It's more that when the writing is bad something is perceived as "political", as the insert of whatever political messaging is being used comes out of nowhere and smacks the player like a cudgel. That's what most gamers have a problem with, obviously there's a loud minority that rage about stupid shit like Jesse Faden being too masculine. But that's not what most people are talking about.
Games need to tackle these issues head on and fully integrate them into the world, not just tack on preachy dialog that doesn't make sense within the wider game world.
FF16 is blatantly about slavery and no one really complained, it's not exactly peak fiction, but they at least had everything contained within the world. FF7 is the same but with fossil fuels and much better writing.
New Vegas is the best example, it's simply written well and gives the player agency.
Death Stranding did a great job of both integrating it's themes directly into the world, and also tackling them head on without any remorse.
Helldivers is so ludicrously full on and absolutely dripping with it's pro fascist ideology that everyone knows what they're getting into from the intro video, and then the game starts adding texture and "are we the baddies" energy straight away.
Fucking Disco Elysium is near universally praised by the wider gaming audience, and I don't even think I need to explain how that one is political.
It's the same reason why most ideologically driven media is cringe as fuck. Christian media being a prime example, it's contrived slop that doesn't make sense within its own story. Like God's Not Dead and it's illogical legal system built on feels and Shapiro logic.
Who remembers the weird pro-life Doctor Who episode? That was bizarre and out of place. The characters stopped acting like themselves for the sake of whatever message it wanted to get across. It just felt really out of place.
The Last of Us Part 2, to label the most controversial example, had periods of good and bad writing, but focusing in on the "violence bad" part of it's messaging, it completely missed the mark. Giving the characters names that they shout was just hilarious, and having Ellie repeatedly kill dogs whilst Abbie pets them was just so hamfisted. Then making the gameplay violent and fun which just divorced it further.
TLDR: Gamers People love politics in video games media, they hate hamfisted preaching in video games media. Especially when it doesn't make sense in the crafted world
Please could you provide some examples? I've legitimately never seen someone upset at the devs for not literally being fascists.
If I have to go out of my way to find this, I'm assuming it falls under the "loud" minority group. I'm sure these people exist, but it'd surprise me if they made up a significant amount of the over 12 million players.
Edit: Had a further look, there seems to be more people complaining about people taking it literally than people actually taking it literally. I did find like 3 Reddit posts, but all had 0 upvotes and like 30 comments telling them they're wrong and stupid
Sorry man, but that's a relatively milk toast YouTube video with 81k views. Definitely very right leaning, but outright fascist is a bit much. She clearly has no media literacy or is deliberately misleading people.
Her latest video got only 11k views, and most of her titles look like some right wing grifter shit like "Ben Shapiro SILENCES
Candace Owens, CANCELS Debate?".
And I'm sure that right wing grifters will use this for content, that's what they do.
I wouldn't say that shows anything more than a loud minority. Honestly 81k views is lower than I expected and more proves my point
Yeah zero psychological risk is a bit of an overstatement. Zero physical maybe, but there's definitely psychological risks, and I'm not even thinking about child support
Edit: I can't read, it says physiological and I'm just deficient in the reading
There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest...
Honestly, the best evidence they could provide to someone like that is suing Madison for defamation and winning. But they don't want that, I don't want that, and I'm sure you don't want that either. It would also look mega bad for LTT. Which is why I think they mentioned that they could sue in the post, but chose not to.
And it's not like some rando is going to be invested enough to pay a 3rd party to investigate LTT without a conflict of interest being there.
Everything else kinda needs to stay locked up due to employee privacy and data protection laws. So, I honestly can't see how they can "win".
I will say, LTT is a big corporation, and there is a massive power deferential between them and a single person. And given how difficult it is to stand up that, especially when you're afraid of rocking the boat and losing your job, plus how fucking annoyed I am about the Billet Labs debacle and how they responded to that. I still believe that most of what Madison said was true, or at the very least, she believes what she's saying is true
To add to your point. It also, in this case, subverted my expectations of what the joke was going to be. As the standard one just implies the therapist is taking notes because you've done something weird.
The expectation is subverted, as the therapist is just stealing the joke instead.
Subverted expectations are often a key part of humour.
Microsoft's announcement: "We are introducing a new Game Pass recommendation card on the Settings homepage. The Game Pass recommendation card on Settings Homepage will be shown to you if you actively play games on your PC. As a reminder – the Settings homepage will be shown only on the Home and Pro editions of Windows 11 and...
