Here’s a dialog between a gamergater and Leigh Alexander. She speaks truth.
You could translate that directly into atheist-speak, too. Every one of us is informed by our values, our experiences, our social connections, and our identity — no exceptions — yet somehow some atheists want to pretend that they have pure objectivity, that all of their concerns are as crystal clear and black and white as whether it is day or night, and that opinion affects none of their conclusions. Further, they think that atheism is tainted if you introduce any concerns beyond the non-existence of gods into it.
Even a refusal to draw a conclusion is a conclusion, you know, and too often abstaining from the implications represents a deferral to the injustices that exist.
That’s exactly why they do it. They like the status quo, injustices and all, but to say so honestly and outright would (rightly) make them look like assholes. So they go through mental gymnastics to justify not picking a side, which allows them to support preserving the status quo while simultaneously claiming they don’t support it.
somehow some atheists want to pretend that they have pure objectivity, that all of their concerns are as crystal clear and black and white as whether it is day or night,
It’s just a way of trying to say “I’m right” without having to show their work.
“Objective morality” guys, I’m looking at you…
I read a Sartre novel on existentialist philosophy to a blind student living down the hall from me in the dorm 40+ years ago. I was flabbergasted by the inability of the protagonist to make decisions. So when he was unable to make the decision on whether or not to marry his pregnant girlfriend, he simply couldn’t realize he had made a decision, which was not to marry her. So she married his best friend who was gay (with hints of being bisexual) to have a father for her child.
Nerd of Redhead
So when he was unable to make the decision on whether or not to marry his pregnant girlfriend, he simply couldn’t realize he had made a decision, which was not to marry her.
Yeah, but he was able to dodge any sense of responsibility, having made it “her” choice.
I forget where I first heard this, but a great analogy to “political agendas” are accents. We incorrectly assume that anyone who shares our own simple doesn’t have one.
@2, Marcus Ranum
with better blockquotes:
@2, Marcus Ranum
Does that include looking at me?
If so…the fuck? “The work” has been shown for my meta-ethical views, and since that’s merely meta-ethics, I fully accept that more work is required for particular ethical decisions.
GG: “So…uh…when you are pushing values in the gaming industry, I mean the gaming, uh, press…don’t you need to be criticized…in…objectively…and …what do you think about ethics in video games?”
I think “GG” may be overmatched in this conversation.
@jambonpomplemouse #5 – Great quote, thanks!
Privileged groups always claim that their position is “natural” and “obvious” and “logical” and “rational.” For example, invading Iraq is common sense social policy; maternity leave is selfish and driven by a knee-jerk desire to have babies.
Looks like they just introduced a concern beyond the non-existence of gods.
@ChristineRose #10:
Let’s not forget three generations sponging off the state and immigrants are taking our kids’ jobs (the latter takedown is particularly amusing, because the article — in a right-wing magazine — falls back on the free-market trope that the minimum wage and unemployment benefits are bad for society, completely forgetting that people would go homeless and hungry without any such safeguards).
Ugh. Objective. About games. That doesn’t even make any sense. There are so few things you can be objective about regarding games. Is it free of game-breaking bugs? How many levels does it have? Does it have [feature]? Easy, measurable factors. Whether the game is good or not, which is what most reviews are actually about, as long as it’s free of game-breaking bugs, and it’s actually complete, is almost completely subjective.
Aaaaand there’s a guy on that twitter thread claiming it’s a GG victory because she’s questioning his idea that it’s possible to be objective about games, and scientists are always objective… because that follows.
FTFM.
I read a GGer arguing with some people smarter than he was a while back all by his lonesome on a forum. The GGer whined a lot about subjective game reviews and how objective game reviewers should be. It was the first time I saw that opinion from a GGer, but it seems to be relatively common.
It’s asinine, and it’s good to see Leigh call them on it. Games are intended to be an emotional experience. How can they be otherwise? All games, even the ones intended to teach or train people in various tasks, are intended to be fun. If they aren’t fun, they don’t work on the most fundamental level.
People who insist on reviewing games objectively might as well be insisting on reviewing movies or paintings or novels objectively. The notion is idiotic on its face.
I cannot believe I am still seeing people demanding objective reviews. I had thought that the line of argument was so wrong headed that it had been given up, but over the last few days I’ve started bumping into it again. It is sad, they really do not understand what reviews are, or what objective actually means.
Reviewers can review games based on whatever criteria they want, or care about. All reviews are informed by the author’s viewpoint. The job of the reader is to read them critically, you have to decide whether you agree, whether the points made in the review are relevant to you, and how the review affects your view of the game. It is almost as though they want reviews to simply spoon feed them a score, rather than needing to engage their brain.
You know, it’s fine to have reviews that are all about mechanics and other technical stuff. Those are the concerns I gravitate toward when it comes to gaming. But that’s still going to be subjective. Otherwise, you’d never find people praising the combat mechanics in games like Skyrim or Ni no Kuni.
