[Grizzly]

There's nothing mainstream about guilt tripping gamers for the Orlando shooting. Or guilt tripping incredible scientists for the shirts they are wearing. That is just incredible misreading on your part.

The thing is, when I look at the article that Cluckler linked that is about gaming...

Like the E did upthread, this is where I lose you. I don't see this point at all: To me, things like "clickbait" and "guilt tripping" are meaningless buzzwords that get thrown around to signify that I really should hate this manipulative bull**** - but to me it's not manipulative bull****. To me it's just words on videogames, particularely trying to make a point that the US has become desentizied to violence (whilst at the sime time mentoining that no, videogames do not cause violence). I agree with that point, as I've seen that the US has failed to take any measures in either the vast swathes of domestic terrorism and the vast swathes of civilian casualties caused abroad. The article also makes the point that the AAA market is oversaturated with shooters - I find it hard to argue with that, and complaining about the blandness of the AAA market is something near everybody seems to do! Most importantly I can't really see what is wrong about an article that makes a point and argues it on a quite indepth level. The author clearly explains where he is coming from, the article's title breaks Betteridge's law. This is not a manupalitive article designed to generate outrage, it's a reasonable article trying to encourage introspection. I don't see why it should be considered on the same level as Taboola.

It's exactly the other way around: the "geeks" have won the culture, but now apparently, the "hipsters" took over. And they are demanding everyone get on board with their morality. OR ELSE.

And the worst part is, their morality SUCKS BALLS.

Again, these sentiments (If only we could talk to the monsters) are atleast 22 years old, and this is also why I don't see your point. Geeks have never won the culture, nor are hipsters taking over: These people have always been here, and as more and more people engage with gaming these people will always continue to be here alongside all sorts of other people - as there always have been, as videogames has always been a field that attracted a variety of people to it. And as it grows larger you're going to see further calls to deviate from the norm and there will be people who answer those calls (See also, the huge indy market). As someone who believes that more diversity is a good thing, this is great. Do you think that Call of Duty should be the face of this hobby? I'm geussing that you are not, so I struggle to see why it is so controversial or outrage-worthy that someone writes an article with that angle.

[Luis Dias]

"Desensitized on violence". Ah. And I'm the one indulging in "meaningless buzzwords". Thanks for rehashing the good old ultra conservative backlash against games in general. But you didn't get the memo. The current "buzzword" now is "normalization", not "desensitization". Hell, I'm more up to date with the party line than you are. Start paying attention, comrade!

You "Agree to that point", well how progressive (or is it conservative by 2004 standards?), except neither you nor, by the way, anyone else from this idiotic community of self-immolating journos has ever presented any evidence to this point whatsoever. Now, of course the author goes through a lot of "buzzwords" to separate himself from the obvious reference, but at some level, it becomes a parody of itself: "I'm totally not Jack Thompson but games are totally violent and desensitivizing a generation amirite?"

This kind of "just asking questions here" article makes gullible people fall right into it. "But I'm just asking introspective interesting questions here!" No you're ****ing not. You're rehashing the same old charge against games whose "interesting" question has been answered countless times now. Such is the case that even ultra-conservative Scalia sounded bored by the whole shenanigan. Now, when you are rehashing ultra-conservative bull**** with the excuse of "just askin questions here", you should ask yourself how much of a progressive you're really being here.

Again, these sentiments (If only we could talk to the monsters) are atleast 22 years old

For once, you're right: this discussion has been over for 20 years. Why are we still "just asking questions here"? Why? Why are we wasting neurons on this totally trivial already answered question?

Because guilt tripping shenanigans.

And as it grows larger you're going to see further calls to deviate from the norm and there will be people who answer those calls (See also, the huge indy market). As someone who believes that more diversity is a good thing, this is great. Do you think that Call of Duty should be the face of this hobby?

Strawman. And a typical one. "Why won't you just agree with all this guilt-tripping? Do you want a world where only COD exists?"

Except this is not the current world. Diversity of gaming *already* exists. It needn't E3 or an AAA "title" for a game to embody diversity. The more money one spends on a game, the more conservative the devs will be, this is something that is not just obvious to the writer, it's something inevitable to happen. Hell, I'm currently addicted to this tiny world-shattering diverse game called Minecraft. Something that, uh, you know, also made an appearance at E3?

