462
Gamer Simply Wants Non-Political Games, White Ethnostate
(hard-drive.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
462 points (94.9% liked)
The Onion
4492 readers
481 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, one of those is a reasonable ask.
It's not a reasonable ask because it implies that non-political games don't exist. It also kind of implies that games didn't used to be politic. And finally, it implies that having non-white male protagonists is somehow political.
I think you're reading more into "I want non-political games" than is actually there.
I don't think youre reading into it enough because every time I see people complain about politics in games it's because it doesn't have a white male main character. People were praising Helldivers 2 for not being political when it has a satirical fascist government running the planet in it but it's okay because there's no black or gay people in it since they wear helmets.
I think you two are thinking differently about what non-political means. The other person probably just meant a game without overt politics and not what some others mean by it that you talked about.
The satirical government in helldivers 2 is overt af. It is extremely on the nose and they hammer away at it with the spoken lines and propaganda. That game is fucking dripping with politics. That's the point.
Did @FaceDeer@fedia.io use Helldivers 2 as an example of a non-political game or wdym
I most certainly didn't, I've never played it and know nothing about it other than recognizing it as the name of a game that's quite popular right now.
It's kind of funny in a meta way how what I thought was an amusing little comment has blown up into an intense argument about the politicization of games (in an explicitly satire-related community no less). Thank goodness nobody jumped on the ambiguity I put into it as my attempt at humour and thought I was implying that wanting a white ethnostate was the reasonable one instead. Though I suppose seeing the thread fly off the handle in that direction instead would have been even more amusing in an appalling sort of way.
I think on Lemmy it's pretty common to go really into the weeds with political discussion on every comment.
"I like boats"
"Wow, uhm, let's unpack the problematic bourgeoisie mindset behind your statement and how that reveals you are a racist, hate free software and probably kick dogs."
"I just said I like boats..?"
"Oh you're backpedaling now are you?!?"
It's pretty funny tbh. I've had some interesting conversation because of that.
It can be funny, but it's also kind of exhausting. I often want to just chat about whatever the topic of the thread is, not end up in a verbal fist-fight over whether I'm a misogynist or whatever other imaginary offence that I've given through my random comment.
I guess I simply want the option for non-political discussion. And an ethnostate for deer.
Could you elaborate or give an example of unwanted politics in a video game?
Have you heard of the Amarr empire? That's an unwanted politic in a videogame.
I understand it's a faction from Eve online but haven't played the game. Can you give more details about what makes you not want it in a video game?
I'm just meming. Amarr stuff is plenty good. They just happen to be religious zealots and the perfect thing to rail on here.
Yeah, fair enough. When I read about them I realized the reasoning could go in two opposite directions: hating having to deal with religious zealots in a game or hating the way the game is portraying the religious. Tongue in cheek didn't occur to me lol.
It would be a reasonable ask in a world where no or only few non-political games exist. However, in our world, there are plenty of non-political games, and this criticism is usually directed at specific games that contain elements that don't fit the critic's political leanings. "I don't want games featuring diverse characters or progressive messages" would in most cases be the more honest statement.
I never played a non political game and I never will. They don't exist. They're a made up fiction designed to manipulate you.
I think it can just mean "no overt political themes". The implied politics of medieval setting in a fantasy game for example might not be enough to register as "political" for most people. If that game was about the horrors of migrating orcs and how we need to stop them from ruining Fantasyland, I think that might be a bit more of a political game.
Oh well in that case I prefer overtly political games. Like Mario, which is about rescuing the mushroom kingdom's head of state and driving Bowser's soldiers out of the territory they've occupied. You even lower Bowser's flag at the end of each level.
While I know you're joking, it does show how complex the thing is. The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.
I'm not joking, I'm being 100% serious while using a totally incongruous example to make my point that tons of stuff people refuse to believe is political, is deeply political. My point further reinforced by the fact that you found it difficult to accept that I think Mario is political. People are LLMs, they don't understand the words they're using, they just regurgitate according to probabilistic association models. The word politics is associated probabilistically with seriousness, so people assume silly fun things like Mario can't be political. They don't understand the words they use, they just use heuristics. People aren't sapient creatures, they literally have the same intelligence as chatgpt.
Then you've just deeply misunderstood what people mean by those terms. I'm not sure if that's what people think has no politics at all, rather it's not what people mean when they use the terms non-political or political video game. It's not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Words are made up, what they mean depends on the context and shared understanding of them. When people talk about politics in video games, I think it's alright to get the inferred meaning and go with that. Pointing out that everything is political doesn't really do much.
