Any Gaming sites that aren’t all so left wing? Rowling & Other Catastrophes

[Fart]

I see where you’re coming from, but it sounds little like you judge Quilette too harsly. Been reading articles there for a while now and I always felt they were reasonably balanced. Definitely not crazy enough (and consistenly so) to warrant keeping a job away from someone cause they wrote for Quilette. It still stands though, people try to prevent him from getting a job saying what exactly? What did he say that’s so bad that warrants this response?

Either way, I don’t feel safe enough to engage with the discussion with my real name. I wouldn’t want to risk it myself.

[Grizzly]

My entire upbringing has been warning me for not saying what I want to say under my own name on the Internet because my employers could use it as a reason to, well, not employ me. I personally don’t really feel Fart’s argument there.

I’d also like to point out that “courting controversy” and “being proud of saying what you believe to be true” go hand in hand . There’s a kick to being the guy who is “in the right” even when people dislike you. I’ve moderated a few spaces now, and it’s very noticable how much people will use the notion of “but I’m right and everyone else is irrational/wrong/ill-informed/lol your parents” to paint themselves as the “brave warrior fighting for free speech” when what they really want is an excuse for being a dick. I even have a link for a webcomic that talks about this very phenomon!. None of this off-course means anything, but it’s an effective selling tactic that is employed by Quillette and their authors (the site is kinda built around it). This doesn’t invalidate their arguments, but it doesn’t validate them either.

I’m not too sure that “all what Colin is saying is biological sex is real”, since we’re discussing his twitter account. His twitter account is all political screed, and the tweet Fart linked explicitly doesn’t talk about that, it talks about how more trans people coming out of the woodwork is the result of “Social contagion”.

I see where you’re coming from, but it sounds little like you judge Quilette too harsly. Been reading articles there for a while now and I always felt they were reasonably balanced. Definitely not crazy enough (and consistenly so) to warrant keeping a job away from someone cause they wrote for Quilette. It still stands though, people try to prevent him from getting a job saying what exactly? What did he say that’s so bad that warrants this response?

I don’t think I’m judging Quilette too harshly. One of the key reasons I’m viewing Quilette with suspicion is their treatment of Andy Ngo. Ngo was a far right symphatizer masquarading as an objective journalist. He would record street fights instigated by fascists, and then edit the footage to make it look as if the fascists were reacting to violence. Quillette’s response to one of their editors being caught in openly collaborating with a far right group was to silently fire him and never talk about the matter again.

I think a particular worthnoty notion is the “Archie Carter” saga at Quillette, which sheds some light on their journalistic vetting process (or lack thereoff).

I’ve actually started to research Guillette a bit more now that this post has come up. It has noted links with the far right, trying to repackage fascists ideas in a way so they sound reasonably balanced. I’m afraid you may have fallen for their trap here. Hell, I did, the reading I gave in the previous post was actually pretty mild.

[alms]

edit: Apologies for the mess Alms

No sweat, there are valid reasons for double posting, and even otherwise I’m certainly not going to slap anyone’s hand just for a couple of double posts here and there.

[Fart]

I’m sure they’ve had writers that have crossed the line and some scandals. That piece about Ngo doesn’t look good, I agree, it seems a little suspicious. It was also a year ago. They’ve had one hoax writer to show that they have a bad vetting process last year as well. Sure, legit criticsm. But does this amount to aiming the whole website at repackaging fascism for a normal audience? I mean, that Nation article makes such wild claims.

They’ve had a lot of people writing opinion pieces on there. Good and bad, nuanced and over-the-top, I’m sure. But the articles I usually read on there (I don’t browse the site itself for articles, they usually show up in my social media feed, so I probably get filtered the good ones) haven’t been fascist/racist/mysoginistic unless you’re really stretching the terms. If you want to argue that this is a website consistently aimed at repackaging fascist ideas for the mainstream you really have to come with more evidence for that claim than what you did.