So when is a societal ill not the patriarchy? There doesn't seem to be any delineation between what is and isn't, so it almost seems like some sort of mysterious Satan figure
Ah, gotcha, sorry my mistake. Thank you for all your help btw.
So it's specific for when men are less disenfranchised than women? Regardless of the perpetrator of said injustice?
So looking at that other guys examples. The only one that doesn't immediately make sense is:
Or if some women asking for some sort of benefits over men is patriarchy
And to me the only example that comes to mind is women expecting men to pay for dates? Which I think is part of patriarchy as it's inherited from a time where women couldn't work or had severely limited career prospects?
And other things like
Or if some women shaming men for not being masculine enough is patriarchy.
are a response to a historic lack of agency among women, requiring them to force their husbands to find success for them.
I'm not getting this one though, could you explain how this is patriarchy?
I get that, and you're right. But a lot of people are taking the meme too far, and taking something that was originally good, and making it it anti-men.
Men's feelings actually matter, and we as society need to start actually thinking about them, rather than just telling them to man up all the time.
I've talked to a whole bunch of anti-bear men, and all of them accept the point when told in an empathetic way that acknowledges their right to feel the way they do. You can take that feeling and channel it as a force for good, rather them antagonising them and pushing them further away
(Not saying you in particular are doing this)
Edit: Please respond instead of downvoting. I'm failing to see the problem with identifying that there's a enough antagonistic commenters that maybe it's pushing people in the wrong direction. And we now require an over-correction of empathy to undo that damage.
You're correct, but you're every bit as angry as they are, and your comment is so devoid of any respect or empathy for men as fellow human beings that you're only making things worse for everyone.
You are the ammo that anti-sjw grifters put in their guns.
Like it or not, men are 50% of the population, and no one is getting anywhere by needlessly antagonising them
This post, and most of the other bear ones, are in normie forums full of people not familiar with feminist discourse. The reason for that? It's funny, cathartic, shocking, and a little inflammatory. And that's fine, it's meant to be. It gives it reach and allows people to learn and others to teach. The problem is that when men do find this to be shocking and inflammatory, they need to channel that emotion somewhere, and antagonistic/angry internet discourse is not the correct way respond to that.
There was a popular post the other day of "If you don't understand why women pick the bear, you are the bear", that directly antagonises the exact people who need to hear about why women choose the bear, and those people don't need to be antagonised, they need a little empathy and non-confrontational discussion to get there.
When I talked to them calmly, and acknowledged the way they feel, validated their emotions, then explained the topic to them, every single one I talked to accepted the core point and came out better for it. Take that angry energy, educate, and direct that energy in the right direction.
It's not that men's feelings should trump women's safety. It's that you need to think about why people are disagreeing so you can effectively talk to them
The whole discussion is entirely feelings based, as despite the percentage men actually committing being really low (as far as our stats can tell) it doesn't really matter that much.
Same with the bear, actual bear attacks are so statistically unlikely to occur that it's irrelevant to the discussion, even if we had the required stats to make it a 1 to 1.
Assuming only 1% of men do something (illegal or otherwise) that makes a woman feel afraid, that 1% can do that to multiple women. If they do it to 100 different women, that's enough that 100% of women have experienced it.
Negative experiences stick in our mind a lot more readily than good ones, and it creates the perception that a chosen random man could be more dangerous than a bear.
And I'm not saying they're wrong, my take away is still that enough men are shit, and we as a society need to do better.
Equally, using shock value and absurd hypotheticals is going to cause emotional reactions in men, and sure, that gets the message out. But we can't act surprised and start demonising men when they act shocked and disagree with the absurd hypothetical. It's valid to feel hurt by the statement, and telling people their feelings don't matter distracts from the issue
The first Neuralink implant in a human malfunctioned after several threads recording neural activity retracted from the brain, the Elon Musk-owned startup revealed Wednesday....
It's experimental tech, I wouldn't want to be the Guinea pig either.
However, if I was quadriplegic and could only use the somewhat limited external tech, and a significant portion of my life was interacting with a computer. Fuck yeah the risk is worth a performance boost. Especially considering this is going to be a lot safer and more powerful when it hits the mass market
When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not...
