Categories
Politics/Government

Why Are American Police Carrying Out Executions against American Citizens? #BLM

One of the things we’re taught to believe as American citizens is that we cherish our freedoms and our rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion.

And if we’re accused of a crime, we get to face our accusers and have a fair shot at defending ourselves. It’s in the base Constitution, and in the 6th expansion pack it even says “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

We’re presumed innocent until proven guilty.

We’re taught, “Look at THOSE countries. The oppression by the government, the jack-booted thugs executing people without trial or with sham trials where the deck is stacked against the accused. We have it much better here.”

We Americans have it good, right?

But some of us don’t.

In fact, many of us look the other way when again and again and again and again the police carry out executions against people of color. We look the other way when it happens in broad daylight. We look the other way when there is video footage showing it happening.

Somehow, even when the evidence says, “You can’t look the other way”, we find a way to look the other way.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the victim is a teenager or a grown adult. It doesn’t matter if the victim was a model citizen or had a colorful past. It doesn’t matter if the victim was fleeing or standing or sitting or had his hands up.

It doesn’t matter, because if we are being accused of a crime, we as Americans expect to be able to defend ourselves before we’re found guilty of the crime. In court. With a fair trial.

To stand that trial, we expect to be alive. We should NOT have to worry that our lives are forfeit just because someone suspects we might be bad guys.

Worrying that the government will bring about my death if I breathe wrong when accosted by police is not how it is supposed to work in this country. That’s for other, lesser countries with totalitarian governments.

And yet, we live in a country where some of our fellow citizens are not being afforded the right to a trial by jury.

We live in a country where some of our fellow citizens are being told that the basic rights guaranteed by the third article of the Constitution and the 6th amendment do not apply to them if a police officer decides to act as judge, jury, and executioner.

We live in a country that has tolerated actions that we are supposed to look down upon.

So what kind of country are we living in?

Because the totalitarian-type actions happen predominantly to Black people, we ignore them. We justify it by looking for reasons why they got themselves killed by police officers, people who after all have a tough job and risk their lives to keep us safe.

As a White male, I live in a completely different America. My America looks a lot like the one I was taught about growing up.

And because of my White privilege, I can look the other way when there is too much cognitive dissonance. When what I want to believe about America and what the daily experience and death toll for Black people in that same America are at odds, I can choose to say, “No, I live in the greatest country in the world, so it must be something else that’s going on.”

I can stay silent when I witness what happened to Philando Castile.

I can stay silent when I witness what happened to Alton Sterling.

I can stay silent when I witness what happened to Eric Garner.

To Michael Brown.

To Tamir Rice.

To Eric Harris.

To Samuel DuBose.

To Freddie Gray.

To Walter Scott.

To Laquan McDonald.

I can stay silent, because it doesn’t happen to me.

After all, I live in a completely different America in which I don’t have to fear being executed by a police officer for a routine traffic stop.

I live in a completely different America where even if I was violent and a threat to the people around me, and even if I killed officers trying to detain me, I could be sure that I would be arrested, alive, and ready to stand trial.

Executions in the streets? They only happen in other countries.

Including that other America I can pretend doesn’t exist.

Because Black people are being regularly harassed, beaten, terrorized, and executed by police officers, and because those actions get covered up often enough by those same police officers, there is a movement called Black Lives Matter.

Because in this America, it’s clear that they don’t matter to the majority of Americans.

Because if Black lives really mattered in America, we wouldn’t be silent about the injustice of death sentences being metered out by police without a trial. We wouldn’t keep saying, “Keep calm. Let’s wait for all the facts,” while simultaneously reaching for tenuous justifications and defending the indefensible.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the victim was a good guy or a bad guy.

We live in America. We don’t execute people in the streets. It’s not how it is supposed to be in this country. And we shouldn’t tolerate it when it happens in our name.

Categories
Personal Development Politics/Government

Being a Real Ally for Marginalized People in the Game Industry

I’m a white, straight, cisgender man. But I didn’t used to be.

In the past, I was just me. A unique individual human being just living his life like everyone else.

Then I started becoming aware of the fact that as a man, I live a completely different life compared to women.

I had my butt pinched once. It was by a woman passing by in a club when I was in Cancun on spring break in high school. It was such a novelty that I didn’t know how to react at the time other than with curious amazement that it happened.

All women, on the other hand, have experienced unwanted harassment from men. Some have experienced quite a bit, and some have received unwanted physical contact, and some have been physically hurt for resisting, and some have died.

And that’s just one general way in which we live different lives.