That's a whole interesting discussion but that wasn't how the article was framed.

No.

The article was framed with "Oh my God look at the ultra violence in games, isn't this terrible? Won't someone think of the children?"

To which the *only* non ****ty answer must be: "Go **** yourself in the nuts, it's totally not terrible and you're the terrible one".

[The E]

I'm still waiting to know where is Dawkins a "Regressive".

His absolutist stance on Islam counts as such in my book, as does his ignorance on feminist issues. But, and I can't stress this enough, these are my impressions of him and should not be construed as an absolute statement of fact.

It works personally. As in, if you're going to do a temper tantrum over a clickbaity article, at *least* you're not contributing to the whole phenomena. 99% of other people just don't care and go on on being baited.

Fair enough.

You're implying that internet discussions are super "healthy". They are not. They are messy. Journos *should* be aware of this and be professional themselves. All I see here in your commentary is a shift of the burden of actual ethical and professional behavior from the journos towards the readers. And that's silly. I have no deontological code of conduct for being a reader and reacting to an article I didn't like. My own codes of conduct apply to my own job, to my own profession. I try to be as professional and responsive, careful and double-checking to my own clients and tasks, not to a random article I've just read in a moment of rest.

And if you're just talking about your own feelings onm the matter, that's fine. Really. Got no problem with that. But when you join a movement of people roughly aligned with your views, and that movement tries to effect actual changes, then I think it is unacceptable to not adopt at least a modicum of professionalism in the pursuit of your goals and ideals. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is a burden of professionalism on the journalist. But once you engage in somewhat organized forms of criticism of journalism, the critic also gets a burden to not fly off the handle at any perceived insult. If nothing else, this outrage-driven form of finger pointing is highly unlikely to ever arrive at solutions to improve the situation because it is very easy to dismiss (if not quite as easy to ignore, unfortunately). If your only answer to the question "What can be done better" is "Burn it all to the ground and salt the earth", is it any wonder that the people and institutions you're intent on burning are a bit hesitant to agree with you on anything?

I'm not going to start a semantic argument. The word is sufficiently well understood for you to start this kind of handwaving "qui est veritas anyway" thing to me.

But I don't think it is. Is a random buzzfeed listicle clickbait? Sure. We can look at the content and structure of the article and see that it is presented in such a way as to keep the user clicking on the "next" button, increasing those sweet sweet pageview counters. That's easy. Is a controversial review of a videogame clickbait? On some level, sure; After all, articles are published to be read. But does that in and of itself make it wrong or dismissable? By the same token, why is a review that's smack in the middle of the mainstream opinion not deserving of having the clickbait epithet attached?

You may not wish to start a semantic argument, but I believe it's necessary to define terms and figure out what we're using them for.

Yes. But that's the easy forgettable, somewhat harmless clickbait. The worse clickbait is the righteous, activisty, polarizing, blame shaming guilt tripping tribal enraging clickbait. It's dividing the world. For no other reason than clicks. I mean, the writers might think they are doing the right thing but editors know better. I do remember a famous screenshot of the Gawker working office (where Kotaku writers also worked) in which the biggest thing in the center of the room was a giant monitor screen. In it, a list of the ten most clicked articles of the day. Congrats to the top article!

"What's clickbait, amirite? ahahah"

**** that **** handwaving attitude.

Publishing house looks for metrics to improve its reach, news at eleven. That's not the point, as I hope my previous paragraph made clear; the point is to question whether the term is useful as more than a handy shortcut to not having to engage with a piece of writing.

There's nothing mainstream about guilt tripping gamers for the Orlando shooting. Or guilt tripping incredible scientists for the shirts they are wearing. That is just incredible misreading on your part. It's exactly the other way around: the "geeks" have won the culture, but now apparently, the "hipsters" took over. And they are demanding everyone get on board with their morality. OR ELSE.

And the worst part is, their morality SUCKS BALLS.

Are the unexamined sexism, unquestioned racism and classism, the deeply held persecution complexes and insecurities associated with traditional geek culture something you actually miss?

[Luis Dias]

His absolutist stance on Islam counts as such in my book, as does his ignorance on feminist issues. But, and I can't stress this enough, these are my impressions of him and should not be construed as an absolute statement of fact.

