My interview with Patrick

Hi guys,

Some time ago I sat down and chatted with Patrick about internet harassment, for my website www.slutet.nu (a Swedish site). The interview is now up, and if you scroll to the bottom of the page there is an English translated version of it as well. As usual, Patrick has some really interesting things to say. Here's the link: http://www.slutet.nu/uncategorized/hatretorik-patrick-klepek/

"Writing about games, enjoy games and developing games is not always an easygoing samba on a bed of roses."

First thing in Google Translate. An easy-going samba on a bed of roses. I love that and hope it is ACTUALLY the first line in the article. Unfortunately, that part isn't in the English translation at the bottom of the article.

Just wanted to share that.

:)

No, you're right, that is part of my personal intro and is not in the english translation, since I only posted the questions and answers. Didn't feel the need to translate my own intro, but I see that Google Translate did a wonderful job of doing it for me :)

Det finns inget mer uttjatat inom svensk media än "näthat" och du väljer att skriva om just det. Kom igen.

Glem Sverige, Danmark styrer. I tror i er så gode med jeres Zlatan? Vi har verdens bedste Bendtner!

Cool interview! What do we call this? Reverse dump-truck?

But I do wonder sometimes if Patrick (and others) are being purposely obtuse when describing the term SJW. I mostly get the sense that people who use it as a negative do so because they don't believe there is a problem and they see "SJWs" as people trying to cause problems where there are none. I don't think a lot of them believe themselves to be pro inequality or pro sexism. Kinda like how during the Dickwolves fiasco, a lot of Penny Arcade fans defending Dickwolves saw themselves as anti-censorship, not pro-rape or pro-rape culture.

I think they are misguided because I DO believe there is a problem. But it still feels like two sides who act deaf to the complaints and opinions of the other. And it just doesn't feel like we will get anywhere that way.

the issue with the SJW is that giving a microphone to an overly-sensitive minority can quickly turn into diluting important issues with a wave of less substantive gripes (such as those who dont have the thick skin for the internet and life in general)

That's actually how most people understand the term, and I haven't met someone insulted as an "SJW" that didn't understand that real meaning.

Some people do facetiously embrace the term though(like Patrick accepting a joking SJW badge someone made for him), because when people throw insults in your face, sometimes it's best to take it for yourself and rob it of its power. Obviously the term is mocking people as fighting a meaningless cause, because social justice doesn't matter from some people's perspective. Few actively believe that they are pro-inequality or pro-sexism regardless of whether that is actually the position they are supporting.

Many people in the 1800s didn't think, "I'm pro-inhuman subjugation under slavery." They thought, "I'm pro-slavery, a natural order to life where I'm actually doing a favor to these inferior people by taking care of them and making them useful." You can see hints of that with the uproar this week over the owner of the Clippers NBA team who complained that his girlfriend took pictures with black men. In his comments, he rather strongly said he isn't racist; he just thinks black people should be separate and in servant positions while he provides for them. As he put it, "I support them and give them food, and clothes, and cars, and houses. Who gives it to them? Does someone else give it to them?" He views himself as a benevolent master, not a racist. Yet, we can see full well where the actual issues are in his perspective.

While you may perceive that some people don't tiptoe around various issues doesn't mean they don't understand full well that few people believe they are the bad guy. Few people are proudly sexist or racist, as they have different perspectives on what their opinions and actions mean. Their perception doesn't negate that someone is in fact encouraging bigotry, but it does pose a challenge in reaching actual understanding.

Fortunately, the most common problems of prejudice come from ignorance and a lack of understanding, not maliciousness. So, while there are still many issues in every part of society, including gaming, that doesn't mean there isn't great hope. People may not always feel like it, but despite our deficiencies, we can absolutely continue to strive for making gaming and the gaming community even better for all kinds of gamers.

Using "Social Justice Warrior" as a pejorative is absolutely fitting for some people. I feel it's best used when someone reaches so far to find something offensive that it actually does harm to their cause, but it's of course completely subjective when the label should be applied.

