Why is the gaming community so reactionary?

[Questionable]

I don't know if this belongs here but it's somewhat technology related. A mod can move it if it's not appropriate.

Why is the modern video gaming community so reactionary in their political outlook? Looking at the politics sub-forums of major websites like GameFAQs, those places are fucking disaster zones. It's just a clusterfuck of liberals who will apologize for anything Obama does, Ron Paul fanatics, and occasionally you get people on the far side of either spectrum, but admitting you're a communist brings nothing but ridicule and rejection, and far-rightists are much more common anyway. I just looked on GameFAQs after not being there for multiple years and found a topic talking about how Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game) was militantly anti-gay yet had been chosen to write for Superman comics. The two main sides were liberals saying things like "I'm all for freedom of opinion, but come on guys!" and then right-wingers of all flavors who said that being against hate speech was "censorship" and "just as bigoted as being against gay people." I was the only one who took the stance that hate speech should never be tolerated under any circumstances because fuck bigotry, and I was promptly called a troll be everyone else participating in the debate and my views were more or less ignored.

The games themselves are even worse. Anyone who has the least bit of experience with online gaming knows the rampant racism, sexism, and national chauvinism that infests game communities. Some individual game serves have rules against the more extreme examples, but those are exceptions. Most servers for games like Counter-strike or Call of Duty are just lawless hellholes full of people calling each other "retarded nigger faggots" when they get killed. Women who make their gender known are either hit on relentlessly or condemned as being "attention whores." Players with foreign accents who use a microphone to communicate are usually mocked by their peers. And God help you if you do anything to suggest that you are a homosexual.

I know it must seem like I'm focusing on the worst parts to someone who is not familiar with online gaming, but this shit is seriously commonplace in every game I've played.

I've thought that it's possible most of these people are succumbing to the temptations of pack mentality and internet anonymity, and possibly aren't as bigoted in reality, but as I've said, the actual places where gamers discuss politics aren't much better. The official forums for games like Civilization or Hearts of Iron usually attract players who are more knowledgeable about history and wordly events, but even then you get the "communism can never work human nature capitalism is the end of history hurr hurr" shit most of the time.

So what is it? Is it the class composition of the game community, the fact that it appeals to better-off layers of society? Or is it something else?

[GPDP]

A lot of it does boil down to the tried and true dictum: Normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckwad. Many people act as degenerates because they can do so without consequences. And as for those that actually believe what they spout, it again comes down to the fact that saying such things in public is unacceptable or looked down upon, so the internet is seen as a safe haven for their reactionary ideas.

As for the misogyny and homophobia, well, let's just face it, internet forums and particularly GAMING forums are boys' clubs in the truest sense of the word.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Gaming online, especially games like Call of Duty, are completely filled with people who say things just because they can get away with it. They know calling some random dude from across the country won't be able to track them down or anything so they'll come up with the stupidest, most bigoted things they can come up with just to piss people off. I usually just ignore it or go with it to piss them off more. "Wtf faggot you suck dick, hardscoper, hardscoper."
"Hell yeah I'm a faggot cocksucker, a faggot cocksucker who just kicked your ass over and over again. You lost to a faggot cocksucker like myself, god damn you suck!" Then just keep agreeing with them about being a homosexual, or an Arab, or a Jew, or whatever stupid thing they say and keep bringing up that I am that and I killed their asses at least a dozen times. Eventually they shut up.

Once in a while I'll actually find someone who's cool and not talking shit. I add them as a friend and when they're playing whatever I am I'll play with them so at least I know one person will be cool to play with.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As other comrades have said it is a combination of factors which make people say ridiculously bigoted things. This is combined with the fact that capitalist society is intensely reactionary to begin with (even under "progressive" leadership). The two compliment each other in a profound way. This then fuses with concepts such as masculinity and the warrior mind-set, especially when playing war-games, to result in a chorus of harmful slander when the game doesn't go someone's way. It is, I think, one of the natural conclusions from the combination of these factors.

I actually recently wrote a Kasama article detailing gaming in-depth but they haven't gotten around to publishing it yet.

