Get Your House in Order
Theoretically, the fallout from the Christchurch mass shooting should be far reaching. There is at present an opportunity to address numerous problems and issues while the tragedy still has both political and social momentum. Because “it is the doom of man that he forgets”. 24-hour news culture has severely strained the public’s attention span. Plus it is in the interests of numerous institutions for the news cycle to move on, because current scrutiny is highlighting how culpable they are. The tabloid press, media commentators, tech companies and internet communities have been found wanting for a while and last weeks carnage is now raising questions over their involvement in the growing culture of hate and therefore their potential regulation. This may be the last chance for many to put their own house in order before the establishment does. And considering the knee-jerk, ham-fisted nature of contemporary western politics, the latter is not likely to be either subtle, efficient or even beneficial.
Theoretically, the fallout from the Christchurch mass shooting should be far reaching. There is at present an opportunity to address numerous problems and issues while the tragedy still has both political and social momentum. Because “it is the doom of man that he forgets”. 24-hour news culture has severely strained the public’s attention span. Plus it is in the interests of numerous institutions for the news cycle to move on, because current scrutiny is highlighting how culpable they are. The tabloid press, media commentators, tech companies and internet communities have been found wanting for a while and last weeks carnage is now raising questions over their involvement in the growing culture of hate and therefore their potential regulation. This may be the last chance for many to put their own house in order before the establishment does. And considering the knee-jerk, ham-fisted nature of contemporary western politics, the latter is not likely to be either subtle, efficient or even beneficial.
It sadly did not come as a surprise that Brenton Tarrant is steeped in numerous aspects of the unsavoury side of internet culture. Namely, 8chan, shitposting and the alt-right. A “manifesto” allegedly attributed to him is filled with the usual weaponised use of memes to try and obfuscate and confuse. And then there’s the fact that he was allegedly a gamer and conversant with You Tube sub-culture to consider. While old school politicians, mainstream journalists and senior members of the public struggle to catch up, those of us who are more familiar with fluid and rapidly evolving nature of internet culture are facing the stark reality that it played a part in shaping this killer’s beliefs. Furthermore gaming, online communities and You Tube personalities are some of the many intersecting circles of a wider and ultimately harmful Venn diagram. Memes aren’t necessarily “just harmless, movements such as #gamergate aren’t purely about “ethics in gaming journalism” and when You Tube personalities say racist, sexist or homophobic things, it not just “banter” or “a joke”.
Tarrant stated, “Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie!” just before he started shooting. Felix Kjellberg has made a statement disavowing any association with him, his ideology and being “sickened” by his comments. However, Kjellberg has used racist language in the past, as well as given shout-outs to questionable individuals. With 89 million plus YouTube subscribers who are predominantly young, male and white, he has a lot of reach. Then there are other personalities and channels that cater and court this specific demographic. One filled with poorly skilled, disaffected young males, struggling with emotional literacy and social awkwardness. Add to this a growing adversarial culture that eschews nuance and increasing zealotry in previously benign social interactions and pastimes such as fandom and there’s trouble. PC culture has failed and the pendulum has now swung the other way with populist bandwagons such as Brexit and MAGA. A perfect storm has been forming for a while and it appears to have now arrived.
It is both sad and ironic that the old cautionary mantra of “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” which has almost become hokey in recent years, has suddenly become alarming relevant again. Online communities, You Tube, Twitch, even game developers have not done enough (if indeed anything) to adequately police and moderate the communities they financially benefit from. They’ve hidden behind “freedom of speech”, claims they are not publishers and generally complained that the technology or man power required to do the job would be too difficult to manage and inefficient. And so we saw both Facebook and You Tube desperately trying to get in control of the continuous reposting of video content of the Christchurch shootings. “Why not just suspend all uploads during such circumstances?” some politicians have asked. The ensuing silence from the tech companies was deafening. And the real answer is money as anyone with a functioning intellect knows.
