Bjorn Posted March 27, 2014 I'm probably being a bit of a hypocrite saying this, considering the part I played in the last few arguments with aperson, but it might be best to just start ignoring his inflammatory posts. There has been a lot of interesting debate in this thread and it would really suck if this one also ends up getting locked just because of one dude trying to start a fight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dewar Posted March 27, 2014 I thought that Daisy's sudden turn was more intended to illustrate the point that everyone wants power, and that everyone abuses it once they have it (with maybe a little eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind mixed in.) That seems to fall in line with the general feeling I get from the series as a whole. They might not have illustrated this very well, and it certainly came off as rasist, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it least it wasn't intended. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TychoCelchuuu Posted March 27, 2014 I don't think anyone has argued it was intended - who do you see as claiming that it was? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aperson Posted March 27, 2014 I'm probably being a bit of a hypocrite saying this, considering the part I played in the last few arguments with aperson, but it might be best to just start ignoring his inflammatory posts. There has been a lot of interesting debate in this thread and it would really suck if this one also ends up getting locked just because of one dude trying to start a fight. If you don't want to fight why don't you just...not fight? How about we talk about the content of my posts and not how much you do or do not want to fight with me? That sounds flippant but I'm don't mean it as such - I think this is an interesting topic. Can we discuss it? I apologize in advance if my posts come off as accusatory, condescending, or whatever else - sometimes I come across like that more than I intend. I try to post well-reasoned content. I like reading well-reasoned responses. It's really weak to say that something is racist and when someone points out a different interpretation or that you haven't actually played the thing in question to dismiss that as inflammatory. I get the temptation and I'm sure we're all guilty of judging things without firsthand experience. But racism is a serious charge that demands a serious approach and not playing the thing in question only serves to diminish the seriousness of racism accusations. Are you interested in a debate or in people taking turns exclaiming how bad and racist the game is? I'm not even particularly interested in debating whether or not it's racist, but at least experience it first before weighing in! I didn't mean to attack Bjorn on any sort of personal level, and while I did say that approach to criticism is intellectually lazy I didn't mean to imply that Bjorn is an intellectually lazy person in general. If you don't want the thread to be closed why don't we stick the content of posts rather than how awful I am? Ironically your post seems like an attempt to derail, under the guise of the opposite. So I'm not going to call you names or say something mean about you - just ask you to discuss the content of posts and leave out the other junk. You don't like me - I get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SecretAsianMan Posted March 27, 2014 I thought that Daisy's sudden turn was more intended to illustrate the point that everyone wants power, and that everyone abuses it once they have it (with maybe a little eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind mixed in.) That seems to fall in line with the general feeling I get from the series as a whole. They might not have illustrated this very well, and it certainly came off as rasist, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it least it wasn't intended. I can see that side of it too, but I think her sending the Vox against Booker is a stronger argument that she wants power since a living Booker would undermine her. The racism bit comes from having Elizabeth kill her, which seems to be reinforced by the DLC's idea that she had to die to empower Elizabeth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eot Posted March 27, 2014 I thought that Daisy's sudden turn was more intended to illustrate the point that everyone wants power, and that everyone abuses it once they have it (with maybe a little eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind mixed in.) That seems to fall in line with the general feeling I get from the series as a whole. They might not have illustrated this very well, and it certainly came off as rasist, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it least it wasn't intended. I thought her turn was a contrived justification for why you were going to be killing hundreds Vox, and that was like the third of fourth one of those in the game. For me it completely overshadows what the actual motivtions of the characters are supposed to be, I thought it was very poorly done (again and again). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dewar Posted March 27, 2014 I don't think anyone has argued it was intended - who do you see as claiming that it was? I dunno, I guess as the conversation gets heated, it feels like people are, even if it isn't explicitly stated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted March 27, 2014 I dunno, I guess as the conversation gets heated, it feels like people are, even if it isn't explicitly stated. To be clear, no, I do not believe that any of the racism is intentional on the part of the developers. I do think it comes from a place of ignorance, of convenience, of cultural blindness, and the tendency of game devs to be a monoculture of white men. I also think that they were very married to the idea of having a series of parallels between Rapture and Columbia, resulting in Daisy being the counterpart to Fontaine, and they were going to hammer that square peg into a round hole no matter how poorly Daisy actually fit that role. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenetic Pony Posted March 27, 2014 To be clear, no, I do not believe that any of the racism is intentional on the part of the developers. I do think it comes from a place of ignorance, of convenience, of cultural blindness, and the tendency of game devs to be a monoculture of white men. I also think that they were very married to the idea of having a series of parallels between Rapture and Columbia, resulting in Daisy being the counterpart to Fontaine, and they were going to hammer that square peg into a round hole no matter how poorly Daisy actually fit that role. So you'd not think it was racist if Daisy was a white female character? Oh good... Racism exists in places other than what most people are taught to believe. Yelling repeatedly that "the blacks aren't all thugs!" is just as racist. It's like saying don't think about an elephant, because that's all people think about. If you really want to be some sort of constructive message, then the reality is to not worry about it as much. Actually treat it equally, instead of saying some people are more equal than others. Saying a black character can't turn out to be evil but a white character can is... well it should be obvious what's being said. Treating people differently, even if it's fictional people, based on their skin color is racist whether it's positive or negative. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SecretAsianMan Posted March 27, 2014 I've avoided referring to the intent of the devs because I hate that idea. Unless you speak to them directly or from an interview they've given, you can't really know what their intent was. And ultimately I'm not totally convinced it even matters. I've argued before that intent and outcome are two different things that often don't align. I would prefer to think that they did not intend to give the game the kind of racist tones we're arguing about, but in the end many of us still have that impression. That said, I think Dewar was making a reasonable extrapolation of the common course these kinds of discussions take, even if no one stated so explicitly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted March 27, 2014 So you'd not think it was racist if Daisy was a white female character? Oh good... Except then it'd be racist because a white person is leading the black people to freedom because the black people couldn't handle it themselves. Unless they were all white, in which case it'd be racist because there are no black people. Everybody's racist no matter what they do!!! EDIT: Also I'm racist for only mentioning white and black people in the lines above. What about other races?! O woe is me. If you really want to be some sort of constructive message, then the reality is to not worry about it as much. Actually treat it equally, instead of saying some people are more equal than others. Saying a black character can't turn out to be evil but a white character can is... well it should be obvious what's being said. Treating people differently, even if it's fictional people, based on their skin color is racist whether it's positive or negative. To be fair, people are not saying black people can't be evil or can't be good. They're saying that, given the context of the rest of the game (white supremacy, blacks are savages, etc.), it is racist to then send the strongest, most dominant black character down the route of a power-hungry savage. I completely disagree that it's racist, but I felt the need to clarify on the behalf of the It's Racist crowd. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aperson Posted March 27, 2014 I dunno, I guess as the conversation gets heated, it feels like people are, even if it isn't explicitly stated. I think the problem you are having (don't let me put words in your mouth if this is wrong!) is that the idea of "unintentional racism" or racism expressed by a work but somehow not by the author is a very messy, poorly-defined idea. Personally I don't think it's a useful concept. The idea that something can be racist on accident contradicts what racism is - a belief. If I mean to write "I hate naggers" and make an unfortunate typo it's a typo, not unintentional racism. Intent is tied up with our everyday understanding of what racism is. What is racism without belief? Video games don't hold opinions. They don't believe things. What they appear to express is a combination of authorial intent, execution, interpretation, etc. To say that a game is "racist" is maybe useful shorthand (I don't think it's useful) but I think in longer discussions it's worth unpacking what that really means. If the authors are not racist but the game comes across that way that's hugely different from a genuine expression of genuinely-held racism. Lumping those two things together is not helpful. In the end I think concepts like "unintentional racism" are like "verbal rape", which was a popular phrase in the 90s - muddying concepts that water down the original. "Verbal rape" became popular because it piggybacked on rape to sound very dire, and stopped being used when people figured out that in practice it trivialized rape - rape is no longer something to get excited about when someone being mean