Karmaze
25d ago
See, to me this feels odd because it leaves out one crucial point. People being primarily motivated by social status. It's not, why should I bother to save if government money is coming in the future? It's why should I bother to save if I'm going to take a significant hit to my social status and image today? Lockdown and stimulus basically served as a sort of supercharger for this competition. People are not going to like the solution however, which is essentially that the middle class/upper middle class has too much discernable income, and probably should be taxed significantly more.
Karmaze
25d ago
My take on him has always been that he's an anarcho-socialist who understands the dangers of the managerial state. There is a theoretical model to thread that needle. I've always said I like anarcho-socialists, but I don't see how you actually thread that needle, how you bring that into practice. How do you defang the managerial state, and how you deal with people who are simply not "wired" for living with the necessary personal aesthetics for anarcho-socialism? (I.E. very concerned with relative status and power games)
Karmaze
24d ago
Let me put it this way. If a candidate put forward in some form about why Margin of Error hacking isn't something we should want in a democratic system, that would be a huge green flag for me, in that I'd have much more significant trust in the quality of politics/policy that would come from that candidate/leader. I don't think a campaign should be based around it, to be clear. But I do think there's a smart way to approach the subject.
Karmaze
24d ago
My position remains the same. US elections are terrible, the 2020 election was particularly terrible, Trump lost because he didn't play the game as well as his opponents, that's the way it is, suck it up and deal unless you're going to make US elections not terrible (I.E. nationwide standards and rules, or at least state-wide standards and rules)
Karmaze
1mo ago
FWIW this is more of a meta fight than anything else. And I mean, for me I always thought that eventually all the culture wars really settled into the "Who, Whom" question. Who creates the rules and on whom are they enforced. I think everything else falls away to the side next to that. Modern Online Progressivism falls particularly hard into that I think, being that the Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy is stupid toxic to actually internalize/actualize, and I think everybody knows it. People focus on diversity and representation, but I don't actually think that's the issue...I think it serves more as a sort of MAGA hat, a visible symbol of personal politics, although certainly nowhere as clear. In fact, I would certainly say that I think people are oversensitive in that regard.
But that doesn't mean that the "Who, Whom" question isn't a problem.
The other thing I'll add on that, is that you're talking about in-game transactions...I'm going to make the argument that these things might not be as far unrelated as you think, for a couple of reasons. First, I think there's the issue of Moral License, which I think is real here, and essentially, that MOP culture is a Moral License factory. It has to be to prevent itself from self-destructing in a spiral of pain, self-destruction and shame. It has to believe itself is not part of that Patriarchal, White Supremacist, Colonialist society on an individual level. So...does this Moral License extend to kinda justifying exploitative business models?
But I think there's another thing. I do think there's an assumption that the Blue Ocean audiences being looked for are of a higher socioeconomic class. And I think there's a belief that they tend to be more monogamers, I.E. people more focused on a title or two rather than something much more broad. (My understanding/experience is the people who are upset about the double standards/hypocrisy in Progressive journalism tend to be more Polygamers, people who play a wide variety of gaming experiences...but that means that we don't spend as much on individual titles...although I'd argue there's a higher level of value sensitivity there as well) But more than that, I think they're fishing for the so-called whales. The people who will drop absurd amounts of money on a single game.
That's my take at least. I do think that this is a meta issue and it's a class issue, as across the board, entertainment and culture companies are looking to replace lower-status with higher-status audiences.
Edit: I just want to add one thing I've been thinking about this. One of the thing I'm seeing from the Progressive side, is that none of the critiques aimed at them make sense. I disagree entirely. I think raw anti-Progressivism is actually rational for some people. Not all people. But some. I think if you're more vulnerable to internalizing those models of power, or you think you lack the social cred to not be judged based on those models of power (and let's be honest, that's what's going on here by and large) it makes complete total sense why people would be straight-up reactionary against this modern Progressive culture. I actually wish there was a better alternative to be clear. But it kinda is what it is.
Karmaze
24d ago
I'll throw a bit of a wrench in this.
This process usually helps the Republicans. 2020 is a bit of an exception.