[Futility Personified]

Ingroups and outgroups. The ingroup: angry young men who refuse to believe that a multi million dollar piece of software can possibly be right if it results in them dying. The outgroup: anyone who has ever been hated on ever and thus is a second class citizen. Although I do hasten to point out, a lot of the time it is trolling, trying to be offensive rather than actually being reactionary and to be completely frank, ahem, some people are noobs, yo. I wouldn't employ the terms leftist but i'd certainly use accepting and open minded to describe some of my friends from where I originate, upon being killed multiple times descended to employ the word faggot more than they actually fired bullets.

Part of it is regrettably gaming culture, as it were, without a doubt it needs changing. But I do feel that while a lot of gamers will employ epithets, it's as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, anonymity + audience = prick, A large amount of people will do it because they can get away with it and just want to be offensive to defend their noobish egos, than because they are out and out bigots. Not defending this incidentally, just pointing out what i've witnessed in clan gaming in the CoD franchise since MW first came out.

[Ocean Seal]

Hint: You are describin 99% of the people on the internet.

[Conscript]

GameFAQs is a terrible site to begin with.

[TaylorS]

I think a lot of these people are edgy teenage boys and adult men with the emotional maturity of a teenager. They want to be shocking and "un-PC" because they think it is form of rebellion, having completely bought in to the popular delusion about the "PC Liberal Establishment".

[sixdollarchampagne]

I worked at an engineering university in southern New England for over three decades, and, on a lot of weekends, there were lots of classrooms occupied by video game enthusiasts, and those people looked like the most unconnected, a-social, strangest folks anyone ever saw. It was appalling. The question ought to be, why is the "gaming community" so unbelievably weird?

[Jimmie Higgins]

So what is it? Is it the class composition of the game community, the fact that it appeals to better-off layers of society? Or is it something else?

I don't think the gaming community is anything seperate from communities at large and I don't know if they tend to me more reactionary (or express more reactionary views in their forums) than most other general (by which I mean not specifically politically oriented) audience on the internet.

Maybe there are some demographic issues at play when it comes to hard-core gamers, but for the most part, video games are an industry bigger than films and so it's a huge and diverse. The niches within gaming may also be a factor because whereas players are now much more diverse in terms of geneder and social background than ever before, some niches are much more directed towards young middle class males (even if that it only a fraction of the total audience). Because the industry wants to target certain valued demographics (to ensure a recognizable market for their investors) games tend to be very loose in depicting sexism, totally anitomically impossible women, machismo, etc. This may embolden people with these views because they feel that it is acceptable and "not a big deal" as it's reflected in the games (or any media, the same could be said of "fan-boys" of Sci-Fi movies or some metalheads).

So back to the internet issue, I think one part of the broader phenomena of awful misogneny, misanthropy, racism, and elitism sometimes expressed in general internet forums, is not necissarily because these views are held by more people, but that they have become acceptable expressions online (whereas most of the time they are no longer acceptable in daily life). Conversly, it's the people who bring up the racism/sexism in this or that decision by a film-maker, novelist, musician, or game francize that get the heavy shaming and are dennounced for "politicizing" things. And people don't defend the sexism/racism made by some commentor (or the game itself), instead they defend "free speech"... by trying to bully and shame others into shutting up.

Like comedians who make rape-jokes, the posters will say they are just being funny or provacative (which there's nothing wrong with offending people for a joke or being provocative in the abstract, but when you see all the social pieces together, it's easy to see this isn't some random joke, but a regualr occourance of shutting up certain views and people), but really it's a battle over what's considered normal and acceptable. In other words, sexism and racism are fine as jokes, mentioning sexism or racism are unacceptable for discussion. The result is that people who are legit scum feel entitled to spew their venom on everyone, people who are just ignorent might mimic the same sorts of jokes but anyone who is offended by it is the problem and feel shamed and so less people feel confident to raise objections; so one view is represented more and the other is silenced.

[Bostana]

Not really. I consider myself part of the gaming community. (Although I am not part of any game forum). Most gamers just don't give two shits about politics and whenever they do express there opinion they're on the far left.

The games themselves are even worse. Anyone who has the least bit of experience with online gaming knows the rampant racism, sexism, and national chauvinism that infests game communities.