Then I started becoming aware of the fact that as a white man, I live a completely different life compared to people of color.

I got pulled over for speeding when I was in high school. I was nervous, and I got off with a warning. I had been pulled over for speeding maybe four more times, and I got a warning almost every time. One time I recall two officers on each side of my car, and another squad car appearing, and I wondered why there was so much overwhelming force. Everything was fine, though.

Black men, however, have to tell their children how to behave when, not if, they get pulled over so as not to give the officer any reason to believe they are in danger and an excuse to shoot first, ask questions later. Black drivers may drive the speed limit even if traffic is speeding around them to avoid getting into such dangerous situations in the first place. Some still get pulled over for Driving While Black. Some get harassed, some get physically hurt, and some die.

And that’s just one general way in which we live different lives.

Then I started becoming aware of the fact that as a cisgender man, I live a completely different life compared to transgender people.

One time in middle school I accidentally walked into the girls’ bathroom. It was on a different floor, and I didn’t realize I was in the wrong bathroom until I was washing my hands and noticed the lack of urinals and some strange dispensers on the wall. If I had been caught, I probably could have explained that it was an accident, and if I got in trouble anyway, it would probably have been a minor punishment.

Transgender people have entire states passing laws preventing them from peeing where they are most comfortable, which is scary because just peeing in a public bathroom has been a dangerous situation historically for them. Some have been physically beaten and some have died because other people became uncomfortable that someone different was in their bathroom.

And that’s just one general way in which we live different lives.

I used to just be a regular human being, but then I became aware of my privilege.

Privilege is about Society, not You Personally

I have a lot of privilege. I don’t have to pay attention to any of those things happening to people who aren’t white, male, and cisgender. I can continue to live my own life oblivious to it, because horrible things just generally don’t happen to me merely by virtue of me existing, and if something happens to a friend who happens to not be white or male or cisgender, well, it was probably a one-off because if it happened to me, it would be a one-off.

That’s privilege. It doesn’t mean I was given anything in life. It means societal norms are such that when I was born, I get to play the game of life on easy mode. No extra obstacles are thrown in my way due to me being me. No one is out to put me in my place, because my place by default is on top. I still have to play the game and exert effort, but I don’t have to work twice as hard to get half as much. People don’t look at me and assume I can’t possibly know what I need to know to do a job, so job interviews for software development positions don’t require nearly as much effort by me to impress as it might be for, say, a woman.

I don’t have to feel guilty about being privileged, as I didn’t specifically do anything to obtain that privilege. But I should be aware of it because how I tolerate the systems that allow that privilege means I’m basically tolerating the status quo for all of the marginalized people out there.

As uncomfortable as it may be to acknowledge this, my passive tolerance does, in fact, make me part of the problem.

But being made aware of it wasn’t easy.

Privilege is Invisible

I think it’s a much more profound challenge than it seems at first blush. It’s hard to communicate with people who have a very different frame of reference in life.

People with privilege don’t recognize that they have it, and so when they come into contact with someone who isn’t in their privilege bubble, it’s a jarring shock.

Privileged people see the world as meritocratic, and the idea that anyone has a disadvantage due to systemic issues is ridiculous specifically because they don’t see the system. To them, it’s just How Things Are.

They say things like “Why don’t you do what I did and work hard to get what you want instead of whining and hoping someone will give it to you?” without realizing that they were given the opportunity to work hard to get what they wanted without having to ask for it. They don’t see themselves as privileged because they worked hard.

They don’t see how what might be a minor and temporary inconvenience for them is yet-another-blow to someone’s dignity and welfare.

There’s that saying, “He was born on third base and acts like he hit a triple.” In a way, that’s everyone who has privilege. For people without privilege, many weren’t even allowed in the lineup.

For some (many?), being told that they need to go back to the plate to swing the bat and hit the ball before they can take a base, just like everyone else, is a setback.

Oh, and by the way, now there are more people who are allowed to participate.

It doesn’t feel like equality so much as the privileged person losing something. They start looking wistfully to the past as when things were better (specifically for them), and without getting too political about it, that’s how certain politicians seem to get so much traction with passionate voters by appealing to their bigotry.

People without privilege are much more aware of it because it is a constant issue in their lives. To them, someone with privilege must seem very obtuse. “How can they possibly not see what I see?”

It’s because their privilege is invisible to them.

So you have privileged people who don’t know they are privileged who might not have a mean bone in their bodies, and they might think of themselves as genuinely good. Yet they are part of the system. Being made aware of this fact, that they have privilege and there are systemic problems for people who don’t, and they should take some responsibility for being part of that system that allows for it, is a potentially ugly process.

