Do you support game creators even if their personal views are at odds with yours?
polycounter lvl 17
WARNING: This conversation has the chance to utterly derail, and I don't want it to to. I want this to be a positive and informative discussion on the purchasing decisions we make and how the creator's personal views affect them.
Please keep it civil. (If mods deem this to be t0o acidic of a post, then I apologize and will accept deletion)
I am asking this here at Polycount because over the past few months game creators and entertainment creators have held views that are controversial and at odds with my views and I have chosen not to support them.
Recently the Armikrog Kickstarter succeeded and brought this discussion up once again and before that, Orson Scott Card. Use google to understand what I am talking about.
Do you feel that you can support the products that people create, even though their views are at odds with yours?
Are you actively boycotting products because you know the creators views are not in line with yours?
I have been called intolerant for not tolerating intolerance, is this a legitimate criticism?
Are artists and creatives exempt from the social repercussions of supporting views that are at odds with your own?
I would like to see varying viewpoints of those in / near the industry as I am currently evolving my own views.
Again please keep it civil.
Please keep it civil. (If mods deem this to be t0o acidic of a post, then I apologize and will accept deletion)
I am asking this here at Polycount because over the past few months game creators and entertainment creators have held views that are controversial and at odds with my views and I have chosen not to support them.
Recently the Armikrog Kickstarter succeeded and brought this discussion up once again and before that, Orson Scott Card. Use google to understand what I am talking about.
Do you feel that you can support the products that people create, even though their views are at odds with yours?
Are you actively boycotting products because you know the creators views are not in line with yours?
I have been called intolerant for not tolerating intolerance, is this a legitimate criticism?
Are artists and creatives exempt from the social repercussions of supporting views that are at odds with your own?
I would like to see varying viewpoints of those in / near the industry as I am currently evolving my own views.
Again please keep it civil.
Replies
On the flip side, I'm usually very reserved about discussing my own ideologies in professional settings, or exploring them in artwork I do, because I'm extremely leery of having that come back and bite me somehow by rubbing somebody wrong. And I have a flat-out "no discussing politics in any way at the studio" policy for myself nowadays.
On the flip side, does supporting it prove that they are more correct?
I say if the product itself is portraying the ideas then sure boycott it, if not who cares?
Some work is derived from controversial sources (books), and those I don`t take issue with as well if the product is not supporting it.
It really is hard to say "No I will not buy/support". Because I don`t want to condemn a team for one persons views...
But at the same time, in the case of the Armikrog guy, or in the recent case of Silicon Knights kicking a sequel to Eternal Darkness, those are more intimate environments where not purchasing the product will directly affect the person in question, and vice versa. In those cases I would definitely boycott based on a dislike for the views of the person in charge, if those views were sufficiently infuriating (but those views would have to be IMMENSELY infuriating for me to avoid the game entirely. There are a lot of people involved in games, so supporting the rest for a good job is usually preferable).
Your disdain for Scott, who I know personally and find to be a great guy, may be justified because he is verbal about his opposition to gay marriage. However I have yet to see this agenda instilled in his work that he does professionally.
This isn't a principle thing. It's a pride thing.
I think if you're looking to change anything your decisions as an individual customer probably aren't going to amount to much. One of the problems with boycotts is that they are really only effective if they're organized and explicit about their reasons. The GoDaddy boycott over SOPA was a good example, they lost tons of business and they knew exactly why because it was widely publicized and ultimately ended up reversing their position as a result.
But if you're just one customer boycotting without letting them know why then they don't have much reason to care or change their position. Even if enough people individually boycotted to reduce their sales noticably, they still may not know why and just assume it was a failed product and not an issue of their point of view.
Don't really understand your last question, and I think the intolerant of intolerance thing is a whole topic of its own.
I think people just usually don't want to be providing financial support to people who might be socially/politically influential and spreading ideas they don't like. They feel like they're contributing to the problem.
