This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There has been a recent crackdown on naughty games on steam and itch.io. The game platforms say the crackdown has come from payment processors. Payment processors have said they don't want their business associated with unsavory practices, and that adult products have higher charge back rates. Some people have blamed activist religious groups on aggressively lobbying the payment processors for this crackdown.
I mostly feel a sense of annoyance. My libertarian leanings have me feeling certain ways about all this.
Can we look for specifics here? This comes from Collective Shout, which is not a religious organisation, and in their FAQ claim that the accusation that they're "easily offender, prudish, moralisers, or religious fundamentalists" is a deflection tactic used by others in bad faith.
As a prudish religious person myself, I don't think there's anything bad with being one, but the idea that we specifically were behind this seems false.
I am personally uninterested in the exact ideology behind restrictions on communication between consenting adults. Besides, targeted media is one to which both feminism and Christianity have objections too. I will note, however, that self-idenfication standard is not absolute, person can be a nazi, without claiming to be one, for example. A Christian organization will find allies among those on the left more easily, if it puts its objections in leftist-coded language.
Edit: If one lived in a society with poweful faction of Christians, one would be incentivised to put ones moral statements in terms of Christian vocabulary, even if one was not a Christian. Likewise with feminism. Thus mere choice of words is not that good of a test. In my opinion a better one would be finding a piece of media about which Christian and feminist opinions differ, and see Massed Yell's evaluation of it.
I'd argue that factional differences among one's opponents are relevant for understanding those foes, even if for only tactical reasons. If nothing else, if you approach this particular drama by concluding you need to attack Christians, you're likely to be quite ineffective, because they weren't the ones who got this done.
For what it's worth, my view on the object level issue is:
It's rather shady to go after payment processors specifically, as a way of putting pressure on other platforms. Collective Shout would have been better or more honest to make their cases to Steam or Itch.io directly.
It would be reasonable for platforms themselves to make decisions about what they want to host, including NSFW content; there would be nothing in principle objectionable about Steam or Itch.io making such decisions.
I think it would be best for society overall if a platform like Steam made a decision not to host porn. This is because I think it's socially beneficial for porn to be at least somewhat taboo or embarrassing; since Steam is the default game platform, what it hosts helps to set the standard. So I think Steam shouldn't host NSFW games for the same reason that YouTube doesn't host porn. Itch.io, on the other hand, is pretty heavily into the pornographic/NSFW space already, and it makes more sense for it to lean into its niche.
That said I do not think the government ought to compel Steam or other companies to offer or hide certain content, from the top down.
I am willing to accept tactical compromises on issues like this - for instance, Steam hosts porn currently, but Steam tries to avoid hosting 'hateful' content, and if the definition of hateful continues to expand, I could see a case for total content-neutrality as a compromise. However, at present I think total content-neutrality is unlikely to happen. In principle, though, I agree with you that total neutrality would be a decent Schelling fence.
They have in the past and Gaben has told them and other similiar busy bodies to pound sand time and time again. Even that one time when journos threw a hissy fit about the game Hatred existing. The pr people managed to convince a drone in valve marketing to pull the game off the store, as soon as Gabe found out he re-instated the game and fired the guy who did it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link