Not really. I've never encountered this on any mmorpg. You mainly get that idea from tv shows. Kind of like a stereo type kinda deal

Most servers for games like Counter-strike or Call of Duty are just lawless hellholes full of people calling each other "retarded nigger faggots" when they get killed.

True which is why everyone in the gaming community hates call of duty. It is a terrible game and online game. Most people who are considered gamers hate call of duty.

Women who make their gender known are either hit on relentlessly or condemned as being "attention whores."

No. Not really. Again you're going off of what you hear not what you have experienced.

Players with foreign accents who use a microphone to communicate are usually mocked by their peers. And God help you if you do anything to suggest that you are a homosexual.

People with foreign accents aren't judged because just no one gives a shit where you're from. And same thing if you're homosexual. People could care less about your sexuality let alone judge you for it.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I have long noticed that there is something about the glow of a computer screen that just brings out the absolute worst in humanity. I have known people that are quite cordial and fun-loving on a face-to-face basis, but can be absolute bastards online.

It's weird, because I've always made an effort to be cordial and polite in online conversations. To me it just made sense. I'm basically the same person both offline and online (wit the addition of a socially-crippling southern drawl).

[LeonJWilliams]

I've never noticed personally. I sometimes post on the Star Trek Online (STO) mmorpg forum, the people seem fairly normal. Mostly apolitical.

[Aleister Granger]

There is a difference between being a reactionary and an asshole on the interwebz.
When a revolution breaks, I don't think I'm going to IP hack a random person's account, report them to the NKVD, get them renounced as violent counter-revolutionaries, and have their muscles torn through brutal work and brains blasted onto the walls just because they were immature sadsacks with a fondness for using slurs when they were sure they couldn't get in trouble.

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

Most don't even know what they are talking about on the FAQs, they just memorise some bullshit they think sounds cool and say it. I usually stay away from the FAQs. They wouldn't dare say that face to face. That's how most gamers are, they find the oportunity to be assholes on the FAQs when no one knows its them.

[Comrade Jacob]

It's simple...the gaming industry is reactionary, you know, the constant "Kill the reds, support the "free-world", go 'MURICA" bullshit, so it is no surprise that a community built around these types of games is reactionary as well.

[MarxSchmarx]

I want to suggest a slightly more nuanced but I think materialist perspective that hasn't been raised.

Gaming generally, especially online gaming, requires a certain amount of capital investment. Most people who play games, at least in the global north (with the possible exceptions of S. Korea and Taiwan) do so in the privacy of their homes (another exception are active duty soldiers, but I don't think people should be surprised at their reactionary nature, at least in NATO+ states). That means they must have, at a minimum, regular internet connection, electricity, a television and a console. They must also be able to afford regular rent and the like. TV and console or even a pc are not exceptionally expensive, but the rent and utilities can be quite expensive. That means that these people must either make enough money to live reasonably comfortably to pay these regular bills, or be students.

Now in much of the global north, the working class has a strong reactionary element, and the middle and upper classes more so. Young boys from the latter two classes almost universally played video games from an early age, and, anecdotally, largely seem to continue to do so into at least some stage of adulthood post university.

Within this mileu, most of those people who are reactionary tend to see themselves as unique individual heroes - precisely the sorts of people who videogame narratives serve and market to. They see themselves as more or less "making it on their own", albeit imperfectly, within the capitalist system. Is it therefore any wonder that the gaming community seems slightly more reactionary than the general public? It is worth mentioning, also, that most gamers are men, who, in the global north, tend to be more reactionary as a group.

Finally, I am guessing we are talking mostly of english language gaming. For instance, in places like Latin America or China, where a lot of gaming takes place in internet cafes, I am not nearly as confident that the same reactionary tendencies hold. I think all these theories about the unique nature of the screen and the lack of physical contiguity are interesting, but I think require a cross-cultural comparison to be credible.

[Hrafn]

I want to suggest a slightly more nuanced but I think materialist perspective that hasn't been raised.

