Posts Tagged ‘political correctness’

Growing up it was almost unconscious to be against the Right, probably down to the fact my parents are Labour voters, although whether they are now, remains to be seen. It seems in the last few years my position on the political spectrum has me torn on conceding that at heart I am quite conservative but I am still very much supportive of Liberal views. The rot on the Left in my opinion is routed in the narcissism of those that now take advantage of the minorities they claim to represent. In reality, it’s nothing more than political grandstanding mixed with an unhealthy dose of identity politics. In the end, I may just have to resign myself to the centre and reconcile with myself that in the end, I misjudged the right wing. It’s not the evil bogeyman the mainstream would have you believe. It’s not perfect by any means, go too far right and you end up staring at the same identity politics that have strangled all discussion and open mindedness on the left. The danger currently is that the current hysteria will see the rise of Far Left and Right wing organisations trying to outdo each other, and potentially resorting to violent means of silencing opposition. This has already happened in Berkeley, the former home of the Freedom of Speech movement. Now just reduced to ashes under the foot of Anti-Fascist Fascists.

The reason I write this is because I stumbled upon an by the College Fix regarding the group Turning Point USA. Santa Clara University voted to deny the pro-capitalist organisation for many reasons such as ‘that the group may invite conservative speakers, and that allowing it would be a stand against “humanity.” The claim is actually made in the video and upon reading this absurd rationality I immediately gave up on Academia. Let me put this as simply as possible. This group’s existence is not against anyone’s humanity. The censoring of it, in my opinion, is a violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Director of the Multicultural center is quoted as saying:

“This organisation, nationally and on this campus, is against our ideals as a university with a Jesuit philosophy and more than anything it is against our humanity … This is not right, this is not what we stand for as a whole university.”

Don’t you love it, when a single authoritarian-minded individual can dictate an entire university? I assume Turning Point held them to ransom or maybe their forcing people to attend their meetings at gun point? No. Of course, they aren’t. Their just a conservative organisation that is more than likely completely harmless. But as I mentioned with this stupid stigma, some Liberals quiver at the idea of allowing conservative speakers to speak at their university. And what an insult to liberalism this university is for kowtowing to those that aren’t prepared to have their ideology challenged. Academia should not simply be a way to reaffirm your beliefs. But it should challenge them.

Warne who voted in favour of the group stated that ‘the debate centered around the possibility of the club inviting conservative speakers to campus as well as the organization’s affiliation with the Professor Watchlist, an aggregated list of articles published by a variety of news organizations on professors who have said or done controversial things’.

The Professor Watchlist is, for the most part, a record of Lecturers who spout radical ideas, bordering on possibly even racist. Although as we all know you can’t be racist to white people. Examples include ‘A sociology professor at the University of Oregon openly stating that he “advocates a ‘red-green’ alliance to abolish capitalism” and “considers the collapse of the Soviet empire a setback for human progress.”.’ There’s also a race and ethnicity professor at Boston University went on a twitter rant that suggested ‘slavery was a “white people thing” and “white college males the problem population.”.

So whether you agree with the list or not, it’s alarming that this is rhetoric coming out of some universities. The other reasons for Turning Point being blocked unsurprisingly relates to the overstated views of Milo Yiannopoulos who has made being a provocateur into an art form. You may be wondering how one man can possibly do so much damage to their fragile minds. Just remember that everything to the right of the left is a Nazi and you should be fine. What’s also interesting is that Caleb Alleva, president of the TPUSA chapter seeking recognition at Santa Clara was quoted by the Fix over the phone as saying: “We stated very clearly that we did not want to invite Milo.”

As a whole, it’s pathetic crying, especially if the organisation doesn’t even intend to invite Milo. I would like to think the group gets recognition and can go about holding talks without disturbing those to close minded to give them the benefit of the doubt. Of course, we would have to live in an ideal world to believe that. And let’s be honest, the ideal world is already in tatters.


Another comic book related controversy has arisen in regards to the variant cover for the new Iron Heart comics. The image itself is completely tame but that didn’t stop a special group of people going past being critical to the point that they would tell someone what they can and cannot draw. This is nothing more than a rerun of past controversies. Yet the industry continues to pander to those who cry and moan. The only result will be characters lacking any kind of expression.

Frank Cho was one of the first to suffer the consequences of drawing ‘controversial art’.  As I go into detail here, he was attacked for his provocative drawing of Spider Gwen. The Mary Sue also ran this on Milo Manara’s Variant cover,‘Marvel, This Is When You Send An Artist Back To the Drawn Board’. Neither of them were put off by the shrieking and have only gone on to double down harder and harder with everything they draw.

