I didn’t really have anything to write about today, but it’s post day, so I’ll say just a bit more on gamersgate, inspired once again by Cracked and Mark Hill. Two articles were up today.
One was yet another anti-gamergate piece, (sadly, Cracked has now reached my Unvisit list) this one so stupid. For someone who is as supposedly pro-reason as Luke McKinney this is based very strongly in unreason. Despite this I’m going to engage it from points 7 to 1: genetic fallacy, irrelevant ad hominem, fallacy of composition/anecdotal, irrelevant to anything (his argument in #4 boils down to ‘people shouldn’t be allowed to discuss’), ambiguity fallacy, straw man, and, finally, genetic fallacy again. I should also note that the asinine immaturity of Luke McKinney in this piece is rather ironically humourous given that point #1 in last week’s article on gamersgate was “We’re Incapable of Mature Conversations About Gender”.
At this point, I’m going to make a small aside on the term Social Justice Warrior (SJW), as Luke McKinney is not the only one I’ve seen commenting on how SJW sounds awesome.
SJW is a term of pointed mockery. The mockery comes exactly from the fact that SJW’s are the farthest things possible from warriors. Fatties who revel in their obesity, feminists that go into conniptions when its pointed out that sluttery and tattoos go hand in hand, women that become physically ill from words, people who try to ban trashtalk from games because it hurts their feewings, and psychologically ill perverts who can not tell fantasy from reality are as unlike warriors as is humanely possible.
Using the term social justice warrior simply points out, in an ironic fashion, the pathetic weakness of the SJW’s (on an individual level; as a screaming, anonymous lynch mob they do have some social power).
Cracked and the rest of the SJW’s seem so very confused by gamers’ motivations against SJW’s that they can posit no explanation but ‘those evil mysoginists hate women’. Which bring us to the second article, where Mark Hill goes on about why video game narratives need to change. At first glance, this article seems relatively benign, what’s wrong with making suggestions to improve video games, but if we look at it closely, his arguments essentially boil down to:
6: Stories should have fewer sociopaths. He specifically points people who do things that make games fun as sociopaths, but, in context of other anti-gamersgate Cracked articles, it is clear that anyone deviating from SJW orthodoxy is a sociopath.
5: Villains should be made more morally grey, so the difference between heroes and villains are less stark (ie. break down traditional morality and replace with prog morality).
4: Games should decide your character’s emotions and reactions for you, the game should think for you, rather than you reacting to the game yourself.
3: The reason we’re shooting at people can not be ‘fun’, there must be a justifiable reason that is very easy to understand without reading.
2: Suggestions having to do with pacing and structure, which are not relevant, one way or the other, to my point.
1: Games should dictate morality, particularly SJW morality, rather than let gamers figure out moral quandaries for themselves.
Why, oh why, would gamers be against this? Why would gamers be against people trying to remove the fun parts of games and turn games into morality lectures?
Mark Hill is a perfect demonstration of why gamers are against the SJW’s entering gaming, and it has nothing to do with misogyny. They want to turn games away from the objective of fun and towards the objective of forcing their SJW moral system on people who just want to relax for a few hours.