On social justice, allergies and how it ties back to #Gamergate:

Ask any social justice warrior what they want in video games and they'll tell you that they want more diversity and representation of women and minorities. According to them, women and minorities want to be represented and games should accurately reflect the increasing amounts of non-white male gamers; furthermore, they feel that most games are sexist and racist in their portrayals of characters and this isn't anything someone should support as it reflects the reality of sexism and racism in society.



But now, allergies.



"Allergic reactions occur when a person's immune system reacts to normally harmless substances in the environment. A substance that causes a reaction is called an allergen."



What we can take away from this statement is that only a minority of people will develop an allergy. Now, that's certainly terrible and no one should have to suffer from it, but there's very little that anyone can do for someone who is personally allergic to a substance that's tolerated by everyone else.



I could likewise make a case that peanut butter, milk and chocolate are harmful to some people and they might cause death, and they should be banned so as to not harm individuals that could be allergic to it. This sounds like a reasonable argument at first glance, and many people might support it on the basis that less deaths are a good thing.



I would also be wrong to do so. Here are the reasons:



1) Both cases are appeals of emotion: I am appealing to manufacturers to stop including possible allergens in their food because it's killed people before, but there's too many allergens in the world to account for everything that's harmful.



The same applies to social justice in that not every woman or minority is going to feel offended at being stereotyped, much as not every white male is going to feel offended if he's a gangly boy and he's only allowed to play as a heavily muscled soldier.



Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://evermeet.blogspot.com/2011/07/mind-your-language.html



For the uninformed, Mind Your Language is a British comedy that deals with the misadventures of one Mr. Brown as he conducts English classes for immigrants from various countries. One would think that this would be considered progressive for a comedy series that aired decades ago, but here's the kicker:



The people who complained most about the stereotypes were the British, and the people who loved it most were the represented countries! It would be wrong to say that all of them enjoyed it, but the series is still enjoyed by the 'stereotyped minorities' to this day, and it's loved by all of my family members, myself included.



In short, don't spoil the fun of others just because you're outraged on their behalf. If they're truly bothered, they can speak their minds.



2) Social justice warriors and anti-allergy crusaders have another thing in common in this case: Everyone is either a friend or an enemy. It's not enough if a company lists nuts as an allergen or five companies decide to remove peanuts from their menu, there's always the risk that someone with an allergy will eat it.



Here's yet another appeal of emotion to think of the people who might be affected, but it again neglects the fact that these people will always be in the minority and that warning labels exist for a reason. A cursory glance at an ESRB label warning about sexually suggestive language and graphic violence may not seem sufficient for some, but it does serve as an effective deterrent for people who might be bothered by such elements. Likewise, latex-free gloves and warnings about peanuts already exist, and consumers can make their own choice.



It's not up to crusaders to fight on the behalf of 'possible' victims, in other words. Co-opting their voices is dishonest.



3) Insulating people as opposed to educating them often makes things worse: I'm intolerant to shellfish for instance, and I'm careful to avoid food such as crabs so as to not suffer afterwards. People with allergies are frequently taught how to minimize their risk of dying from an allergy attack, and such measures allow them to live their lives normally.



The allergy hypothesis can be seen here and it alleges that restricting kids from freely interacting with the environment and getting dirty makes them more likely to develop allergies: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/d2n-stopping-germs-12/kids-and-dirt-germs



In the same vein, restricting stereotypes and what may seem like sexism and racism to some only makes the issue worse, as people who are insulated will be ill-prepared when a person in real life makes such remarks at them. To be perfectly honest, I could care less if my race is left out or stereotyped in games as the social justice warriors have done a good job of providing me gradual immunization by calling me a sockpuppet minority.



Now that's racism for you.



4) Both measures aren't financially viable: Assassin's Creed Unity is brought up as an example of sexism due to its exclusion of a female protagonist, but while the argument that a female assassin appropriate for the era is a reasonable one, most calls for diversity such as color pickers show the SJW's poor understanding of a business.



Companies such as Bioware can afford to make protagonists whose race and gender can be customized, but comparing Dragon Age: Origins to Persona 4 is a poor comparison as DA: O itself supports many storylines while it'd be odd for a game set in Japan to not have a Japanese protagonist. Not every narrative is the same, and the pressure to include diversity where it doesn't fit can be financially damaging to smaller studios that just want to make a good game.



Incidentally, it's ridiculous when people ridiculing AAA titles for not being more inclusive tout stats that show that 50% of women play games. Realistically speaking, women make a small percentage of the people who play AAA games and the same studios that offend them aren't going to budge until catering to their demographic is financially viable and it's not a pipe dream.



(On that note: RPGs are the most level playing field in video games. Female protagonists are fairly common in JRPGs and include men and women of all kinds, and some games set on Earth such as Shadow Hearts boast a multi-national cast without casting them as tokens)



Likewise, asking for companies to just stop selling foodstuffs that could be harmful is idiotic. A person with allergies is perfectly capable of helping themselves and allergies like personal offense is a category too broad to be properly regulated, while quality is not.



5) By restricting what people can and cannot do, creativity and diversity itself becomes limited: Banning peanut butter because some people can't eat it deprives peanut butter lovers of a product they love, and the constant accusations of sexism only guarantee that female characters will explored less since no one wins when a princess is always an object, a damsel is always in distress and sexy women are the toys of men regardless of personality.



The end result is that bland games such as Gone Home are given high praise while games such as Odin Sphere are overlooked in spite of having no less than three princesses who have agency and are protagonists in their own right. When that same company is trashed by the press because a single character has an ample bosom, it only goes to show that letting SJWs and over-sensitive journalists dictate what people should see rather than the consumers will inevitably result in the loss of many good products.



And for what? To satisfy people who complain about the needs of the many, but who co-opt their voices to champion their own needs.

Reply · Report Post