to you is rape. The unintended message was "rape is not important." If someone who is not racist makes a game with no authorial intent to be racist and you interpret the game as racist when many other people do not it really trivializes what it means to be racist and flies in the face of what the word is generally understood to mean. Why not say "If you're going to engage imagery that has that potential, the onus is on the creator to be aware of that." (As N'Gai did) It's much more precise and meaningful. Claiming racism without intent is also a rhetorical trick - say that racism can exist without intent, knowing full well that people will interpret claims of racism as including intent. In other posts Tycho has made dismissive remarks about Ken and team making another racist game - if they aren't racist and the racism in BI was unintentional why would their next game also be racist? Accuse people of racism while maintaining plausible deniability. "Well I never said they were racist, I just said they made something racist and will continue to produce more racist work in the future." TL;DR - our understanding of racism is closely tied to intent, so you're right to assume that intent is implicit. Bjorn: To be clear, no, I do not believe that any of the racism is intentional on the part of the developers. In that case what purpose do you think it serves to characterize it as racist? It seems to me to be using the same word for two different concepts - a genuinely held belief system vs something that could be mistaken for that. It doesn't work well with how non-academic people generally understand racism and it puts people on the defensive. (And often it's used to imply that the creators are in fact racist.) If you google "unintentional racism" you get a lot of joke responses, like a TV listing for Oprah that says "an ape talks with humans." That's funny but am I supposed to get upset over that? Don't you think it's worth distinguishing these cases? In one the author has a genuinely held belief and is a shithead racist, in the other they just weren't conscientious or surrounded themselves with monoculture that let them get away with that. Those are two very different things! In one they maybe deserve to be attacked, in the other gently shown the error of their ways. It only weakens "racism" as a concept to link these two so closely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ozzie Posted March 27, 2014 Edit: I didn't realize aperson posted before me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted March 27, 2014 Video games don't hold opinions. But the people who make video games do hold opinions, and it's entirely possible that they have unintentionally absorbed racist thoughts or feelings throughout their lifetime that they then express in the video game without realizing that what they're doing is actually harmful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenetic Pony Posted March 27, 2014 Except then it'd be racist because a white person is leading the black people to freedom because the black people couldn't handle it themselves. Unless they were all white, in which case it'd be racist because there are no black people. Everybody's racist no matter what they do!!! EDIT: Also I'm racist for only mentioning white and black people in the lines above. What about other races?! O woe is me. To be fair, people are not saying black people can't be evil or can't be good. They're saying that, given the context of the rest of the game (white supremacy, blacks are savages, etc.), it is racist to then send the strongest, most dominant black character down the route of a power-hungry savage. I completely disagree that it's racist, but I felt the need to clarify on the behalf of the It's Racist crowd. Well thanks for clarifying anyway. It just seems some people insist, even literally insist, on history dictating all perception forever. At one point people with black skin color were treated horribly in one part of the country they live in today, therefore even though those specific during the worst of it are all dead, all black people in all times must now be put on a pedestal. Like, getting their own month in history, isn't that nice? It just bothers me because as a kid I only gave a fuck if you had cool toys or video games at your house. It wasn't until I was constantly exposed to the supposed positive messages supported by everyone arguing for Daisy's portrayal as racist that I even thought about skin color as mattering. I still don't consciously, but it's hard to dig out of the subconscious. It literally became, when walking down the street "Oh shit it's a black person, I'd better not act like I'm racist, try to smile!" And the only messages I ever heard were growing up were things like "It's terrible to portray black people badly!" And all that other stuff, but that literally dug into my subconscious by repetition until it's the only thing I could think about. I'd be willing to bet it's why there's still any prevalent racism against people with black skin color today, is because of this exact set up. We don't have Asian history month, or Native American history month, or etc. All of this is literally only centered around black skin color, and it doesn't seem a coincidence that it's the only widespread remaining problem. So I do have reason to think it's racist and a stupid, bullshit attitude to take. It seems to have affected me and other people negatively, no matter the intent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tabacco Posted March 27, 2014 aperson, Zeus, you both need to let it go. Ignore each other if that's what it takes, the forum supports that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SecretAsianMan Posted March 27, 2014 We don't have Asian history month I hate to be nitpicky but actually we do. It's just not as widely publicized as Black History Month. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted March 27, 2014 ...the image on that page Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badfinger Posted March 27, 2014 This thread is not really about Bioshock anymore, is it? Daily reminder: The Luteces own so very, very hard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted March 27, 2014 I'd be willing to bet it's why there's still any prevalent racism against people with black skin color today, is because of this exact set up. We don't have Asian history month, or Native American history month, or etc. All of this is literally only centered around black skin color, and it doesn't seem a coincidence that it's the only widespread remaining problem. Ok. You'd be wrong though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted March 27, 2014 Well thanks for clarifying anyway. It just seems some people insist, even literally insist, on history dictating all perception forever. At one point people with black skin color were treated horribly in one part of the country they live in today, therefore even though those specific during the worst of it are all dead, all black people in all times must now be put on a pedestal. Like, getting their own month in history, isn't that nice? It just bothers me because as a kid I only gave a fuck if you had cool toys or video games at your house. It wasn't until I was constantly exposed to the supposed positive messages supported by everyone arguing for Daisy's portrayal as racist that I even thought about skin color as mattering. I still don't consciously, but it's hard to dig out of the subconscious. It literally became, when walking down the street "Oh shit it's a black person, I'd better not act like I'm racist, try to smile!" And the only messages I ever heard were growing up were things like "It's terrible to portray black people badly!" And all that other stuff, but that literally dug into my subconscious by repetition until it's the only thing I could think about. I'd be willing to bet it's why there's still any prevalent racism against people with black skin color today, is because of this exact set up. We don't have Asian history month, or Native American history month, or etc. All of this is literally only centered around black skin color, and it doesn't seem a coincidence that it's the only widespread remaining problem. So I do have reason to think it's racist and a stupid, bullshit attitude to take. It seems to have affected me and other people negatively, no matter the intent. I really don't know how to respond to this, and I don't want to read the wrong things into it. I'm somewhat taking away from this that you think we are in a post-racist society, or would be if people would just stop talking about race. That racism (and actual racism, not some sort of pseudo-racism created by talking about race) doesn't still have a massive impact on a large number of people. I'm just absolutely flabbergasted by the claims you're making. I'm somewhat curious as to where you live as well, as both Native American Heritage Month and National Hispanic Heritage Month are both things that show up around me every year. I live in a place with a fair Hispanic population, and have a Native American university in town as well. Part of what you said simply isn't true, and parts of it seem to be making an argument that talking about race and racism is somehow causing you and others harm, so we all just need to be quiet about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gormongous Posted March 27, 2014 Again, I'll just state it simply. If your game presents you with one or more racists who believe that all black people are bloodthirsty savages, and then later it turns out that they are right because all black people in the game become bloodthirsty savages, then the game is racist, because it presents racists as right. It doesn't mean that Levine is racist, in fact I think he isn't because he sought out such a thorny topic to tackle, but I don't think he has the best understanding of racism, considering that his DLC "fix" for his unintentionally racist game was to make Fitzroy a bloodthirsty savage not for her own sake but because she wanted a little white girl hate her, which is... I don't know, sad? Exhausting? Still racist? I think we've wrung enough blood from this stone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ozzie Posted March 27, 2014 ...the image on that page Thanks for that! I guess I found myself a forum avatar... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
feelthedarkness Posted March 27, 2014 Racism also requires a power structure, where the oppressed really can't be "racist" against the oppressor. It's a world where a white person can take the life of a black person in self defense, but the opposite is never true. It's the unfortunate situation Daisy winds up in. She's entitled to her rage, but portrayed as a maniac (note, killing children is wrong, but lets assume in this world that her children are killed without anybody taking notice). It's a disappointment for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aperson Posted March 27, 2014 Racism also requires a power structure, where the oppressed really can't be "racist" against the oppressor. Edit: I take issue with this, but not enough to write a lot. This is an academic redefinition of "racism" that I think is only confusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites