A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
OT: Hey, let's discuss this video series about the Sarkeesian backlash! [roundtable]
 
Yep, I'm makin' it a roundtable.

Not to get too "political" on you, but I watched this six-part video series recently, and I thought it was really well-done. It may seem like a typical anti-GamerGate video at the start, but it isn't. It isn't even truly about Anita Sarkeesian. The analysis is very logical and even-handed, and I appreciated the way that it recast the whole feminism issue (or any social progress issue, really) by framing it from the perspective of the people whom it irritates. Honestly, it almost single-handedly repaired the damage done to my judgement by thousands upon thousands of strident internet-liberals.

Try to go in without any pre-conceived expectations and watch it with an open mind.








I'll give you the Cliffs Notes, in case you don't want to watch right now. Essentially, the video series analyzes WHY people like Anita Sarkeesian produce such a strong negative reaction, and it goes beyond the usual simplistic "They're taking our games!!" rhetoric. This guy posits that the REAL, underlying reason why Anita makes many gamers uncomfortable is that she causes them to question their way they've lived their life to this point. Ignorance is bliss, and the aim of people like Anita is to remove that ignorance. Like the term "privilege". A lot of people hate that term, and it's always rubbed me the wrong way, as well. But it doesn't mean that your life is peaches and cream or that every person from a minority has it tough. It just means that a minority person in the same position as you would have it harder, solely due to the way they were born.

That's an uncomfortable thought, as most people think of themselves as fundamentally good people, and acknowledging that you've never questioned your advantages or thought to help the less fortunate would call your own morality into question. And we're ALL guilty of that, to be honest. It's almost unnatural behavior to revolt against a system that personally benefits you. I mean, I don't like the thought of killing living creatures. I find the thought of hunting utterly revolting. I don't even swat mosquitoes or gnats. If I really considered the fact that animals had to die just so I could enjoy a hamburger, I'd probably be a vegetarian. So I don't WANT to consider it. Because meat is delicious!

Similarly, look at freaking FoxConn. All of our consumer electronics products are basically made of Chinese children. Who the fuck wants to think about that?! What's the alternative?

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily going to change my behavior based on this video series. I still believe that ignorance is bliss, and if you spend all of your time thinking about the evils of the world, your life's probably not going to be very enjoyable. But I still think it was worth watching. It kind of brought stuff that has always been floating at the back of my consciousness to the forefront. And what I most appreciate is that it did so in a non-judgmental way. It might make you a bit uncomfortable, but it definitely won't single you out.

URL to share (right click and copy)
07/23/15, 21:45    Edited: 07/30/15, 05:09
 
Why not sign up for a (free) account?
   
 
@Mr_Mustache

Well, speaking of the N-word specifically, in an ideal world the word wouldn't exist. Next to that, the best you could hope for is a world where anyone could use it and absolutely no one wanted to. Unfortunately, neither of those are the world we live in.

I don't personally mind there being a double-standard for the use of that word. It's not like the N-word is the one lone case where that's true, either. If we were hanging out and you said to me, "Kris, get your cracker ass in here," I'd just laugh. The fact that we're both white means that I can assume with reasonable certainty that you didn't mean any insult to me by that. Now if my friend Harry, who is black, said that to me, I'd have doubts. Maybe he really would be degrading me for being a white guy (in this case specifically, I'd think he was just being funny. But it'd be an open question.) So "cracker" has a double standard connected to it, too. Sure, the consequences of using the N-word are more severe, but when we factor in the history of institutionalized racism against blacks in this country and the way that word was used not only to degrade black people but to dehumanize them, I can't say I really object to the stigma on it. I just wish the word would go away for good.
08/02/15, 18:29   
Edited: 08/02/15, 18:33
@kriswright

Yeah, flush that word. I guess its not up to us though.