There are no simple reasons for the rise in hate crimes or easy explanations for such tragic events such as that in Christchurch. Nor are there any quick fixes. Multiple factors have contributed to an ongoing drip, drip, drip of populist rhetoric that have normalised racism, xenophobia and hatred of “the other”. Online culture has evolved quickly from a quirky, backwater niche to an unchecked, unpoliced “frontier town”. We now find that such an environment is dangerous and action needs to be taken. Codes of conduct need to be enforced, moderation is required and we must stop mollifying sanctions with bogus attempts at reform, because we still want everyones money. We all need to play our part and call out those who peddle hatred. We also need to be smart and ensure we don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. With regard to the bigger players such as You Tube and Facebook, if they don’t take real steps now to prevent abuse of their services, they will find control rested away from them and given to the politicians. Not the most desirable solution. The time for “whataboutery” and generally prevaricating is over. There is guilt by association and in some cases blood on the hands of those who profit from the status quo. So to all involved, get you house in order. While you still can. The consequences for not doing so don’t bear thinking about.
Yet More Politics and Video Games
Setting aside Jim Sterling’s showmanship, which may not be to everyone’s taste, he is consistently astute in his ongoing analysis of the Triple A Video Games Industry. Today’s episode of the Jimquisition addresses how major publishers are using political and social issues as the basis for the plots of many of their most popular franchises, while simultaneously denying any political stance or affiliation. He highlights how Terry Spier (the creative director for Red Storm Entertainment who developed The Division 2), and David Cage (the writer and director of Detroit: Become Human), have tied themselves in knots claiming their games are apolitical. It makes for interesting viewing and as ever Sterling’s arguments are compelling and sound. Furthermore, it shows that all the vices and ethical failures of traditional leisure industries such as TV and movies, inevitably bleed into the video games. Namely, wanting to reference “grown up” subjects without being hampered by their accompanying baggage.
Setting aside Jim Sterling’s showmanship, which may not be to everyone’s taste, he is consistently astute in his ongoing analysis of the Triple A Video Games Industry. Today’s episode of the Jimquisition addresses how major publishers are using political and social issues as the basis for the plots of many of their most popular franchises, while simultaneously denying any political stance or affiliation. He highlights how Terry Spier (the creative director for Red Storm Entertainment who developed The Division 2), and David Cage (the writer and director of Detroit: Become Human), have tied themselves in knots claiming their games are apolitical. It makes for interesting viewing and as ever Sterling’s arguments are compelling and sound. Furthermore, it shows that all the vices and ethical failures of traditional leisure industries such as TV and movies, inevitably bleed into the video games. Namely, wanting to reference “grown up” subjects without being hampered by their accompanying baggage.
What many find distasteful is not so much the “having your cake and eating it” attitude, but the underlying cynicism. Game publishers are not just sitting on the fence in this fashion to avoid having to take a stance on complex socio-political issues but doing so because they broadly have no opinion. Ubisoft is not interested in the implosion of western politics or the issue of gun control. Sony Interactive doesn’t have an agenda with regard to racial or gender oppression. But both are happy to exploit them for financial gain. Problems that real people face every day are simply a means to an end and if it became fiscally prudent to abandon such subjects, then I’m sure these companies would do so without hesitation. I am reminded of the concept of exploitation movies and how they differ from films that genuinely explore a subject. Think Penitentiary (1979) versus I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932).
It has been argued that game publishers are pursuing a “politically neutral” policy to avoid controversy with specific online groups and avoid a #gamergate style debacle. Certainly the hostility of certain sectors of the video games community is problematic. But I suspect this claim is spurious, as it is founded upon an assumption of ethics. Something that it conspicuous by its absence in the Triple A video games industry. So once again we return to the myth of keeping politics out of gaming and how those who advocate such a position either don’t understand its inherent contradiction, or in the case of the game publishers, simply don’t care. Why let facts and honesty stand in the way of a dollar? And the last point actually highlights how unnecessary this stance is. Even if the publishers admitted to a political perspective, I doubt it would greatly harm sales. Not all genres are dependent upon their narrative to sell. Plus gamers per se suffer acutely from cognitive dissonance.