Well, at least those are opinions.

And if you're just talking about your own feelings onm the matter, that's fine. Really. Got no problem with that. But when you join a movement of people roughly aligned with your views, and that movement tries to effect actual changes, then I think it is unacceptable to not adopt at least a modicum of professionalism in the pursuit of your goals and ideals. You are absolutely correct in saying that there is a burden of professionalism on the journalist. But once you engage in somewhat organized forms of criticism of journalism, the critic also gets a burden to not fly off the handle at any perceived insult. If nothing else, this outrage-driven form of finger pointing is highly unlikely to ever arrive at solutions to improve the situation because it is very easy to dismiss (if not quite as easy to ignore, unfortunately). If your only answer to the question "What can be done better" is "Burn it all to the ground and salt the earth", is it any wonder that the people and institutions you're intent on burning are a bit hesitant to agree with you on anything?

Fair enough, except I haven't brought up said movements into this discussion nor in any other venue as of late, so it's a kind of a strawman? At what point do my comments over journalism become just my comments? It's not even as if I have ever coordinated my "efforts" (lol) with anyone else in order to destroy someone or something. I did, however, commended *some* efforts - not all. Still, my opinions are my opinions. And though a layman I am, I'm still able to recognize bull**** from quality.

But I don't think it is. Is a random buzzfeed listicle clickbait? Sure. We can look at the content and structure of the article and see that it is presented in such a way as to keep the user clicking on the "next" button, increasing those sweet sweet pageview counters. That's easy. Is a controversial review of a videogame clickbait? On some level, sure; After all, articles are published to be read. But does that in and of itself make it wrong or dismissable? By the same token, why is a review that's smack in the middle of the mainstream opinion not deserving of having the clickbait epithet attached?

When someone says something is clickbaity, the implication is that no, it's not worthy. At the end of the day, it's a subjective judgement, but it's clear what the judgement is. "Click for money pieces". Particularly, I am speaking of the variety: "Let's discuss one more time how sexist and violent and terrible your own desires, fantasies and hobbies really really are" articles may well sound "deep" or "profound", or as someone says, "asking the introspective interesting questions". I recognize in them a self-loathing inducing guilt tripping shenanigan, which becomes controversial by social media standards (OF COURSE this piece is asking good questions, what are you a racist? THIS piece is anti-gamer what are you a feminist?,etc.) and then shared through rage by everyone involved. It polarizes people into camps and destroys friendships.

Over clicks.

This is obvious when you actually ponder about the divisive language used. It's never an embracing, uniting language that involves everyone from every camp into discussing a particular grudge the author may have. It's inherently written in a style that divides and polarizes from the get go. It's subtle and efficient at it. And the more efficient it is, the more clicked it is. Because "I TOLDYA SO" and "NO WAY THIS ASSHOLE WROTE THIS ****". Both work.

Publishing house looks for metrics to improve its reach, news at eleven. That's not the point, as I hope my previous paragraph made clear; the point is to question whether the term is useful as more than a handy shortcut to not having to engage with a piece of writing.

When the central piece of your room is how an article is on the top ten of the day or not, then your priorities are clearly established. Everything else is commentary.

Are the unexamined sexism, unquestioned racism and classism, the deeply held persecution complexes and insecurities associated with traditional geek culture something you actually miss?

Are these really the concerns we should be having? Are we really having this amazing problem that all of this guilt tripping self-flaggelating shenanigan towards an entire culture is totally necessary? I think not and I think all the research shows that no, actually all these feminist activists who blame games for all the "toxic masculinity" that somehow was the "real" culprit of Orlando shooting (ooh yes, they totally went there) are talking from their bull****ting asses. If you want to be honest and actually helpful in trying to get things you recognize could be better fixed, then start by being honest with the claims and proclamations, by being honest with the problems and you'll see that you'll end up having the whole community actually be interested in solving those problems.

But that is a totally non-controversial method, which means it won't be noticed by no one. Which means that only the self-appointed assholes who will say the most incredible ridiculous things will ever be noticed. And published. And become newsworthy. And clicked. And lied about. And enraged about. And lo and behold, it's a goldmine of clickbaity **** right over here! Who really cares with all these feminist concerns when we have so much money to make from all these clicks!!