Let me explain what I'm talking about here. I've been interested in this subject since say, 2000-ish, when I came across some local articles talking about how local civic groups (generally red coded) were actually paying to upgrade local voting systems. And then the whole Bush V. Gore thing happened, and shit hit the fan and it got ugly. But it got me interested in the subject regarding Margins of Errors, and their effect on elections.
The short version is that MoE rates differ based on different forms of voting, and this difference I believe can swing close elections. I also argue, again, that generally this process helps Republicans.
What happened in 2020? Truth be told, I think both sides just played lawfare more than anything, and the Democrats won in such a way that may have swung the election. Trump wanted to discredit the mail-in votes, Biden wanted to maximize their counting. So you had a situation where the way a lot of Democratic voters were voting, actually was a way that ended up having a much lower Margin of Error than what it normally would have, because they were maximally counting all votes.
I don't believe there are any good guys in all this, to be clear.
Karmaze
25d ago
Yeah, I think this is right, or at least it's my point. I actually think people hold on to dear life to the Oppressor/Oppressed frame so we don't break this image, lest we start questioning the connections and the generational wealth. The one thing I believe strongly, is we don't have the stomach for actual socioeconomic decline. Even the most Progressive of the Progressives will balk at this when it comes to they and theirs. It's OK when it's just "Billionaires", but when it comes down to specifics that are in the in-group? Nah. Not an option.
The big threat that comes from heterodox thinking on this, I think, is that we add connections to the DEI anti-list, I.E. things that will be counted in a negative sense. In that, it's not the unconnected white men that will lose out...it's the connected ones. You best be coming with your DEI proposal, a plan for your eventual exit. I think there's a reason why people go nuclear on heterodox thinking on these matters, things outside the Progressive vs. Reactionary binary, that all this stuff presents itself as a very real threat to not just the powers in a big sense, but your place and power in a more local sense.
Karmaze
1mo ago
In reality, I think the touchpoint really comes down to 3 games, all of which did quite poorly, objectively. Saint's Row, Forsaken and Suicide Squad. I think 2 had technical issues (I thought the demo for Forsaken was decent), but I think all three, story wise, had issues in that they just came across as bad, tone-wise. I think that certain cultural tone simply doesn't have the wide appeal that the bigwigs think it has. Now, I think Suicide Squad the issues were more with the gameplay than the story, (people didn't want a shoot the purple glowing button live service game) but still. I do think it's a problem.
My own personal viewpoint is that it's larger than one consulting firm. And considering that Alan Wake 2, IMO was actually pretty good, and SBI DID consult on that, I do think the problem is somewhere else. Myself? I've given up on North American AAA. And yeah, Forsaken was Japanese developed, but they WANTED to be a North American game in so many ways.
I do think there's something wrong in the NA AAA space, and I do think the explosion of Progressive politics plays a role, but it's not a direct one, other than the moral license issues. I think it's just a narrow culture, much more narrow than it thinks it is, and that's the problem. Outside of NA, and I disagree, GTA 6 I think will probably be fine if it's still rooted in the nascent anti-Americanism, I think around the rest of the world, even Left/Progressive coded games are fine.
Karmaze
24d ago
Certainly people talk about "Billionaires" all the time. But below that? Not so much. And yeah, sometimes you'll see it targeted specifically at certain (usually outgroup) people...but generally this isn't something that's challenged, outside of an extreme minority of targets. I don't think this has always been the case, or is always the case, but I think there's a lack of awareness that the socialism different people envision might not be the same thing. Some people might truly envision a prioritizing of the working class, while others see shifting power and control to the managerial/professional classes.
Karmaze
1mo ago
A few days ago, a steam curator was created listing all the games that have SBI's involvement as "not recommended". The situation is played out predictably: some employees claimed harassment, the steam group got Streisand Effect'd and grew to 200k over the last two days, it has been mass reported, people are trolling in the fora claiming to have insider info, the forum got wiped...
So, the problem is you're missing the inciting incident here, which is understandable because all the articles on the subject completely missed it. Things blew up when an employee for SBI tried to start a campaign to mass-report the curator group and the curator himself to get him banned from Steam. That all the articles on the subject skip that IS why it's a big deal. It really is the "Gamers are Dead" articles all over again.