Many go into denial because, hey, they are genuinely good people and don’t hate anyone! Some of their best friends are [insert non-privileged group here]! They didn’t personally do anything wrong!

And they might even be right on all of those counts, but it’s uncomfortable for them to believe that they fell down on the job of being more active in terms of even acknowledging privilege exists because it sounds like they should feel personally guilty about it.

So, if they ignore their privilege, the world goes back to the way it was when everything was a matter of pure merit and hard work, and it’s not their fault that other people are less well off.

Privilege is invisible to those who have it. Confirmation bias helps. And communication and spreading awareness is an uphill battle as a result.

Ok, You Have Privilege. Now What?

I think one challenge I’m finding is what to do now that I am aware of my privilege.

And I mean do, because being aware and not changing how I behave and act feels like it is worse than being unaware and blissfully ignorant.

I’ve been doing some research, partly for my own growth, and partly as research for my church’s efforts to ensure they are a welcoming organization for transgender people. A lot of the action steps I’m finding out there for allies are along the lines of “Don’t say this, don’t assume that, do make space.” All good, but after that, I feel like there should be more to it.

Like, ok, I get it. Don’t be a jerk, and treat everyone you meet as a human being. Learning about hurtful and appropriate language and micro aggressions and existing systemic oppression are details, but there has to be more to it, right?

I’m not saying my education is complete, nor do I want to downplay the importance of those details, but it’s one thing to see and recognize privilege, and another to do something about it.

But I feel like there’s a next step that I’m responsible for figuring out because no one is talking about it.

Most articles I’ve found for allies boil down to one of either two things: a list of do’s and don’t’s to help you be aware of your privilege, or a diatribe about how allies are failing at being real allies. It seems like every ally-related article I find focuses exclusively on the “be aware” part, or it laments how allies are falling short of actually doing more than making themselves feel better about being so progressive. There’s almost nothing out there that feels like set of a tangible actions and behaviors that would make a lasting difference.

The video game industry struggles like many industries with marginalized identities. Mattie Brice is a games critic and activist I’ve followed on Twitter for a long time who has written about this topic often. Recently she tweeted a link to her article which captures why things haven’t improved substantially despite the number of marginalized voices creating games these days.

Brice argues that despite progress on a number of fronts, it seems the status quo is still pretty much what it was, and it seems to be because that’s what supposed activists actually want.

That is, people asking for more diverse representations in games expect to play the same games we’ve always played. You know, only this time Ubisoft could figure out how to budget for the production of female models.

Right now liberal games people find the values of marginalized perspectives quaint, nice flavor that could be adapted or added on to what we already have, but not the main dish. So they aren’t necessarily against radical viewpoints, and definitely encourage them to exist, but only unsupported so change is as slow as possible.

This forces people who have the most to lose and are currently in danger to take the majority of the weight of moving things along.

This idea that marginalized people shoulder the brunt of the work of rising up against the systemic problems is something I was made aware of while talking about ways transgender people could feel more welcome at my church. I didn’t want to speak for these people as I worried it wasn’t my place to do so, but it’s exhausting for them to do everything on their own because they are fighting an uphill battle.

If I had to constantly talk about being a white, straight, cisgender man, and constantly defend every action or thought as a white, straight, cisgender man, it would, in fact, be exhausting. But since society sees me as the default, I don’t have to exert that energy.

So as an ally, what I could do is amplify marginalized voices rather than merely sit back silently. They have their own voices, and I can do much more than wait for them to feel comfortable enough to speak in a hostile environment. I can make the environment more friendly. I could share what they say.

But I could also do more.

We know that these people get less resources, both from games and society as a whole, and not changing how you consume and practicing what you value continues that divide. Said liberal masses are forcing marginalized creators into critical positions by being apathetic at best about the literal support the give while contributing to entities that maintain the status quo.

Marginalized creators don’t often have access to the marketing might of major publishers, and as a person of privilege, it’s easy for me to not even be aware that these creators exist, which contributes to their marginalization without my awareness.

From this article, I’m thinking that one of the tangible things I can do as someone with privilege is to make the extra effort to find marginalized voices. So when I think about buying a new science fiction book, for instance, rather than choose from a bestsellers list or merely on Amazon’s recommendations, I could actively seek out science fiction books written by authors I might not know about.

That’s not a difficult thing to do, but until Brice’s article, it hadn’t occurred to me to do it.

And if I address this in each aspect of my life, from where I eat to what I read children before bedtime to what movies I decide to watch to what I personally create, then I’m hopefully doing more than mere awareness and actually practicing what I value.

