Friday, 11 January 2013
0
comments
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Brownshirts Back Down
Polygon reports that the small town of Southington, CT has abandoned it's internationally-reported - and widely-derrided - plans for a mass-burning of "violent" video-games.
Officially, the business/community-leader group that had backed the plan is saying that since the announcement itself succeeded in "promoting discussion" and "creating strong awareness," there was no longer any reason to actually go through with the event.
Unofficially? Call this another win for New Media, is my feeling. Public-shaming has always been one of the ultimate curatives for bullies and petty-fascists, and The Internet is the most powerful tool to inflict such ever devised.
The fight now moves to politics, with gaming and Hollywood "leaders" scheduled to be part of the "comprehensive talks" with the Obama Administration this week and next. The fact that they're there doesn't particularly worry me - this administration is smart enough to know that the idea of a direct causal-relationship between "violent" media and real gun violence is soundly-discredited, unscientific horseshit - the "comprehensive talks" are a smokescreen, "cover" for the administration so that they can avoid looking like they're focused on "going after" the gun lobby when that's in fact what they ARE and should be focused on.
My only "worry" is with just how committed they are to said smokescreen. Obama etc aren't "anti-gaming," but they have shown a political willingness to throw this or that "under the bus" in order to affect the image of bipartisanship - I can easily imagine them "bending" on censorship in order to be able to say "See? We aren't just after your guns. Your turn to give something, NRA."
To my mind, that would be both disasterous in general and an utterly useless gesture on the administration's part; and not just because it would damage the invaluable clout Obama and Democrats in general currently have with the youth vote. Mr. President... in case you haven't noticed, these people already attacked you as an "anti-gun" zealot during the four years when Washington did/said jack shit about the issue. You will never win these people over - to them, you're just a guy with the wrong politics, the wrong name and the wrong skin - forget winning The NRA and it's ilk over, focus on winning over them.
Officially, the business/community-leader group that had backed the plan is saying that since the announcement itself succeeded in "promoting discussion" and "creating strong awareness," there was no longer any reason to actually go through with the event.
Unofficially? Call this another win for New Media, is my feeling. Public-shaming has always been one of the ultimate curatives for bullies and petty-fascists, and The Internet is the most powerful tool to inflict such ever devised.
The fight now moves to politics, with gaming and Hollywood "leaders" scheduled to be part of the "comprehensive talks" with the Obama Administration this week and next. The fact that they're there doesn't particularly worry me - this administration is smart enough to know that the idea of a direct causal-relationship between "violent" media and real gun violence is soundly-discredited, unscientific horseshit - the "comprehensive talks" are a smokescreen, "cover" for the administration so that they can avoid looking like they're focused on "going after" the gun lobby when that's in fact what they ARE and should be focused on.
My only "worry" is with just how committed they are to said smokescreen. Obama etc aren't "anti-gaming," but they have shown a political willingness to throw this or that "under the bus" in order to affect the image of bipartisanship - I can easily imagine them "bending" on censorship in order to be able to say "See? We aren't just after your guns. Your turn to give something, NRA."
To my mind, that would be both disasterous in general and an utterly useless gesture on the administration's part; and not just because it would damage the invaluable clout Obama and Democrats in general currently have with the youth vote. Mr. President... in case you haven't noticed, these people already attacked you as an "anti-gun" zealot during the four years when Washington did/said jack shit about the issue. You will never win these people over - to them, you're just a guy with the wrong politics, the wrong name and the wrong skin - forget winning The NRA and it's ilk over, focus on winning over them.
Monday, 7 January 2013
Everybody Watch Jimquisition Now
Friday, 4 January 2013
I Don't Want To Game On This Planet Anymore
Y'know, it's funny. When I created The AntiThinker, he was supposed to embody an exaggeration of the absolute worst in gamer culture. Turns out, I didn't exaggerate enough...
Patricia Hernandez over at Kotaku points the way to a new candidate for gaming's worst human: A (popular, of course) YouTuber who puts up "how-to" videos instructing his followers on how to harrass female gamers for the crime of playing video games while female - "justified," of course, by the idea that these women are only gaming as a way to "con" poor, helpless men out of their money with sex appeal.
I'm not going to link directly to his stuff, but you can get the gist of it and watch (if you want to) from Hernandez piece HERE.