…but objective reviews would have numbers and those are not subjective! Doofuses all. I’d give their argument a .2 out of 10.
::snortle::
~~~
The pseudo-objective mindset remains so damn pervasive, brinderwalt and Travis. It’s an embarrassment. As kantalope’s mocking post implies, these chunderheads have protracted, unironically heated debates on whether a given title “really is” a 8/10 (or what have you).
For a long while I told myself it was merely that this population replenished itself iteratively with blinkered younguns as they emerged from their cocoons. More recently, it seems to be more predominant than that: a stultification of the mass-culture in which the rich history of criticism in other media is utterly ignored.
Fortunately, the dearth of unrepentantly subjective opinionatin’ in the gaming sphere is not a complete lack* — but I do understand it seems that way at times.
* Rock Paper Shotgun is my go-to site. Sadly, the ad situation over there is nearly as bad as it is here at FtB.
Dragon Age 2
anyone who has ever read more than two game reviews in the last 3 years knows why I mention it.
you have a perfect description of the many, MANY threads on that…
“chunderheads unironically having heated debates”
I’ve come to regard pejorative use of the word “agenda” as something of a tell. When someone accuses their opponents of “having an agenda”, it’s almost invariably a sign that they’re an idiot, usually (though not always) of the right wing variety.
@2 Marcus
I used to show my work all of the time because I thought that I should but for some reason it was constantly ignored, or worse: They attempted to murder it by a thousand split hairs. These days I just say “Fuck off” and block “in the spirit of debate/freeze peach” happy folks on FaceBook.
The implication seems to be that introducing your subjective opinion into a game review is unethical. I just can’t even wrap my head around that concept – even if you hate opinions, that’s (ironically) just a subjective dislike; it’s not unethical to espouse your opinion in a review. Unethical would be something like taking bribes to give a good score for a bad game, or to give bad scores for a competitor’s games, or something similar. I realise that they’ve alleged unethical behaviour of this sort has occurred, but if they’re now trying to say that subjective opinions are unethical it appears even the GGers are beginning to understand how untenable their original premise was.
“It’s about ethics in journalism”
Well, only actually concerned about it if the journalist has any views remotely approaching feminism.
Taking money for reviews is a-ok though. That’s fine. No complains about that at all!
My brain is automatically filling in the GG voice as a slightly deep (maybe even fake deep) young adult “cool guy” voice.
Look up on Google images “young adult cool kid”. You will receive a plethora of… bed images? Okay, that’s not what I was thinking at all.
I definitely imagine shaved head and sunglasses though. I don’t know. Maybe looking a little like a bed??
But then I guess it could just as easily be curly hair and thick glasses looking like a big pillow.
What I find really amusing is that a few years ago, Roger Ebert had written an article about how video games can never be art, and it created a huge uproar amonst gamers. I wonder how many of these dummies, now clamoring for purely objective reviews, were then bellowing about how games are an art-form. Though I’m sure the hypocrisy of that goes right over their heads.
I must have missed that (this is not snark – I just mean I didn’t see you arguing for whatever your meta-ethical views are), but I think judgements about games (and other art forms) and ethical questions are very similar in epistemological status: there’s no objective standard which can determine whether an action, a game or a novel is “good”, but in all cases, rational argument is possible, and may change minds.
Oh and: It actually makes sense for me to date older in some cases, because I do NOT want kids, and it’s really hard to find people I’m interested in dating in around my age range who do not want kids, particularly men who are in their late 20’s or early 30’s. The benefit of dating older men or women is if they do have kids, they often don’t want anymore. If they don’t, there is a good bet that they’ve decided not not have kids or are okay going either way. It still takes PLENTY of honest, open communication, because it’s sort of surprising how many people will *claim* they don’t want kids, but aren’t really telling the truth, and are only saying it because they think that’s what I want to hear, and because they really like me. Which is really frustrating and tends to cause too much hurt all around. But older men especially who already have kids, especially if they are divorced, seem to be less interested in having additional kids, and are generally able to be more communicative and honest about the discussion in general, because they have the life experience.
Also, I’ve been living on my own since I was 19. I’m 33. I’m a fucking adult. It does not feel strange at all to me to have a boyfriend 20 years my senior. We get along great. We have a lot of the same interests, but enough differences between us to make it interesting.
His ex wife was about 10 years younger, and after their divorce and before he met me, he dated several women right around his age, so it’s not as if he’s just going after much younger women.
It’s just REALLY creepy, paternalistic and not-okay for people to *constantly* assume really terrible shit about our relationship and friendship all because of some perceived power differences all due to age when **you do not fucking know me or him or our relationship**.
So fucking stop it.