Not that buying their products is validation of their ideas.
Homophobia rarely goes like "I don't like homosexuality but I'm going to make sure homosexuals have the same rights as us heterosexuals!"
Nobody standing up to anything.. sounds like Neville Chamberlain.. and all that followed.
NO Absolutely not!
This is just one stupid and lame way of intolerant people trying to duck and cover legit criticism of their intolerance.
So in boycotting terms I personally think a main factor has to depend on any agenda's put forward in that company's products and policies/actions to an end that supports those agendas.
"the personal views of individuals associated with the company were not the views of the company."
This is probably where regardless of individual opinions/views it should stop and be based primarily on the opinion of the company as a whole; since a company having the right to fire an employee based on the personal opinions of that individual brings up a whole other world of moral conflicts in the realms of freedom of speech and breaching of personal privacy.
So it is not only a difficult subject but a delicate one to delve further into aswell
The only situation in which I would refuse to purchase a game of theirs is if the game itself overtly pushes and endorses the views or stances that I object to. In such a case I would have cause to object to the game itself, and not merely the personality behind it.
Games are a constant interaction between the game and the player. The personal views and motivations of the creator aren't nearly as relevant as some people imagine them to be.
So all in all, much ado about nothing honestly, as you said.
I mean, i'm an atheist, so just that alone should probably remove 70% of all the game i would play. Then there is this thing that i kinda don't like how EA or some other companies behaves towards their customers. And so on.At the end of a day, i'd be left with very few games on my list.
So, if i am going to boycott, the reason really has to be mighty strong.
Wether someone is atheist or religious, approves or strongly dissaproves gay marriage, i don't think boycotting their products is really the right way to approach things.
It's just my opinion, i could be wrong, but if you really want to change their mind about things that bothers you, like not support gay marriage (or, atheist having problem with religion, whatever), i think you won't achieve anything by boycotting their product, the most i think you can achieve, is them being quite, but i don't really think on the long run, you solve the issue this way.
If you really wanna do something about it, i think it's best to separate these two (their games and their private belives), and rather try to convince them with arguments. Rather then not buying someone's product, it's better to rather explain them, with objectivity and facts, why do you think their reasoning is wrong.
Just to make it clear, i don't approve any sort of intolerance, i'm just saying not buying their games or products, will not, IMO, solve anything and there are better ways to fight this issue.
I know that at the end of the day, this doesn't change anything about that book but I really have a hard time with anyone being so vocally ... dumb.
I like most Clint Eastwood movies even if i dislike his political views...
I'm pretty sure a lot of artists we admire are/were infinite cunts too.
Take for example the books by C.S. Lewis Clark about the wardrobe, I read them as a kid and enjoyed it as the fiction there is, however now I know about the religious aspects there was in the books and I notice them easily now, and it does affect my enjoyment now. Hell, don't even get me started on the ending of Lost....
If enough people choose to shun hate, then it moves to the gutter and becomes socially unaccpetable, if I support the product then am I part of the problem? Should people with these views be allowed success?
Don't you feel by giving your support to those companies, you are allowing them to continue their views (if you have any issues with their views that is)
One of the reasons I posted this was to make sure I wasn't doing this for pride, but for principal. If he enjoys success, then his views become more influential, his voice more far reaching. This issue is so critical to me that I don't feel that I can support anyone with the views, since I feel they are on the same level as racism.
I am "just one customer", but if there are plenty of people that are like minded with the same idea, people with the views that I find so abhorrent should find very little success, because we are sticking to our guns and not caving in for personal gain.
This is my main point of contention, many homophobes activley vote and say that they want Gays to be second class citizens, this isn't acceptable to me. With that said, I know plenty of religious people who morally don't like the idea of same sex marriage, but would never want laws in place preventing it.