My own thoughts on SBI more broadly? I think it's a really bad sign when a company is advertising itself as being behind a few of the big stinkers of the last year or two. (Suicide Squad, Forsaken, Saint's Row). There's a lot of games also on their list that people thought took a step down or two. But...honestly I think not really because of SBI.
I think North American AAA is in really bad shape right now. I actually do think it's linked to Progressive culture, in that the ego and hubris, and frankly, the narcissism doesn't just go away when you sit down to do your job. I think the Modern Online Progressivism that's in vogue right now is essentially a Moral License factory...it has to be given how toxic some of their ideas are to actualize.
The thing is, I don't think it's Western. I think Alan Wake 2, even though it underperformed, AND showed up on the SBI list was pretty good (although it probably could have been better), I think Baldur's Gate 3 is one of the best games out there. And while Cyberpunk 2077 was buggy and lacked features...I think there was a lot of good in that game (and post 2.0 update I think it's superb)
So yeah. Just don't bother with North American AAA. It's boring and vapid.
But the controversy is the same. The media people want us to believe that Progressives are all pure and wonderful and rainbows and sunshine when our eyes tell us other things.
Karmaze
1mo ago
I don't even think this requires actual ideology. Nepotism gets you to the same place. And there are people that would argue (including me) that a lot of these culture wars in gaming and the media are based around nepotism, and see identitarianism as a way to distract from this.
I know at my workplace, they're having to redo the diversity training because it put nepotism on the same level as other forms of discrimination and people did not like it.
Karmaze
1mo ago
There's a lot of people who put FF14 as the #1 story in gaming. Including myself. Yeah, the way the story is told is kinda weird because of the MMO format, but the story beats themselves, I believe, are top-notch, or at least for me they resonate super hard.
Karmaze
1mo ago
Could you spell out how that works, because I don't necessarily see the straight logic there -- my guess is that progressivism is orthogonal to monogamers/polygamers.
At least what I said is my experience. I feel like people who play a wide variety of games simply are not going to waste the resources picking up expensive DLC/Microtransactions? For what you could pay getting an outfit for your Diablo 4 character (which is stupid expensive), there's a lot of options out there for great experiences you could get. There's simply more competition for the gaming dollar, I think.
But the number of people who can quickly scan a character roster for skin color or can develop an opinion about the sexual orientation of NPC romance options is much higher. It might just be bike-shedding.
I think also, people who are watching a large number of games see trends, even if they're there or not. And one of the big trends people see right now is downplaying the attractiveness of female characters in a way they are NOT doing for male characters. And of course, people tie that (not necessarily incorrectly) into various Progressive theories and models, and you get what you get.
Karmaze
1mo ago
Yeah. I thought it was pretty good. Not great 'tho.
I would have cut the budget on that thing significantly 'tho. And I don't mean that as a critique per se. Just that I think they way overestimated the interest in such a game. Just to be clear, I think Control (their previous game) is a much better game overall.
One of the big complaints about the modern trends in gaming is the disappearance of the "AA" game. That sort of middle-ground between budget/indie and AAA. I think Alan Wake 2 should have been an AA game.
Karmaze
5mo ago
Why does anybody have to be right?
That's what I don't get about the whole thing. I was trying to explain to this someone the other day, and it was like, I'm not actually defending GG here per se, unless you look at context as a a form of defense. But in reality, there was a LOT of crappiness that was coming from that anti-GG community, that IMO laid much of the cultural groundwork for modern Pop Progressive culture as I call it. Was it worse than the GG people themselves? I don't think that's a relevant question. I think the real answer is that online activism is just...well...crappy, or at least it has a tendency to be such.
Karmaze
3mo ago
Gonna play a bit of devil's advocate on the subject. Not entirely, just a tad. Because I do think there's some reasonable concepts behind the core idea, that Canada's population needs to increase dramatically. Canada has a lot of open space. To be blunt. So I don't think it's unreasonable to think that over time Canada would be better off on the global stage with a significantly higher population. As well, it's a way to get around demographic surges among older people.