Hot on the heels of one controversy,  Rafael Albuquerque was also criticised for his reference to the Killing Joke in his comic variant featuring the Joker and Batgirl. The controversy began on Tumblr when the blog, ‘Dc  Women Kicking Ass‘ posted about the cover stating, ‘DC Comics got the last laugh again with more of their disturbing covers that reeks of, get your comments read, misogyny’.  The #SavetheCover campaign failed to save it from the chopping room floor but that’s why the internet is such a great place and the cover is one of the first things to show up on Google’s search engine.

And now we have Scott J Campbell getting flack for this. Hardly sexualised and a standard pose for any comic book character. Yet Marvel caved to the pressure. An Artist can do very little when it’s publisher won’t defend their art. Compared to the above, this is tame. Yet for some criticism extends to telling people on what they can and can’t draw. Because something something probably  cultural appropriation. The worst thing is they consider the censoring of his art to be some kind of victory and have gone on to lecture him on what he can and can’t do.

I’ve saved the best for last. Whether you love or hate gamergate, the mainstream media took the knife and drove it hard into the back of gamers. It turned their mascot Vivian James, into a hate symbol by publishing hack piece after hack piece. Pepe was not the first to fall on the ‘sword of progress’ and I doubt either of them will be the last.

If you really want to know what Vivian stands for. It’s simple she just don’t give a damn about anything, she just wants to play video games. It’s that simple. But god forbid you draw her. After all it’s not like all art is just lines drawn into recognisable shapes. Right…


For a long time I had no interest in politics, and looking back, I’m thankful that I was. The more I observe the spectrum, the more I realise it truly is a horseshoe. It, for instance, took very little time for certain left-wing game journalists to declare the death of their audience, thus leading to Gamergate and the pursuit of encouraging ethical journalism.

I can only assume that the writer of this hack job was high or something since he described Gamergate as;

‘What began as a critical discussion of female representation in video games, was adroitly exploited by Alt-right activists using misinformation to incite a huge explosion of hatred online against women and minorities in gaming.’

Guilt by association, the default strategy the press resort to. Whilst the situation with Zoe Quinn remained nebulous, the operations within Gamergate led to the exposure of GameJournoPros that more or less confirmed that journalists were, in fact, colluding with developers and were more importantly not disclosing their connections. But of course, like with anything the Left disagree with. All they are in the end is their bogeyman.
And that bogeyman is now the amorphous blob that is the Alt-Right. A group of people whose motivations are hard to pin down but depending on how you see them. Then they can come across as being the opposite of the Left Wing Social Justice Warrior but even then that truly does not describe the Alt-Right. But like Gamergate, they have had the same choice buzzwords thrown at them, that just ends up stifling all discussion in the end. The difference between the two is pretty simple. Gamergate consists of mostly liberals.

Essentially people who subscribe to left-wing views. Although as Progressivism strangles discussion by reducing it to a tit for tat over identity. More and more find themselves pushed towards conservatism, and I can hardly blame them.

The outrage the man refers to was not a product of the Alt-Right. That’s disingenuous. The outrage comes from oversensitive liberals who claim to be tolerant yet have a problem with a single group of people for whatever reason. A reason I can’t rationalise because it’s inherently racial and does nothing but provoke division. This outrage by the Left has led to DC pulling a variant cover, the changing of a joke in Pillars of Eternity to mock the controversy. Note the game also has a hanging tree, just to put the limerick into perspective. But now we got to protect the fragility of other people at the expense of the audience who just want to enjoy their games. There was also the case of Tracer’s Pose change that ended up simply doubling down, the Foaming Jugs in which Brianna did nothing but show hypocrisy and finally there is the complete failure, regarding the English translation of Fire Emblem Fates.
None of those things was the by-product of anything tied to the right. If anything those things happened because overly sensitive individuals played up to the mainstream media knowing it would eat up all they had to say. Whilst then attacking criticism that suggested this was leading to a dangerous rise of censorship. For me personally, as soon as that comic cover was pulled. I knew the first domino had fallen.

‘Star Trek gave television audiences their first interracial kiss in 1968, and Gene Roddenberry’s vision of mankind’s future continued to champion progressive ideas for many decades. Today “geek culture” is more diverse than ever, reflecting audiences’ hunger for a better world where the Ghostbusters can be women, and even Ms Marvel can be Muslim.’

