When I’m not writing blogs, banging my head against the wall until I get a concussion, or wondering if the Sweet Meteor of Death will be coming back for the 2024 election, I like to play video games. For me, they provide me with an escape from the real world so I can continue to be a functional (and, more importantly, a non-incarcerated) member of society.
But as with most fun things, Leftists had to go and ruin it by creating controversy. Granted, the Left has been trying to insert itself into video games for over a decade now and have failed. But their repeated and often embarassing failures have not deterred them from trying again. Think “Groundhog Day” but with video games. Oh, and a lot less comedy.
The latest attempt came from our good friends in GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. GLAAD recently released a report stating 1 in 5 active gamers are LGBTQIOUAEIOUSOMETIMESY and the gaming industry as a whole needs more representation of that community.
Son of a bitch…
representation
What the Left thinks it means – making sure all minorities can see a reflection of themselves in aspects of society
What it really means – superficial bean-counting without actually doing anything to help
Unless you’ve been living under a rock or trapped in Puddin’ Head Joe’s brain, you know members of the LGBTQMEANWHILEBACKATTHEHALLOFJUSTICE community exist and are prominent figures in society, mainly because so many of them can’t shut up about it. That community is slowly finding its way into various aspects of society and politics. Put simply, they’re visible and fabulooooouuuuusssss!
So, why aren’t they better represented in video games? The GLAAD report surmises it’s because the industry doesn’t think about them as viable protagonists. The exception to this is independent games where representation is much greater. But it also increases the likelihood this representation comes in really shitty games that a trained monkey could make better with an Etch-A-Sketch and a fifth of Everclear. Still, GLAAD felt confident in saying the gaming industry has to do a better job in making sure LGBTQIAIOUDEFENSE members get seen in their games.
And we can totally take an organization with a Board of Directors member named Peppermint seriously.
Unusual names aside, GLAAD is trying to come from a good place. They want everyone to feel included in video games. Is that so wrong?
Welllllll…it’s all about how that comes about that matters. That’s where I take issue with the notion of representation in this context. It’s not a matter of including a gay, lesbian, trans, bi, queer, etc. character in a game; it’s about making it make sense within the context. Trying to shoehorn a character that ticks off the flavor of the month box on the inclusiveness checklist makes it harder for gamers to accept him/her/it.
And here’s a fun little fact to consider: gamers are predominantly male. The numbers are getting closer to gender parity, but gaming is still a male’s domain. That means gaming studios are going to cater to where their cyber bread is buttered, as any capitalist worth his/her/its salt would. And make no mistake, game companies are in the business to make money, not to make social statements. If the social statement threatens the money, guess what’s going to be tossed aside faster than Hunter Biden goes through hookers and blow?
That’s where the calls for representation come into play. Since the community has a long reach when it comes to media and social influence, they can mobilize a PR nightmare within a matter of Twitter posts. And in that environment, nobody wants to be on the wrong side of a Twitter mob, so the game companies tend to bend the knee and comply. Just look at the template Anita Sarkeesian used to “help” women get more representation in video games.
Here’s the thing about Twitter mobs, though: they only have the power you allow them to have. Even as the GLAAD report gets mainstream traction (thanks NBC), the bottom line is still the bottom line, and no amount of virtual huffing and puffing from online activists will change that. Money talks, and bullshit walks.
And bullshit is the best way to explain the GLAAD report.
It turns out the gaming industry is already evolving with the times and has been since the 1980s. The early days of representation were less than stellar, but things have turned around so gay, lesbian, bi, and the other orientations are not only visible in games, but are sympathetic, realistic characters. And I’m not talking about low profile games, either. Some of the most popular titles of recent memory have represented the LBGTQAAAAAVVVEEEEMARRRRIIIIIAAAA community prominently and positively.
Including a game that was targeted by the aforementioned community, Hogwarts Legacy. After comments from J.K. Rowling that struck the trans community the wrong way, trans rights activists (including GLAAD, by the way) called for a boycott of the game. And the boycott, much like Fani Willis’s ability to not make herself look like a corrupt asshat, failed miserably.
I attribute the boycott’s failure to two factors. One, the game developers anticipated the controversy and created a transgender character. Of course, these Leftist idiots wouldn’t have known that unless they played the game. Oops!
The second, and more prevalent, reason was…gamers really don’t give a fuck about LGBTQIUDCANWEMILKTHISJOKEDRY representation. They care about…get this…good games. Sure, there are assholes who will make the biggest deal about “protecting games from woke culture,” but most of the gamers are more interested in whether a game entertains them more than who gets represented in the game. The Left completely missed the point by not understanding the audience they wanted to persuade.
And now they’re repeating the same mistake with the GLAAD report. At the very least, Leftists are consistent in being wrong and committed to recycling, albeit with bad ideas.
The point of representation in Leftist circles is to demand compliance instead of asking for consideration. But the thing to remember is no matter if you bend over backwards like a spineless yoga guru, it will never be enough. There will always be another goal to meet, milestone to achieve, or mountain to climb. So, the best way to win the game is not to play.
Say…that could be a great line for a movie! If only there was a plot, maybe involving a teenager who hacks into a government computer and almost starts a nuclear war with Russia…nah. Too implausible.