Quillette has published Ivy League professors, popular academics, poets, comedians, lawyers etc. Would they really have done that if it was commonly accepted that it was a site aimed at mainlining fascism? Or are they all fascists? Are Princeton classics professors secret fascists? That sounds so crazy.

I think an approach like you would approach a newspaper opninion page would be a better one. That’s how I approach this site anyway. I’m reminded of the New York Times. It’s published pieces by the literal Taliban, Putin, Marine Le Penn, right-wing senators etc. I wouldn’t dare make the claim that it’s consistently trying to mainstream jihadist ideas.

Do you think it’s okay to not hire anyone who’s ever published on Quillette purely for that fact?

I’m pretty critical of the media I consume and the claims in that Nation article are really way over-the-top for me.

[Grizzly]

Are Princeton classics professors secret fascists?

Mabye?

Aside from being a bit glib about it, I’m not entirely sure how you can read Quilette right now - like it’s frontpage articles - and not see a very obvious political bias presented in its articles.

[Fart]

Granted, calling that student group “terrorists” is just dumb, shameful, over-the-top and counterproductive. Does it make him a fascist though? Did you read his article?

I agree that Quillete has a right-wing streak. Is that relevant though?

But again, do you think it’s okay to not hire anyone who’s ever published on Quillette purely for that fact?

[Grizzly]

But again, do you think it’s okay to not hire anyone who’s ever published on Quillette purely for that fact?

No, but it is a huge red flag that I would take into consideration when it comes to hiring them. When I look at the guy you linked’s twitter account, they spent an awful lot of time on twitter in rejecting, villifying and otherwise being intolerant towards political views (and even ways of life) that do not agree with their own. This is going to be a problem when you’re hired into a workplace where a lot of differing political views exist.

To put it succinctly: Quillette doesn’t hire friendly, agreeable people. I want those.

[Fart]

Fair enough. Though I disagree about not hiring someone who wrote a piece on quillette, I see your point.

On second reading of Katz" letter, I really disagree with the hostile style of writing. Though I do share a lot of his substantive worries.

I hope that I’m too worried about this. I hope people can get along a little better with one another. I hate the amount of vilification you see in (particularly American) debate on this issue today.

[crystal_gaiden]

I’d also like to point out that “courting controversy” and “being proud of saying what you believe to be true” go hand in hand . There’s a kick to being the guy who is “in the right” even when people dislike you.

You’re right, but - well, if I understand this guy correctly, which it’s very possible I don’t, but if I do - he’s only courting controversy in the sense that he knows his opinions are disagreed with by many people. That’s not the same as purposely coming up with a controversial position just to rile people up.

it’s very noticable how much people will use the notion of “but I’m right and everyone else is irrational/wrong/ill-informed/lol your parents” to paint themselves as the “brave warrior fighting for free speech” when what they really want is an excuse for being a dick.

That’s extremely subjective, I can’t imagine you would ever know that unless someone said ‘Lol I was trolling!’ afterwards. Just in case you think that’s what I’m doing… I’m really not. I’m not at all brave, if I were I’d give out my real name. And I do frequently argue with people on here, but I don’t do it for the sake of conflict. I’m testing out my ideas, and other people are having their ideas tested by me. If what we’re saying is good, then poking holes in it doesn’t do any harm. If it’s not good, well then we get to improve our thinking. That’s why free speech is so great.

The problem comes when people care more about winning than actually learning anything.

I even have a link for a webcomic that talks about this very phenomon!

Ha! I actually see this on facebook all the time, people put a list of incredibly mainstream social ideas then say ‘anyone who disagrees can unfriend themselves!’ like they’re fighting The Man, and it’s like… yeah no one’s gonna unfriend you, you just posted things literally no one disagrees with.

I’m not too sure that “all what Colin is saying is biological sex is real”, since we’re discussing his twitter account. His twitter account is all political screed, and the tweet Fart linked explicitly doesn’t talk about that, it talks about how more trans people coming out of the woodwork is the result of “Social contagion”.

Fair enough, I didn’t look very far into this guy.