As for "white slurs," yeah, I don't think theres anything I wouldn't simply laugh at. I think people have TRIED to use "honky" against me, and "eh, whatever." There is that K-word though which is pretty bad, too, though I'm not really a target of that one. But yeah.
08/02/15, 18:53   
@Mr_Mustache I dunno I feel like you are just making up arbitrary rules here. Why should people giving opinions on TV shows get paid just to give opinions? Just because... it's on TV? But then speaking engagements are also ok, as long as they're not about feminism but wrestling or something? I don't want to get all critical but I think you're sort of conservative on every level, including a strange insistence that old media is somehow legit and new media is not. Youtube productions have become in many ways just as serious as classic productions, but with the ability to take out the middle man (although Youtube sort of becomes the new middle man.) Whatever the case there are tons of sports / etc. podcasts where people get paid just to talk, you may or may not even listen to a few.

BTW, have you heard of the guys making the anti-Anita / pro-Gamergate movie? That is essentially just them talking and doing some interviews with friends and such? And they have been getting paid like 7-8k a month for months to do so? Even though it is a huge freaking mess? And months later all they have to show for the thousands they took in is a crappy trailer? What is your opinion on these guys?

@Mr_Mustache You're confused about what I said about the potential game I may make someday up there. It's not that the husband can't be the focus of the story, in fact, he would be, and he would probably be the sole playable character as well. It's just that creators (myself included) often fall into the habit of making the supporting cast essentially only there to facilitate the main character's needs. Even that isn't HORRIBLY EVIL, but it does make for a lazy, unrealistic, one-dimensional supporting cast. Why shouldn't I try harder to add more depth to my supporting characters? It's not solely about not giving off the message that wives have no purpose other than to support their husbands (although that is definitely a big part of it), but also just about creating better characters overall.

There is really nothing to lose. Which is why it is weird to me when people act like it is a negative that more people are considering these things now.

@Mr_Mustache Uh, your understanding of Alison Bechdel and the reason she created the test and her views on what it should and shouldn't mean is just ridiculously far off. I'd suggest going to her own words to understand how and why she created it.

Mr_Mustache said:
I don't like when groups as such use words like that that are supposed to be "hands off!" though.

Do you understand why they do though? This is where the field of linguistic anthropology (which Shirley is loosely connected to) can be very interesting. Anyway it is going to be a different story for every slur, but in most cases it comes down to:

A. Trying to take the power away from the ones using the slur in a derogatory manner. If, for instance, a gay man is already calling himself the F word, it takes a bit of power away from the ones trying to use it to hurt him.

B. Trying to take the power away from the word itself by giving it a new meaning. Basically an attempt to take a horrible slur and make it less horrible in certain contexts.

So no, it isn't really the same for say a white dude and a black dude to use the N word. Blacks have specific reasons they are using it, many of which are attempting to remove the power of those who have used the word in their oppression. Whites do not have this reason. The same holds for Bechdel and her books with dyke in the title. She's not using it as a slur, she's using it for essentially the reverse reason, and she can do this because she is part of the group the slur was meant to harm.

Whether this is an effective strategy or not is a whole other debate.
08/02/15, 20:11   
Edited: 08/02/15, 20:33
@Zero

I have to say - and I'm not a linguistic anthropologist, so if someone has proof about this, I'm willing to listen - that "reclamation" theory always sounded like a white liberal intellectual's backflipping way to explain why it's ok that he can't use the N-word but black people can.

I don't think it has to be that complicated. Maybe words can be reclaimed and maybe they can't, but the point is that white people shouldn't be using the N-word and we shouldn't whine because we can't use it. We shouldn't want to use the word, plain and simple. Whatever the complex reasons are for why other people can use, our loss of rights to use the word are clear. It's a double standard, but a perfectly understandable double standard.