I would say this is VERY different then my issue. I think religion can, and does FANTASTIC things for people. I just don't need it, and in general it is a tolerable system. It is when the views of those get blinded and start wanting inequality that I take issue. So yea, I would have no problem buying 3DCoat, because I don't know if the creator is actively seeking to remove the rights of citizens or not. Just because he is devout, doesn't mean he is like minded to the bigots.
Again, I have no problem with religion, I may be atheist, but you can believe in god all you want. What I take issue with, again, is when people are actively seeking to make huge swaths of people into second class citizens with different rights then others.
As for "having an objective discussion to change minds". I have learned that you CAN'T change the minds of bigots or racists through discussion, that is why they are bigots and racists, because they have the inability to have their minds changed. I bet in the 60's it was nigh impossible to change the mind of a racist person, it took time and social consequences.
So I feel that I can't change the minds of bigots by talking, I can only affect change through action and social consequences. Don't allow bigots to succeed, don't allow them to see my money. The hurt that is caused by their acidic beliefs should be reciprocated in the social way.
For starters, that's not a very positive or hopeful outlook. I would imagine that many of the "bigots" you would seek to change probably have a similar view on solving what they believe to be problems. (force and consequence) Giving up on any open discussion is not the right approach. Action and social consequence are often necessary for change, but I don't think they should be the default response.
And economic sanctions against video games in particular are usually the wrong approach. Games usually aren't made by individuals to begin with. They are normally produced by large teams. Even if one individual with questionable views is involved, the whole team rarely ever shares in their personal beliefs. And it is that team of developers who is going to suffer the most from having their game fail financially.
In the rather public case of Orson Scott Card and the games he has been involved with, he has just been a writer. His involvement in those projects has been quite limited. He also hasn't really had creative control over those projects. (so the developer has always had the option of preventing him from pushing his beliefs through their game) Boycotting a game like that doesn't really punish Orson Scott Card. (as his primary income comes from a different medium) It just damages the developers. (who don't necessarily subscribe to his worldview)
It is important not to reach for some knee-jerk response just because you don't agree with someone. Find out the whole situation, and then make an informed decision.
Absolutely not, trust me, I am capable of change. I am using this to gather different opinions so I can evolve my own. Just because I have stated my opinion doesn't mean that it is absolute.
And that's because it IS ok for their higher ups to be obnoxious jerks, bigots, etc, so long as those views do not affect the company as a whole. If it's a small company or a small team working on an independent game, I will immediately cease my support, but a corporation like Chick-fil-A is too large to hold accountable for any one person's opinion. So long as they serve food to gays and employ gays, the CEO can hate gays all he likes. I won't ever be his friend, but the thousands of employees in his organization don't deserve to be punished just for his sake.
I also avoid Frank Miller, it seemed cool and gritty in the 80's but then I realized he's a hack with some truly repugnant views that seep into his work.
But I typically don't have problems if someone has different views then me, it's really just bigotry that turns me off.
Interesting thoughts, thanks for the response.
The tough part, I believe, is that many don't see this as a 'bigotry problem', just a 'belief difference'.
Well, regarding your comments about not being able to change those dudes with just talking ...well i dunno if i really agree. Sure as hell it's hard, but not impossible.
I mean, long ago...wait, that makes me sound old....SOME time ago, i worked with a guy who was what i would say oldschool christian. Quite good manner and overall ok guy, likes to help, etc.
And at some point, he brought up religions. We talked a bit, and at some point, he told me something along the lines, that he's only good because God guides him or something like that. Then, after finding out that i'm atheist, he asked me "i have my God, but what is stopping YOU from simply killing me here just because you can (kinda saying since i don't believe in god, i also not only don't have moral values, but am pretty much a pshycho. Just because i'm atheist.
After talking farther to him, i explained him why. I told even gave him example from animals, like, why lion, who has can kill you without any problems whatsoever, and is not religious, doesn't kill you just like that, unless you provoke him somehow.
Anyhow, eventually, it looked like the guy wasn't being a douchbag or something, he honestly though that if you didn't belive in god, you would be sort of psycho. After this talk, and all the examples, i think i did actually manage to change his mind at least up to some point.
