Games make you right wing Page 2

  • Jono62 12 Mar 2018 20:51:47 21,830 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    JamboWayOh wrote:


    SATIRE
    Aw man, I missed getting free pearls like hers.
  • DrStrangelove 12 Mar 2018 20:51:47 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Even if we ignore the hatefulness, a newspaper worth the name has to cover politics. If you visit the Guardian site, most of the headlines are serious politics stuff. On the Mail site, there's mostly gossip and shit. Trying to find a "politics" section, you're out of luck. Your best bet is "news", which is more gossip (right now some BS about Meghan Markle joining "The Firm"). From there, you have sub-categories, none of them politics, but one of them is News in italic letters, suggesting something like "ok, actual news here". Click on that and you just get the same shit, and in fact it's the same Meghan article headlining it.

    How anyone can compare this crap to the Guardian is beyond me. That's even more far-fetched than saying Trump and Hillary are the same.
  • Deleted user 12 March 2018 20:52:13
    Not really. The psychological tricks are the same. The effects are different depending on your political persuasion. They're largely aimed at people in the political centre. The Mail aims to radicalise people on the centre-right - people who have "casually" racist inclinations but don't tend to rant on about it on forums, randomly insult foreign people on the street or indulge in conspiracy theories. The Guardian aims to do the same for people on the centre-left.

    For someone on the centre-right, the Guardian probably seems openly hateful and the Mail seems more insidious and underhanded.

    That's why they're propaganda. If they were aimed at the far-left and far-right respectively, they'd basically just be preaching to the choir.

    Edited by FilthyAnimal at 20:53:53 12-03-2018
  • KnuttinAtoll 12 Mar 2018 20:52:15 6,839 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:
    The mail is openly hateful and often funny for those who know it's a load of crap. The guardian is a a more snide, underhanded type of propaganda that preys on people using all manner of psychological tricks and warfare and is truly dangerous.
    This post could do with a satire disclaimer to be fair.
  • Deleted user 12 March 2018 20:56:21
    DrStrangelove wrote:
    How anyone can compare this crap to the Guardian is beyond me. That's even more far-fetched than saying Trump and Hillary are the same.
    I think that's probably why it irritates me more with The Guardian. There's nothing to salvage with the Daily Heil, and it's hard to see how its gutter journalism could be dragged even further into the gutter, but The Guardian has some genuinely good stuff that's been dragged through the mud and devalued by shit like the articles linked here.

    Same with Clinton really. Trump is just a fucking talentless trainwreck, so watching him bumble from one disaster to the next doesn't really bother me at this point, and his obvious and fundamental corruption means that there's nothing about his person to save. But Clinton would have been presidential material - she's competent, a good dealbroker - which makes these (legitimate) question marks about her integrity all the more bothersome.

    Edited by FilthyAnimal at 21:02:18 12-03-2018
  • ZuluHero 12 Mar 2018 21:02:29 7,142 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Jono62 wrote:
    JamboWayOh wrote:


    SATIRE
    Aw man, I missed getting free pearls like hers.
    We can hit you over the head until you think that's what happened. If it helps the argument, I'll say games made me do it...
  • nickthegun 12 Mar 2018 21:03:32 76,737 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    There’s a kernel of truth there but as soon as you start delving into specific games, gamers will always wet themselves and start screaming ‘STOP GETTING GAMES WRONG’ and ignore everything else.
  • JamboWayOh 12 Mar 2018 21:03:33 11,744 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Tbf CGI rabbits trying to cause allergy seizures is something that needs to be talked about. I'm shaking with rage just thinking about it.
  • Deleted user 12 March 2018 21:16:07
    @nickthegun Well, of course there are games out there that push a right-wing agenda. The CoD series is probably the most egregious example of it, so much so that I've found it quite hard to actually sit through a full campaign game of it.

    The problem is that the examples quoted are so far "out there" that discussion with advocates of his position is fruitless. It reminds me a lot of how Anita Sarkeesian would identify perceived slights in pretty much every single game out there.

    If we take the "expulsion of aliens" theme, for instance - it's not an expulsion of "aliens", but expulsion of an aggressor. I mean, in Space Invaders and XCOM, they're ALL FUCKING SHOOTING AT YOU. Not specific ones. All of them. You're not encouraged to eradicate the entire species, just the ones on your front line. This is something that governments, whether left or right-wing, engage in.