And there's almost nothing I find more irritating than a white person moaning about double standards. Boo hoo, you poor entitled cracker. (See, I can use the word cracker because I'm reclaiming it for my people and/or I'm white so you know I don't actually hate crackers. Because I are one.)
08/02/15, 22:58   
@kriswright I've also had specific individuals in certain groups specifically tell me that is why they use those terms, although that is all very anecdotal. I don't know that it can be "proven" that this is why the majority of say... the homosexuals using the F word on themselves... are doing it for these reasons, but I think these reasons exist for a lot of people. Foucault, who is like HUGE in anthropology, writes about this specific thing a fair amount. How much he, or anyone else who talks about it, supports the arguments with good research data, I have no idea. But as far as I have gathered from living with an anthropologist for the last 5 years or so, within anthropology this is a pretty commonly accepted concept. I won't insist I'm right here because this is mostly second-hand information for me, but I've heard it from friends within these subgroups, my girlfriend who studies this stuff, etc. so that's where I'm coming from.

Like I said though, the effectiveness of this tactic is debatable. If someone wants to argue that it does or doesn't work, fine, whatever. I really have no interest in debating whether it is effective or not, just in whether there is a difference of content and motives.

I definitely agree though that white people shouldn't be sitting around complaining that others can use words we can't. Context is always key.

Plus like... I think saying we "can't" isn't totally true. Louis CK uses the N word all the time, for instance, but because he is generally seen as an intelligent, socially conscious comedian who isn't just throwing out words for cheap laughs at the expense of others, but actually takes on race issues with some nuance, people don't make as big of a deal over it as say... Hogan just being straight up racist. In fact Louis CK makes the not so popular argument that saying "n word" is worse than just saying the word. (Warning: He says the word many, many times in that skit, so don't watch it if you don't want to hear it.) I don't agree with his logic there at all, but like... the idea that no white person can ever say the word without the PC police completely destroying their careers over it doesn't quite hold up.

Again, not defending his use of the word. I disagree with him there. Just pointing out that people who think it is "unfair" that white people "can't" say it are ignoring that many do, without a huge fuss over it. Especially in comedy.
08/02/15, 23:23   
Edited: 08/02/15, 23:24
I have nothing at all to add to the meat of the conversation here, other than I strongly dislike when certain words are given so much power that they can't be uttered or typed in any possible scenario ever, even in an academic context about the words themselves. Not that I have any desire to casually utter or type any of the words mentioned above, mind you.

Edit: Jeepers, Zero's post landed while I was typing mine. Go figure. I was kinda thinking of that Louis CK clip myself.
08/02/15, 23:24   
Edited: 08/02/15, 23:30
Mr_Mustache said:
@Stephen

We've gone over this before though; Pac-Man came first. They were dealing with PIXELS. Like, what, 16, 25, 36 square pixels? That isn't a large area. What can you really do to differentiate? Should Ms. Pac-Man have looked EXACTLY the same as (Mr.) Pac-Man? If the answer is "yes," then whats the point?

Wait, whaaaat?! Why is (Mr.) Pac-Man wearing a fedora here?! Why are all the ghosts wearing hats?!? dot dot dot (it's almost as if this is how they intended to illustrate Pac-Man initially, but they were limited by ridiculous early arcade graphics.)

Again, not about one specific case. I think Anita even made mention to the fact the designers were constrained by technology in the video so you are in agreement there.

Mr_Mustache said:
As for whether or not Tropes are "dangerous" as you put it, have you considered that you personally might be more susceptible to believing her? I feel that you and Zero are predisposed to buying what she's selling for any number of reasons. Has she said anything that you vehemently disagreed with? I'm sorry, but I don't recall. If you have, please remind me. I'm not being a snot to you, I just don't remember.

When it first came out that she was doing the series I really didn't think it was that bad in gaming. Sure there were the obvious DOA games or whatever but in general I thought games were on an upward trajectory with this stuff. A lot of the problem with that was just that the games I was playing in particular did alright with not treating the women poorly or differently than male characters. So if anything I went in to Anita's videos with the disposition that games aren't that bad and while she may identify a few problem areas it will be the exceptions, not the rule.

I think I mentioned in this thread that her examples of the player in GTA and Hitman being encouraged to be violent towards sexualized women were offbase. While you can kill those women in those games you are definitely not encouraged to do so and the freedom for killing them is no different from killing everyone else.

Mr_Mustache said:
So, the Bechdel test. I don't even know what to say about that. I'm well aware of it, but why do movies HAVE to "pass" that?

