Bombin' the A.M. With Scoops and the Wolf: 09/05/2014

@marokai: I'd recommend Pauline Kale's review of Stanley Kubrick's film Clockwork Orange on how because you can criticize something you see as problomatic dosen't mean you also want it to disapear (at least that's what criticisim should be).

particuaily the final paragraph

At the movies, we are gradually being conditioned to accept violence as a sensual pleasure. The directors used to say they were showing us its real face and how ugly it was in order to sensitize us to its horrors. You don't have to be very keen to see that they are now in fact de- sensitizing us. They are saying that everyone is brutal, and the heroes must be as brutal as the villains or they turn into fools. There seems to be an assumption that if you're offended by movie brutality, you are somehow playing into the hands of the people who want censorship. But this would deny those of us who don't believe in censorship the use of the only counterbalance: the freedom of the press to say that there's anything conceivably damaging in these films -- the freedom to analyze their implications. If we don't use this critical freedom, we are implicitly saying that no brutality is too much for us -- that only squares and people who believe in censorship are concerned with brutality. Actually, those who believe in censorship are primarily concerned with sex, and they generally worry about violence only when it's eroticized. This means that practically no one raises the issue of the possible cumulative effects of movie brutality. Yet surely, when night after night atrocities are served up to us as entertainment, it's worth some anxiety. We become clockwork oranges if we accept all this pop culture without asking what's in it. How can people go on talking about the dazzling brilliance of movies and not notice that the directors are sucking up to the thugs in the audience?

@jadegl: You have some really good points and I agree for the most part. I think a lot of anger might actually be avoided if critics prefaced more that they aren't trying to force an opinion or say a thing shouldn't exist simply because they don't agree with it. People aren't fond of feeling like they are being attacked or something they like is being attacked and a lot of the time that feeling counteracts any good points you could make that may sway them to your opinion anyhow. I think if we all tried a little harder not to be assholes to each other gaming might be a better place.

Huh? What is wrong with you? I never said it was an attack to take away games. Nice straw man.

You completely missed the point I was making. Someone said that the critics are saying that if you enjoy these types of games, then that could be perceived as you being a misogynist. Now, I don't think the critics are explicitly calling out people, saying they're misogynists, but your rebuttal about Anita's disclaimer is not a counterargument here. That part of her critique has nothing to do with the affects these tropes may have on people. It is what it literally says, you can enjoy something and critique it.

I'm not saying you can't critique these games, because doing so is tantamount to wanting to censor games. I'm pointing to the parts of her videos, tweets, blog posts, and those of other people, that counter your claim regarding her disclaimer. She has made references to how consuming these type of media has an affect on people. My comparison to Jack Thomspon is not so much the "oh no, they're taking away my games," and more that he too said that consuming violent games will make you violent.

So feminism is communist? I don't think feminism has a preferred economic viewpoint other than maybe equal pay for equal work.

Capitalism as a system can only sustain itself through the exploitation of labour which in turn benefits the few who own the means of production and can profit off of it. Built into the very core of Capitalism is an inequality, and of course this all disregards the many social and political barriers and prejudices that exist which make surviving in a Capitalist system all the more difficult for minorities, women, disabled people and so on.

Communism is about the dismantling of the inequalities created and upheld within Capitalism (and as Marx argued, Capitalism is a necessary step for the existence of Communism-- although on this point I am maybe more cynical than Marx), which would be more aligned with the goals of Feminism.

Capitalism is undemocratic, exploitative and purposefully unequal, it can not be affiliated with Feminism in any way, shape, or form.

It's good that TFYC is providing an opportunity for women outside of the industry to design ideas for games, but it is not an articulation of Feminism-- it's merely Capitalism to the core.

I just wanna make a statement that I think is something a lot of people seem to misunderstand.

Feminists don't want to "take away" your video games. They want to improve them. Particularly, they want to improve how all genders are represented. A lot of Anita's examples involve violence against women, and the problem with this mostly lies in the fact that it's violence for no good reason. These women are set pieces, dehumanized.

All of this in the context that most of these games are made starring male "heroes" made by mostly male developers. It's a standard. Sure there's violence against male characters, but violence against women in games is done disproportionately by men to women who are either dehumanized (background characters or characters in roles looked down on by society i.e. strippers or sex workers), villainised, portrayed as sex objects, or simply are being hurt as a plot point for the male hero's motivations. Are there exceptions? Probably, but a few exceptions do not excuse the majority.

People don't want to take your video games away. They just want developers to think a bit harder about them. They want gaming to be more inclusive, for publishers to realize that their demographics are far more varied than marketing teams would lead you to believe. There still is a place for games with stupid violence and smut and stupidity in the industry, just... shift the standard to more inclusivity and not favoring one side over the other and shunning the rest.

Anyway, that was just a thing.

Except that even if I buy into your anti-capitalist stance--which I don't--the money is going to charity anyhow. The guy who came up with TFYC has already said that if they really wanted to make money, they'd market a sugary cereal or something with the capital instead.

Okay, so coming full circle: can you be a feminist if you are participating in capitalism? You claim that TFYC aren't feminists because they are capitalist. Are there no real feminist then? Are the only real feminist those hippie ladies living in a commune?