I’m going to continue to look for more, but being more conscious about where my dollars go is one tangible, impactful thing I can do to make privilege more visible. It doesn’t sound so hard, but I’m surprised there isn’t more about it out there.

Being that I have the awareness of my privilege to ignore injustice, it’s a moral decision not to ignore it. Being in a position of privilege, I feel obligated to do more than the bare minimum of merely not being a jerk. It will probably be exhausting work, but it’s already exhausting for the people who don’t have the privilege to avoid the work. It is wrong to sit on the sidelines and think I’m still a good person while other people suffer indignity, harassment, injustice, and death.

Categories
Politics/Government

Syrian Refugees Are NOT Potentially Poisonous Grapes

In the debate, I often saw an argument along the lines of, “If I gave you 10 grapes and told you two were poisonous, would you eat any?”

It sounds clever. There’s a risk. Most intelligent people would say no, and so the idea is that taking in Syrian refugees when potential terrorists could be hiding among them is akin to consuming grapes when you know they could be poisonous.

This argument is old, as this tweet shows:

Back when the Jews were fleeing the Nazis, nations all around the world denied them access because Nazis might be hiding among them. As a result, many more were killed in the Holocaust that could have been saved.

But what bothers me about the argument is how simplistic it is. It makes it sound like the probability is known, and that the only defense against risk is to avoid it entirely. It also makes the issue about the person being posed the hypothetical and not about who the grapes are.

Saving Syrian refugees isn’t the same as benignly eating a bowl of grapes or M&Ms and “knowing” some are poisonous.

It’s like knowing that there are people in a burning building and questioning whether or not to bother trying to get them out on the chance that some of them are arsonists.

“If there were 10 people in a building, and I told you two were arsonists, would you rescue any?” is about how the grape analogy sounds. Now suddenly we KNOW that there are arsonists among them. We even have a specific number, which makes this choice seem like a balance of odds.

And yet, despite knowing we could always find non-poisonous grapes or even some other food, allowing us to pass on this specific bunch of grapes, we still feel like the non-arsonists deserve to be saved from that building, right? I hope?

Syrian refugees are people fleeing a real danger. We have an opportunity to do the right thing and save them from the people we are supposedly afraid they are.

We lock our doors to protect the people inside, but I would question what kind of person you are to leave outside someone who is literally begging for his/her life.

Categories
Politics/Government

You Are Allowing Terrorists to Win by Giving in to Fear

I had two Muslim roommates when I was in college. They were the nicest guys.

One was in computer science and the other decided to go into religious studies. We played computer games together. They threw the best party I ever went to as part of the fraternity they were pledging for during my time living with them.

I remember conducting an experiment with one of them to see if one of us was more likely to get followed in a store after watching a documentary about discrimination for a class we took together. The results were inconclusive that day, which surprised us.

I also remember watching him eat Skittles as if it was the first time, and it turned out that it might as well have been. He had this look of pleasure as he ate each one, and he explained it was because they no longer used animal-based gelatin, which prevented him from eating them before.

Days after 9/11, I remember having a conversation with another Muslim friend about how no one would sit near her on the El that day. I didn’t understand right away what she was saying until I saw the anguish on her face. People were afraid of her because she had dark skin and wore a hijab.

She was great to hang out with, too. Last I heard, she became a paralegal.

I have non-Muslim Indian friends, some of them who are Christian. We’ve played ping-pong or foosball at the day job together, we’ve danced together, we’ve attended weddings together, and we’ve even done real work together.

I am aware that the untrained eye would lump all of these people together under the category “terrorist”.

Each time I see a terrorist attack has been successfully carried out in the world, there are two groups of people I feel for.

I worry about the victims and their families. My heart goes out to them. I can’t imagine the feeling of loss, sadness, and anger they must be feeling in the aftermath.

But I also spend time worrying about my friends getting hurt or killed by idiots who feel the need to “send them back to where they came from” or otherwise treat them as if they were the enemy.

These are real people. They’re Americans. “Where they came from” is just as likely to be a suburb of Chicago as it is the Middle East.

I see a lot of fear-based posts online by friends and family arguing that you can’t tell the difference between a radical Muslim and a peaceful one and so therefore all of them should be banished from the country, or rounded up and killed, or similar rhetoric that sounds like they have no problem with domestic terrorism when they are the ones conducting it. I see similar talk coming from some prominent politicians who seem to feel that the only part of America they need to worry about is the lighter-skinned part, and so they set an example for others to follow.