“I'd Like to Have an Argument, Please”
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
This post has been fermenting for a while. I’ve postponed writing it because I've gotten somewhat tired of constantly “spitting in the wind”. Because that is what speaking out on certain subjects frequently feels like these days. There is a sense of tedious inevitability that any post on sexism, racism or any form of marginalisation will eventually lead to a torrent of vile, ill-informed and just plain dumb comments. The list of subjects “best avoided” seems to be getting bigger each day. Politics, religion and social issues have now been joined by the likes of economics, education and healthcare. But it doesn’t end there. Critiquing a book, movie, TV show or game can be deemed contentious and open a can of worms. Frankly, soliciting comments on any subject via social media seems to be courting disaster these days. The sad reality is that some people just revel in being vile and trying to hurt others. It puts me in mind of that quote from Platoon "Hell is the impossibility of reason". And you'll find precious little reason on the internet.
Two things have occurred recently that prompted me to write this post. One is the ongoing decline of both the Official and Unofficial LOTRO forums. The other was a minor twitter exchange I was involved in recently. A simple comment made in reply to a political pundit, meant that my timeline was subsequently flooded by an argument that went on for hours, as all parties chased their own tails and frothed at the mouth. As for the two LOTRO forums, they’ve become so polarised that they now mirror each other with their own militancy and are effectively different sides of the same coin. Both of these events are far from unique. It happens every day (“no matter what you say”, according to Tom Jones). Yet they got me thinking why does it have to always be this way and is there anything that can be done?
Well I believe there is. However, don't go looking for a miracle cure in this post because I don’t claim to have one. What I am suggesting is fairly basic and certainly requires lots of time. In a nutshell, keep writing and debating. Don't throw in the towel. I know it's very tempting sometimes, hence my spitting in the wind reference. Yet if we do, then the only information that will remains out there in the public domain is misinformation. Therefore, we should not shy away from speaking out on difficult matters. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is our duty to do so. Sooner or later you have to pick a side. The alternative is to do nothing and watch it all go to hell in a hand basket (other portmanteaus and porterage devices are available). Here are few thoughts on what specifically can be done.
Research and a well-constructed argument: Debating is a skill. There is a process applied to discussing and arguing a point, the same way as mathematics and grammar have specific rules. Unfortunately, most folk either aren’t ware of them or feel their opinions are not subject to such criteria and so are happy to jump in to arguments feet first. It's a shame more schools do not teach critical thinking as it is an invaluable skill that can be brought to bear on so many aspects of life. However, it is prudent to consider that logic and objectivity cannot always be imposed upon a debate. Emotions do play a part and cannot necessarily be set aside. Especially if you have first-hand experience of the very matter being debated.
I believe it was the blogger Tobold who stated, "There cannot be any meaningful discussion of any subject if you start out by declaring only one side of the argument as valid". That is perhaps true of some subjects, especially if you are debating a matter that hinges on subjectivity and personal taste. However, in a debate regarding a subject such as equality, I cannot logically see any argument to validate a contrary stance. There are no degrees of equality. You either believe in it and live by it as a concept or you don’t. I guess the same can be said regarding certain scientific discussions, where specific rules and concepts are established. Mind you that doesn’t stop some people. But that raises a different matter where some individuals like to play devil’s advocate just for the fun of it.
Life is not simple: If you are intending to hold forth on a particular subject, it never does any harm to remember that most problems are what they are because of their complexity. Which is a nuisance because contemporary society really doesn't like or do “complex”. Listen to most radio phone-ins, read any internet forum or just glance through a tabloid newspaper and you'll find many of the most difficult and contentious problems the world currently faces, distilled in to some rather glib and factually questionable sound-bites. Furthermore, the public lap these up because they're easy to remember and trot out. It's far less hassle to spout some superficial nonsense you gleaned from the pages of the Daily Bastard, than spend time researching a subject and actually having to think and analyse data.
So, bear this in mind when you tackle a big issue when blogging etc. Question whether you are in a position to make a substantive point. Do your research and ensure you link to the sources you quote. Check the credentials of those supplying data and statistics. Is it a reputable organisation? Do they have any reason to be bias? Too often I see links in comments and forum threads that lead to questionable sources. Therefore, ensure that when you write about complex issues you don't make the mistake of inferring that it's a binary situation and easy to fix. Unless of course it is.
Change takes time: The previous point dovetails nicely in to this one. Progress is a long and often arduous path. Entrenched social attitudes and ideologies do not change overnight. Often, it’s a generational thing. For example, my parents were born in the 1930s and both have specific views on social status, race, religion, politics, patriotism and that other old favourite drugs. A quarter of the world was part of the British Empire during their most formative years and this era definitely shaped their world view. They have made some changes over the years but on some matters their beliefs remain strong. No amount of arguing will ever change that. However, such views are not so endemic with my own or my son’s generation. Simply put, some of the more unsavoury views from my parents’ generation will die with them. Change doesn't always come by winning "hearts and minds".
However, as with complexity, many people these days can't be doing with "long waits". Thus, we live in a time where knee-jerk reactions and crass, ill-conceived quick fixes abound. Why should gaming be any different from politics? All I can really say to the ardent campaigner or blogger with a strong social conscience, is it helps to cultivate some patience. Actually, you’ll need a lot. Bucket loads.
Be measured and fair: If for example, you as a gamer want to lobby the games industry with regard to the depiction of women in games. There is a requirement for you to engage with those who are either directly a part of the problem or those who seem to be indifferent to it. It's all about winning the middle ground and generating a head of steam. This process needs to be handled with subtlety and tact. Although passion is inspiring and anger can be power (or so The Clash said), step too far over the line and your perceived militancy (whether it is real or not) will work against you. It scares people and it may even drive those you need on-board to the other "side" of the debate. So, pick your battles, be firm, measured but always remain civil.
Another thing to be considered is the use of knowledge. Some gamers (and bloggers) are not as smart as others. Some folk are smart but driven by their emotions. It can therefore be easy sometimes for the intelligent or knowledgeable party to run rings around the other. Be careful in how you "wear" your intelligence. There's being clever and then there's wanting to be seen as being clever. Crushing a person publicly through Vulcan like logic does not necessarily mean that they will immediately recant their views and embrace yours. Quite the opposite. You may have made matters worse. Just watch them dig their heels in. You can be smart and make your point without being condescending or smug. However, that can be a difficult path to tread. Like it or loathe it, dealing with people in these situations requires a degree of diplomacy.
I sure we can all think of other points to add to the list. There's also an element of finding an approach that is right for you. Then of course there is always the option to simply not blog about some aspects of gaming or to stray in to certain areas of debate. However, I don’t think remaining “neutral” is a permanent option. Sooner or later you’ll get dragged in through tortuous logic as “opting to not have an opinion is tacit approval of status quo”. That being said, as a blogger, podcaster or streamer you are not obliged to discuss thorny issues if you don’t want to. That is your (and Bobby Brown’s) prerogative and you are free to create content in the manner that makes you happy. I am merely suggesting that if you feel the need to do express a view that may court debate, then you should not be deterred by the facts that it is hard to engage with some groups and that change takes time and work.
As I get older I do find that my passions have tempered over time. I do not find the need to go on that many demonstrations, nor to hold an "absolute" opinion on everything under the sun. I do tend to focus on more immediate issues that affect myself and my family (like the closure of my local A&E) rather than wider international matters. But even in my most sceptical of moments, I cannot truly advocate a total withdrawal of interaction on social issues. Because that means handing the floor over to the idiot brigade and therein lies madness. Plus, if we all did that then blogging would be a lot less interesting. Oh, and don’t forget that an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It’s an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Politics and Gaming
I watched an interesting video on You Tube recently, exploring the perennial subject of “politics in gaming”. Produced by the Extra Credit, who specialise in video games studies, it succinctly points out that it is impossible to remove any sort of political input from creative content. However, this is not a universally held point of view. The recent release of Mass Effect: Andromeda has seen a lot of discussion regarding whether politics and political agendas negatively impact upon game development. This has ranged from measured debate about inclusivity and representation to diatribes about how “feminazis” are “ruining gaming”.