@sergio: Anyone living in a capitalist society has to participate in capitalism to survive. Saying that you can't oppose capitalism unless you completely refuse to participate in it is silly. If a business owner was complaining about capitalism this critique might hold water, but people don't really have a choice to not participate in their society's economic system.

Yep, just like anyone living in a communist society has to participate in communism to survive... because otherwise they'll be shot and killed by their financial peers, acting under the orders of the leaders of their communist society, who all happen to have much more money, and property, and power than everyone else who is "equal."

Most communists/socialists are very critical of the USSR and don't even consider it a socialist state. The main requirement of socialism is common ownership of the means of production. And like you said, in most "communist" states, the means of production were owned by a small bureaucratic class.

@teaoverlord: *sigh* Really, I didn't know people have to participate in a capitalist society.

The thing is capitalism is privately owned and for profit. The definition of capitalism isn't about exploiting labor, even if some people like to say it is. Is it possible to exploit workers in a capitalist society? Yes. It's also possible in a communist society. It's possible in any society unless you're living in some utopia that doesn't exist.

A feminist participating in capitalism isn't doing it merely because that's the only way they can survive. I reject the notion that you can't be a feminist and a capitalist. There are a lot of rich feminist out there, and I highly doubt they bartered their way there.

@sergio: There are a lot of schools of thought within feminism, and socialist feminists believe that socialism is necessary for true equality between the sexes (some even believe that this inequality is a direct effect of capitalism). So yes, people can identify as feminists and support capitalism, but socialist feminist will often say that they aren't truly feminist. My main problem with your comment was just the idea that you can't oppose capitalism unless you completely refuse to participate in it.

@teaoverlord: I never said you can't oppose capitalism. Perhaps you should read the thread of what I was commenting on:

They aren't a feminist group. Feminism is, at its simplest, a movement for equality and capitalism is antithetical to equality.

My questions are rhetorical to him. What I'm trying to convey is that they can be a feminist group and still be capitalist.

I agree that there are different groups of feminism and they don't all agree with one another. I consider myself a feminist because I share the same opinion of many of them because my Venn diagram of egalitarianism intersects with them. That doesn't mean I or other feminists disagree on some things.

Perhaps you didn't follow what I was getting at because the moderators have asked to cut down on quoting everything in our replies.

How did this turn into a socioeconomic debate?

Giant Bomb. It's a website. About video games.

GamerGate >> Zoe Quinn >> The Fine Young Capitalist >> Feminism >> Capitalism >> Kevin Bacon

I don't know, I think RockyRaccoon37 was trying to explain how TFYC deserved all the terrible things that happened to them 6 months ago because they accepted donations from 4chan 3 weeks ago.

Come on he never said any of that. He's absolutley allowed to have his own views on feminism and capitalism and TYFC; he never talked about their doxxing/crashing, how could he ever even connect or justify it with the 4chan donations. Let's not twist things like this please

It's a loaded comparison that I took in a completely reasonable way.

I disagree, but considering your other posts, including the one I was originally replying to, not all too surprising.**

**Not calling you a terrible person.

Good point. The main reason I'm opposed to the suggestion that US capitalism is wrong, and a socialist system would be better all around, is because our government seems to be incapable of handling a lot of their limited responsibility already. Our national debt and constant social security worries being two examples.

But yeah, let's stop talking about social politics, and get back to talking about social politics. ;)

Seriously, let's drop the whole communism / socialism / capitalism thing. That, or start another thread. I don't want to derail this one any more than it has been.

No of course you can be a Feminist within the confines of Capitalism, but to suggest that TFYC is Feminist because they are giving women the opportunity to design games does not make what they are doing a Feminist action. It's affirmative action within Capitalism.

It's good, don't get me wrong, but it's not some grand Feminist move.

And yeah, sorry didn't mean to derail the conversation!

Pretty sure I never said that, wait let me check...

Yup never said that.

Sorry about the derailing though! My bad :(

@paradigm87: Anita basically says that at the start of every video and people still attack her.

When your giving your opinion it's implied that your not forcing it on others. That's why it's an opinion and not an order. I think people need to stop feeling so offended by conflicting views.

There are a few people here I don't see with socially and politically AT ALL but I don't hate them for it or harbour bad feelings. It's an opinion.

And then TFYC said, "Fuck it, the big sites aren't going to cover us anyway".

Truth in Gaming: An Interview with The Fine Young Capitalists

Listening to this was a bit of an exercise in frustration. Easy enough to rectify after a few minutes on Neogaf, but really if you guys want to talk about something, just spell it out. I think this has happened before, but can't remember the specifics.

@darkstalker: Yeah sorry about that. I guess I didn't really phrase my thoughts very well there. I wasn't referring to Anita specifically. I think most of her pieces have actually been really well done and respectful. I may not agree with all the points she makes but I certainly don't feel like she's attacking anyone with her work. Conflicting views don't really bother me it's the smug combative tone some journalists and devs adopt when getting views across and generalizing their audience that does. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive to interpret it that way but that's just the way it comes across a lot of the time to me. Also I apologize if any of this comes off as incoherent or anything. My son has been dealing with colic and I haven't been getting much sleep recently. That's a bad combination considering I'm usually pretty bad at getting my points across as it is.

@happymeowmeow: I find that happens a lot with bombing in th am. I'm a subscriber and I had no idea what they were talking about. It's all about context guys and you gave us none