They don't. Individual movies passing it or not is just a point of curiosity. The problem is that the amount of movies not passing it. Some of the all time greatest movies don't pass it. The Godfather doesn't pass it.

Mr_Mustache said:
Its creating a problem when there wasn't one. For example, Zero said earlier "I'm making a game about a married man;" the game is about him it should FOCUS on him. He shouldn't shoehorn in a story for his wife. The wife is there BECAUSE the husband is there. To call foul on that is so goofy to me. Was there a huge uproar about Sex and the City? The movie / show focuses on 4 women, and I can't imagine two guys coming face to face in that, and would they dare talk about anyone other than the girls we've grown to love? DOUBTFUL. Sex & The City fails: THE STACHE TEST. Also failing: HOCUS POCUS. (BOTH starring Sarah Jessica Parker. Coincidence?! I THINK NOT.)

Now lets make a huge deal about it because I'm a guy and I need everything to be about me.


(And apparently "Reverse Bechdel" is a thing. Not surprisingly, a lot of movies featuring women as the main character or characters fail with flying colors. Not a story.)

Yeah, and if a lot of movies didn't pass that there would also be a problem.
08/03/15, 00:22   
@Zero

If your friends say they use the word to take the power away from it, more power to them. Maybe they do. I mean, I used the word cracker earlier for comedic effect. Am I reclaiming it? That's not how I thought about it. But I am making fun of the word, which is a way of making fun of the hatred behind the word, which you might be able to twist into saying I'm reclaiming it. But, really, I'm just using it to be ironic/funny. Frankly, I always thought rappers and stuff were doing the same thing with the N word. If that's reclaiming it, then, you know, whatever. I guess that's what they're doing. It doesn't bother me, anyway.

I think Louis CK is completely wrong when he says using "the N-word" is worse, though. Getting rid of that by-word means white people simply can't discuss the word at all. Because I'm sure as hell not typing the actual word out and neither are you. Right? So how can we even have this conversation without making reference to it? Just obliquely say "derogatory words" or something like that? It still does what Louis CK calls racist, which I guess he's defining as just drawing attention to the fact the word exists, now. That's too harsh a standard to hold people to, because suddenly you can't even address the issue anymore.


@Koovaps

Problem is, those words were given power by the bigots who coined them and used them for hundreds of years to systematically oppress people. That is real. That happened. That is not in dispute. I mentioned earlier that, in a perfect world, those words wouldn't exist, because the bigotry that birthed them wouldn't have existed. Or, barring that, no one would want to use them because we've fully disconnected from that bigotry. Unfortunately, that's not where we live.

But let's not pretend those words are powerful because they're taboo. They became taboo because they were so powerful. If white guys like me could just throw the N-word around, it wouldn't weaken the power of the word. It would just hurt people. No thanks.
08/03/15, 00:48   
Well yeah, as I said I don't agree with Louis CK there. I just brought him up as an example of a relatively socially conscious white guy who uses the N word and isn't attacked hard for it. There are probably others, though admittedly I can't think of many outside of comedy and acting. Then again, I can't think of too many other contexts where it makes sense for white guys to use the term either.

I do think it is ok or well... at least sort of ok... to use the term to describe something shitty someone said if it needs to have its full impact. I mean, it would probably depend on the context I guess? I don't know. I know I've used slurs in this context before, though it's probably not fully justified. Or like say you have a court case or something where some white guy said some vile racist stuff before killing someone and a white witness is being asked what was said? In that case dancing around the words might sort of unintentionally remove some of the impact of what was said, while just straight up saying them would force the judge and jury to really appreciate the vileness of it? I dunno.

Getting a bit off-topic here, but anyone else remember the time Samuel L Jackson really wanted a white reporter to use the N word instead of saying N word? I don't know what I'd do in that case.
08/03/15, 01:07   
Edited: 08/03/15, 01:11
kriswright said:


If your friends say they use the word to take the power away from it, more power to them. Maybe they do. I mean, I used the word cracker earlier for comedic effect. Am I reclaiming it? That's not how I thought about it. But I am making fun of the word, which is a way of making fun of the hatred behind the word, which you might be able to twist into saying I'm reclaiming it. But, really, I'm just using it to be ironic/funny. Frankly, I always thought rappers and stuff were doing the same thing with the N word. If that's reclaiming it, then, you know, whatever. I guess that's what they're doing. It doesn't bother me, anyway.

