a pretty easy to digest article from christian science crew on male privilege: link!
and surprisingly it's tough to find anything from reuters on the topic, you read them more often than i do i imagine, why would that be?
@sarisa said:
@dreamndayunite: "not a link from a socialist website or tumblr" hahahahahahahahaha
real talk though, why is all of tumblr inherently biased and unreliable
also people saying that men are just naturally more interested in politics and women don't face systemic barriers but just aren't interested isn't a new argument. The same thing comes up with the lack of women in tech! And, uh... http://valleywag.gawker.com/this-is-why-there-arent-enough-women-in-tech-1221929631
It's less that women are innately disinterested in stuff and more that, y'know...systemic barriers and discrimination. And other stuff too but blah bluh lazy
All of tumblr is not biased, but any sensible person would tell you that it is not a website to be trusted due to the make up of the website. There is a large and growing number of far-left Feminists and anarchists who are pushing an agenda on that site.
Also, gawker is a well known, controversial, SJW website. I don't trust it, neither should you. I honestly want some sources which are not from a blog and are a trusted news site. I've already given two which I think the vast majority of people, regardless of their political affiliation, would trust.
@sarisa: thanks duder you too! not very often that you see more than just the traditional liberal "both sides are wrong and too extreme!! the answer lies somewhere in the middle with MY OPINION" stuff on video game forums.
@windfall259 said:
@johnham said:
The hypothetical black person in your example would not have better perspective on the "conditions that Franklin and Lamar lived in" because that topic is specifically related to location and socio-economic status (things that are also tied up in race, but we can put that aside). But that same black person WOULD have better perspective on the ways that they are treated, and portrayed in the media, as a function of their skin color, which is something that is reflected in those characters. Therefore they would probably be more-qualified to provide that perspective.
I am not saying all black people know more about being poor.
I am not saying all black people know more about being in a gang, or street culture generally.
I AM saying that black people inherently have a different perspective on how black people are treated and perceived in our society. On what it IS to be black in a modern US context. It's so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be stated.
No.That is wrong.
It is NOT inherent. It is learned. Black people are not born into the black perspective. Black people that live in areas where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective. That being said, anyone living in the area where black culture is concentrated in are more likely to understand the black perspective.
This may sound like I'm splitting hairs with you, but I promise you I am not. There is a world of difference in what I'm saying.
I don't mean to imply that black people are born with black perspective; I was referring to a hypothetical black adult, who might comment on GTAV. In that case they've built up a body of experiences that provides them some degree of perspective on what it means to be black, and how it is to be black. This perspective is directly related to living as a black person.
There is absolutely a meaningful gradient there; black people have been affected by their race in their day-to-day lives to differing degrees, and for that reason some may have more-detailed or better-understood perspectives in that regard.
That doesn't change my central point, which is that minorities (by the nature of their life experience) have perspectives that an all-white, all-male editorial staff cannot provide.
@denzelflossington: I agree with @Brodehouse you are starting to cross a line and using sarcasm to personally attack people. Please reel it in a bit.
@euandewar: Yeah, I had heard about that. I'd rather not speculate about why someone may or may not have been picked because I feel uncomfortable doing so without any information, but there are tons of great women in the community who I'd be thrilled to see on GB, Cara included!
It's just a bit presumptuous for people to say "why doesn't GB just hire [x]?" without knowing all of the factors involved: job duties, pay, geographical location, benefits, immigration concerns, etc.
@johnham said:
@zevvion said:
No, it doesn't make more sense. His original argument was that a black person would have better perspective for, specifically, Lamar and Franklin because he is black. The core reasons why Lamar and Franklin are the characters they are has everything to do with their personalities, social surroundings and life choices. It has nothing to do with the fact of them being black. His last sentence makes sense out of context. Of course a black person would have a different perspective on how black people are treated. But we're talking specifically about two street thugs. That makes it a different situation entirely. Again, being black has nothing to do with that.
So you're suggesting that the black-ness of Lamar/Franklin is completely irrelevant to their characterization in the game, and that for that reason it's impossible for a black person to have unique perspective on those characters?
I am saying that any person on this world who happens to be black, doesn't recognize or identify the characterization of Lamar and Franklin from a unique standpoint if the only variable in their 'unique standpoint' is that they are also black.
To more or less give the same example again: a person who grew up around or lives around people with personalities and habits similar to Lamar and Franklin would have a more unique standpoint to look at those characters in the game, than a person who does not and happens to have black skin.
@dreamndayunite: oof you should probably stop replying to me if you don't want to hear that kind of "bias", just as a warning! i'm a feminist whose political views vacillate between anarchism and communism, somehow i can still argue with you though, must be the way the wind is blowing.
@dreamndayunite: Please don't use pejorative terms like SJW on this website. I have never heard it ever used as anything other than an insult, so take it elsewhere.
@dreamndayunite said:
@denzelflossington said:
LOL ohhhh i didn't know men were just more likely to have an interest in policy, is it genetic? and what website would like me to link you to? you should check out some wikipedia articles, they're well sourced and tend to be worked on by some dedicated people! your point about bias is well founded though, 87% of wikipedia users are male!! surprising that they would have a page on male privilege, that doesn't fit the narrative! darn socialists!
Yes it is most likely genetic. As for sources, how about The Christian Science Monitor or Reuters? I don't trust wikipedia for most things because a quick glance at the "talk" and "view history" shows the amount of infighting and politics at work behind the scenes at that website. Sources are constantly contested on the site, it is becoming a mess.
Your biological perspective on men and women is outdated by at least several decades. The majority of social studies has moved on to agree with the perspective that social constructs like policy is a sociocultural issue.
@hailinel said:
@brodehouse said:
Race and gender (intrinsic elements of an individual's background) do play a role in personality as it is shaped.
I don't disagree. However, it still does not make race and gender an ethical grounds to judge someone's personality on, so therefore why not judge the personality independent of the race and gender? Should my opinion on Carolyn Petit's piece on GTA5 be based purely on the arguments she raises within her piece, or should my opinion be filtered and influenced by whatever popular suspicions about trans people are? Clearly, not the latter. But yet I feel an overwhelming sense of hypocrisy in the notion that the opinions of white people should be judged as 'white' opinions.
A lot of people talk about how racist or sexist hiring practices are, and I'm not deaf to these complaints provided there's evidence. People who get discriminated against deserve justice, they deserve fairness. But I'm never going to agree with a group of thugs who thinks that discrimination is okay as long as they have no sympathy for the targets.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment