5secondrulesucks
Banned
so what you guys are saying is im in politics no matter what!?!?!??!!
so what you guys are saying is im in politics no matter what!?!?!??!!
When people say "keep politics out of my games" they're not saying "cut anything that could be interpreted to have some political meaning, subjectively." Literally anything under the sun could be interpreted through a political lens. What they're saying is they don't want their games to be didactic, moralizing, preachy political messages first and entertainment second. They want to be entertained not proselytized to.
The "everything is political" line is a dishonest argument to justify shoving that ideological messaging into every facet of life. Dishonestly blurring the definition between politics as defined by activities in relation to governance of a country and "politics" as defined by anything that impacts society, the sum total of all human interaction.
People like Jim Sterling know full well that the "keep politics out of my games" folks are using the first and more common definition of politics. Yet he will dishonestly bounce back and forth between the two when it suits his argument.
He tacitly admits this by saying "politics can be extracted from even the most unassuming games." and admitting that his examples for Mario & Sonic were "tongue in cheek" even though the politics are "still there." But that difference he has point out, to spare himself from looking like a complete ass, is the whole argument. Yes you can "extract" a political message from anything. That doesn't make everything political.
You could "extract" any kind of meaning from anything if you're creative enough. You could say that "everything is agricultural." Draw overly broad, tangential, connections on how changes in food cultivation and domestic animals massively impacted human society. Remark that those changes are reflected in various elements of gaming or anything. The only problem is that you'd be wasting everyone's time because you can play that game with anything.
That's why people don't categorize things by what can be "extracted" from them but what they explicitly are. Most people at least. The ones who aren't thirsting for any excuse to shove their ideological positions into everyone's hobbies.
Er... what? He points out that The Division 2 starts by suggesting that gun owners stood the best chance of surviving the game's opening scenario. Tom Clancy in general leaned conservative. How is this Sterling telling people to stop mocking his brand of politics when it's distinctly against his brand of politics?
I don't think there's anything controversial about pointing out that many games have political ideology behind them, even if it's more of a subtext than a mission statement.
I'm a political enthusiast, and have no problem with politics being in games, but what I do have is people being upset about what kind of politics is within a game because it doesn't fit their style. I also have problems with people whining about every little detail that doesn't align with their viewpoints in a game.
Didn't think missing Nazi ensignia in a WWII game, as well as the overrepresentation of women in WWII was a good choice for BFV? Me neither, but I made the decision to play the game because I enjoyed it; not because I got wrapped up in a silly political and artistic choice. If you didn't because you were opposed to that; cool too, but we don't have to shout it at the walls.
Mad because women in Mortal Kombat aren't falling out of their outfits? Buzz off, don't play it. That is not an all-encompassing ideal, and if it's influenced by "inclusiveness" that's their choice.
Upset that some games include LGBT characters, or dare to show a same sex love interest or even DARE present the option? Buzz off too. Upset that Warcraft III doesn't have LGBT and minority representation in the humans of Azeroth? You can buzz off with that as well. Azeroth isn't the real world. Upset that a game dares to make a female character, or a non-white character the lead? You got the drill down by now! Buzz off!
Political tribalism itself sucks, and we shouldn't extend that into our gaming habits. Games we play and pay for are art, and if you don't agree with something so strongly, out of any of those idiotic above examples, then don't buy the game. You don't have to call for the next inquisition.
Unfortunately, free speech is now a conservative issue.I’ve always been interested in this....What are Consertvative politics? In 2019? Please provide examples.
Well that sucks.. I was legitimately interested.Unfortunately, free speech is now a conservative issue.
I’ve always been interested in this....What are Consertvative politics? In 2019? Please provide examples.
Unfortunately, free speech is now a conservative issue.
I find that a bit of an exaggeration. Free speech has always been a human rights issue.Unfortunately, free speech is now a conservative issue.
- More rights to the law enforcers and more surveillanceI’ve always been interested in this....What are Consertvative politics? In 2019? Please provide examples.
There are seriously people who want to keep this bullshit law?^^- Legal protection of religious festivities and sensibilities (e.g. the German "Tanzverbot", which is outlawing celebrating, showing motion pictures and more on certain Christian festivities such as Good Friday)
I don't think Sterling's touching on particularly novel ideas, but he does touch on some important points. There are so many people who cry "keep politics out of my games," but they also forget that many of the 'neutral' games they play are already political. They just don't always scream their ideologies from the rooftops. And yes, I wish developers would embrace their games' politics rather than pretend they don't exist to avoid upsetting potential buyers.
For that matter, he has a good general observation: the people who claim they're apolitical or neutral... well, they're lying. If you refuse to take a side, you're advocating for the status quo. Don't like the status quo? Then take a stance. The US is arguably in its current political mess because there are legions of people who don't vote and then wonder why they get leaders they don't like.
What do you think is the reason it still exists and is not even seriously in discussion of getting removed? Conservatives, particularly in the CDU / CSU want to keep it. As want the churches. Heck, even some more conservative SPD politicians are in favour of keeping it.There are seriously people who want to keep this bullshit law?^^
Because they are old and instead of holding onto actual useful conservative values like stopping mass immigration and regulate Immigration they hold onto this bullshit to show that they are still conservatives^^What do you think is the reason it still exists and is not even seriously in discussion of getting removed? Conservatives, particularly in the CDU / CSU want to keep it. As want the churches. Heck, even some more conservative SPD politicians are in favour of keeping it.
What is useful or not depends on your goals. I am pretty sure that being supportive of this law is not (usually) virtue signalling, but actual political positions. Make no mistake, the CDU/CSU is pretty conservative. Just because Merkel was operating on a strategy of not resisting more progressive majority opinions on some tentpole issues, does not mean the party as a whole (or Merkel herself for that matter) is not a fundamentally conservative one. And before you bring up the gay mariage thing: Less than 30% of CDU/CSU agreed on that and that includes - of course - the homosexuals in the CDU/CSU as well, who were voting in their own interests, which often supercedes general political leanings.Because they are old and instead of holding onto actual useful conservative values like stopping mass immigration and regulate Immigration they hold onto this bullshit to show that they are still conservatives^^
furthermore, in gaming, these things are made by so many people, teams of people, who gets to determine what "the political message" is? is it the social media team? we have seen how that can blow up in company's faces. is it the PR or HR departments? is it the executive producer? or the writer? or the art director?
I’ve always been interested in this....What are Consertvative politics? In 2019? Please provide examples.
Love him or hate him, this was a sound rebuttal.
I think a big part of this is people wanting to see exactly that.
I watched the video yesterday and from what I can remember he doesn't really lay out exactly his take on the politics of The Division 2.
Instead it's just "your game is political, stop squirming, just admit it". Admit it. Admit it. Your game is political.
We've got real Nazis roaming the streets and Ubisoft won't admit their game is political... REEEEEEEEE!
People know Tom Clancy's views. The guy was a conservative and a Republican. OK.
Given the nature of American society right now and the current culture in online spaces it's pretty clear why Ubisoft would not want to deal with this.
It seems like the logical conclusion is "don't release a game with Tom Clancy's name on it if you don't agree with his politics".
Honestly though I think they are all just clamoring for some excuse to go after Ubisoft and when Ubisoft have refused to play ball they are outraged anyway.
I honestly don't really get WHY the developers of The Division 2 need to be dragged out in public to admit "yes, your game is political and we think that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun". So we can all go after them? What does it achieve?
we have real nazis roaming the street? what? You watch too much CNN man
Especially if you massage the frenulum.The Nazis are coming
If you refuse to take a side, you're advocating for the status quo. Don't like the status quo? Then take a stance.