I know, we could even make a non-profit charity over this **** and get millions of dollars with it and basically do next to zero with it! While pretending to be the most amazing activist Evah! It will be glorious!

[Grizzly]

"Desensitized on violence". Ah. And I'm the one indulging in "meaningless buzzwords". Thanks for rehashing the good old ultra conservative backlash against games in general. But you didn't get the memo. The current "buzzword" now is "normalization", not "desensitization". Hell, I'm more up to date with the party line than you are. Start paying attention, comrade!

You "Agree to that point", well how progressive (or is it conservative by 2004 standards?), except neither you nor, by the way, anyone else from this idiotic community of self-immolating journos has ever presented any evidence to this point whatsoever. Now, of course the author goes through a lot of "buzzwords" to separate himself from the obvious reference, but at some level, it becomes a parody of itself: "I'm totally not Jack Thompson but games are totally violent and desensitivizing a generation amirite?"

This kind of "just asking questions here" article makes gullible people fall right into it. "But I'm just asking introspective interesting questions here!" No you're ****ing not. You're rehashing the same old charge against games whose "interesting" question has been answered countless times now. Such is the case that even ultra-conservative Scalia sounded bored by the whole shenanigan. Now, when you are rehashing ultra-conservative bull**** with the excuse of "just askin questions here", you should ask yourself how much of a progressive you're really being here.

Now it comes back to this: I find it very hard to sample a reason from this for me to care - You obviously care, you're obviously willing to resort to simple name calling to reinforce your points, but I fail to see the things you're seeing: Jack Thompson had a different angle. Jack Thompson is about "Ban this sick filth". This author cares more about seeing the side of video games that Jack Thompson doesn't want to see ("Video games are still in their infancy as a medium, with vast and untapped potential that hasn’t even been imagined yet."). And that's where I stop arguing for this man who can not talk to us and start arguing for myself.

Because when you look at this guy and the website he writes for, it's clear that he is not a video games journalist - he's a tech journalist. All he sees is the stuff at E3, but that does make it hard to talk about the issues within games journalism as this guy isn't really an example for that entire field (if there indeed can be one thing that is an example for the entire field, but I atleast would expect it to be something from a website that focuses on games). So the answer to your question is not "Guilt tripping shenanigans" but rather "This guy hasn't heard the answer yet".

Strawman. And a typical one. "Why won't you just agree with all this guilt-tripping? Do you want a world where only COD exists?"

I highly implore you to read it again, that's not what I said at all! It's the bit after the bit you quote that is important.

Diversity of gaming *already* exists. It needn't E3 or an AAA "title" for a game to embody diversity. The more money one spends on a game, the more conservative the devs will be, this is something that is not just obvious to the writer, it's something inevitable to happen. Hell, I'm currently addicted to this tiny world-shattering diverse game called Minecraft. Something that, uh, you know, also made an appearance at E3?

That's a whole interesting discussion but that wasn't how the article was framed.

No.

The article was framed with "Oh my God look at the ultra violence in games, isn't this terrible? Won't someone think of the children?"

To which the *only* non ****ty answer must be: "Go **** yourself in the nuts, it's totally not terrible and you're the terrible one".

See paragraph 1.
However, I do think it's an interesting question in that we obviously don't practice what we preach. I mean, allow me to quote POTUS here:

But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough.  It’s not enough.  It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel.

That is the vibe I got from the article. And I really don't think that "Go **** yourself in the nuts" is a good response to that. It is more simply banal, angry, and in defense of a thing that does not need defending as it speaks for itself.

I mean, that's the whole point right? I see you, well, saying this:

I recognize in them a self-loathing inducing guilt tripping shenanigan, which becomes controversial by social media standards (OF COURSE this piece is asking good questions, what are you a racist? THIS piece is anti-gamer what are you a feminist?,etc.) and then shared through rage by everyone involved.

And whilst you are obviously fully aware of the mechanics involved, you and AtomicCluckler still fall for it, still spread the stuff onto this website, still are obviously outraged and angry and willing to resort to hurling insults. If you recognize it as such a problem - Why do you keep doing it yourself?

[GhylTarvoke]

I'm still waiting to know where is Dawkins a "Regressive".

His absolutist stance on Islam counts as such in my book, as does his ignorance on feminist issues.