I'd pay 40€ a month for an officially licensed private torrent tracker. If they gave discounts based on the amount seeded I doubt they would even need the stupidly expensive infrastructure.
I don't even have the arr stack because it's cheaper, just because it's more convenient and no one can take it away from me
Totally agree, they'll never go for that.
I meant licensed as in that the media is being legally distributed. But they wouldn't go for it as it would mean that customers might have an amount of ownership.
The distinction is that the private tracker is legal to run, as you'd be paying the licence holder for the ability to torrent using their private tracker.
I like the Audible idea of "you have X amount of GB a month that you can download, and you can pay more for more GB". It gives the customer a reason to keep paying, and therefore allow the business to exist.
Licence is probably the wrong word as I'm not anywhere near an expert on this
No one learns anything if they just leave. You'd rather they just get the impression that most women are dumb, hate men, and don't know anything about bears?
Making the question so inflammatory is a double edged sword, you reach a larger audience, but you're way more likely to drive people from your cause.
It's okay for men to have feelings, I don't get why everyone expects them to be cold calculating machines that automatically have the required knowledge and emotional intelligence to see through this esoteric bear question. Hell, there's a good chunk of women on side man.
A little empathy and respect goes a long way, you can't get anywhere just making enemies
I get what you're saying, I really do. But that's also true for the other side. I heavily support listening to everyone and looking for the kernel of truth in every opinion.
But that's not how the vast majority of the population thinks, men and women, especially when issues are emotionally charged. A lot of politics nowadays shows that
Okay? That's just not true though. I've convinced people in this thread that were vehemently anti-bear to agree with the actual point behind the issue, "enough men are shit to women, that they'd choose bear".
It's just a little understanding that using an insult/inflammatory statement like this, then using the post title to charge it further can cause knee jerk reactions in people.
Hell a good amount of the anti-bear crowd are women. It's unfair for you to expect the majority of men to be as emotionally developed as you are when a good chunk of women don't get it either
I'm not, I'm just stating how a good amount of people clearly think. It's unfair to be so aggressive to what's a reasonable reaction to an inflammatory question
You meant they should stop having emotions? Rather than stop defending themselves?
The statement is making a large generalisation about a group that they're part of. With every single other group it's socially acceptable to find that offensive, yet these men are expected to "to take it like a man" and not get upset?
I'm not saying they're right assuming it's about them, but it's easy to see how the mistake can happen.
Agreed, my assumption was that it means an unknown/random stranger. Not that they were behaving weird. Other people have suggested people think of the worst man/bear.
All lead to more division and confusion.
Edit: After re-reading the Know Your Meme linked above, the original TikTok doesn't actually specify anything. It's just "Would you rather be stuck in a forest with a man or a bear?"
I think the discussion of “Which gender has it worse” is less important than “how do we make society safer for everyone”
You immediately went back into “Which gender has it worse”. There are no sides here, people just make it that way.
I understand how you feel. There's an often promoted stereotype that men are large, strong, aggressive, and sexually predatory that informs public perception and behaviour. But it's an opinion that you need to try get across using a lot of tact, and a demonstrable understanding of other points of view. Especially in discussions like these, as it's possible for both parties to be in the right, just identifying different problems.
This post comes off as a rant that only appeals to people who already agree with you. You and others aren't going to learn anything. Try removing some of the energy, especially the anger. Calm it down, don't use extreme examples. Read what others are saying, digest it, and properly incorporate it into your response and world view.
The vast majority of people aren't outright lying, they just have a different view of reality that you can learn from
Yeah, people do. But until that happens I think it's best not to have post titles like "Either ya understand why most women pick the 🐻 or you are the 🐻" that just further inflame the situation. That title directly makes it about the reader (assuming the reader is anti-bear)
Because the answer is inflammatory and the discourse around it is further fanning those flames. The title of the post is "Either ya understand why most women pick the 🐻 or you are the 🐻." ffs. That deliberately implies that people who don't already understand the answer are stalkers and rapists, which defaultly puts people on the defensive.
Men are allowed emotions, and those emotions can cloud judgement. Men aren't cold calculating machines that automatically have the required knowledge and emotional intelligence to see through this esoteric bear question. Hell, there’s a good chunk of women on side man.