The whole thing is nothing short of revolting, top to bottom, particularly the sociopathic glee that the guy takes is carrying out and encouraging what's basically a keyboard and a mouse away from what'd be (verbal) sexual assault in the real world. But I'm particularly fascinated/repelled by the argument of him, his fans and too many of the Kotaku commenterati that somehow this is tit-for-tat "payback" because some of the women MAY be using their sex-appeal for attention or even monetary gain - essentially "they're WHORES, so they had it coming."
First off, the thing is... I don't give a shit. Setting aside that I have no real moral objection to (ethical) sex workers in the real world, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong the flirting-for-attention/cash "camgirl" phenomenon in gamer culture or otherwise on the net. People pay ME because they think I'm funny/insightful/whatever, I don't see how paying someone for being pretty/flirty is any different or deserving of "punishment." If you get "conned" out of kicking some paypal credits to this or that person online because she batted her eyes or flashed some cleavage and you felt like a schmuck later... that's on YOU, pal.
Secondly, what experience in real life tells you that this would be "okay" even in a virtual space. Do you imagine that punishing women for being sexy for attention or some other gain is a thing that happens? Do you know what would happen to anyone who walked into, say, most non-shithole strip clubs and spoke/acted towards the dancers the way this kid does to "virtual" women? A trip to the parking lot and a new set of finger-splints.
Patricia Hernandez over at Kotaku points the way to a new candidate for gaming's worst human: A (popular, of course) YouTuber who puts up "how-to" videos instructing his followers on how to harrass female gamers for the crime of playing video games while female - "justified," of course, by the idea that these women are only gaming as a way to "con" poor, helpless men out of their money with sex appeal.
I'm not going to link directly to his stuff, but you can get the gist of it and watch (if you want to) from Hernandez piece HERE.
The whole thing is nothing short of revolting, top to bottom, particularly the sociopathic glee that the guy takes is carrying out and encouraging what's basically a keyboard and a mouse away from what'd be (verbal) sexual assault in the real world. But I'm particularly fascinated/repelled by the argument of him, his fans and too many of the Kotaku commenterati that somehow this is tit-for-tat "payback" because some of the women MAY be using their sex-appeal for attention or even monetary gain - essentially "they're WHORES, so they had it coming."
First off, the thing is... I don't give a shit. Setting aside that I have no real moral objection to (ethical) sex workers in the real world, I see absolutely NOTHING wrong the flirting-for-attention/cash "camgirl" phenomenon in gamer culture or otherwise on the net. People pay ME because they think I'm funny/insightful/whatever, I don't see how paying someone for being pretty/flirty is any different or deserving of "punishment." If you get "conned" out of kicking some paypal credits to this or that person online because she batted her eyes or flashed some cleavage and you felt like a schmuck later... that's on YOU, pal.
Secondly, what experience in real life tells you that this would be "okay" even in a virtual space. Do you imagine that punishing women for being sexy for attention or some other gain is a thing that happens? Do you know what would happen to anyone who walked into, say, most non-shithole strip clubs and spoke/acted towards the dancers the way this kid does to "virtual" women? A trip to the parking lot and a new set of finger-splints.
Wednesday, 2 January 2013
EPISODE 80: "Collect Calling"
The new episode is now up on Blip! The OverThinker counts off five "classic games" compilations that need to get made already.
REMEMBER: The OverThinker's panel at this weekend's MAGFest is Saturday at 10:00am!
REMEMBER: The OverThinker's panel at this weekend's MAGFest is Saturday at 10:00am!
Brownshirts (Update)
(Re-post to correct coding error in original post)
hat-tip: POLYGON.
This is how it begins...
I "get" that grief is a powerful emotion that can override common sense and reason, even in the best of us. I understand that, therefore, we are expected to be deferential and sympathetic to even the most awkward, outlandish or uncomfortable expressions of grief: "Oh, it's alright. They're just upset. Let them vent." I get that... but there's a limit to everything. So, I have ZERO problem saying that the folks in Southington, Connecticut who've more-or-less decided to hold a mass-burning of "violent" video games (music and movies, too) as some kind of reaction to the tragedy in nearby Newtown are, whateve their intent, essentially painting themselves as a pack of ignorant, knuckle-dragging, reactionary cretins; and that they deserve to be called-out and shamed for what is - regardless of scale, circumstance or intent - a crime against art, culture and an affront to civilized modernity.
