Over the Shoulder: A Look at Self-Contradictions Among "Anti-SJWs"

A pose calling attention to a female character’s butt got removed from a video game and the exact group of people you’d expect to be angry are angry. People crave their booty. They are thirsty for rear. Ostensibly though, that’s not the real reason for the outrage: These anti-progressive communities are angry at “censorship” and a violation of “free speech”, even if in practise what constitutes a violation of free speech seems to shift wildly from moment to moment. I’ve found it very hard to write about the arguments and mentality behind video games’ anti-progressive pushes however. Free speech and artistic expression are huge topics which I feel compelled to cover from all angles at the same time, which is practically impossible. Specific cases like AssGate however allow us to zero in on a more manageable number of issues in these territories and so this seemed like as good an opportunity as any to explore some of the self-contradictions and critical gymnastics of the “Anti-SJW” crowd.

Just so we’re all on the same page, the exact details of this recent story went as follows: Blizzard Entertainment’s Overwatch, which is currently in beta, has a character called Tracer. One of Tracer’s victory poses involved her showing off her butt and some fans criticised this depiction. Then, agreeing with said criticism, Blizzard removed the pose, and a certain segment of the gaming audience exploded. One of the more brazenly indefensible criticisms of Blizzard’s actions is that this represents them sanitising their game and removing the sexuality from it. It’s the kind of criticism that if we were talking about anything other than the representation of maligned groups, and if it were made the other way around, would instantly bait cries of “Fake gamer” and “Have you even played Overwatch?” because a quick scan through the female characters on Overwatch’s roster tells you that the game is still packed with female character designs intended to be titillating. Heck, even Tracer is still running in skintight trousers.

A slightly more nuanced pocket of self-contradiction can be found in how that pose fits into the thematics of the game. In the past a common rebuttal to feminist or race-conscious criticisms of games has been that trying to better represent women or minorities in specific games would not fit with the thematics and established story elements of those games. A couple of classic examples:

1. "Zelda or other women can’t just go out and kick butt in the Legend of Zelda games because that wouldn’t be true to the game’s medieval theme".
2. "The Witcher 3 couldn’t include black characters. It was based on Slavic mythology which contained no black people".

Of course, these criticisms don’t actually work. The Legend of Zelda has about as much to do with realistically depicting the medieval era as Mario Kart has to do with realistically depicting motorsports and as for The Witcher 3 you can take your pick from the counter-criticisms: It is in itself exclusive that video games disproportionately focus on white western mythologies; however you ended up with a white-centric video game it’s still white-centric; and The Witcher is not and arguably should not be a 100% accurate retelling of Slavic mythology, so if the rules are bent for other world elements why not for the inclusion of non-white people? However, we can at least tell from the widespread use of these debate points that anti-progressive communities have an apparent belief in ensuring that elements of game content fit with their thematics. Yet, the goalposts have been moved in the discussion about Overwatch.

One of the most audible criticisms, perhaps the most audible criticism of the pose, was that it did not suit Tracer’s personality. See game director Jeff Kaplan’s statement where he said that he and the art team had another pose they wanted to change in that speaks better to Tracer as a person. It makes sense: Tracer’s not a character about expressing sexuality, she’s more of an adventurous go-getter type. Just compare her to a character like Widowmaker who is about flaunting her stuff and see the difference. If anti-progressive types genuinely care about whether representations of women and minorities fit into the larger picture, then why don't they seem to be acknowledging it now?

This situation also drops these same groups of people in a difficult spot re: their position on creator intent. A consistent anti-progressive line has been that the artist’s intent is king and that outside attempts to influence it are corruptive, unethical, or constitute censorship. This position fails to make sense on so many levels, but one big hole is that art is never made in a vacuum and that artists are always affected by outside influences. The idea that you can either side with content creators or side with societal influencers presents a false dichotomy and this undignified ass debacle is perfect proof. Community members pointed out a potential problem in a game’s design, the developers agreed with the assessment of the problem, and the game was changed. Here, the artists’ opinions and the opinions of the audience/critics are inseparable, you could not take a stand against one without taking a stand against the other.

And if a change like this is “censorship” or corruptive, then how are we meant to frame other instances of games being made or changed in a way that takes into account audience opinion? When a game is designed with certain mechanics or aesthetic wrappers because they’re what sell, is that a threat to free speech? When players of fighting games, RTSs, or MOBAs point out imbalances in these games and the developers change them in response (which happens constantly) is that censorship? But of course the “censorship” argument is only ever brought forwards when we’re talking about the presentation of women and minorities. I also can't help but wonder, why isn't the creator's intent king in this occasion? By the established rules surely the people criticising Blizzard's change are now the ones stifling free expression, and evidently it wouldn't be the first time they've done that.

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the question of why the pose was removed if it was optional. After all, if people didn’t like the pose they could just not select it, right? I’ve not seen this very widely discussed, but it is one of the more interesting questions raised and it touches on some topics applicable to most games. It is important to remember that as an interactive medium that is driven by player choice, one of the main ways in which video games represent their characters is through what they allow us to do with them. Let’s say we’re building a character action game and we want to create a lead character who is about stealth, psychological manipulation, and working from the shadows. We might give them a series of powers to let them sneak past enemies, misdirect them, and remain unseen. Then imagine we also equip them with a loud, conspicuous rocket launcher to use on foes. It doesn’t fit, right? Sure, the player doesn’t have to use the rocket launcher, but the fact the character is equipped with that item and will use it says something about them that’s contradictory to the personality we were trying to build for them. Similarly, bolting on the option for Tracer to show her hiney off to players compromises the personality Blizzard were trying to build for her.

I’ll probably come back to these topics at some point, but that’s all for now. I think it’s important to criticise the common anti-progressive approaches to video games, not because I think there’s a consistent body of ideas to critique here as much as the opposite. The people who oppose a supposed “SJW” invasion of games are displaying a huge cognitive dissonance and I keep seeing people getting suckered in by these arguments. Even if anti-feminists and similar types in games may be sincere in their efforts, they’re not working from an internally consistent body of ideas or using logical reasoning to work out what’s worth getting upset about. In fact, many are deciding which act of progressivism or what people they want to come down on this week and then working backwards to see what arguments will support those positions. Thanks for reading.