When people say "keep politics out of my games" they're not saying "cut anything that could be interpreted to have some political meaning, subjectively." Literally anything under the sun could be interpreted through a political lens. What they're saying is they don't want their games to be didactic, moralizing, preachy political messages first and entertainment second. They want to be entertained not proselytized to.
The "everything is political" line is a dishonest argument to justify shoving that ideological messaging into every facet of life. Dishonestly blurring the definition between politics as defined by activities in relation to governance of a country and "politics" as defined by anything that impacts society, the sum total of all human interaction.
People like Jim Sterling know full well that the "keep politics out of my games" folks are using the first and more common definition of politics. Yet he will dishonestly bounce back and forth between the two when it suits his argument.
He tacitly admits this by saying "politics can be extracted from even the most unassuming games." and admitting that his examples for Mario & Sonic were "tongue in cheek" even though the politics are "still there." But that difference he has point out, to spare himself from looking like a complete ass, is the whole argument. Yes you can "extract" a political message from anything. That doesn't make everything political.
You could "extract" any kind of meaning from anything if you're creative enough. You could say that "everything is agricultural." Draw overly broad, tangential, connections on how changes in food cultivation and domestic animals massively impacted human society. Remark that those changes are reflected in various elements of gaming or anything. The only problem is that you'd be wasting everyone's time because you can play that game with anything.
That's why people don't categorize things by what can be "extracted" from them but what they explicitly are. Most people at least. The ones who aren't thirsting for any excuse to shove their ideological positions into everyone's hobbies.
A dev being "nonpolitical" usually means they think the historically established norms of society are a good fit for their game. This is itself a political stance to some degree, but really it depends upon the game. One would be hard pressed to find politics in Mario beyond the rescue-princess trope, so that's pretty minimal. But other games that attempt to tell a story of any depth will immediately run into political stances whether they want to or not, as how a dev thinks about the world and what they want to make is inevitably contextualized and informed by their life story and society they live in.
Also, "stop being political" is 99% of the time directed toward liberal messaging by upset conservatives i.e. "why did they need to make Ellie gay," "why is there a female soldier on the cover" pearl clutching. Liberal-leaning people have had the most apparent success in creating games and studios both small and large so it makes sense more games lean liberal than otherwise in their overall story arcs and diversity. Tom Clancy is really the only franchise I can think of that leans conservative. Maybe the guys who made Kingdom Come: Deliverance as well. And that PUA game. There's probably a few more. In general I think people who try to "shame" devs for political messaging are pissing in the wind. They want to make a game political, whatever, buy it or don't. It's an entertainment product that you aren't being forced to buy, and I ain't boycotting shit over politics because I don't have some weird fear or anger over being brainwashed by a Tom Clancy game into thinking war is gud.
You've done an excellent job exposing this for what it is: the ideology of the deconstructionist, yet another mutant offspring of post-modernism.You could "extract" any kind of meaning from anything if you're creative enough. You could say that "everything is agricultural." Draw overly broad, tangential, connections on how changes in food cultivation and domestic animals massively impacted human society. Remark that those changes are reflected in various elements of gaming or anything. The only problem is that you'd be wasting everyone's time because you can play that game with anything.
You've done an excellent job exposing this for what it is: the ideology of the deconstructionist, yet another mutant offspring of post-modernism.
People would do well to educate themselves on the ideologies that've swept through these circles over the past 20 years in an effort to understand the source material these folks are parroting (whether intentionally or not).
I'm very familiar with hermeneutics and critical theory, as well as postmodernism itself.it fits in a more generalized phenomenon called "suspicious reading" or "hermeneutics of suspicion"
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/are-we-postcritical/
postmodernism as bogeyman is just another form of this phenomenon, by the way
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...6e177f3081c_story.html?utm_term=.a04eacc2d68c
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...nt-a-vile-cancerous-doctrine/article37272519/
Lol he called gaf resetera the other day. So who knows where he came from.Boy, Jim is on a roll with videos that look like they came straight from a resetera thread recently.