A better world? I thought this was supposed to be fictional products. Now there’s nothing wrong with diversity but then it really is getting to the point where diversity is purely about the race or appearance of an individual and not the actual content of their character. Leading also to the point where the story becomes utterly worthless. Diversity doesn’t guarantee good writing if anything most audiences just want a good story. They don’t need social justice rammed down their throats every two minutes. It’s why more fans are slowly abandoning comics. There’s nothing new. Once you’ve seen one rehash, you’ve seen them all. The Ghostbusters is just another example of not knowing your audience, and then doing the very worst thing and attacking them for their views.

Perhaps inevitably, that growing diversity has met with a backlash. Recently, there was much debate surrounding the cult horror author HP Lovecraft becoming the “face” of the World Fantasy Award due to his well-documented racism. His passionate fans – most of who have never experienced racism – asked why such historical oppression even mattered anymore?

This invocation of the past is all too common. It’s easy to dismiss Lovecraft for his views that were of the TIME he was from. Do I need to emphasise that any more than I already have? Also if people actually looked up the life of Lovecraft. It wasn’t exactly sunshine and roses. I’m not for any second excusing his views but it’s the default tactic to attack someone based on their beliefs. Lovecraft’s fans love him for his phenomenal writing ability and more. That’s why he had an award dedicated to him. But being the overly sensitive illogical morons, you decided that because of modern perceptions. He’s not worthy of it. Thus defeating the point of an award based around writing.

Gamergate has done far more to empower feminist critics of gaming than to silence them.

Now this I wholeheartedly agree with for the simple fact is that I follow and support a fair few feminist Gamergaters, all of which are great critics. The article waffles on about the monstrous Trump and the Hugo’s, the latter, I’m saving for a separate article .

The conclusion then is that the Progressives in geek culture have their focus completely on the wrong thing. You should really be worried about how moderate liberals are reacting to this madness. And who knows when they do maybe then this crazy train will finally reach the end of the line.

“[The No Platform policy] is all about making sure that students feel safe on campus and that we extend their freedom of speech by not being marginalised when they’re debating,” he said, adding: “This is very different to a Safe Space policy which is based on the idea that every single person has freedom of speech and everyone has equal right to freedom of speech, however some people have more equal rights than others.”

– Richard Brooks, Vice President of the National Union of Students

I have previously been very critical of the National Union of Students No Platform policy on who can speak and who can’t speak at academic institutions. However, after I stumbled upon this debate. I was stunned at the arrogance put forward by Richard Brooks, the Vice President of the NUS. He states how these No Platform and Safe Space policies  are ‘progressive’, and ‘democratically’ decided. That’s right fellow students. The NUS believes they should hold a democratic decision on who can and can’t debate at your University. Never mind the whole point of University is to have your worldview challenged or at the very least you see it from someone else’s perspective. Some then may put forward but what about organisations that border on the extreme. I think they should be challenged on their ideas. And where better for these issues or points to be challenged. If you don’t want to hear what these people have to say then don’t attend the event. And specifically, if you’re the type of protester that soaks themselves in fake blood then you really need to rethink your approach to how you can engage speakers in these events.

The quote from Brooks above is very similar to one from George Orwell’s Animal Farm, ‘All Animals are equal, just some are more equal than others’. The sentence refers to the hypocrisy of governments who proclaim equality but give power and privilege to a small elite. There is irony considering how much authority the NUS has on UK campuses and in this case in a debate in which the NUS Vice President can’t even be in the room of one of these so-called extreme organisations. The organisation in question being IMPACT. Fortunately, he can endure listening to three people his organisation have no-platformed, two of which I mentioned in my first post on the NUS’ No Platform Policy. They are Peter Tatchell and Julie Bindel. Bindel was No-Platformed for her views that she has since apologised for on trans-people. Tatchell was No-Platformed due to claims he was a racist. Hardly, people I would consider posing a threat to any student.

The crux of this debate though is that despite his smugness, he was challenged by the people this policy claims to protect. The first to challenge his view put forward that ‘I think I would rather have the opportunity to challenge that person in person and to tell them why I disagree with their opinions rather than just to assume that I’m a victim or I’m going to be made vulnerable by their presence.’
However, it’s the last speaker that really drives the point home that people who may be from a marginalised community don’t need to be protected by the NUS. He contests that universities are a place of learning, not a house party as stated by Brooks earlier. The idea that Brooks would refer to university as a house party is incredulous. As if he couldn’t make it any clearer only people the NUS like can be permitted a platform. Otherwise, you don’t get an invite and honestly with higher education in its current state. Do you really want to hold events knowing that there’s a likely chance of it being disrupted by students who feel inclined to believe they know whats best for your audience. Too the extent they will do everything in their power to suppress or silence you.