    I've seen right-wing commentators argue in the same ridiculous fashion that games are a propaganda channel for left-wing/liberal sympathies. Mass Effect's and Dragon Age's LGBT leanings. The anti-religious message of Bioshock Infinite. Assassin's Creed's supposed "tolerance" of Islam.

    Ideological extremists see slights and sleights against them in everything that doesn't wholly advocate their political sentiment. That has been a truth of art and journalism since time immemoriam.

    Edited by FilthyAnimal at 21:18:57 12-03-2018
  • Ryze 12 Mar 2018 21:36:34 3,655 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    JamboWayOh wrote:


    SATIRE
    ...and the Mario inspired rage boils inside of him...
  • nudistpete 12 Mar 2018 21:37:10 550 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    They should have titled the article "Ban this sick filth"
  • LittleSparra 12 Mar 2018 22:13:21 7,926 posts
    Seen 4 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    'Propaganda'?

    Really? Trite, misguided, irrelevant, fine, but propaganda?
  • simpleexplodingmaybe 12 Mar 2018 22:21:38 9,426 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Does TV make you right wing because 24 was on it and that was full on War Against Terror neocon torture fantasy?
  • Technoishmatt 12 Mar 2018 22:23:31 3,142 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    What rabbit hole have I plunged through?

    For some perspective I think people have to realise that news publications can include articles and opinions that they don't have to agree with, which you would hope is possible in order to be able to have a debate (even a narrower position can have different sides).

    Living in DC, I am a subscriber to the Washington Post. They have about 6 opinion pieces a day at least, and it is not uncommon for two or three of them to be about exactly the same topic, sometimes agreeing with each other, but focusing on different issues. But equally often enough you can get two pieces that come to precisely the opposite conclusions (at the moment this is usually one of the totally bonkers Trump mouth pieces talking absolute shite).
  • Deleted user 12 March 2018 22:40:45
    @Technoishmatt I do think you should consider that many people are capable of differentiating between op-ed articles that they don't agree with and pseudo-scientific or fake news articles that are just complete and utter horseshit.

    The Washington Post is a publication that I greatly admire, being as it is fairly non-partisan - quite a rarity for a non-local newspaper. Agreeing with one or the other party or politician isn't necessarily partisanship - it can be pragmatic.

    The UK's media landscape is so toxic that the newspapers themselves are essentially political parties that "pick" their candidates that best suit their political standpoints. The Telegraph will almost uniformly advocate the Tories, the Guardian almost uniformly advocates Labour. The Mail & Express will advocate whoever has the most anti-immigration or Europhobic policies and has a reasonable chance of getting votes. The Sun & Mirror bounce between Tory and Labour depending on who has the most populist policies.

    Newspapers like the WP are a rarity - they have no defined political standpoint.
  • Trowel 12 Mar 2018 22:42:27 22,244 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    Bloody tabloids.
  • Rogueywon Most Generous Forumite, 2016 12 Mar 2018 22:55:50 5,179 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    FilthyAnimal wrote:
    The Sun & Mirror bounce between Tory and Labour depending on who has the most populist policies.
    Not quite. The Mirror is consistently the most partisan of the UK's papers - analysis has shown that over the years, it has carried the highest portion of Labour-friendly headlines and the lowest proportion of anti-Labour ones. Even the Mail and Telegraph's pro/anti-Conservative ratio isn't as skewed. It's more Labour-partisan even than the Guardian.

    The Sun is typical Murdoch in that it follows rather than leads public opinion. Murdoch is frequently misunderstood. He's not all that partisan on most issues (though there are a couple of exceptions). He just likes being on the winning side and, more importantly, making the others on the winning side feel indebted to him so he can extract commercial advantage later.

    He does mostly seem to stay out of editorial at The Times, which remains the UK's most centrist paper. His one departure from that came when he wanted to cozy up to China and pressed The Times to take a soft line on Chinese issues, but that worked out badly for all concerns and is a thing of the past now that Murdoch has written off News International's chances of breaking through in China.

    Edit: Ooops! Seems since I last checked, The Guardian and the Daily Mail have both overtaken the Mirror's partisanship-ratio, albeit only by a tiny margin. Seems the Mirror's wobbles over Corbyn cost it a couple of %. The Guardian now leads the pack. Telegraph is way behind now, because of its UKIP-flirtations and the general nuttiness/unpredictability/scary Catholic sectarianism of its owners.

    Edited by Rogueywon at 23:08:22 12-03-2018
  • DrStrangelove 13 Mar 2018 00:50:28 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    FilthyAnimal wrote:
    The Washington Post is a publication that I greatly admire, being as it is fairly non-partisan - quite a rarity for a non-local newspaper. Agreeing with one or the other party or politician isn't necessarily partisanship - it can be pragmatic.