You address the difference between the two words in your response to Koovaps.

kriswright said:


Problem is, those words were given power by the bigots who coined them and used them for hundreds of years to systematically oppress people. That is real. That happened. That is not in dispute. I mentioned earlier that, in a perfect world, those words wouldn't exist, because the bigotry that birthed them wouldn't have existed. Or, barring that, no one would want to use them because we've fully disconnected from that bigotry. Unfortunately, that's not where we live.

Others may feel differently, but cracker is a much less powerful word, in my opinion, because of that history. If cracker had the same historic baggage, I think things would be different. Most black people who freely use the n-word probably aren't actively thinking to themselves "I'll reclaim that word and weaken it's utility as a tool for inflicting harm." but I do believe that is the underlying point, even if that purpose has never been articulated or rationalized before the word is used in such a context.

Cracker is different because it isn't as widespread or (again, in my eyes) as harmful a word. It's not tied to centuries of slavery or ongoing inequalities that exist today as a result of slavery. The n word is a tool that has contributed to the marginalization of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions for hundreds of year. Coming from a white person, it is an acute expression of that marginalization and the speaker's desire for it to continue. If there were a single word that represents all of the harm that is inflicted upon black people on the basis of race, that would be it.

Because of that lack of historical context to give the word cracker any weight beyond a simple insult, there's not really a word to reclaim. The way I see it, a white person can reclaim the word cracker as much as they can reclaim the term "asshole" or "jerk". There's nothing to reclaim beyond being insulted; cracker doesn't run any deeper than that. Again, others might disagree, but I don't find the term cracker any more offensive than being called a piece of shit or an asshole. There's a different, much deeper form of hate behind the n word than there is behind cracker.
08/03/15, 01:54   
Edited: 08/03/15, 02:14
Louis CK mentions the word cracker at the end of this clip...


Kind of has a point there.
08/03/15, 02:06   
@Zero@Hero_Of_Hyrule

You guys are misunderstanding me. I never argued cracker was as powerful as the N word. It's just the closest analog we've got.

Edit: oh, I see where you misunderstood me, Hero. When I said "those words", I meant racist language as well as the slurs targeted at gays that Zero alluded to. Not cracker.
08/03/15, 02:57   
Edited: 08/03/15, 03:06
I didn't say you did? I was just kind of loosely adding my two cents to why it's not the same.
08/03/15, 03:00   
See my edit above.
08/03/15, 03:03   
Yeah but that still doesn't apply to me because I wasn't commenting in response to anything you said. It should say you GUY are misunderstanding me!
08/03/15, 03:10   
@Zero

Jeez, Zero, get off Kris's back. He's clarified his point, no need to keep targeting him.
08/03/15, 03:13   
I'm not targeting him I'm just clarifying that my comments had nothing to do with his comments.
08/03/15, 03:18   
@Zero

I apologize for inadequately determining the context in which you posted that Louis CK video, you tenacious cracker.
08/03/15, 03:18   
08/03/15, 03:20   
@kriswright

Oh no, I didn't think "those words" included cracker. I also didn't think you were saying that cracker was equally as harmful/hateful as the n word. But I can see how my post might give that impression. Perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly enough.

I was mainly responding to what you said about reclaiming cracker. My point was that you aren't reclaiming cracker by using it ironically because there's nothing to reclaim. Maybe I took the question more seriously than I should have?

I was also hoping to improve the understanding of any white people reading my post who feel it is unfair that they aren't "allowed" to use that word while black people are. That's why I emphasized the difference between the two words and explained why white people using that word is so taboo.
08/03/15, 04:09   
Edited: 08/03/15, 04:15
  Forum main
 +