I actually think these are good points.
The problem is that the implementation has been awful. There's a number of problems.
The big one, is that I think that immigration programs needs to be controlled for skills (or desire skills). You need to maintain relatively healthy balances of your entire labor market to ensure that things don't go out of whack and you get shortages in one place or another.
The other side of that coin, is credentialism. That is, various licensing regimens doing their best to keep out outsiders in order to artificially boost wages. Then you put on top of that the role of post-secondary education itself, and their role in massively importing labor.
The end result is just tons of essentially low-skill labor and people locked into that role. Relatively few people are coming over to do construction work, and the barriers to entry for that are massive anyway. Truth be told, I have nothing against people coming over, taking high-end or relatively high-end courses and ending up with good jobs. I don't think that's where the problem is. The problem really is down the line.
There's another part of the problem as well, and that's geographic distribution. Yes, Canada has a LOT of room. We can't have an overwhelming % of people living in a few large cities. I'd argue we need the will and the ability to "upshift" smaller cities into larger ones. Or maybe even building a city from scratch. We can't just keep on dumping people into the Toronto area.
If we want to do the whole 100 million thing (that's the goal), there's going to need to be a plan to address all those things I mentioned above. And as it stands right now, there's absolutely not.
Karmaze
6mo ago
I've actually come up with a name for this. I kinda had to because I'm seeing it more and more these days, and it's more aggressive than ever. I call it "Dark Femme". It's basically this mix of traditional and modern gender norms that always benefit one direction, and frankly, is often incoherent.
I'm just going to put my two cents here, just to make it easy. I do think there's something to avoiding the crazy. However, let me say this. I've seen a lot lately, discussion about it's not actually "All Men" and maybe women should have some agency and responsibility for recognizing and avoiding red flags. And people do not react well to this at all.
Frankly, this Dark Femme culture wants the toxicity and excitement of the red flags, but in a safe controlled way. One of the first things I said when I abandoned Progressive politics (before it was even really a thing TBH) was that I rejected the "theme park" expectations that society be made into a super-safe but still exciting place that caters to people's wants and desires in a perfect way tailored for them. It's just not possible.
So yeah. Don't stick your dick in crazy seems like good advice. But that advice doesn't go down well at all when it's coming back around.
Karmaze
1mo ago
I actually feel like Narnia is a good example of this, in that I think that through the series, there's a very real change in it that pushes it more towards what I would consider to be propaganda, in a negative sense. Maybe that's my own tastes or whatever, but I think it makes something clear, that it's not such a cut or dry thing. It's not that certain ideas or concepts are in your book, it's how they're presented. (Although I still argue that I think it would be absurdly difficult to present the content of the last book in a way that doesn't go deep into this)
Karmaze
9mo ago
At least for me, it's on a bit of a different vector. My concern is activists who want people, including kids, to be self-critical of their identity characteristics in a social, cultural and political fashion. Everything else comes after this point. It's the symptoms of that original cause.
Self-deconstruction is inherently very unhealthy. It's not something that should be encouraged in any way, shape or form. Yes, I'm talking from personal experience about this. And yes, I do think it makes kids vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.
Karmaze
1yr ago
So, I was going to respond to the above poster, but I think I'll throw it in here.
I don't think this is actually about women. I think this is something much broader, in that I think models based on monodirectional concepts of power (I.E. "Critical") are all essentially shittests. It's harmful to people who actually take this stuff seriously. (Been there, done that, got the t-shirt) But I don't think it's any different if it's sex/gender or race or sexuality or what have you. It's all essentially the same effect. It punishes people who actually take it seriously, rewards the people who have the super-secret decoder ring that tells you to ignore this stuff (or have the personality to brute force through it).
Truth is, this is my argument against teaching Critical-based ideas in school. I think kids are more susceptible to internalizing these ideas, to significant harm I think. If steps were taken to protect against this, I'd be OK with teaching it as one viewpoint along-side others (I'm a liberal individualist as an example).