Dawkins is right on the money when he says that regressive liberals are the ones who give Islam a free pass. He's been lambasting religion for decades; then he says that Islam needs a feminist revolution, and everybody's up in arms.

[Grizzly]

I'm still waiting to know where is Dawkins a "Regressive".

His absolutist stance on Islam counts as such in my book, as does his ignorance on feminist issues.

Dawkins is right on the money when he says that regressive liberals are the ones who give Islam a free pass. He's been lambasting religion for decades; then he says that Islam needs a feminist revolution, and everybody's up in arms.

I thought Iran was already undergoing a bit of a feminist revolution?

[Luis Dias]

Iran is the stalwart of feminism. The core and center. Islam is the most amazing feminist religion in the entire world. Up is down. Down is up. Everything's upside****ingdown in Joshua'sland.

I highly implore you to read it again, that's not what I said at all!

You basically said that if I didn't like the article it must imply I like a world where only COD-like games exist. Sorry, but that was just silly.

And quoting the POTUS? In what could be his worse speech in his presidency ever? Well I'll be darn. I'm still amazed that we are in 2016 and people still fall into this guilt-tripping language bull****. "Oh we must do better". Must we? Should we? Really? What is this euphemistic language all about other than reinforcing old prejudices and silly mischaracterizations of problems just so you get your own agenda on track?

And whilst you are obviously fully aware of the mechanics involved, you and AtomicCluckler still fall for it, still spread the stuff onto this website, still are obviously outraged and angry and willing to resort to hurling insults. If you recognize it as such a problem - Why do you keep doing it yourself?

The difference is, I identify it correctly as a journalistic malpractice, something that is harming the entire environment of social politics between everybody. It's harming society as a whole.

You, however, do not. So don't come and tell me that *I'm* the problem. Obviously, journos aren't getting any money from *me* are they. So stop turning **** around with silly "et tu quoque" shenanigans. It's ****ing boring, I won't have it.

[The E]

Iran is the stalwart of feminism. The core and center. Islam is the most amazing feminist religion in the entire world. Up is down. Down is up. Everything's upside****ingdown in Joshua'sland.

Luis, that was not what Joshua was saying and you damn well know it. This snark does you no favours.

[Luis Dias]

No he was countering the simplest and most uncontroversial statement of Dawkins with a completely asinine statement about a single country's very small attempts at rebellion.

But I'm the one in the wrong here. I rest for the ****ing day here.

[The E]

No he was countering the simplest and most uncontroversial statement of Dawkins with a completely asinine statement about a single country's very small attempts at rebellion.

But I'm the one in the wrong here. I rest for the ****ing day here.

Yes, you are. Because at no point in his post did Joshua come even close to saying any of the things you were implying. That was you going off into deep hyperbole country because someone dared to point out that the revolutions that should be happening are actually happening.

[Grizzly]

You basically said that if I didn't like the article it must imply I like a world where only COD-like games exist. Sorry, but that was just silly.

Which is why I didn't say it! My statement was that questioning whether or not COD should be the face of the industry should not be controversial. There's quite a bit of nuance you are missing there, and I don't like you doing it on purpose.

The difference is, I identify it correctly as a journalistic malpractice, something that is harming the entire environment of social politics between everybody. It's harming society as a whole.

You, however, do not. So don't come and tell me that *I'm* the problem. Obviously, journos aren't getting any money from *me* are they. So stop turning **** around with silly "et tu quoque" shenanigans. It's ****ing boring, I won't have it.

Well, deal with it! Because even if I take your analysis of this particular article for granted, aside from that one article AtomicCluckler managed to find in the sea of articles simply to try to vindicate a point he tried to make earlier this problem does not appear to be as widespread as you claim it is. The only reason it has come to the discussion at all is because someone had to specifically look for it, and only because that same person already had an axe to grind. And sorry, but having an opinion is not journalistic malpractice, especially not in a critical piece.

[Det. Bullock]

Are these really the concerns we should be having?

