It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionmodern politics in gamies(161 posts) (161 posts) 
(161 posts) 
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
DieRuhe: Can someone please write a script to translate Fair's posts into English? :-)
avatar
FrodoBaggins: I'd still like to know why she encrypts her posts into this weird, non-existent language, anyway.
She's not 3 years old, after all.
There's supposed to be some sort of humor from it, so i'm guessing it's from some obscure joke from a long time ago that some posters understand but we don't (if you go back to her old posts, you'll see they're quite "normal").

Or it could just be the same reason i do the same thing to people on private message sometimes, except she does it in public and every single post.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
kohlrak: I have only seen parts of the movies, to be fair, but what you're showing isn't facism. One of the most important parts of facism is what we see from the anti-facist movement: censorship. One of the main pillars, and the most important pillar, of facism isn't simply propaganda, but outright banning of counter-propaganda and/or free-speech. Would you say that the west as a whole was facist during WWII with all it's propaganda?
Starship Troopers specifically targeted fascism. Censorship isn't anything particular to fascism, liberal (European meaning of the word) governments in 19th century censored anything which challenged them; US has long history with censoring something which is considered to be morally unacceptable (comic books, rock and roll, Dungeons & Dragons, videogames...).

Fascism is very complicated concept, but for the West as a whole, I would say it was always perilously close to becoming fascist itself. And Nazism is whole different can of worms.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
Mafwek: Fascism is very complicated concept, but for the West as a whole, I would say it was always perilously close to becoming fascist itself. And Nazism is whole different can of worms.
No it's not. Fascism is an ideology that aimed for three goals:
1. Mark out a group of people as inherently better than others.
2. Separate that group of people from the rest. So no people outside the designated group can join it, no matter what.
3. Declare that the wellbeing of the chosen group can be achieved (and eventually should be achieved) at the expense of people not belonging to the group.

Well, actually #2 is just needed to execute #3, because otherwise everyone would join your "aryans". So, Nazism is just a type of fascism where a "chosen group" you make is based on a nation.
Post edited August 22, 2018 by LootHunter
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
LootHunter: No it's not. Fascism is an ideology that aimed for three goals:
1. Mark out a group of people as inherently better than others.
2. Separate that group of people from the rest. So no people outside the designated group can join it, no matter what.
3. Declare that the wellbeing of the chosen group can be achieved (and eventually should be achieved) at the expense of people not belonging to the group.

Well, actually #2 is just needed to execute #3, because otherwise everyone would join your "aryans".
Well tovariš, what you are describing is nationalist politics (hell, you can cross nationalist) in general, it can be hardly tied down just to fascism. While nationalism is component of fascism, it isn't the only one.

But your example describes Starship Troopers perfectly - enemy is literally a bug which needs to be exterminated.
Post edited August 22, 2018 by Mafwek
Posted August 22, 2018
Let's just sprinkle some Umberto Eco here, because he's always missed.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
Mafwek: But your example describes Starship Troopers perfectly - enemy is literally a bug which needs to be exterminated.
No, it's not. Humans fight against bugs, because bugs attacked Earth. I don't remember in this film anyone saying that bugs needs to be exterminated because they are bugs. In fact the whole story arc about "bug commander" and humans trying to understand how bugs think, instead of simply exterminating them by atomics or some biological weapon, implies that future conflict is not neccessary will end in extermination. Which is the opposit of what fascist ideology would suggest to do.

Also, you missed the #1 "Mark out a group". Bugs are initially different from humans, in fact no one thought that they are intelligent. But later people learn more about bugs. In fascism it is the opposite - you initially have common ground with other people, and through propaganda "chosen group" becomes a separate from others, who are declared animals.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
Telika: Let's just sprinkle some Umberto Eco here, because he's always missed.
Ok.

I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.

4. No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason.

5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity. Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference.

6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.

7. the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged.

8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This, however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm.