They worry about our way of life being under threat but have no problem throwing out life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when it comes to those who look different. We cherish our tradition of religious liberty, just so long as it’s Christian.

They worry about Da’esh/ISIS/ISIL/IS destroying this country, but then they turn around and ensure the principles that make this country great in the first place are destroyed first. Giving in to fear, they actively participate in handing Da’esh their victory.

And people like my friends are put at risk as a result.

So while I am processing what happened in Paris and Beirut and Baghdad, I am worrying about the safety of my friends.

Please don’t give in to fear. Real people with real families and real lives are put at risk when someone with enough fear, anger, ignorance, and hate gets the wrong message.

Categories
Games Politics/Government

How to Apologize Correctly

When I was a senior in high school, I was editor of the school paper. I wanted to publish more than fluff pieces. I couldn’t count how many times the formulaic headline “[insert school event here] a Success” showed up in that paper.

Some of the articles ended up quite controversial, and I got us in trouble quite a few times. I was the reason why future issues of the paper had to be approved by the principal.

And while I can be proud that, after years of people complaining, my paper resulted in actual changes to the cafeteria food quality and pricing, I did have one article that poked fun at past administrators that got me pulled into the principal’s office. I was told that I needed to write an apology for the next issue.

I remember writing the words, “We regret any offense we may have caused.” It sounded good and official, as if it was something in a real newspaper.

And I remember being told that my statement wasn’t good enough. It’s not an apology to “regret” that someone was offended. It’s basically saying that we’d do it again and that any offense is the responsibility of the offended.

So I had to rewrite it: “We apologize for the offense we caused.” It’s a lot more direct and lot less weaselly.

An apology isn’t something you say to make bad feelings go away. “I’m sorry” isn’t a magic phrase to get people who are upset with you to disappear. And you don’t apologize with a non-apology such as “I’m sorry if you were offended” because you’re basically saying that you’re not sorry you did someone something wrong because you don’t think you actually did.

According to Ars Technica, slave-Tetris mode was removed from Playing History 2: Slade Trade by Serious Games Interactive after a public outcry when the game became more well known due to a Steam sale.

Ugh. I did just type those words, didn’t I? Slave Tetris? Really? Someone thought it was a good idea?

I have no problem with a game being used to educate players about history. And no one else who understands how games aren’t just for kids has a problem with the concept either.

But Slave Tetris isn’t the most respectful way to teach how horrible the conditions of the slave ships were. This isn’t navigating the Dalles in The Oregon Trail. You can’t reduce the real experiences of millions of people to a mini-game and not expect people to feel that those lives themselves have been minimized.

Simon Egenfeldt-Nielsen of Serious Games Interactive had this non-apology:

The phrase “as it was perceived to be extremely insensitive by some people” is very similar to “we regret any offense we may have caused.”

This phrase makes it sound like the Slave Tetris minigame is actually quite sensitive and perfectly fine, but because some people took offense, SGI decided to take it out to make the bad publicity and bad feelings magically go away.

I think Egenfeldt-Nielsen honestly believes that this is a good educational game that brings the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade to life much better than any history book could do. And he may be right about the game as a whole, although having someone in the game talk like Mr. T seems to contradict his claims that “We are definitely not making it into a joke.”

Playing History 2: Slave Trade - Pity the Fool?

Furthermore, I have a feeling that many of the negative reactions in here are knee-jerk reactions and she eps following what other says. Please take time to look at the game before forming your opinion.

The problem with Egenfeldt-Nielsen’s commentary is that he says, “we are listening” but then in the same breath says, “I really don’t think that all the comments here are warranted.”

Oh.

People are offended, and it isn’t the Race Card or Political Correctness or people who are just looking to get offended professionally.

He made a mini-game about earning points by stacking human slaves efficiently in a slave ship. It’s offensive.

If there was a mini-game about slamming planes into the Twin Towers and scoring points for the number of people you force to jump to their deaths, people would be offended because it is offensive to take such a serious situation and try to pretend there’s a fun game out of it. There would be real lives being represented in a terrible way. The seriousness of that day would be missed, no matter how accurate or true it technically might be.

I agree with Egenfeldt-Nielsen that games have a lot of potential beyond being fun. In fact, there are plenty of serious games out there on a wide variety of topics that the casual game player might get surprised about. There are games about dealing with cancer, depression, and many other health issues. There are games about current events, war, and logistics for aid organizations, all of which treat the topic seriously and can bring awareness without making light of the situation.