Let’s not forget how many unions are disaffiliating from the NUS, and at this point in time. I really can’t blame them. More needs to be done at universities to encourage discourse from all sides of the spectrum. Because the current danger is that, some universities may place too much emphasis on liberal perspectives and this to some extent leads to students closing their minds from challenging other points of view or drawing conclusions that may not be entirely accurate.

Overall, the state of higher education is an interesting one, the UK is fortunate for the most part that it’s not facing Orwell’s Nightmare as many American institutions have already endured. With rampant student activism leading to an uncomfortable environment for any student who wants the commit the greatest thought-crime of all. Expressing an opinion someone might (god forbid) disagree with.

​The Hugo Awards is no longer a stranger to controversy when last year, five No Awards were given. The No Award had only previously been presented as many times in the entire history of the prize, which began in 1953. 

This controversy involves Dave Truesdale who was evicted from a panel after claiming that the state of science fiction is stifling creativity by imposing political correctness on authors. For daring to oppose to political correctness, Truesdale saw himself evicted from the Con. This lead by a tweet stating that’s his views were discomforting. As excuses go. It’s pathetic.  Because eviction for daring to criticise is not how this should have ended. 

But this controversial act does no favours for science fiction. A genre more divided than it has ever been following the emergence of Sad Puppies and the Rapid Puppies who believe left wing bias is epidemic at the awards.  If the Hugos ever want to redeem itself then it needs to get to the route of these complaints. Because so far all I see. Is the usual nonsense that assumes the right wing is some kind of vicious monster. 

In the end whether you agree with Truesdale or not. He should never have been evicted. That’s all that needs saying really. 

Firstly, if you haven’t read part one on No Platforming, it can be found here.

Student Activism is an interesting addition to this series I’m writing. No Platforming is easy to oppose as its downright censorious and certainly hinders the idea that academia should be home to the free exchange of ideas. Even ones that are morally debatable. The act of the suppression can easily ignite support for any individual. It’s why No Platforming does the exact opposite of what it intends. It gives a clear sign to some prospective students, they and their ideas may be unwelcome. That university does nothing to resist this growing mentality, poses a great threat to any kind of progress, and sets people up to be afraid of even the harshest critique.
I have no issue with student activism, provided it doesn’t interfere with the student’s study time, and that of their peers. However, in more recent times protesters have taken increasingly more drastic measures to make a point of whatever ills them. This can go as far as hindering accessibility to a certain area, stopping people from hearing a particular speaker, or even more recently storming the stage and committing what is clearly an aggressive takeover. The irony happens when he goes on to make the point that microaggressions exist despite the fact his female friend made what some could constitute a verbal threat to Milo Yiannopolous. Here’s what frustrates me most, it’s the fact he can’t see how his actions could have potentially brought serious harm to Milo Yiannopolous or anyone in the audience. There are many ways to protest a speaker and this in my opinion is not one of those ways. Milo’s tour of the US has shown academia over there to be an utter shambles. Whether students are literally coating themselves in fake blood, or as mentioned storming the stage. They are acting like children. These people are supposed to be our future.
It only gets worse because these students think harmful opinions should not even be discussed. Let’s be fair, a safe space has its purpose of protecting those who have experienced serious trauma. But it should not be a place to avoid the hard topics. An article on Inside Higher Ed supports this as writer Zachary R. Wood states that;

Uncomfortable Learning, a student group of which I am co-president, tried to bring Suzanne Venker, an anti-feminist social critic, to the college. Consequently, I received a torrent of ad-hominem attacks. Among other things, peers called me a misogynist and men’s rights activist who was endorsing hate speech. In the end, we had to cancel the event for fear that it might get out of control and perhaps even endanger the speaker.