Making the question so inflammatory is a double edged sword, you reach a larger audience, but you’re way more likely to drive people from your cause
Also, it’s pretty tyring trying to write anything here on lemmy since every time you say something someone disagrees with you are “sea lioning”, “you are a troll” or “you are the bear”. (not you, check the other comments). Nobody goes tell them “You should remain calm and have civil conversation”, though.
Totally, they're really not helping. I've replied to a few suggesting they calm down, but most seems dismissive or otherwise not worth the time. I wouldn't have said anything if I didn't think you were being sincere. I genuinely think you could be a force for positive discussion.
This whole post and it's comments are quite depressing for me, as I just see people with valid points getting so passionate that they're both talking past each other (yourself included). It raises defences and no one learns anything
These peoples aren't maliciously going out their way to "undermine women’s voices", it's a side effect of defending themselves. Most people aren't tactically analysing how best to reinforce the patriarchy
"Either ya understand why most women pick the 🐻 or you are the 🐻" made it about them. The post title is telling people that they have to agree or they are the problem. Which is categorically untrue and fully shifts it away from talking about generic men, to that singular person.
The post title is already distracting from the topic
Edit (because I can't stop having random thoughts):
Minimising the emotions of these men distracts from the conversation too. It's not hard to acknowledge that they're upset, and empathetically offer your understanding. I've done this with multiple anti-bear men, they've all come to understand the women's point of view. And with that, you've reduced your enemies, if not straight up gained allies
I get that your post is phrased so that it's shocking and incites an emotional reaction from men, thus further increasing the reach of your post. It's valuable in the way that it gets the message out, helping everyone learn.
But you can't then expect it not to be shocking and incite an emotional reaction from men, and then demonise them for not immediately seeing your point of view. It undermines the ability to have a conversation about very real women's issues.
You can't expect men to be cold calculating machines that automatically have the required knowledge and emotional intelligence to see through this esoteric bear question. Hell, there’s a good chunk of women on side man
I already knew women get harassed more than men, but I assumed there was much more of a discrepancy than "twice", it's still a lot don't get me wrong. But that means that 1/3 harassment incidents occur to men. Which is wildly different from what I assumed. I thought it was going to be like 90%+ women.
Sure, it's more nuanced, misandry doesn't have as much a visceral impact on men's lives. But to minimise it to nothing is a bit far don't you think? That's the same black and white un-nuanced thinking you're accusing others of.
Women being able to be shitty people doesn't make all men saints automatically. There is no absolution of sin by proving the other "side" is bad too
Five Men Convicted of Operating Massive, Illegal Streaming Service That Allegedly Had More Content Than Netflix, Hulu, Vudu and Prime Video Combined ( variety.com )
Why People Don’t Catch The Politics In Their Favorite Games ( aftermath.site )
Male birth control breakthrough safely switches off fit sperm for a while ( newatlas.com )
Linus Tech Tips (LTT) release investigation results on former accusations ( x.com )
There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest...
Bad audience ( lemmy.world )
Need advice on how to slap someone through the Internet ( lemmy.today )
Microsoft is testing Game Pass ads on the Windows 11 Settings homepage ( www.ghacks.net )
Microsoft's announcement: "We are introducing a new Game Pass recommendation card on the Settings homepage. The Game Pass recommendation card on Settings Homepage will be shown to you if you actively play games on your PC. As a reminder – the Settings homepage will be shown only on the Home and Pro editions of Windows 11 and...
obligatory bear post ( lemmy.cafe )
is the man or bear thing rhetorically or optically the perfect feminist meme that is beyond criticism? no....
A bit late ( lemmy.blahaj.zone )
"b-but bears are actually dangerous!" Shut the hell up.
First human brain implant malfunctioned, Neuralink says ( thehill.com )
The first Neuralink implant in a human malfunctioned after several threads recording neural activity retracted from the brain, the Elon Musk-owned startup revealed Wednesday....
After announcing increased prices, Spotify to Pay Songwriters About $150 Million Less Next Year ( www.billboard.com )
When Bloomberg reported that Spotify would be upping the cost of its premium subscription from $9.99 to $10.99, and including 15 hours of audiobooks per month in the U.S., the change sounded like a win for songwriters and publishers. Higher subscription prices typically equate to a bump in U.S. mechanical royalties — but not...
Stack Overflow bans users en masse for rebelling against OpenAI partnership — users banned for deleting answers to prevent them being used to train ChatGPT ( www.tomshardware.com )
[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]