WELL THAT WAS A DUMB MOVE MARILOVE, I totally had two tabs open and copy/pasted a reply in the TOTALLY WRONG PLACE. PLS IGNORE. LOLZ
Well, in the world of GGers, the only possible way for a video game review to be objective is if it comes from the point of view of a straight, white, cis male.
A gay male may be okay as long as he doesn’t involve his perspective as a queer (or trans) male while critiquing the game, and makes sure not to ever notice or comment on the lack of LGBT diversity in most games. And a non-white male may be okay as long as he also makes sure to ignore the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in most games.
And don’t EVER critique or review a game if you are a woman. If you are a non-cis, non-straight, non-white woman? EVEN WORSE. It doesn’t matter what you say or how you say it, if you are a woman reviewing a game, it will be assumed that you are biased or have some sort of agenda, and cannot in any way be objective — because the only way for someone to be objective is if they are a straight, white, cis male. As that’s the default. Everything else? AGENDA! BIAS! No ability to be objective! Your point of view may be different from a straight, white, cis male’s, and we can’t have that, now can we?
Basically, as long as the point of view aligns with the point of view of a straight, white, cis male, THEN it is considered an objective review. Obviously.
Doesn’t this eerily hearken back to this shit?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31904261/ns/politics-supreme_court/t/sotomayor-denies-bias-wise-latina-remark/
And what about the same push-back against female politicians speaking out against abortion and reproductive issues? And LGBT Supreme Court judges deciding in favor of gay marriage? And our African American president speaking out about issues outside of the straight-white-cis-male rhetoric?
Suddenly there is an AGENDA. And a BIAS. And a lack of OBJECTIVITY.
It’s the same god damned conservative talking points!
Note that this is also bullshit because there’s no real way to be 100% objective while reviewing a damn video game. Even white, cis, straight men are coming from it from their own point of view, particular interests, etc., as others have touched on. But so many white, cis, straight men don’t realize that; they think they ARE the objective truth, and the only perspective that is important or should be considered.
Jim (Fucking) Sterling (son) did a 100% objective review once to prove a point and it appears these people learned absolutely nothing from it. What these people are really asking for isn’t “objective” reviews, but ones that don’t say anything negative about a favoured game franchise.
While it’s hilarious to poke fun at these dummies for not using the term “objectively” correctly, I feel it distracts a bit from the core of the issue. I doubt many of these naysayers are actually rallying for objective reviews. As that’s been pointed out, a purely objective video game review would be ridiculous, if not down-right impossible. No, what that stammering gamergater is trying to say is that game reviews shouldn’t include the reviewer’s politics or agenda. That if you’re going to review a game, then review it as a gamer and only a gamer. Not as a progressive. Not as a feminist. If you’re bringing up feminism in a game review, then you’re obviously just pretending to be a gamer just to push your social agenda.
And to a degree, I can understand that. It reminds me of when conservatives were giving Wall-E bad reviews, because it offended them and their conservative “values”. One could make the same claim about these reviewers. Leave your politics out of it. Was it a good movie or not? Does it matter whether it aligns with your personal social or political views? Can’t you just critique it as a moviegoer?
While I understand what these gamergaters are hinting at, their argument still doesn’t make any fucking sense. Reviewers review games differently. There are a shit-ton of gaming sites out there and a whole lot more reviewers. If a particular journalist adds a political slant to their reviews, and you object, then read someone else. It’s insane the amount of silencing that’s attempted. No one is forcing them to read or agree, so why not just move along? Why is that so difficult. I posture the answer is probably because the reviewers in question are women, and these dudes want their boys club to remain exclusive. I’m sure plenty of reviewers have always added political or social slants to their writing, but only when it’s feminism does it cross a line. It’s just their desperate attempt to mask their harassment campaign.
Here is a good article on the mindset of gamergaters, MRAs, and the like…
http://boingboing.net/2015/01/28/a-beginners-guide-to-the-red.html
@29: Now I’m curious about what that was intended as a reply to.
@33: Even “to a degree, I understand that” is overly generous; I’m not sure how I’d make judgments leaving my values out of it; my opinion on what something is only exists with reference to what I think it ought to be. To do otherwise is like trying to create a spellchecker for an unwritten language.
@ck, 32
Or positive about unfavoured game franchises.
You should see the flood of negative and nonsensical* reviews of Depression Quest on steam… it’s kind of amazing, the things they’re willing to do just to shout down a game they don’t like, all because it was created by a woman who didn’t even do a thing that pissed them off for reasons that make very little sense.
*Reviews marked “recommended” but utterly negative in content, or marked “not recommended” but superficially positive while being utter non sequiturs.
BeyondUnderstanding@33: you are doubtless correct about what they mean by “objective”, but it takes a serious ability to twist words to go from “this interview is subjective!” to “this view is unethical!”. The former is, at worst, a bad review. The latter is apparently worthy of death threats.