[Grizzly]

That’s extremely subjective, I can’t imagine you would ever know that unless someone said ‘Lol I was trolling!’ afterwards.

Oh it’s never really about trolling, it’just about a strong sense of being vindicated.

Just in case you think that’s what I’m doing

Never even crossed my mind.

[BillButNotBen]

if they don’t align with the (many of them very recent) dogmas of the left, the risk of expressing them publicly is very high. This, in of itself, stifles free speech - if the consequences of speaking are that high, you effectively can’t speak.

This is generally where I’m coming from, although I don’t think i’d limit it to ‘the left’. For one thing, ‘the right’ has been just as quick to attack anything they don’t agree with on social media. Anyone remember people burning their Nike trainers? Gamergate? (but let’s not go there again!)

I think it is true that public opinion, particularly that of younger people, has shifted incredibly dramatically over the past few years. (at least in parts of the US, UK, etc… not in Poland).
Things that seemed very far out of reach even a decade or two ago, such as gay marriage, openly gay politicians, etc… seem to have become accepted by much of the mainstream in many countries.

That’s not to say there aren’t still issues, but even 10 years ago a lot of this seemed far out of grasp. Which means that new issues have arisen, such as Trans rights, which I don’t think were even on the radar for most people a few decades ago.
I imagine because a lot of the generation that has grown up in that time has grown up with the basic idea of rights for everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality.

But the older generations are still around, who didn’t grow up in that environment. Plus there are some countries, such as in Eastern Europe, where attitudes don’t seem to have changed, and have maybe even hardened. And with the internet, we’re all in the same village.

So in terms of things like BLM, gender, LGBT+ etc… it seems to be much more of a case of ‘dogma’s of the progressives’ than ‘dogmas of the left’. Now, the left does tend to be more progressive on many issues and the right does tend to be more conservative - but not universally so.
Younger generations tend to be more progressive and more left leaning, and older generations tend to be more conservative and more right leaning. But again not universally.

But both sides seem to engage in similar ‘cancel culture’ movements. Maybe it’s just a sign of the highly politically divided times we live in.

But surely The Guardian is still the most left newspaper of the UK, is it not? I wasn’t trying to suggest it’s completely biased towards the left, clearly they don’t always toe the line from the stuff you’ve provided. But they’re still left leaning in general.

They are left leaning. I’m not up to date, but personally I’d have thought The Mirror was a bit more to the left. (though maybe the Guradian is a bit more progressive).
But basically those are the only left leaning newspapers in the UK, all the rest are right leaning.

[Zephro]

Who the fuck are the 5% of people describing the Guardian as very right wing? Or even fairly right wing? Huh?

[alms]

This is generally where I’m coming from, although I don’t think i’d limit it to ‘the left’. For one thing, ‘the right’ has been just as quick to attack anything they don’t agree with on social media. Anyone remember people burning their Nike trainers? Gamergate? (but let’s not go there again!)

Err, do you realize that’s basically implying there was a counterpart to GamerGate, which there never was?

By placing on the same level, things that do not belong together, you’re not giving some great show of equanimity and fairness, but instead effectively legitimizing GamerGate, wiping that slate clean of all the doxxing and harassing and harming people that went on under a false guise.

There is a stark difference between denouncing someone or something because of their racist or transphobic statements or content, and doxxing a person, and trying to destroy her career (and possibly life) altogether, because that person has left another. Zoe Quinn routinely received death and rape threats for years, have you forgotten?

This legitimization is something we’ve come to expect from the TB types, the guys who are “not sexist but”, and want politics out of their games. Not SJWs.

And I would have not gone there, had there not been a record to set straight once again.

[Det.Bullock]

Just to put Gamergate and the videogame industry in perspective: its comics and fantasy/sci-fi literature equivalents have died almost instantly because giants of the respective fields have almost instantly come out and said “fuck these guys”.
Comicsgate and Sad/rabid Puppies petered out almost instantly while Gamergate never quite got that kind of delegitimisation because basically no Warren Spector or somesuch went very publicly to say “Gamergate is bunk”, there was always a deafening silence by the industry and its members with indie developers and journalists basically left alone in dealing with the storm of abuse.
People involved with games seem much more permissive with this kind of stuff for some reason and I’m not sure I want to know why.

[Skalpadda]

People involved with games seem much more permissive with this kind of stuff for some reason and I’m not sure I want to know why.

Money first. The video game industry seems far more built around money and product than around art and artists, and there’s not much history of cultural subversiveness in mainstream gaming.

[alms]

I don’t feel that money is realistically the only explainer; insiders across society have provided witness that the clock has been turning back over the last few decades, in several sectors often not connected to gaming, which seems to have been doing relatively decently up to about the 90s (roughly speaking), then the clock hands started spinning backwards faster and faster.

[Skalpadda]

I mean that lots of bigger games studios are more tech companies than traditional creatives. There’s not much history of critiquing society in the way that books, film, theatre, music etc. have spent a long time doing.

Also doesn’t help that the main target demographic still seems to be 15 year old boys even as the demographic that plays games has changed massively in the last 20 years or so. Much easier (and more profitable) to shut up and keep making games about shooting space mans in the face. It’s not a culture that breeds people who stand up for ideals.

[alms]

There’s not much history of critiquing society in the way that books, film, theatre, music etc. have spent a long time doing.

Point taken, however, even Hollywood, which is as venal as it gets, and has had its fair share of scandals in the last decade or so, has responded better than gaming.

People like Harvey Weinstein, or Kevin Spacey, they’re essentially end-of-line. In gaming we have had mobs harassing devs and studios who have taken a hard line, for years on end, trying to drive them out of business entirely.

PS: game development circles (video and otherwise) used to be far more open-minded and less toxic than they are now, having women on the workplace wasn’t an exception to be met with ostracism, that’s what people who have lived that era have been saying.

and PPS:

It’s not a culture that breeds people who stand up for ideals.

It does seem the culture inside those circles has changed to what it is now, whereas previously certain views and attitudes were common (not regarded as “value signalling” but simply what’s right), after the rise of Reaganism and yuppieism things started to change.

[Skalpadda]

I’m not sure Hollywood is as venal as it gets. Venal on the whole, sure, but there’s at least a history of regularly dealing with difficult topics, and it’s a creative industry that’s been subject to very extensive critique for a very long time. I think the likes of ActiBlizzard and EA are far more vacuous and venal when it comes to mainstream culture.

Gaming culture and the people within it have no real history of being front runners or weather vanes for cultural issues the way other creative industries have. No newspaper ever called up the likes of West and Zampella or Clint Hocking to take the pulse on difficult social issues (except possibly on very serious the topic of video game violence making mass murders).

If we go back to the 80s many things were very different. There weren’t massive gaming studios for a start and the kind of home gaming we have today was very niche with games made by fairly small teams of nerds. There weren’t any ModernCodTheftWarface 4s desperately sucking the mountain dew-encrusted teets of millions of X-bros.

Gay rights were in their infancy, trans rights were pretty much unheard of. Not so strange that there wasn’t massive reactionary backlash when there wasn’t any substantial progressive movement to react to (and no internet to help dickheads organise and brainwash each other). On the whole we’re much better now than we were then but significant progress and demands for equal rights and opportunities is going to rustle and energize people who want to cling to the status quo.

[BillButNotBen]

Who the fuck are the 5% of people describing the Guardian as very right wing? Or even fairly right wing? Huh?

I guess it’s the same 3% who are calling the Daily Mail very left wing?

Err, do you realize that’s basically implying there was a counterpart to GamerGate, which there never was?

By placing on the same level, things that do not belong together, you’re not giving some great show of equanimity and fairness, but instead effectively legitimizing GamerGate, wiping that slate clean of all the doxxing and harassing and harming people that went on under a false guise.

Er, what? I’m not doing either.