An example:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SS3YDq0K05AJ:geekparty.com/just-so-you-know-infamous-second-son-is-a-metaphorical-rape-fantasy/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Just so You Know, Infamous: Second Son Is a Metaphorical Rape Fantasy

If you’ve ever played an Infamous title, you know that your in-game decisions have an affect on the campaign’s narrative. So, for example, if you enjoy murdering street musicians and policemen, you can probably expect to experience the evil storyline. But if you avoid acting like a douchebag, you’ll end up on the positive side of history.

However, aside from the ending and a few minor cut scenes, Infamous: Second Son’s narratives are almost identical. In fact, the storylines are so similar that I’ve started to wonder if a genuinely “good” campaign actually exists.

The entire narrative is dedicated to the game’s protagonist, Delsin Rowe, tracking other conduits (Sucker Punch’s word for a person with cool powers), and forcibly taking their powers. Every single one of them violently resists Rowe’s advances, but he manages to physically overpower them and get what he wants.

No means no, Delsin.

He doesn’t technically rape them, but it’s an inescapably Freudian metaphor. Sucker Punch’s writing team might be a goldmine for an entrepreneurial psychologist.

Speaking of subjective, how different people might view the same representation of a female character is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE, and the near refusal of either party to acknowledge this is my main issue with the sexism debate. Some people stick their head in the sand and pretend that there isn't even the slightest issue with female representation in games, and others point their fingers and say "this is not a proper representation of women!" as if their personal opinion is objective fact.

And honestly, fuck both of those groups. Like you said, they're two sides who act deaf to the complaints and opinions of the other, and we're not going to get anywhere that way.

Did you just compare people who defend rape jokes to people who were okay with slavery?

@erhard: <3

The ways in which people rationalize any prejudice or destructive mindset are similar. I never mentioned rape jokes or comedy, but I do believe sexism and racism are as insidious as the roots of slavery justification. As noted with Clippers owner Donald Sterling, he uses a similar logic for his present racism as those who supported slavery in the past. Prejudice has deep roots.

What is wrong with wanting to further social justice? In fact it is seemed somewhat desirable for a journalist to be mindful and push reporting in terms of social justice.

And as for truthtellah he is just pointing out that ideals maybe binary but viewpoints are highly variable and multifaceted. And he has a good point that what is often lost on many issue is that actually there is a lot of common ground among two positions that are supposed to be in "bitter opposition" but all of that is lost in rhetoric and argument.

@extomar: There's nothing wrong with trying to further social justice. It is awesome. But just like I think there is a problem with inequality, I also think there is a problem with some bloggers who go too far, even in the name of social justice. Some of the stuff written is borderline libel. I don't appreciate that and can understand why some people get upset and come up with terms like social justice warrior as an insult. That being said, lumping everyone who writes about social justice together and labeling them as a problem because of that is ridiculous. There are people, like Patrick, who I think is doing good work and there are others who aren't. So that's what I mean when I say I understand both sides. It's lumping everyone together as 'us or them' that seems like the problem.

Complaining that some go too far in the name of social justice is kind of nonsense. People go too far because they have an agenda where it doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative or whatever. Why single out aggressive journalists as the problem? When I see terms like "social justice warriors" they seem to really mean "someone saying something I don't like" instead.

Knocking Patrick for writing articles and features because he finds something unjust and wants to bring attention only because the topic is controversial is silly. Saying anyone can't do journalism on some topics because they maybe dishonest is an equally silly stance! These issues are hard topics where the solution is to bring out more articles and discussion instead of ignoring it.

Uh... no one is singling out "SJWs." Of course anyone can go too far. I think even if someone has a valid complaint against some blogger, lumping Patrick, the staff of Kotaku, Polygon and everyone else who ever cared under a "Social justice warriors to avoid" umbrella is being just as ridiculous.