13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. Newspeak was invented by Orwell, in 1984, as the official language of Ingsoc, English Socialism. But elements of Ur-Fascism are common to different forms of dictatorship. All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning. But we must be ready to identify other kinds of Newspeak, even if they take the apparently innocent form of a popular talk show.
Do these features remind you of any particular modern ideology?
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
Telika: Let's just sprinkle some Umberto Eco here, because he's always missed.
Wanted to refer to that, thank you.

avatar
LootHunter: Do these features remind you of any particular modern ideology?
ALL of them.
Post edited August 22, 2018 by Mafwek
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
LootHunter: Do these features remind you of any particular modern ideology?
avatar
Mafwek: ALL of them.
Really? Even #5? I don't remember that UKIP or conservatives were against disagreement. In fact UKIP is pro-free speech.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
LootHunter: No, it's not. Humans fight against bugs, because bugs attacked Earth. I don't remember in this film anyone saying that bugs needs to be exterminated because they are bugs. In fact the whole story arc about "bug commander" and humans trying to understand how bugs think, instead of simply exterminating them by atomics or some biological weapon, implies that future conflict is not neccessary will end in extermination. Which is the opposit of what fascist ideology would suggest to do.

Also, you missed the #1 "Mark out a group". Bugs are initially different from humans, in fact no one thought that they are intelligent. But later people learn more about bugs. In fascism it is the opposite - you initially have common ground with other people, and through propaganda "chosen group" becomes a separate from others, who are declared animals.
No political movement start with people having common ground. When bugs attacked the Earth, the war was already on. Also, did you purposely left out first three arguments from Umberto Eco? Ones which specify role of tradition in fascism?
avatar
LootHunter: Really? Even #5? I don't remember that UKIP or conservatives were against disagreement. In fact UKIP is pro-free speech.
When it suits them, and as defined by them, of course.
Post edited August 22, 2018 by Mafwek
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
Mafwek: No political movement start with people having common ground.
Really? Even the ground that you all are people?

avatar
Mafwek: When bugs attacked the Earth, the war was already on.
And how did it began? With bugs and people living in peace?

avatar
Mafwek: Also, did you purposely left out first three arguments from Umberto Eco? Ones which specify role of tradition in fascism?
Yes, because Eco himself said that not all features are necessary. And modern feminismt doesn't have a "cult of tradition". It have the opposite "cult of progress".

avatar
LootHunter: Really? Even #5? I don't remember that UKIP or conservatives were against disagreement. In fact UKIP is pro-free speech.
avatar
Mafwek: When it suits them, and as defined by them, of course.
Could you point out when they were arguing agains free speech?
Post edited August 22, 2018 by LootHunter
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
LootHunter: Problem is that some people decided that some ideas ARE bad and shouldn't be in games. Like, you know, sexy women, strong white men, etc. And the reason, why they decided that is that they FEEL bad about thos ideas. Not some logical reasoning, or research, but just their own feelings.
I think the major reason people don't want there to be more computer games with sexualised female characters and muscular white male characters isn't because strong white men and sexy women make them feel bad. It's not because they want to make strong white men/sexy women an enemy.
This type of imagery is commonplace, and if we were to have solely this type of character in our narratives it would be a problem: Here's why -
Societies use stories as ethical and moral hypotheses and guidelines. Fairytales, folk stories, religious stories as examples. People look to stories to give them guidance, as well as informing their own sense of identity. Whether we're aware of it or not, stories are important.
The problem with having only one 'type' is that people who can't identify with that type feel excluded. If people are already marginalised in a society then lack of representation in stories begins to widen divides.

So a logical reason to be disappointed when a computer game features a muscular white male lead figure, posing in front of a sexualised female character is because if we want to avoid a divided society we should be making more of an effort to represent those who aren't represented. Not because strong white men and sexy woman are bad, but because it already exists so much that it's become normalised - because when people picture a computer game they picture a strong white man.

I'm running out of energy to make this point, and I don't think I've made it very well.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
LootHunter: Problem is that some people decided that some ideas ARE bad and shouldn't be in games. Like, you know, sexy women, strong white men, etc. And the reason, why they decided that is that they FEEL bad about thos ideas. Not some logical reasoning, or research, but just their own feelings.
avatar
JoeSapphire: I think the major reason people don't want there to be more computer games with sexualised female characters and muscular white male characters isn't because strong white men and sexy women make them feel bad. It's not because they want to make strong white men/sexy women an enemy.
This type of imagery is commonplace, and if we were to have solely this type of character in our narratives it would be a problem: Here's why -
Societies use stories as ethical and moral hypotheses and guidelines. Fairytales, folk stories, religious stories as examples. People look to stories to give them guidance, as well as informing their own sense of identity. Whether we're aware of it or not, stories are important.
The problem with having only one 'type' is that people who can't identify with that type feel excluded. If people are already marginalised in a society then lack of representation in stories begins to widen divides.