The beautiful thing with that single paragraph is that it aptly describes the mob like mentality that defines these protesters. And the fact that they throw Men’s Rights activists at him like it’s an insult. I guess a movement that looks at the experiences of men and their issues more closely is a bad thing. I get it okay, MRA’s aren’t perfect but every group in existence has bad eggs, and Feminism is no exception. As for Hate speech. A term loosely defined and seems to be used with the malicious intent of shutting down a speaker regardless of views. Anything negative nowadays can be considered Hate Speech .
Zachary’s suggestion of space to discuss anything is a reasonable request but the point is, he shouldn’t have to even suggest it. Universities should allow discussion everywhere, whether private or public. It boils down to the fact that University’s need to stop coddling students. It’s that easy really. He also states how spaces to even discuss a topic are fading into obscurity;

Such a space is rarely available now on American campuses. Most classes in the humanities and social sciences are either lectures, seminars or a combination of the two. In each case, teachers create the course syllabi and generally set the agenda. Outside of the classroom, in dining halls, dorms and other places on a campus, students talk about various subjects. But the dining hall is a place for eating, just as a dorm is a place for living. Neither location is intended for planned discussions, for students to explore and discuss the ideas they hold.

There is also the additional point to be made that lecturers are to some extent to blame for how students act such as with the case regarding Melissa Click. How much truth in that is questionable. Most lecturers encourage an active discussion. However, there are some like for instance Melissa Click who would go as far as demand muscle to remove a student journalist simply recording an event. Because of her actions, Click lost her job. But that didn’t stop her going to the press to blame everyone but herself despite the video showing that she tried to forcefully remove someone from an event. Something she had no right to do.

As Activism consumes the minds of so many, does this, in turn, suggest that politics have had too much impact on university campuses. Is the very idea of someone being right wing or conservative so hard to acknowledge or even try to respect. Are they even conservative professors. Well, the Atlantic had this to say on that matter; ‘Finding out wasn’t easy, in part because so many conservative professors are—as they put it—closeted.

The idea that someone let alone a university professor should shield their perspective is an incredible thing to hear. And they describe an interview with one Republican professor;

One tenure-track sociology professor even asked to meet Shields and Dunn in a park a mile away from his university. “When the sound of footsteps intruded on our sanctuary, he stopped talking altogether, his eyes darting about,” they write. “Given the drama of this encounter, one might think that he is concealing something scandalous. In truth, this professor is hiding the fact that he is a Republican.”

It leaves me honestly speechless that at a place where the marketplace of ideas is supposed to exist, there are some ideas that can’t be shared simply down to someone’s politics. I find as I watch these protests unfold. I wonder honestly what these students hope to achieve in the long term. After all, looking back historically. Before the 1900s, women couldn’t even go to university let alone get a degree. I look at things now, and as a society everyone regardless of race or gender has every opportunity to succeed. The only reason you fail at all is if you constrain yourself.
The conclusion then to this part is that student activism is a double edged sword. Although many will probably see this article and disagree with my points. My overall fear is directed towards the future because it looks like we are almost at the cusp that identity will dictate our lives. Not the worth of abilities but what we look like. The next part of this will look at Identity Politics and why I think it’s done more to divide this world than actually unite it under the concept of equality.

mankindDeus Ex has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism for the lore surrounding it’s newest game Mankind Divided. Deus Ex is a favourite among gamers not just for the immersive world you are placed in but for the underlying commentary.

Deus Ex is known for tackling hard issues,  and as far as fiction goes, in my opinion, it is one of the best pieces of science fiction to date. Now games journalists want games to be regarded more for their art and message,  as evidenced by games like Gone Home and Sunset. Widely acclaimed by a media supposedly representing the gamer. However,  for all their talk of wanting social issues tackled in video games. They appear rather shy of Deus Ex.

The first critical articles came up regarding the term mechanical apartheid. Its relevance in the Deus Ex universe relates to the division amongst Augs and non-Augs. Most Augs are seen as the lower half of society and as human revolution demonstrated they are often demonised and as the story progressed, they were hacked leading to them attacking and possibly killing other people with no way restraining themselves. In later missions, some of the living conditions for Augs can be seen as appalling. They are held to ransom by the black market  that makes a living off of their prosthetic limbs.

Polygons criticism of the term begins with the definition of Apartheid;

Apartheid (literally “separateness” in Afrikaans) was the brutal governmental system of political oppression and racial segregation used by white rulers in South Africa throughout much of the last century.

In truth, there is more to that definition. Apartheid is also the segregation on grounds other than race.’ Therefore it can be used to define the separation of natural people  from the augmented people as shown in Mankind Divided.

The writer Colin Campbell quotes a series of tweets made by Austin Walker stating “How might we feel if they called it ‘Robot Jim Crow Laws'” and “Apartheid isn’t just a general term, it references a specific period of great trauma and oppression.”