And again, do note, this was otherwise cool guy, he was just very...short sighted. I guess the ideas simply never crossed his mind that you don't have to believe in God to be good, and that there is example around him everywhere to prove that.
So, long story short, i do think it actually is worthy to debate with such people; you may not completly convert them to your believe, but if you manage to change atleast SOME aspect of them, you already achieved a lot.
If they have a character in there work that differed from my viewpoints I wouldn't bat an eye. There are people all over the world who differ with my viewpoints, having a character in a book that differs with my viewpoints would only seem normal. If the material was all focused on something like a anti-gay bullshit then I just wouldn't partake in said material as I have a lot of amazing gay friends and I don't agree with any anti-gay movements.
Without an organized effort or failing that at the very least, lots of publicity, this is at best wishful thinking.
The flipside is also possible, people on the opposite side of the issue could come out to just replace you as a consumer as was the case with Chick-Fil-A.
I'm especially surprised at the anger toward what is apparently "anti-gay." Some people mistakenly assume that not openly supporting homosexuality makes you anti-gay. This is not true. There are plenty of people who don't approve of homosexuality for a variety of reasons, that doesn't mean that they dislike gay individuals.
And you have to be very careful when it comes to homosexuality and religion. The three largest world religions are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. All three openly oppose and object to homosexuality. Claiming that not openly accepting homosexuality makes you backwards or evil automatically puts you in opposition to the hundreds of millions of people who follow those religions.
And comparing people to animals makes you no better than the people many of you label as "bigots." Denying the humanity of others, for better or worse, is the beginning of the very attitudes that some of you are railing against.
Do not fight with monsters, lest you become one. And when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you.
Openly punishing and chastising those who disagree with you is not the proper response. (especially when dealing with adults) Societal pressure can be effective for getting results. But it is that very societal pressure that ostracizes and victimizes many of the groups that many of you seem keen to defend. An open dialog and discussion of ideals is a better solution.
there is no dialogue, I just ignore them. I went to highschool with a girl who stood up in class using the bible to denounce interracial couples, she got in trouble and was widely considered a nutjob. It was an enlightening experience.
Using societal pressure and mockery to further your own beliefs is damaging toward whoever those forces are leveled against. The girl you described was espousing ideals that many of us don't agree with. I personally don't agree with them. But the response she received did no one any good. And the enlightenment YOU received from the experience was negative as well. You learned that standing up for your own beliefs leads to rather extreme social consequences.
This is the same kind of behavior that leads to bullying. You are brow-beating others because they don't share your viewpoint. While such stern measures can get short-term results, they can lead to rather extreme damage on an individual level. (damage that can lead to highly undesirable consequences down the line)
If your class had actually spoken to the young lady instead of ridiculing her, you might have been able to bring her around to a more moderate point of view. Instead you served only to hurt her.
also "There are plenty of people who don't approve of homosexuality for a variety of reasons, that doesn't mean that they dislike gay individuals." well that maybe make them slightly better than the ones who DO dislike gays, but they still have very bigoted views.
if i was to say "i dont approve of black people having the same rights as white people, but i dont have a problem with black individuals" you would still call me a racist, wouldnt you?
just wanted to add, i hope this doesnt come of as too condesending or disrespectful. this could easily turn into a full blown drama thread, and i dont wish to contribute to that.
EDIT; uhhh wrote this before justins post, now mine dont make as much sense, but whatever
Quack!: You are free to do what you want, and we could all be in the wrong here, but in my opinion I think you're forgetting that the whole group involved with Armikrog would be affected by your boycott.
Sure Scott's personal views aren't in line with your personal views (or mine, doesn't mean he still isn't my friend), but you need to remember that the rest of the group probably doesn't share his beliefs. When you boycott their project just because of him, they are affected by you too. That's why I feel like you're in the wrong, you are hurting these people because of your dislike for one of them.
um ok? she was using the bible to bully and berate interracial students.