But as I’m sure he has discovered, it’s not easy to work with serious subjects. You can’t separate the game from the people and events it is portraying. A game about slavery can’t just be game mechanics with a slavery backstory. To think otherwise is to betray the mindset that this serious issue is serious in the abstract but not serious enough to consider other people’s reactions to it as important.

Slavery is horrific. A game about slavery need not be, but Playing History: Slave Trade‘s Slave Tetris isn’t driving home the point that slave ships were actually like a Tetris board. In a subtle way, it’s minimizing the horror.

But I worry the lesson he learned isn’t to treat serious subjects with more respect and awareness. I worry the lesson he learned was that he needs to walk on eggshells to avoid having seemingly unreasonable people offended. His regret is that others were offended, not that he participated in the offending.

Categories
Game Design Politics/Government

Take Seriously the Responsibility of Game Creation #LDJam

After a marathon game development weekend in which I finished my Ludum Dare compo entry on time, I found myself looking forward to playing everyone else’s games. I pulled up the random list of games it provides for me to rate, and the very first game on the list?

A game about being a rapist.

Seriously? Ugh.

I know. I know the theme for Ludum Dare #33 was “You Are the Monster.” I know the very first thought most people will have with the word “monster” is some kind of creature, whether evil or good, and the second thought is, “Ah, but people can be metaphorical monsters, too!”

And there have been some amazing games taken in both directions. In just a handful of games, I played the role of a politician in two of them. One was humorous, and one was chillingly dark. Both were done well.

But I can’t comprehend how someone could think playing as a rapist would make for a good game concept, no matter how much it might fit the theme.

I’m having trouble articulating what bothers me so much about a game about being a rapist. We have lots of games that put you in terribly violent roles, and I would be one of the last people to argue that they shouldn’t be made.

But this game has you treat women as objects to overpower as a core game play mechanic. That’s horrific.

When I brought this up in the Ludum Dare IRC channel, I was told something to the effect of “If you don’t like it, then just don’t play it.”

I think that attitude works fine for matters of taste. If I am not a sports fan, I could just not play the next incarnation of Madden instead of whining about the existence of another game I don’t care for.

But this is a game about subjugating and raping women, of treating them as Less Than. I would not think it’s a matter of taste. I would like to think that it’s not a matter of some people being offended and some people not. I think it is perfectly valid to call out a bad creation. I mean, there are bad games, and then there are bad games.

It’s not “just a game”. I hate that phrase because it makes it sound like games are not important.

Games matter. And I know this is a 48 hour game made by an amateur and not a professionally produced controversial product. But games matter.

We live in a world where the tools of creation have been democratized, and as I wrote last month, anyone can create, and they do:

You could simulate complex interpersonal relationships, or you could go the easy route of hypersexualization, stereotypes, and power fantasy.

It’s a choice.

And with the increased availability of tools and publishing platforms, anyone can make these kinds of choices.

And many do. Sometimes without realizing that they are making important choices.

And some of these choices get front-page status, which means a lot of people get the subtle message that these choices are normal.

Being careless about this topic bothers me a lot. Rape is serious. It is dehumanizing to its victims. It is horrific. It should not be treated casually, because then you risk making rape sound as almost normal, maybe even funny. When rape is treated in an unserious way, it’s telling the world that it is no big deal.

I’m not saying that certain topics are taboo and should not be the subject of games. Other media have tackled it, and some have done better than others in not treating it as merely a plot development, and I believe games could as well. I think it may be possible to create a game about violent misogyny and rape that seriously deals with the issue.

I am saying that if rape is going to be addressed in a game, it needs more careful thought behind it. Making a game about rape is not something you just do.

A note to people who don’t play games: Games don’t have to be fun to be games. They don’t have to be for kids to be games. They can deal with adult themes. They can inform.

Games mean something and they say something to the world. Even if you think they don’t say anything, THAT says something. Playing a game featuring casual misogyny such as the Batman:Arkham series of games says something to us about the views of the creators, views that potentially get absorbed by the players. These games aren’t going to turn every fan into a raging women-hating fiend, but it sure doesn’t help to be exposed to hours of game play normalizing certain attitudes toward women.

A game about being a violent rapist says something about the creator’s views, views that can get absorbed by it’s players. People might see this game and think, whether consciously or not, “Huh, someone made a game about being a rapist. I guess that’s a thing now.” And rape gets even more normalized in more minds.

I don’t know what to call for in terms of this specific game. I’m not asking for it to be banned or removed from Ludum Dare, but that’s more because I don’t know if it should be. I’m still a bit shocked that someone thought to make it in the first place.