The general consensus is that it’s the wrong choice of term. This ignores the fact as fiction goes, the use makes sense as a reflection of the oppression faced by the Augmented. If we as writers hesitate over terms then how can fiction ever develop as a literary form? This approach by critics reflects how some regarded the Reader, a novel that later was made into a movie. The controversy spawned from the movie as publications moved to slam it and deny Kate Winslet an Oscar she was nominated for. The Telegraph reported at the time;

‘Movie critics are divided on whether Winslet should receive the best actress Oscar for the role. Voting closes at 5pm on Tuesday and supporters of rival films are said to be emailing Jewish members of the Academy in a last-minute campaign to ruin The Reader’s chances.’

And one critic Gabrielle Burton accepted that the film was “flawlessly crafted” with fine performances but went on to say how ‘it was too close to that scary genre ‘Holocaust palatable”.

Is it too much to say that this fear of dark fiction is what leads critics to get on a bandwagon of hate? Whether it’s Mankind Divided or even the Killing Joke. What stands out is how the ‘intended’ audience reacts. And usually, it’s positive because they, unlike some critics, realise perhaps that fiction should be allowed to tackle dark subject matters. Because it can serve as a way of reflection on our past, as well as looking to our future whilst also exploring our flaws as human beings.

This isn’t to say that people can’t criticise the term ‘Mechanical Apartheid’ but I feel in their haste to push a story, journalists and especially game journalists usually overlook key details in favour of pushing the story to publication.  The message conveyed by some of these people is that they want its removal. Campbell does refer to Giles Matouba’s rant on Reddit. Giles formally worked on Mankind Divided and goes into detail on why the term was chosen over other things.

‘When we decided to go all-in on delivering the experience to play as Adam Jensen, an Augmented, in a world aggressively segregating his own kind, we actually wanted to offer to our audience something unique. Something that was close and very personal to us: The experience of being torn between 2 worlds and 2 identities. Augs calling you the ‘uncle Tom’ of the non-Augs, non-Augs always insecure when you’re around, always deeply being scared or appalled by your mechanical body.’

Campbell’s criticism points at how segregation affected those native to South Africa, he also refers to gender apartheid and states that in regards to Mankind Divided;

‘The Augmented in Mankind Divided are a privileged and wealthy elite who mostly choose to put themselves above their fellow human beings through expensive technological enhancements. When these enhancements are manipulated by evil forces, millions of people are killed.’

This statement is misrepresentative of how many Augs are well below the poverty line and struggle even to survive. It also ignores the fact that Augmentation saved a lot of lives, especially that of a woman of colour who is mentioned in a newspaper if the player chooses to read it.  The revulsion and forced separation of Augs and Non-Augs by any means necessary is without a doubt a form of Apartheid that literally afflicts everyone who for whatever reason, whether wealthy or otherwise was deemed too dangerous for society. The trailers shown so far clearly conveys a world divided to the break point.

Despite the terms relevance, this hasn’t stopped other notable figures coming out against it. Zoe Quinn’s comments ignore that the man who coined the phrase Mechanical Apartheid and who formerly worked as one of the Directors on the game, Giles Matouba is actually a person of colour. However, she is not the only one critical of the game, Mass Effect developer, Manveer Heir in response to the use of ‘Aug Lives Matter’ among other things tweeted ‘Also, let’s pretend for a minute there was a ton of diversity on that Deus Ex team. It doesn’t mean they understand the issues well enough’ which in turn led to a response from one of the writers that the term Aug Lives Matter was purely coincidental.

Essentially we now live in a world where a critic can basically say ‘sod the content’ attack the creators. It’s why I personally worry that some people need step back and realise they are acting morally superior. Talent for writing is not and I repeat not decided by your gender or your skin colour. Perhaps Manveer should first realise this.

Inevitably, Jonathan McIntosh formerly associated with Feminist Frequency went on his own personal tirade against the game stating that ‘Sometimes when game designers set up “player choices,” the choice itself is immoral because it shouldn’t be up to the player to make it.’ To which I ask should the player be given any choice. Whilst true the game has programmed responses to every action, every consequence is shaped by how you play the game. It’s what makes RPGs so popular with gamers.

The problem with McIntosh’s approach is that it leads to conflating fiction with reality to the point they are indistinguishable when they are two separate entities entirely. Inspiration is natural by product of the writing process. In the end, the only way we will know that Mankind Divided is a success is how it sells and how the actual players respond to the game. Because sometimes I get the feeling that its critics who are actually out of touch with their audience.