She was sent out of the class-room to shocked silence, hopefully she got some therapy but being the south in the 90's she probably just got put into a private school that shared her parents beliefs.
I'm personally fine with that and I would equally fight against laws outlawing your right to practice your religion as well. The thing that turned me off to Frank Miller was his views on Muslims - I only learned about his racism and misogyny afterwords :P
I have had that thought too, that other people are hurt by my decision. And that is an internal struggle I am going through right now.
I wouldn't worry. I tend to straddle fences when it comes to this sort of thing.
It's the methods I object to, not the sentiments they come from. There is plenty of behavior and views that are quite clearly antithetical to society in general, and the principles of the U.S. in particular. Claiming that any group should have lesser rights is an example of this.
This argument is usually brought up in reference to gay marriage. I personally object to this because I don't believe marriage to be a right, but a responsibility. But while I will never vote in favor of gay marriage, I will also never take any action to have it repealed. If the majority of people in the state I live in decide they want gay marriage to be legal, than so be it. That's democracy at work.
Like I said, it's the methods I object to. Attempting to bully others into stepping into line can work, but its detrimental. It is also the same method by which people currently have their rights and freedoms denied them. Going with a democratic solution is better. It provides more discussion, and hopefully more understanding. Coming at beliefs from a competitive stance never provides the desired results.
My point wasn't about numbers, but about dehumanization. Viewing people as broad groups is always a mistake. Taking them on a case-by-case basis is a better approach, and makes it easier to relate to them personally.
Me not buying stuff from Doug TenNapel is not religious persecution, it's just a personal choice.
yes you are right of course. calm discussion is better than bullying.
btw this is a nitpick, but judaism isnt even close to be one of the biggest religions. the list goes, crhistianity, islam and hinduism.
more on topic;
im not sure i agree on the whole "dont punish the whole team when one of them has views that dont aling with yours".
as with Doug TenNapel, i havent seen any big statements from that team that hes views on gays has nothing to do with them (maybe they have, i havent really looked...). and in that way, by being passive, they are actually letting him represent them. and if they choose to do that, i have no problem of hurting their sales with a boycott.
I'm not claiming to be bullied. I know that my general perspective is in the majority, and my views on homosexuality in particular will likely always be in the majority. But that's also part of the reason why I am inclined to take a much more moderate position when it comes to the legal stance on homosexuality. The homo/bi/lesbian/transgender community is a minority, and likely always will be. They have millennium of cultural conditioning as well as basic biological imperatives working against them. The democratic process is always going to work against them to a certain degree. They actually NEED defending. A vigilant eye to make sure their basic human rights aren't being marginalized is a positive for everyone.
What I object to is when their defenders try to justify using the same methods. There is no progress down that road, just a different boss.
As to whether or not you purchase a game, that is also a personal choice. Your reasons are your own, and are valid in your own mind. I was simply trying to caution against doing something like this for the wrong reasons. Attempting to actively bankrupt or punish an individual for their personal beliefs is the wrong reason. Attempting to stop the spread or dissemination of what you believe to be flawed, anti-social beliefs is the right reason.
Personally, I believe that one of the best reasons to boycott a company's products is in adamant objection to the culture that the company fosters or promotes. There are some companies that set a bad example for the industry as a whole, as well as create an unpleasant environment for their employees. Attempting to "take down" a company like that would be perfectly reasonable.
Your perspective, at best represents half of the country and at worst 40% and unless trends change it will be a very small minority in 20 years.
there is no reason to belive that in the future, when everyone is born from a cloning tube, anyone will care a rats ass if you stick your dick in a guy or gal.
EDIT; this is the last i will contribute into derialing this into gays rights thread. lets go back on topic.
yeah, I'm done too, but it's sort of hard to avoid that because public figures can still (sort of) get away with being publicly against gay rights.