Gaming generally, especially online gaming, requires a certain amount of capital investment. Most people who play games, at least in the global north (with the possible exceptions of S. Korea and Taiwan) do so in the privacy of their homes (another exception are active duty soldiers, but I don't think people should be surprised at their reactionary nature, at least in NATO+ states). That means they must have, at a minimum, regular internet connection, electricity, a television and a console. They must also be able to afford regular rent and the like. TV and console or even a pc are not exceptionally expensive, but the rent and utilities can be quite expensive. That means that these people must either make enough money to live reasonably comfortably to pay these regular bills, or be students.

Now in much of the global north, the working class has a strong reactionary element, and the middle and upper classes more so. Young boys from the latter two classes almost universally played video games from an early age, and, anecdotally, largely seem to continue to do so into at least some stage of adulthood post university.

Within this mileu, most of those people who are reactionary tend to see themselves as unique individual heroes - precisely the sorts of people who videogame narratives serve and market to. They see themselves as more or less "making it on their own", albeit imperfectly, within the capitalist system. Is it therefore any wonder that the gaming community seems slightly more reactionary than the general public? It is worth mentioning, also, that most gamers are men, who, in the global north, tend to be more reactionary as a group.

Finally, I am guessing we are talking mostly of english language gaming. For instance, in places like Latin America or China, where a lot of gaming takes place in internet cafes, I am not nearly as confident that the same reactionary tendencies hold. I think all these theories about the unique nature of the screen and the lack of physical contiguity are interesting, but I think require a cross-cultural comparison to be credible.

I don't see why you confuse gaming with having money. The period of my life that I played the most games, was my by far poorest period. The people in my life who game a lot are all unemployed, as a matter of fact. There is nothing "having money" about being able to scrape by rent, or simply having someone let you live at their place. Nor is there anything such about affording electricity or an internet connection. As for consoles, yes, but PC's can be extremely cheap if you know how to do it, and games can be saved up to or pirated. All of this especially applies when you live in some form of supposed welfare state.

I'm also bothered by the accusation that the 'global north working-class' is somehow more reactionary than the 'global south working-class'.

[Red Flag Waver]

Have you seen this?

+ YouTube Video

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't see why you confuse gaming with having money. The period of my life that I played the most games, was my by far poorest period. The people in my life who game a lot are all unemployed, as a matter of fact. There is nothing "having money" about being able to scrape by rent, or simply having someone let you live at their place. Nor is there anything such about affording electricity or an internet connection.

Of course there are exceptions, like students or people who have a social support network (e.g., their parents' basement) to fall back on when the going gets tough. But the fact is, gaming remains a luxury, not a necessity. Being able to afford this luxury implies a certain amount of financial wherewithal, and that is why the young men of the middle and upper classes more or less universally engage in it.

Poverty is relative, I get that. And I am sure there are poor people who live very precarious existances who play games. But being substantively involved in gaming generally takes a lot of time, which implies a certain stability in income or at least a state of being to afford a luxury like this. Of course there are exceptions, and plenty of people who game are leftists despite these benefits. But we are talking about generalities in this thread, and I think these kinds of trends demand a materialist analysis.

As for consoles, yes, but PC's can be extremely cheap if you know how to do it, and games can be saved up to or pirated. All of this especially applies when you live in some form of supposed welfare state.

I think "extremely" cheap is relative. You can probably build a computer for less than 100 USD and a used laptop goes for those prices, but few people who play PC games like call of duty or what have you, at least in their own homes, use such computers. The operating system alone costs more than that (some games run on linux, but you'd be surprised at how few mainstream blockbuster games do).

Moreover, with the exception of a few markets (like Germany) the dominance of consoles I think indicates how few people think investing the time into building a cheap PC worth their time.

Piracy is not for everyone, and I suspect, when it comes to gaming, the vast majority of gamers (at least in the global north) eschew it. Otherwise, companies wouldn't bother.

I grant that casual web-based games like angry birds or even spider solitaire or something are major market games that could be played extremely cheaply. But I was under the impression these are not what is talked about when this thread discusses the "gaming community".

I'm also bothered by the accusation that the 'global north working-class' is somehow more reactionary than the 'global south working-class'.

I don't believe I said this