I watched an interesting video on You Tube recently, exploring the perennial subject of “politics in gaming”. Produced by the Extra Credits, who specialise in video games studies, it succinctly points out that it is impossible to remove any sort of political input from creative content. However, this is not a universally held point of view. The recent release of Mass Effect: Andromeda has seen a lot of discussion regarding whether politics and political agendas negatively impact upon game development. This has ranged from measured debate about inclusivity and representation to diatribes about how “feminazis” are “ruining gaming”.
Two years ago, John Bain AKA Total Biscuit, British gaming commentator and critic on YouTube, made a series of tweets about the effects that mixing politics and gaming may have. He stated that "injecting politics into fiction is naturally exclusionary and in my view regressive". It was a bold statement if nothing else. He further went on to say “we're going to be inclusive by naturally antagonizing people with different ideas? We'll you're rubbish at being inclusive then”. However, he ignored the obvious fact that you face exactly the same dilemma if you try not to be exclusionary. Wilfully ignoring politics and maintaining a bland status quo will inevitably lead to a minority or fringe group feeling marginalised. It would appear that sitting on the fence doesn’t forestall the problems associated with picking a side.
Introducing overt or even oblique political subtexts into a game is potentially exclusionary but that is not unique to politics per se. There are many other factors associated with game development that can be a stumbling block to some players. Game mechanics such as permadeath, art design and even the business model can all have a similar effect. There is no such thing as a catch-all product that is universally appealing. It is a mythical Holy Grail. Games like music, books and movies are pitched at specific markets. These can be broad or niche but there is seldom any universal consensus. In fact, I’d say the world we inhabit both on and offline is more fragmented than ever before. The reality of the situation is that genres, styles and idioms are exclusionary by their very definition.
The concept of the apolitical game has been a regular and persistent rallying cry over the years. It is founded on the benign notion of keeping games free from real world issues and ideologies. Thus, the gaming environment becomes accommodating to all. However, I do not think this is actually achievable or even desirable. Many academics and thinkers have argued that nothing is truly apolitical. To try and purge such themes from games is itself a political act. I also question the motives of some of those who lobby for apolitical gaming. Is it really about creating a safe neutral zone or simply eliminating the inclusion of ideas and concepts that some do not like?
Some of the world’s finest literature and art is based upon political themes or the critiquing of specific dogma. Consider the works or George Orwell, Sergio Leone, Picasso and Johnny Cash. If you don't care for any of these artists, then replace them with ones that you do. You’ll find that they all nail their colours to the mast at some point and if you find someone who doesn’t, the conscious decision they’ve made to be neutral is in fact an act of political choice. As for argument that we shouldn’t seek to antagonise those with differing views in the name of inclusivity, it really does beggar belief. If that is the case Harper Lee patently wasn't considering the needs of racists when she wrote To Kill a Mockingbird. Such a mindset is hardly beneficial for creativity.
So, I personally do not reject the idea of allowing politics, social issues and moral conundrums to bleed through into creative work. I do not particularly enjoy obvious political and social hectoring in gaming, preferring a subtle approach rather than being belaboured with an obvious metaphor or plot device. However, that is more of an issue of poor implementation to the detriment of an idea, rather than the idea being bad per se. Ultimately, I think that refuting the inclusion of politics in creative undertaking is a very naive position. It ignores a fundamental truth that we are essentially tribal by nature. Mass appeal based on an apolitical approach simply leads to homogeneity, which doesn't make for good gaming, movies or music etc. As for mainstream games development, isn’t it problematic enough at present, without making it duller?
