“Inclusive” isn’t what some people say it means

I’ve been following the GamerGate thing for a bit, and I’ve come to one simple conclusion. No matter what you think of the supporters of GamerGate, the “Social Justice Warriors” and Feminists are not thinking of games simply being “inclusive.”

When you hear “inclusive” or “fair” (like “fair share” from Progressives), it means “not for thee.” Let me explain. The common theme among the SJW’s and “critics” is that games, and “gaming culture” need to be more inclusive and not so “masculine.” Now, in a free market, anyone can enter and provide a product/service and make it available for sale. This is no different in the gaming industry (tabletop, electronic, etc.) With freely available tools, the Internet, and cheap computers anyone with an idea and the desire to build that idea can get a game out there. The key to take from this is that no one is stopping women from making games. In spite of the high-profile victims of late that seem to crop up on MSNBC and Internet Radio, today is a golden age of self-publishing and nearly limitless marketing potential.  Sure, it’d be nice to make a game alone and have EA pick it up and sell millions of copies. The same thing flies through the heads of prospective musicians when they want to “make it big.”

The key is that not everyone will make it, in spite of their talent or ideas. Of course the definition of “make it” varies from person to person, but the general sense of being a musician mogul or a Lord British style developer is what most people feel is the definition of “making it.” So, if we’re to take that definition of “make it” and apply it to the “inclusive” rhetoric of the SWJ’s, there still is nothing stopping a determined person (regardless of gender) from attempting and possibly succeeding in their endeavors.

The problem arises when SWJ’s and feminists (feministfrequency.com is a prime example of this) criticize stereotypes, narratives, depictions of women, and other “shortcomings” of games, they are not jockeying for an equal voice in the market. No, it’s much more sinister. They are attempting to eliminate the things they don’t like in video games so that only their games and their vision for games is allowed.  How do I know this? If they criticize a game for being “sexist”, they do not offer an alternative, and in the case of many feminists, they merely point out how pervasive it all is. That, like “fair”, is their way of saying “I want this type of game stopped.”

The same tired “institutional” sorts of barriers supposedly accompany everyone but white men in the gaming market. I don’t see that at all (considering the plethora of Asian gaming moguls), and attempting to insert Western Culture into Asian gaming is going to fall flatter than the XBox in Japan. If feminists want to make their own games, that’s fine. I applaud their efforts. I most likely will skip them because I am “part of the problem” (a white heterosexual male), but I won’t belittle those who want to try them or even support them.

The problem for me arises when the SJW’s attack games with the most tenuous of examples to reinforce their view that games are all sexist. They are not being critical…. they are attempting to get a groundswell of force to coerce game companies to stop making those types of games. It’s not technically censorship, but it certainly reeks of collectivism.

So the next time you see a SJW saying “inclusive”… be wary. They aren’t talking about you.

Thought Police

    I have noticed something quite disturbing of late, and I think it’s been a long time coming but recently has been taken to its logical absurdity.  The most insidious problem we face as humans is not climate change. It is Political Correctness. There is a determined, well-funded movement to suppress speech that is considered “harmful” to others. Who gets to determine what is harmful and what is not? Certainly not you or me. “Top. Men.” (stolen from Raiders of the Lost Ark) Who are these “top men”? Well, they are politicians, celebrities, news organizations, and other pearl-clutching busybodies who insist on controlling the narrative. 

    The funny bit is the Internet is very hard to censor. Certainly there are ways to make it harder to get to things, but by and large, the Internet is still self-healing and will work around blockages. (Google the “Streisand Effect” for a good example.) When things get out on the Internet, they do not disappear. Removing things would be about as productive as putting toothpaste back in the tube, if the opening were the diameter of two atoms. This sort of unintended consequences of instant communication and a networked world really scares politicians, moneyed interests, celebrities, and anyone else who wants to control what the “great unwashed” see and hear. But I digress… this isn’t about the Streisand Effect in particular, but how people cannot express their own opinions anymore without immediate “apologies” and other acts of contrition while everyone tweets death threats because a person dared to say “I don’t give two monkeys about the Kardashians”. 

    A good recent example of this behavior is Ted Nugent’s tweet about Barak Obama. He called him a “subhuman mongrel”, and immediately the Internet was awash with virtual Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons calling for Ted’s head on a platter. Was it the most eloquent way to tell everyone his position on the current President? No, but that’s not the point. The point was he should be allowed to say it without facing repercussions from people who shouldn’t be policing other human beings’ speech in the first place. They are just words. Words are not force. Speech is not force. You literally cannot hurt someone with words. The person may allow themselves to be offended, hurt, angered by words, but that is the recipient’s problem, not the speaker’s.

    What can be done about this? I don’t know, considering how entrenched it is. We cannot criticize the President or we’re “racists”. We cannot make off-color jokes about people and celebrities because we might hurt their feelings. News flash, folks: You don’t have a right not to be offended. Ignore the trolls. Stop being “Social Justice Warriors” and stop trying to police speech that isn’t bothering anyone. Remember what people said about all the religious groups who protested films that depicted their religion in a less-than-flattering light? I’ll give you a hint. They didn’t tell the film maker to stop doing it. They told those “offended” to get a life and change the channel.


    So here’s what everyone should remember about the Internet and free speech.  If you don’t like it, get a life and change the channel. In the immortal words of Denis Leary:  “Life’s hard, buy a helmet.” It won’t matter in a few years when the thought police censure you for thinking a controversial thought if you don’t nip it in the bud today. Remember, you’re not truly free unless you are free to be wrong.