But in general, I am asking that game developers take the responsibility for what they put out into the world more seriously. You’re creating culture. Act like it.

Categories
Politics/Government

Another Reminder about the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Another, apparently needed, reminder: the 1st amendment is about the government not being allowed to stop you from speaking your mind. You can’t be arrested for stating your opinions, no matter how terrible or controversial.

The 1st amendment DOES NOT protect you from the consequences of that speech with regard to your fellow citizens or the media, who have their own right to decry what you say, including calling you a bigot if they think you’re being a bigot.

You aren’t being censored illegally just because you don’t like that someone’s opinion of your speech is negative.

You’re just being censured, legally.

Categories
Personal Development Politics/Government

Independence Means Having Real Choices and the Opportunity to Make Them

In game design, balance is important. If you create a variety of options for the player to choose from, but one is superior to the rest, then the rest might as well not be in the game because the player will always choose the the best item.

Dominant strategies are often an accident. Whether it is a lack of play-testing or an oversight, designers don’t usually put them in on purpose.

But it is easy to see how the existence of a dominant strategy ruins things. Instead of having a lot of choices as the designer intended, the player effectively has none.

Technically you could argue that the player still has choices, and if he/she wanted to play with an extra challenge, it’s possible. People try to finish the original Legend of Zelda while collecting the minimum of upgrades, for instance:

But in most cases, the player is trying to optimize their play, and the existence of an always-optimal choice means the player is always going to make that choice.

There are also choices that are always terrible. They also might as well not exist because the player will never choose it over a superior option.

In real life, balance is not guaranteed. People make all sorts of choices in all sorts of circumstances.

For many people, these choices aren’t real choices at all.

For instance, who to vote for. While we seem to be gaining a U.S. presidential candidate every other week, eventually it will get pared down, with our two-party system causing many people feel like they only have two choices: bad, and worse.

Technically, they have two other choices: not voting, or voting third party. But many feel that these aren’t real choices. One abdicates responsibility, and the other feels like you barely doing any better since the majority of people think they only have two real choices and so your third party vote ends up having a negligible effect. You feel like you’re railing against the wind because not enough people joined you.

In other cases, the choices might be there; you just can’t take advantage of them.

In some countries in the world, practicing your faith is deadly. Talking about the problems of the government is deadly. Protesting is deadly. You could say that the citizens still have a choice, that they are independent, but it would take unusual courage and strength for them to stand against their oppressors. It’s heart-breaking. The door to the cage might be open, but those armed guards don’t look like they’ll let you walk through them unscathed.

In countries like Greece, bad policies have resulted in the majority of the population paying for the sins of a few major players. The people can’t leave the situation easily, and it is frustrating because the way out of the situation isn’t obvious.

It’s easy to take our independence for granted. People have fought for our rights for centuries, whether it was winning our independence from foreign enemies or our livelihoods and dignity from domestic ones.

People can complain about the President’s policies or the way Congress can’t seem to cooperate to put together meaningful legislation, and they don’t generally need to worry about retaliation from the government.

You can leave a job with terrible conditions and find another, or start your own business, or go on strike and demand better conditions. Yes, some choices here are more painful or terrifying, but not overly so. We as a nation frown upon monopolies specifically because the lack of real choice is seen as harmful. We get concerned when one company seems to be able to set their own terms independent of competition or the health of their workers.

You can change your religion, and aside from sharing in awkward family meals or attempts to make you feel guilty, the consequences don’t tend to result in a shortened life expectancy.

Sometimes the guards to the cage door are only ourselves. Maybe we’re blinded to the opportunities, or we don’t have all of the information to make an informed choice, or it takes more effort than we realize, or our circumstances make it difficult, or maybe we aren’t bothering to participate.

But we can fix or change any of those circumstances. We can learn more about the situation. We can make plans. We can get help.

Don’t waste your opportunities. Don’t take the easy route. Don’t go with the weaker strategy in life just because everyone else around you is using it.

Take advantage of your independence. You have choices, and even if it is hard to do so, you can make them.

Categories
Personal Development Politics/Government

Revisiting Your Existing Knowledge

I went to a Catholic grade school which included kindergarten all the way through to 8th grade. There was no clear break between grade school and middle school. To me, I went to grade school, then high school.

Often when I tell people about my grade school experience, I realize that people get confused about how young I was, so sometimes I have to say that it was my grade school/middle school.

Now that that’s explained, when I was in grade school, I recall distinctly the lessons about the Civil War. I remember the teacher specifically saying that the war was not about slavery, that it was about states’ rights.