Yes they are, I grew up on Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Disney movies, No One Lives Forever and Xena but nowadays many internet geeks seem to be afraid of having action heroines to the point I found myself arguing on comic book forums with people that thought the Wonder Woman movie was SJW pandering, and I mean WONDER WOMAN, which essentially is there with Superman and Batman in the DC characters roster. With videogames is the same, many "geeks" seem to be flabbergasted if a woman isn't there for pure fanservice or, worse of all, is the protagonist and while marketing has its faults (they passed from "hot girls with guns sell" to "girls scary", at least with the former you got something interesting every once in a while) I think there is a dangerous regressive/gynophobic streak in the gek culture of the last decade or so that needs to be addressed.

EDIT there I go for another of my "get off my lawn" rants, they come out almost authomatically lately. 

[GhylTarvoke]

I thought Iran was already undergoing a bit of a feminist revolution?

Yes, a bit of a feminist revolution. Hooray! Also, what Luis said.

In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has verses like these, and you simultaneously believe that the Quran is the indisputable word of God. I'll say it again: Dawkins is right on the money.

[Luis Dias]

That's total bull****, Det. Bullock. I mean, 100% bull****. Explain to me why oh ****ing why is Jessica Jones so wildly popular in the "geek scene"? No. You can't. Discussion over.

Joshua, yes, "face of gaming". Totally different. Face for whom. Who is putting this face on the "front" of gaming? You? No. Sony? Microsoft? Activision? You mean, the sellers of what is the best seller franchise they have in their hands? Who is deciding what is gaming's "front face" here? Who are you letting decide for you what "gaming" is all about? It's a silly discussion about the "numenous" reality of what "gaming" "really is about", that resides nowhere and in no one's head.

And lastly, I'm glad you think the problem ain't as widespread as you think. Now that was a surprise to me.

/rant and out.

[NGTM-1R]

In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has verses like these, and you simultaneously believe that the Quran is the indisputable word of God. I'll say it again: Dawkins is right on the money.

On the other hand, Muhammad was actually employed by his wife for a significant portion of their shared lives.

That's total bull****, Det. Bullock. I mean, 100% bull****. Explain to me why oh ****ing why is Jessica Jones so wildly popular in the "geek scene"? No. You can't. Discussion over.

It seems mostly popular with the people you're complaining about, now to use them as a defense is a little disingenuous, isn't it? Jessica Jones is also notably an exception to the rule and your hyperbole is oddly eager to ignore that fact. Can you argue with it? I'm waiting to see, since I'm capable of some basic courtesies, but...I'm not hopeful.

[Grizzly]

And lastly, I'm glad you think the problem ain't as widespread as you think. Now that was a surprise to me.

The issue therein lying that you thus far have not done anything to dispute that but instead just throw a tantrum and leave as soon as we get to the fun bits.

I mean, c'mon. You were always the one to argue for having thicker skin. Show some!

[GhylTarvoke]

On the other hand, Muhammad was actually employed by his wife for a significant portion of their shared lives.

One of his thirteen wives, you mean? You should probably steer clear of that topic.

[666maslo666]

I thought Iran was already undergoing a bit of a feminist revolution?

Despite Islam, not thanks to it. Also, too little, too late.

It is a positive development, but does not invalidate anything Dawkins says.

[Luis Dias]

It seems mostly popular with the people you're complaining about, now to use them as a defense is a little disingenuous, isn't it? Jessica Jones is also notably an exception to the rule and your hyperbole is oddly eager to ignore that fact. Can you argue with it? I'm waiting to see, since I'm capable of some basic courtesies, but...I'm not hopeful.

That regressives are all fawning over JJ is not relevant. It's 0% relevant to what I was saying. Perhaps negative percent. Try again.

On the other hand, Muhammad was actually employed by his wife for a significant portion of their shared lives.

I keep reading on this thread on how amazingly feministic Islam truly is. The things I learn every single second. Incredible. Now, did this happen before or after this wife of his was raped when she was aged 9? Was she already bossing around when Muhammad was only jerking off to her tighs when she was 7? Please, let us all know all these amazingly progressive details of this incredible role model that was the prophet, PBUH.

The issue therein lying that you thus far have not done anything to dispute that but instead just throw a tantrum and leave as soon as we get to the fun bits.

I have indeed shown this, you merely decided to look away and handwave everything, like you have always done. Your behavior will only surprise me when you begin to read reality correctly.

It is a positive development, but does not invalidate anything Dawkins says.

The wooshing sound I hear is the sound of this sentence going over many people in this thread's head.