Not satisfied with just denouncing Donald Trump on a daily basis, the New York Times has now come out swinging against the wildly popular party game Cards Against Humanity, which it calls irresponsible and enjoyed only by closeted-racists.
Cards Against Humanity is a party game in which people have to form the most outrageous statements using two sets of cards with offensive words and phrases.
Cards against humanity! pic.twitter.com/0fhapKF4fA
— FemmeNoire (@FemmeNoireOnYT) September 30, 2016
The Times Magazine, however, is having none of the fun. It has expended more than 1,000 words telling people why they should feel horrible for playing the game.
“The whole architecture of the game is designed to provide the thrill of transgression with none of the responsibility — to let players feel horrible, if you will, without feeling bad,” opined the disappointed author of the article, Dan Brooks.
— Reuben Glaser (@Reubnick) October 9, 2016
He also wrote: “The genius of Cards Against Humanity, as a party game, is that it encourages intimacy by allowing players to violate norms together without worrying about offending one another” – but quickly added that the game “isn’t really transgressive at all.”
The author argued the game is no fun because “It is a game of naughty giggling for people who think the phrase ‘black people’ is inherently funny.”
“Cards Against Humanity recasts popular prejudices and gross-out humor as acts of rebellion for small groups, imparting the thrill of conspiracy to values most people hold in common. (At least among the straight, the able-bodied and especially the white),” said Brooks.
— Ian Bogost (@ibogost) October 7, 2016
Lastly, the biggest problem of the game is that, apparently, it isn’t inclusive enough: “The game implicitly assumes that no one playing will actually have AIDS or be profoundly handicapped, so that its gags remain only theoretically offensive.”
The waste of 1,000 words and thousands of pages of expensive magazine stock paper denouncing Cards Against Humanity raises new questions about the future of the beleaguered Times Magazine, whose survival may be in doubt. Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently was forced deny a New York Post report that the print edition of the magazine would soon be shuttered. Despite his protestations, it’s unclear how long the costly and increasingly unhinged weekly can hang on.
As for the author, Mr. Brooks, we at Heat Street suspect someone won’t be invited to dinner parties in the foreseeable future.