But there's no ethical way to live and be an oppressor. And I think because the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy takes up so much oxygen for reasons, it leads to things like this happening, because we're not guiding men down a proper, healthy path.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm happily married, although I got incredibly lucky that I found someone who came after me. But our marriage got a lot better when I started to push the Critical models out of my worldview and started ignoring the inherent shittests.
Karmaze
1yr ago
All in all, I'm leaning in the direction of these being coordinated hit-pieces than an actual investigation, but time will tell.
I wouldn't go as far as to say as its coordinated. But I do think there's something going on here.
My personal opinion is that this is a huge threat to the kayfabe structure. I.E. the model that essentially the left (or at least parts of the left) are good guys and everybody else is the bad guys. Why do I think that? Because I really do believe once we start drilling down into this, we're going to find that at some level, the current in-favor models of identity and power are simply not healthy for people. And it's not just this one issue, to be clear. I think across the board, I see a real defensiveness when this comes up. That postmodern deconstruction is simply not healthy for individuals or society.
And to make it clear, I'm someone who actually believes in Trans identity. I think that it makes sense that some % of the population is going to have an innate sense of gender dysphoria. And they should be cared for in the best way possible, including transition. But I don't think that's all that's going on. I think there are people being victimized by this postmodern deconstruction. And I also think there are people out there exploiting it.
Karmaze
1yr ago
Yeah, I agree with this. Like you, I have no philosophical objection to vaccine mandates or public health requirements, given potential externalities. But...what they said here....
"arbitrary and capricious"
Is how it pretty much always felt to me. And to me that's a huge problem. It was clear to me that this became, very quickly, something that was pure, unadulterated 100% culture war. That the "Who, Whom" question was fully in effect. I could list the whole big list of things. And I mean, I know a lot of people point to the BLM protests as THE moment, but honestly, it was clear before that.
People ask me why I think the culture war...or more specifically defusing the culture war is so important to me. And I think this is a big reason why, it's a sign I can point to. I don't think this conflict had to happen, or at least not to nearly the same intensity. I think people just had to give a bit more of a care about their out-group, and not believe that because of their status they were above the rules. I do think it's a legitimate counter-question to the whole non-compliance has cost lives argument. If that's the case (and I'm not saying it's not, to be honest), then what about the people who flaunted the rules they supported? Wouldn't it be fair to say they have the most blood on their hands for creating the current climate?
Karmaze
1yr ago
But even setting that aside, what you're saying seems like the sort of "do as I say, not as I do" intentional sabotage from Western elites. Maybe someone should slip esteogen and SSRIs into the water at Davos.
So, I'm someone who would be an Incel, probably not one of those angry political people, but one none the less, if it wasn't for a big stroke of luck on my behalf. And there's absolutely a "do as I say, not as I do" element to it.
Incels are people who have taken the nu-male model and actually take it seriously, internalizing and actualizing the teachings. I think people just don't want to grapple with the idea that their ideology/aesthetic/politics can actually harm people, combined with the "ick"/low-status factor. That's my take based on my experience.
Those angry Political Incels, as I call them? By and large, they want those nu-male actualized traits to be lionized and considered high-status in society. That's generally what the complaint comes down to. And I mean...it's not going to happen, right? Self-improvement is the way forward and out. But that's often seen as a reactionary thing in and of itself.
Karmaze
1yr ago
The actual argument, that isn't actually made because it's...well...ugly, but I actually do think it's the argument being made a lot of the time in these cases, is that men should know their Sexual Marketplace Value and act accordingly. And actually, just to be safe, men should probably underestimate significantly their SMV.
The problem is that basically makes it a world for narcissists, really.
I don't think this is a TikTok problem per se. I think the question is, why is the strict Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy so hip and cool? Speaking as someone who is totally against that model. Why does opposing these models make you look so....nerdy, if not outright vile? I still maintain the reason is because the strict Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy freezes out other facets of power, privilege and bias which actually serve to build/maintain power for influencer types. It serves the tribal in-group vs. out-group thinking. In short, it feels good and it's actually of little cost, because you're not actually expected to apply it to yourself or the people around you. It's OK to just apply it to the other.
More options
Context Copy link