I'm not going to contribute any comment of great worth to the video, but I will say that Moviebob singlehandedly changed my opinion on internet commentators.
I remember watching his early videos and despising them because they were frought with fanboy geek-outs, contrasted by furious nerd-rage. If a time traveller had shown me one of his more recent videos back in those days, I would have refused to believe it was really him.
Watching Bob steadily temper his voice as time goes by has been a genuine joy for me. Not because I hink his manner of speaking is incredibly sexy, but because when he takes the time to be calm, articulate and optomistic he can end up providing some of the most enjoyable commentary on "geek culture" I've ever had the pleasure of listening to.
I suppose the clincher for me has been episodes like this. Seeing Moviebob dig up the uglier parts of our insular little community in order to smack them about for a bit is a joy to behold, and not just because it gives me a little cathartic release to see someone in a position of some authority and status on such matters vent an opinion that coincides with mine.
Moviebob, you are a good thing. You're a dumbass sometimes, but know what geek culture needs and you have the intelligence to articulate it in a way we can all enjoy.
Every time you do a "serious" episode I like you more and more, and that's actually slightly worrying. Right now it's edging its way up past "respect" and into the regions of "coy attraction". Keep on like this, and it'll turn into full-on animalistic lust.
I agree. Sexism or racism isn't defined by how you think so much as by your actions. I think if you make sexist jokes which cause women discomfort and grief then you are, by definition, sexist. Whether you think of yourself as sexist or not is a different story. Mediocre bad guys almost never think of themselves as bad guys.
While I disagree with your claim about what defines a "sexist", I do like that someone voiced this opinion because what people say they are is not enough to alleviate any concerns other people may have about their attitude.
For example, if a man makes a string of sexist jokes and then claims it's totally cool because he isn't really sexist, and then tries to use that little fact to invalidate the arguments of anyone who gets offended at what he says... well, that's just dickery, isn't it?
People will often respond to the offence of others by either stating how they genuinely feel ("I'm not racist, I was just joking around with my mate!") or by going so far as to accuse the person who raised the concern of having some kind of personal defect The only reason this bothers you is because you're too easily offended by stuff").
And yeah, that particular attitude can fuck right off. I'm not bout to declare what societal standards one should follow when it comes to joking around in public, but I hate to see people simply ignoring the offence of others.
Society as a whole (not just gaming culture) isn't going to progress unless we seriously consider these issues, no matter how petty they may seem. That doesn't mean we all jave to cave to the views of the offended parties, but it does mean we have to take the time to ask ourselves "Are we wrong? Are they right?".
In other words, we can't get anywhere unless we provide every available opinion with some serious consideration, and disregarding someone's complaint with a ridiculous defensive like "I'm not racist, I'm just making racist jokes, therefore stop being offended at them!" is conterproductive. next time, either apologise for causing someone discomfort or, if you genuinely believe what you're doing is OK, try to present them with an objective argument that matches up to theirs.
Some people might balk at this prospect, citing the viewpoints and arguments of bigots as the kind of thing that shouldn't be seriously considered for a single moment. One such example would be the recent controversy over an Archie comic which contains a positive portrayal of same-sex marriage, whch the organisation One Million Moms claims shouldn't be put on display in front of children.
My response to that would be this: If we are so sure of our opinions and beliefs, and so sure that they are in the wrong, then why should we worry about subjecting both sides to critical analysis? it is my sincere belief that we have nothing to loose by opening up a dialogue with these groups, and a lot to gain by doing so. Because I know for a fact that what their claims are unreasonable, that they just don't hold up, and if any of them wants to challenge this belief then we should let them. After all, you can never convince an opponent that they are stupid or amoral, but you can sure as hell demonstrate the problems with their arguments.
Which is more likely to win people over?
Part of the reason things will never change is because as a community, we are fractured. We all belong to the same community, but a large portion (mostly on the younger side, but there are quite a few naive older people) don't act like they are part of the community. They don't care about the community as a whole, standards we'd like to uphold, or making the medium better. They're just there cause its the cool thing to do, explosions are cool, or for sheer, mind melting entertainment. Thats never going away either.
Why should they? If entry into the gaming community is defined as playing video games why should they care about anything except playing the games they want to play.
Well, for one, I never said they should. But if you want an honest answer, I'll give you one.
We should care because it matters. In every sense you can think of. You like playing videogames? Without a strong community, you get game developers who walk all over their client base. They can do various things, restricting DRM seems to be the top gunner right now. A more recent example is the scrutiny that BioWare is under for the "From Ashes" DLC, which was finished pre-production, and is being sold for $10 instead of included with new copies of the game (like previous DLC's). This DLC pack includes plot points, so if you didnt get the Collectors edition, and you want to get the most out of the game, you're gonna sink an extra $10.
And who do you think fights against those practices? Not all of the boycotts are successful, mostly because of the mentioned fracturing, but a lot of companies will reconsider consumer-unfriendly concepts due to massive backlash. A strong community stops ALL of us from getting trampled on with.
Also, I'm pretty sure that since you like playing Videogames, you probably don't want to see them taxed for being violent? How about censored based on content? Or making M rated videogames banned from commercial store shelves? All legislation that has fallen over the last two years because people decided to get vocal. Even if you just like playing the mindless rot that most of the collected community hates, its the community that stands up for your right to play it, the way the developer wanted you to play it, without anyone saying "thats not fit, get rid of it".
And it kinda really hurts the community that the loud minority are the people that don't really care for gaming as a whole. You won't see the Frat Bro's who play CoD get up in arms over a tax on violent videogames, or unfriendly consumer practices. The issues we face wont be solved by the 13 year olds who shout the N word at people or who threaten to kill to people because they're upset. Most of the time, its the collected community who has to backtrack and fix the issues that mainstream society sees are there because a few bad apples represent gaming as a whole.
Not all games are about binding, torturing, and killing people. A collective community tries to make sure that people actually see that games are more than just a 'branch of Hasboro gone horribly wrong', and that they have cultural and societal impacts.
I thought I had something worth adding to your post other than simple, dumb agreement, but I guess this is all I have to say: I liked your post. It needs to be seen. In fact - Moviebob, are you reading these? see that ^ up there? make an episode out of that, please.
This is proof that the gaming community as a whole needs to mature. Yeah, we get it, we like to have fun in a style and propensity that's not common in individuals who normally have a job, responsibilities, taxes, other personal burdens and what have you, but this is no excuse to behave like a caterwauling man-child.
I absolutely agree with you, Bob. We need to set an example for the rest of us to see, for the non-gamers to acknowledge as a positive display of gaming as a whole. The sooner we manage to turn the idea of a socially responsible and independent mature adult as being the *actual* stereotype all gamers should try to adhere to, the better the community's going to be as a whole.
I don't really appreciate it when a corporation tells me it needs my real name for its own purposes, but the RealID system Blizzard's set in place seems like a tiny step in the right direction. I'd even be in favor of all gamers' complete coordinates being made available if the risk of being trolled to death is what it takes for some of these douchebags to behave. We don't see this type of verbal abuse spread so outwardly outside of online communities precisely because anonymity is what fosters this kind of abuse.
While I would usually oppose this kind of thinking, I am inclined to agree with your statement - maybe it's just the way you put it.
I for one believe in total fucking anonymity wherever people can get it, and maintaining it on the internet - where any individual can express him/herself without fear of regulation, reprisal or judgement - is really[/i] important.
On the other hand, being a member of society is all about co-operation and mutual civility. So I do agree with the general sentiment of what you said. Watching people's civility levels skyrocket because they're being held accountable for their statements would be a laugh riot. However, I would rather not have to resort to something like RealID. What about the people who want to be able to just act out their own little private fantasy within an online game? What about people who want to express or discuss things they're ashamed with without others who know them finding out about it? those people need to be protected.
It's a right we should all have, and I worry that something like RealID could set a dangerous precedent. It doesn't sound too bad coming from a game development company, but companies are already fairly intrusive and controlling as it is! What if, over time, every company starts to implement something like this very slowly? what if governments or ISP's begin introducing it, avoiding the once-inevitable backlash because the populace has become used to it?
Protecting anonymity on the internet is important because free-flowing information makes it impossible for any one body to exercise an undue amount of control without some level of resistance.
Using it as a method of preventing online tomshittery might initially sound appealing, but there are undesirable side-effects.
As a side-note, it's funny how this issue shows how uncivilised we can be. Every comfortable citizen in the first world would probably claim that everything is fine and dandy - but just look how people will act when they think no-one can really hold them to their words!
Personally - and when I say personally, I mean "here are the fever-dreams brought forth by the madness the plagues me with every waking thought" - I'd rather we created a society in which everyone has a deep sense of personal responsibility hammered into them. They'd have phrases like "JUST BECAUSE NO-ONE SAY YOU DO IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE NOT A TOTAL SHITHEAD" screamed at them by a psychotic drill sergeant all throughout infancy so that they realise that, hey, maybe we should be polite and kind because it refelcts well on us, instead of doing oit out of fear of reprisals!
Alternatively, we make everyone believe that they're being monitored by an omnipotent, draconian Orwellian institution that punishes minor cases of incivility via firing squad.
Of course, this will raise the issue of what we do when people cross the line we've invented and realise that "hey, there IS no firing squad!". For the sake of keeping our scheme airtight, we actually do punish them via firing squad. And in order to make sure it remains consistent, we'd have to actually just go ahead and implement some kind of omnipotent, draconian Orwellian institution. y'know, just to be absolutely sure.
It's not a perfect plan, but it's a start. I think.
Okay, while I agree that this is a problem, I disagree that it's any more of a problem in gaming than in other places. I think sexism in general is a problem, and the reason we notice it in gaming is because we have a tendency to talk to more people while online. Think of a single night of Halo or Call of Duty and the sheer number of people you interact with. Of course a few of them are going to be douchebags.
I agree with everything you said, but I think that gaming does get a bad rap for these sorts of things when it's not solely a gaming problem. Look at the music industry, and look at the sports industry. I've seen my fair share of athletes mistreat women, and the music industry seems to want to objectify them as much as possible.
Good point. I think that we need to stop regarding ourselves as an insular group and begin exposing the whole geek community thing to the wider world of popular culture. We tear down the divisions which will eventually dwindle away to nothing anyway for the sake of ensuring that we don't end up becoming an enclave for pig-headed shits, and in the process "cultural commentators" (I assume that's what MovieBob calls himself when he's attending upmarket dinner parties) would no longer have to address specific demographics or problems as they apply solely within the sub-culture in whcih they've found themselves. We could do with people like MovieBob addressing these issues as they appear in the wider world, not just within a sub-culture.
After all, what is geekdom if not a simple set of entertainment preferences? regarding it as a subculture is, if you'll pardon my expression, fucking ludicrous. It's about time we tore down some walls.
or, to put my entire lengthy post into one infuriatingly concise comment that makes me look like a self-indulgent ass....
Great episode Bob.
As a semi-retired-member of the fighting game community I've always been troubled by the stuff you see in some tournament video's. The class acts like James Chen, UltrDavid, Seth Killian and the like getting wedged between groups of loudmouthed swearing types who keep claiming that 'everybody gets it' and that there's no problem.
"You don't lose when you admit that there's a problem, you lose when you fail to address it."
I can't count the number of times I've had to try to pound this into people's heads.
And its extremely sad to see this be a problem in so many places.
To admit you made a mistake during a debate doesn't make you lose the entire debate, its how you recover and pass the point back or move on to the next one. Dropping the ball and letting the opposing team score doesn't mean you should be put on the bench, its how you make sure you don't do it again the next time a similar situation comes up.
This. A thousand fucking times, this. The last part right here.
As I said, we loose nothing when we turn a critical eye on ourselves, and gain a lot in the process. It's maddening, seeing so many point-blank refuse to acknowledge the particular problems within their own arguments or past statements, and it's a peculiar brand of anti-logic that even supposedly qualified and level-headed politicians are infuriatingly prone to doing.
I agreed with Bob right up to the point of using "rape" as a descriptor.
In the standard gaming scenario, "rape" is not being used to describe what literally happened. Typically, is being used hyperbolically to describe the incident eg: in the case of a vicious, unjustifiable, penetrative assault. Criticising it on this level seems odd, since we don't complain about using "killed", "owned", "butchered" or "destroyed" in such a circumstance (and if one is interpreting it literally, murder is equally - if not more - serious than rape).
Furthermore, rape is not an intrinsically female-victim issue either. I would go as far as to suggest that one guy saying "I raped you" to another guy to be more a homosexual threat characterized by desires of non-gender-specific sexual dominance than a product of male-on-female rape being glamorised.
The point about free speech was brilliant though, most Americans (it seems) would do well to heed that. Most noticeably, the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to say whatever they want, but that doesn't mean that they aren't responsible for it.
Doesn't matter. It should stop.
See, that's completely counter-productive! I started by trying to figure out whether you were addressing the continued mouthiness of the Westboro Baptitst church or the supposed misuse of the term "rape" but then I realised: It doesn't matter. Because there's no argument or objection there, just an obtuse declaration of fact that runs contrary to any kind of significant discussion or any kind of mutual enightenment regarding the issue at hand.