If you're going to make Wittgenstein's argument that language exists only to fulfill a social purpose, then I am happy to engage you on that deeper level, but in doing so we must confront the purpose of the vernacular usage of the word "politics". If it's not a word based on representing some idea of truth, what is it for? As the Hard Drive has correctly pointed out, it's for complaining about minorities in video games. It's for racism. Personally, I think we should call out the use of racist tools, including social tools such as words. If someone complains about politics, we should call them a racist and move on with our lives.
Like I said early on, I think it can just mean “no overt political themes”. It’s not Super Mario they mean when they talk about political video games, but rather stuff with a lot more overt, direct and intentional message and topics.
Treating everyone not into overt political messages in a game as racist seems a bit, jeez. Should at least ask first what they mean.
Oh, we're backing away from the social utility theory and back into the argument that words have meanings, but now with a descriptivism argument? Okay, sure. I can't tell what you mean by overt, the game manual for Super Mario explains the whole political situation, I don't see how Mario could be more overt. So I'll assume you just mean direct (as in directed toward the player) and intentional, unless you can define overtness. In that case, whether a game is political or non-political depends entirely on the internal thoughts and feelings of the developers, not on the actual content of the game. I think the only way you could ever be sure a game was political is if the developers gave a press release stating the game is political. Otherwise I'm gonna go the skeptic's route and say all games that don't have developer statements of politics are non-political. According to your definition of politics, of course, which I don't generally agree with. But in terms of prescriptivism, 90% of the games people complain about politics can't be proven political. For example I would not be convinced Metal Gear is political at all until I saw an interview where Kojima directly stated he intended to change people's minds about politics. For all we know he's just a big philosophy nerd who wanted to ask a lot of cool questions in Metal Gear because he likes philosophical themes. That seems pretty on brand for him. So I'm gonna go ahead and deny that Metal Gear is political according to the common lexicon.
What in the world. I just mean that most people won't consider Super Mario political but if it was trying to say that monarchy was the best thing ever then that would feel political to people.
Okay, so that's not actually using a definition, that's what I like to call "vibes based meanings", which are largely useless and serve only to reveal that most people have no idea what the word political means and just use vibes.
Well yeah, that's how people are. Why would you even expect there to be a solid and shared understanding between all the people about something as vague as what makes a game "political"?
I don't. I literally just said the opposite. I said people have no idea what the word means, and then you asked why I expect people to have a shared understanding of the word. Those are opposites. If people don't know what a word means, then they can't have a shared understanding. This should be obvious to you, pay attention.
It just felt like early on you were expecting one and now are disappointed how people use the terms.
No, I fully understand that the word politics is a racist dogwhistle that few people use meaningfully, and I understood it at the beginning. You presented a bunch of different theories as to the word's meaning, I pointed out the problem with each of them, and we arrived back at the beginning, the headline of this article we're all replying to.
I use the logical definition of politics, which implies everything is political, as a starting point for these conversations which always end in the conclusion that people don't know what they're saying. I've had this conversation dozens of times.
I'll tell you why people don't know what politics means. It's because the rich don't want them to know. Those who own the government and who are threatened by democracy do not want people realising that participating in politics is a good thing. So they use the media apparatus to teach people that politics is no fun, leads to hurt feelings, and never fixes anything. And people swallow that trick hook, line, and sinker.
The ideal case for the rich is that most people hate politics, a select brainwashed few vote conservative while starting horrible culture wars, and nobody actually participates in democracy. And that's what everyone who hates politics is supporting. The end goal is simple. It's voter suppression. And along the way, there will of course be genocide as the cost of doing business.
Does it really seem like such a far-fetched idea in our so heavily politicized world that someone would rather just play a bing-bing-wahoo game without having to really think about politics for a moment? I feel like that's an obvious case where it has nothing to do with racism but just wanting a break from politics.
The reason they want a break from politics is racism. You're trying to tell me "they're not racist, they're just doing the thing racist propaganda wants them to do and feeling the way racist propaganda wants them to feel". That's not two different things.
All politics doesn't even relate to race. Sometimes people just get tired of politics.
That's only ever happened to people with antisocial personality disorder, because being sick of politics is a disordered and unusual mental state. It doesn't happen to neurotypicals. Neurotypicals always like politics. The ones that think they don't like politics, for any length of time, are wrong. Remember, all participation in society is political. And human beings are naturally hardwired to participate in society. When that hardwiring is damaged, we call it ASPD. Neurotypicals who think they're sick of politics are actually just sick of conflict, and have accepted a racist lie that politics means conflict.
Pac-Man or Pong requires at least working electricity and some practice at the game to reach higher levels, which requires leisure time - therefore it's a political statement that the poorest in the world can't afford the equipment, the infrastructure and the culture to play and therefore its very existence is a political statement
That's the main theme of the original warcraft games. No one called them political.
The intention counts for a lot too. Someone inferring a political message from it would be different than intentionally trying to make one.