I remember thinking, “Oh! I didn’t know that! The little I knew about the war was North and South, the country splitting between free states and slave states.” Learning about the slave states that stuck with the Union was kind of like learning about a piece of trivia and reinforced the idea that no, it wasn’t about slavery specifically. It was about whether or not the government can tell states what to do.

And in the end, the federal government won. The United States of America is a single entity, not a bunch of individual states.

And I carried this knowledge throughout my life. Whenever the Civil War came up, this fact about the reasons for the war being about states’ rights as opposed to slavery came with.

When I visited a Confederate museum in Virginia, I hadn’t seen the war from the Confedrate perspective, and while the museum was tiny, it was full of uniforms, battle standards, carvings such as an engagement ring made from a peach pit, and all matter of fascinating pieces of history. I found no mention of slavery, and I was not surprised.

So after the tragedy in Charleston, South Carolina in which 10 people were shot in a church by someone motivated primarily by race, I found it odd when a few friends posted on Facebook about calls to remove the Confederate flag from the capitol.

They kept talking about racism and slavery, and I was confused because, after all, the Confederacy wasn’t about slavery, right? Calling for the removal of the Confederate flag seemed irrelevant after a shooting driven by hate.

Then this article in the Atlantic called What This Cruel War Was Over published some of the rhetoric and public documents prior to the war.

Oh. It very much was about slavery.

It was about slavery, and it was about White supremacy. The election of Abraham Lincoln with his party’s radical agenda of stopping the spread of slavery was in direct opposition to the desire of leaders in the Southern states to spread slavery into the larger empire of America, which touches on our tensions with Mexico in a way I never saw before. The end of slavery would mean that Blacks would be bizarrely considered equal to Whites, and if that happened it would be the end of civilization as we know it. Even when the Confederates realized the rest of the world wasn’t so keen on helping their cause and so diplomats tried to spin it as states’ rights, it was abundantly clear by the writing and opposition that there was no reason for people to feel embarrassed about slavery, that it was actually a force of good and they should be proud of what it has accomplished.

It was about slavery. That people think so is not perversion by extremists. It isn’t miseducation. It’s part of the historical record, and it isn’t interpreted as it is part of the primary documents we have about the war. To the extent it was about states’ rights, it was the right of states to continue keeping a good number of their population as slaves in order to ensure equality among Whites. It’s an odd thing to today say is part of your proud heritage, and I now understand why people conflate slavery, White supremacy, and the Confederate States of America a lot more closely than I thought they deserved.

And I look back on my grade school days and recognize some of the things I’ve learned since. I remember a high school teacher informing our class that most text books are published by Texas and have a certain point of view built into them. Lies my teacher taught me, indeed.

Now, I’m from the Northern part of the country. In my mind, I always thought WE won the civil war. I identify with the Northern states despite the fact that I was born to immigrants over a century later and have no direct tie to the war. I can only imagine how painful this kind of knowledge can be for people who identify with the South, or who have ancestors who held such views and proudly fought for them.

There are things you learn from a young age, and you never think to question it because it just was. You have a base to build your knowledge on.

And then you find your base is a lie or wrong. It can be difficult because you feel like you are starting over. If that base was wrong, what about everything built on top of it?

But when is the truth ever not the goal? You know, when cynicism and duplicity aren’t involved?

Sometimes your continued education in life isn’t isolated to gaining new knowledge. Sometimes it is about relearning what you thought you already knew.

Categories
Marketing/Business Politics/Government

GOG Galaxy: The DRM-Free Online Gaming Platform

I haven’t been following much of the news, but apparently GOG has an optional client to use that will automatically update your games and allow you to play online with friends.

They call it GOG Galaxy:

I found out about it because I just got an email offering me a free copy of Alien vs Predator Classic in exchange for joining their beta-test program. Oddly, for such a huge service, I am surprised I only just learned about it from them.

I’ve been a big fan of GOG’s DRM-free approach. I know Steam is now available for GNU/Linux, but I haven’t found myself too compelled to run it regularly. Most of the games I have purchased online came from the Humble Bundle or GOG, partly because they are DRM-free offerings I can play on my preferred system.

I know people like the convenience of Steam, but the concept of DRM, the idea that what I can do with the games I purchased is restricted in arbitrary ways, still bothers me. Single player games which require you to be online to play, or games that complain that I’ve installed them one too many times or on too many of my own systems? No thanks.

I’m interested in what GOG is offering, if only because it is optional and still allows me to play my games no matter what. I just wish that Alien vs Predator was available for GNU/Linux. As it is, I apparently signed up for the beta-test of the Windows version.