Southington SOS, which purports to be a charitable organization comprised of local business and community leaders set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre (which, just to reiterate, took place in a different community in CT) are the force behind this gesture. They put out a press release announcing it, which includes contact information for a local YMCA chairman who is apparently a spokesman for the group (I've contacted him for some clarification, awaiting response.)
Said press-release claims that it isn't trying to suggest that games are "to blame" for the shooting and that it's more interested in getting parents and their kids to "have the conversation;" though it goes to claim that "ample evidence" exists for violent media contributing to aggression, "desensitization" and the usual malarkey... without, of course, providing a source of said "ample evidence" (spoiler: that's because there isn't any.) They'll be rewarding "donations" with $25 dollar giftcards, which seems a little rotten to me since I'm more than certain the victimized town they're supposedly supporting could probably use that money... That the "returned" offending materials will be destroyed and "likely" incinerated was revealed by the Southington School Superintendent, Joe Erardi.
Like I said, these are the sorts of things that happen when people's emotions - especially grief and the impotent rage that comes with it - override common sense, and it only gets worse when it grips a community and becomes a kind of mass-pathology (see: Salem, 1692-1693). Often, the only "cure" for such circumstances is for non (or, at least, less) irrational people to hold up the mirror and point out the absurdity and wrongness of what said community is doing - sunlight, as ever, is the ultimate disinfectant. Which is why I think it's proper to publicize this event and respond (civily!) to Southington SOS; if only to let them know how much damage they're doing, image-wise, to themselves and their purported cause by engaging in such vile and wrongheaded behavior.
Note: If and when the representative I mentioned responds to my call, I will post any details/clarifications he wishes to make at my earliest ability.
hat-tip: POLYGON.
This is how it begins...
I "get" that grief is a powerful emotion that can override common sense and reason, even in the best of us. I understand that, therefore, we are expected to be deferential and sympathetic to even the most awkward, outlandish or uncomfortable expressions of grief: "Oh, it's alright. They're just upset. Let them vent." I get that... but there's a limit to everything. So, I have ZERO problem saying that the folks in Southington, Connecticut who've more-or-less decided to hold a mass-burning of "violent" video games (music and movies, too) as some kind of reaction to the tragedy in nearby Newtown are, whateve their intent, essentially painting themselves as a pack of ignorant, knuckle-dragging, reactionary cretins; and that they deserve to be called-out and shamed for what is - regardless of scale, circumstance or intent - a crime against art, culture and an affront to civilized modernity.
Southington SOS, which purports to be a charitable organization comprised of local business and community leaders set up in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre (which, just to reiterate, took place in a different community in CT) are the force behind this gesture. They put out a press release announcing it, which includes contact information for a local YMCA chairman who is apparently a spokesman for the group (I've contacted him for some clarification, awaiting response.)
Said press-release claims that it isn't trying to suggest that games are "to blame" for the shooting and that it's more interested in getting parents and their kids to "have the conversation;" though it goes to claim that "ample evidence" exists for violent media contributing to aggression, "desensitization" and the usual malarkey... without, of course, providing a source of said "ample evidence" (spoiler: that's because there isn't any.) They'll be rewarding "donations" with $25 dollar giftcards, which seems a little rotten to me since I'm more than certain the victimized town they're supposedly supporting could probably use that money... That the "returned" offending materials will be destroyed and "likely" incinerated was revealed by the Southington School Superintendent, Joe Erardi.
Like I said, these are the sorts of things that happen when people's emotions - especially grief and the impotent rage that comes with it - override common sense, and it only gets worse when it grips a community and becomes a kind of mass-pathology (see: Salem, 1692-1693). Often, the only "cure" for such circumstances is for non (or, at least, less) irrational people to hold up the mirror and point out the absurdity and wrongness of what said community is doing - sunlight, as ever, is the ultimate disinfectant. Which is why I think it's proper to publicize this event and respond (civily!) to Southington SOS; if only to let them know how much damage they're doing, image-wise, to themselves and their purported cause by engaging in such vile and wrongheaded behavior.
Note: If and when the representative I mentioned responds to my call, I will post any details/clarifications he wishes to make at my earliest ability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