Anyway, the Left’s commitment to representation is skin deep. Notice how they don’t demand a slow, out of shape white guy be showcased in the next NBA video game. (By the way, I am available for consultation if you want to go down this road, 2K Games.) It’s always about the representation they want to push. And that’s why we need to take their calls for representation with a grain of salt.
The size of Mount Everest.
Tag: gay
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I know Christmas is over, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about holiday traditions. For some, it’s caroling and eggnog. For others, it’s decorating the tree and driving around to see all the houses lit up and decorated.
For Leftists, it’s telling conservative Christians they’re not following Jesus.
This year, though, the Left put a little twist on their annual airing of grievances not directly connected to Festivus. They outdid themselves by making so many bizarre and illogical statements about one third of the best power trio that isn’t named Rush.
So, grab yourself your cousin’s killer eggnog made with lighter fluid and prepare for a trip from the ridiculous to the sublime…ly ridiculous.
Jesus
What the Left thinks it means – a possibly fictional figure worshiped by rubes who can’t even follow his teachings
What it really means – a religious, possibly historical, figure who Leftists still can’t figure out
Leftists are of two minds (or would that be brain cells) when it comes to Jesus. Many don’t believe He existed. Others think He was a progressive. Others think He was a socialist. He was black. He was an immigrant. He was gay.
And just when you thought they couldn’t add more, the Left found a few more. This year’s additions are Jesus was Asian, a Palestinian refugee, technically Palestinian, had a “trans body,” and even had a CNN religion reporter claim He would have been buried under rubble if He were born today.
Give them a year and they might say Jesus was a gender fluid wheelchair bound crossdressing furry who believed sex with minors was okey-dokey.
And people wonder why I laugh when Leftists say they’re smarter than us?
I will admit I’m not a theologian (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but you really don’t have to be to understand who Jesus was. For those who believe, He is the son of God who died for our sins. For those who don’t (and not a flaming Leftist), He was a man whose influence is undeniable and provided a decent guide to living a good life. For those who pretend to believe, He’s a good source of cash.
I’m looking at you, Joel Olsteen.
So, how do Leftists get it so wrong when it comes to a simple Jewish carpenter? A part of it is how they view Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a tool to bash believers. Some of this is easy to understand, as the Left’s main religion is bureaucracy. When you put your faith in the size and scope of government, you don’t want competition, especially not from the Son of God.
But the Left doesn’t need to believe in Jesus for Him to be useful for their needs. That brings us back to an old friend, Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals.” In particular, let’s look at Rule 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
When Leftists bring up how they believe Jesus would have acted, they’re using Rule 4 with the expected outcome being the conservative Christian either shutting up completely or giving a defensive answer the Left can then use against him/her. (Spoiler Alert: still 2 genders.) That’s why they keep making up stories about who Jesus was: they need Him to be their religious tofu and take on the traits the Left want Him to espouse.
The problem with this tactic is two fold. First, these are interpretations by people who may or may not have studied the Bible closely enough to be knowledgeable (which, surprise surprise, goes against Uncle Saul’s second rule “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”) As such, saying Jesus was gay because he hung out with 12 disciples, for example (all the while ignoring the women who also followed Him), shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Therefore, why give credence to a group keeps getting facts wrong in an attempt to shame you into becoming a Leftist?
This second one relies more on logic, namely we can read what Jesus said. Granted, there are language translation and theological/political issues that make a straight one-to-one interpretation harder than figuring out why people care Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. Having said that, you can compare translations and get the gist of what He was saying. Even if you aren’t a Christian and/or conservative, you can still read the Bible and compare it to what the Leftists are saying to figure out they’re full of…well, since this Lexicon entry is about Jesus, I’d better not swear.
The way the Left keeps reinventing Jesus reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s “Dogma.” In the film, the Catholic Church “retires” the Christ figure they used for centuries and replaced Him with a friendlier version. This winds up backfiring, causing two fallen angels to bring back God’s vengeance on humanity. I won’t spoil the movie in case you want to see it, but I encourage you to watch it with a careful eye and ear because Smith brings up some valid criticisms of how modern Christianity is practiced.
Still looking at you, Olsteen!
In the interest of fairness, I admit the Right uses Jesus in a similar way, suggesting he’s fair skinned and closer to Edgar Winter in hue than Bishop Desmond Tutu. Where the Left and Right diverge is in sheer volume of attempts to use Him as a political cudgel. Where some members of the Right will smack you with the Son of God once in a while, the Left uses Him as a cat-o-nine-tails. And if you remember the Crucifixion, you know why that analogy is fitting and quite possibly will get me a one way ticket to Hell.
Speaking for myself, I’ve always seen Jesus as apolitical. He wasn’t concerned with who won elections or how the government should use the power the people gave it. His eyes were always on something more substantial: being a sacrifice for all of our sins. Any politician who tries to tell you he or she can make you a better deal is a liar, but I repeat myself
The greatest irony in all of this is the Left wants Christian conservatives to live up to rules they either don’t believe in or have no concept of how to follow. And that’s the one lesson they always get wrong: we can never be like Christ completely because we are flawed. We mess up all the time, unlike Jesus who was perfect from conception. The best we can hope for is not to mess things up too badly, and even then we are forgiven. It’s the simplest of truths to believers, and the simplest of things to disregard if you’re not down with the divine elements of that concept. Just don’t use Jesus as a theological Louisville Slugger, okay?