So a logical reason to be disappointed when a computer game features a muscular white male lead figure, posing in front of a sexualised female character is because if we want to avoid a divided society we should be making more of an effort to represent those who aren't represented. Not because strong white men and sexy woman are bad, but because it already exists so much that it's become normalised - because when people picture a computer game they picture a strong white man.

I'm running out of energy to make this point, and I don't think I've made it very well.
But the difficulty with that is the same as with all issues made of repetitions and quantities. It's the same thing with mobbing or pollution : each item is individually benign, yet you cannot criticize the accumulation (or near-monopoly) without pointing at individual items. And the defense is automatically "stop complaining about that harmless individual thing" (just one joke, just one emission, just one game, etc). Which makes sense, in a way. In the same way as an individual vote being negligible in a democracy (because it's just one in front of the nation-wide quantity of bulletins). It's hard to balance the "just one" and the "yet another one on the huge pile" perspectives. At least to me, this sand grain effect always feels like a paradox.

Anyway, this, by itself, leads to understandable conflicts of perception. And when bad faith gets added to it (driven by political identity antagonisms, etc), its rhetorical weapons are readymade.
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
JoeSapphire: I'm running out of energy to make this point, and I don't think I've made it very well.
You didn't.

avatar
JoeSapphire: I think the major reason people don't want there to be more computer games with sexualised female characters and muscular white male characters isn't because strong white men and sexy women make them feel bad. It's not because they want to make strong white men/sexy women an enemy.
This type of imagery is commonplace, and if we were to have solely this type of character in our narratives it would be a problem: Here's why -
Societies use stories as ethical and moral hypotheses and guidelines. Fairytales, folk stories, religious stories as examples. People look to stories to give them guidance, as well as informing their own sense of identity. Whether we're aware of it or not, stories are important.
The problem with having only one 'type' is that people who can't identify with that type feel excluded. If people are already marginalised in a society then lack of representation in stories begins to widen divides.
You have the major contradiction right here. Having only one 'type' of narrative IS what people don't want there to be more computer games with sexualized female chars, etc, are trying to achieve. If your problem is not having some group represented in the media - you go and create a media where such group is represented. Not forcing other creators to make their stories the way you want them to.

Yes, you right - people look to stories for guidance and sense of identity. However it is people, who chose the stories, not the other way around. A boy may choose to be like Duke Nukem or Alfred Pennyworth. A girl can choose to be like Lara Croft or Cindirella. And it's THEIR choice - denying them one of the options makes YOU the one who marginalize those who make the wrong pick. Regardless if you are conservative who thinks that man is protector and woman should be in the kitchen (so you declare Alfred and Lara bad role models) or if you are "progressive" who accuses Duke and Cindirella to be "problematic" because they "reinforce stereotypes".
Posted August 22, 2018
avatar
JoeSapphire: I'm running out of energy to make this point, and I don't think I've made it very well.
avatar
LootHunter: You didn't.
This reads like you're deliberately trying to be dismissive. Is that right?


avatar
LootHunter: Yes, you right - people look to stories for guidance and sense of identity. However it is people, who chose the stories, not the other way around. A boy may choose to be like Duke Nukem or Alfred Pennyworth. A girl can choose to be like Lara Croft or Cindirella. And it's THEIR choice - denying them one of the options makes YOU the one who marginalize those who make the wrong pick.
I think my point is that Lara Croft or Cindirella are already there to be picked. People don't need a new Superman because superman is ingrained in the social subconscious already: It's part of the reason why it's easy to make so many computer games from the same mould - because when somebody pictures a romance narrative for their new game, they draw on what they already know.

We already have so many "strong white man and sexy woman" narratives, that it's easiest thing for everybody to make new ones. Which is why it's not a bad thing to push for games that break the mould - because we want to make a shift in what people find easy to engage with.

The argument isn't "Sexy women and strong white men are bad." it's "Every time you make a new game that leads with strong white man and sexy woman you're strengthening the already-strongest image."

As someone mentioned already, part of the problem is that what's popular is what's successful, and what's successful provides a model for future works - so not only is "Sexy woman, strong white man" easier to imagine in the first place, it's safer in a competitive marketplace.

The movement to prefer imagery-that-represents-the-less-represented over representing-the-already-represented is an attempt to change what's easiest.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionmodern politics in gamies(161 posts) (161 posts) 
(161 posts)