    The UK's media landscape is so toxic that the newspapers themselves are essentially political parties that "pick" their candidates that best suit their political standpoints. The Telegraph will almost uniformly advocate the Tories, the Guardian almost uniformly advocates Labour. The Mail & Express will advocate whoever has the most anti-immigration or Europhobic policies and has a reasonable chance of getting votes. The Sun & Mirror bounce between Tory and Labour depending on who has the most populist policies.

    Newspapers like the WP are a rarity - they have no defined political standpoint.
    Now I read and like the WP, but "fairly non-partisan"? Erm. They're on the forefront of anti-Trump media, very much in line with their owner Jeff Bezos. I value their contribution as much as that of the NYT and the Grauniad, but just like those always with a pinch of salt because I know they're anything but non-partisan.
  • Deleted user 13 March 2018 01:04:08
    That's not an unusual trait of the media though. Liberal/Democratic opposition to Trump is obvious, but there are plenty of Republican-leaning journalists who are are anti-Trump, especially libertarians, free market hawks and deficit hawks.

    Trump has very little media support outside of the far-right mediasphere (Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars).
  • DrStrangelove 13 Mar 2018 01:05:00 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Rogueywon wrote:
    The Sun is typical Murdoch in that it follows rather than leads public opinion. Murdoch is frequently misunderstood. He's not all that partisan on most issues (though there are a couple of exceptions). He just likes being on the winning side and, more importantly, making the others on the winning side feel indebted to him so he can extract commercial advantage later.
    While I believe that Murdoch has his own agenda that he imposes upon his papers, this is pretty much how I perceive the Sun vs. the Mail. I think the Sun is partly following an agenda and partly following public opinion. In contrast, the Mail is extremely aggressive in pushing their far right agenda. I expect the Mail to double down where the Sun might back off.

    As you said, Murdoch is partisan, but not that extreme. Paul Dacre on the other hand is a far right fanatic. Dacre doesn't care about following public opinion, he wants to shape it.
  • up_the_ante 13 Mar 2018 01:23:02 927 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I initially thought the article had been written by someone that doesn't know much about video games, but it turns out Alfie Bown has written a whole book on video games - The Playstation Dreamworld, so he presumably has some idea of what he's saying.
  • DrStrangelove 13 Mar 2018 01:32:53 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @up_the_ante

    Well first of all, that you wrote a book doesn't necessarily mean you've got any fucking idea what you're talking about.

    But, secondly, yes--this is something worth discussing. It just would've helped if it wasn't such a short, reduced, one-sided rant.
  • Mola_Ram 13 Mar 2018 01:41:37 19,336 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Eh, I don't necessarily agree with the piece, but he's not saying "games make you right wing", just that many of the popular ones have ideologies that may push impressionable minds in that direction. It's a similar argument to people taking about movies (eg. Death Wish) glorifying and pushing gun culture. The movie by itself (probably) won't do much, but it's part of a larger tapestry of influences, some of them from pop culture.

    He's stretching the argument in a few places, but there's only so much nuance that can fit in a short Guardian essay. It's not worth the outrage imo, though I guess that train has already left the station.
  • Mola_Ram 13 Mar 2018 01:52:05 19,336 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Also, I don't understand the complaint about it being "one-sided". It's an opinion piece, where the whole point is to make a case for that particular opinion.

    Think it's wrong? Great! Wipe the froth from your mouth and make a case for your own opinion.
  • Deleted user 13 March 2018 02:10:01
    The Onion is the only paper worth reading; check this headline: https://entertainment.theonion.com/audience-left-wondering-what-happened-after-action-film-1823699285#_ga=2.56717482.1071483541.1520906918-700316722.1520906912
  • DrStrangelove 13 Mar 2018 02:32:12 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Mola_Ram wrote:
    Also, I don't understand the complaint about it being "one-sided". It's an opinion piece, where the whole point is to make a case for that particular opinion.

    Think it's wrong? Great! Wipe the froth from your mouth and make a case for your own opinion.
    Do opinion pieces have to be one-sided though? I think there's ample opportunity for opinion pieces to make a point without being overly one-sided.

    Sure, you can do that, but that is inviting backlash.
  • DrStrangelove 13 Mar 2018 02:33:27 13,634 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And while I don't think the Onion is the only news source worth reading, it's probably the only one you can trust in these times
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.