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 -
I work in video games, you may recall. I've recently been making art for the in-game stories, and for promotional material. It has been communicated to the art team that representing diversity is a requirement in every image by default, with rare exceptions. Diversity means non-white and/or female, preferably both. Exceptions are images depicting individual characters (some of whom are still allowed to be white, but of course are balanced by the requirement that other characters be non-white) or bad guys, who are of course not subject to diversity requirements. Assuming you aren't depicting a villain, white characters are required to be balanced by diverse characters. Diverse characters are themselves, of course, balanced already and need no corresponding balancing.
I'm a little amused that we're still debating whether this sort of thing is happening. It's absolutely happening.
Sorry, I was focused on the stock photo part, which is where the OP didn’t fit my intuition.
I recognize that Representation only gets invoked one way, and that it’s doing so more often now than it did in 2009. Your explanation downthread regarding the risk/reward of pissing off Twitter is convincing.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you describe how these instructions are given to you? Does your manager tell you this directly? Are these commands issued to your whole team from somewhere else?
Every time we made a piece of art that didn't have POC/gender balance in it, our boss told us it wasn't diverse enough and we had to remake it to be more diverse. This complaint never was made for anything involving villains. It took a dozen iterations before we started internally discussing where to put the diversity in a given image during the planning stage, and we still frequently are told that the images aren't diverse enough and we need to add more. Any time we do an early mockup with stock images that aren't themselves diverse, we're reminded that the finished version has to be diverse. I'm indy; the boss tells us directly.
Have you ever asked why?
Video games with more diverse characters don't seem to sell more.
I don't need to ask why. I've sat through a couple impromptu diversity lectures over the years. Both the indy space and Triple-A are completely dominated by progressive voices. The entire gaming press ecosystem is rabidly progressive. Influencers are more balanced, but everyone the boss knows and everyone the boss respects, cares about, and wants to impress are all on one side. You want to show your game at PAX, you want buzz, you want people cheering you on and giving you good press, well, there's a set of beliefs and behaviors that get you that, and there's another set of beliefs and behaviors that definately will not.
I could give more examples, but I'll leave it there for OPSEC purposes.
So it's more a matter of placing the company on the map of 'good guys' or for individuals to make sure that they can keep finding jobs in the same type of companies.
Making a good game with innovative, fun gameplay, interesting visuals and story, compelling characters etc, would definitely make you (commercially) successful as well. Insofar your company is not banned from payment processing I suppose.
Of course that's much harder so the sea of average workers of the industry just go for the low-hanging fruit.
Sure. But while you're doing that, you also want to be a good person, and you want the extra boost of being seen to be a good person, and you definately do not want to be called out as being a bad person, because that could be disastrous.
The fear of failure is considerable. The desire to do anything possible to increase the chances of success is likewise considerable. And that's why I burned a couple days some time ago making art for a progressive fundraising campaign that I absolutely despise and that had zero to do with our product, but that my boss thought might get the company some good press. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.
But why is that the option? From a manager's POV, they can either get staff to spend X hours working on getting progressive acceptance or X hours on making the actual customers want the game more. For example thinking of ways of making the game more fun or more mesmerizing, the story more compelling, etc.
Wouldn't a brainstorming session 'give me the most controversial idea that you think could create press / make more people interested in the game you can think of' be just as valuable if not more? I can't imagine what kind of pressure the people working there are working under, being creative within extremely narrow guidelines.
Perhaps having a character say dirty, sexist or racist jokes could make the game more interesting. Unless there is no dialogue whatsoever.
Because virtue signaling works.
Pretty sure my boss thinks the customers are all progressive as well, and he knows the middlemen between us and those customers are progressive. It's cheap advertising.
Diminishing returns. We've already spent between hundreds and thousands of hours on those objectives; meanwhile, we'd spent zero hours shilling for this particular progressive cause.
That's actually probably a pretty good idea, but it's clearly the sort of idea a bad person would come up with. You don't want to be a bad person, do you? People don't like bad people.
"Every day, there is a Main Character of twitter. Your goal is not to be this person." I mean, it's definately possible to succeed that way, but it's an extremely high-risk/medium-reward sort of strategy.
It's generally not so bad, but it certainly has its moments. Diverse characters make pretty much everything harder, for approximately zero actual benefit. A lot of character design is exaggeration and cartooning; when you apply exaggeration and cartooning to a POC character, you enter a minefield, since anything resembling a stereotype has to be avoided. You can make a white character look dumb as a post, or criminal, or malicious, or lazy; doing these with a black character is capital-P Problematic. there's workarounds to the problem, which of course inflict their own forms of damage. Our game has male and female characters of various non-human races. The best way to make non-human female characters look female is with female signifiers, which are now understood to be sexist. and on, and on, and on. We go a couple months without having to deal with this horseshit, and then it pops up again, and you grit your teeth and do as your told until it goes away again. We had a no-shit full-bore SJW on the team injecting this stuff non-stop for a couple months, but they got let go when it turned out they didn't do any of the actual work they'd been hired to do, and then we got to crunch for a couple weeks straight to get done what they'd been supposedly working on for the last six months. After they were gone, I tentatively floated reversing some of the progressive bullshit changes to the art they'd demanded, and got immediately shot down. Haven't made that mistake since.
So it goes.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link