Author Topic: Well that escalated quickly...  (Read 53039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Victim blaming in action.

Creating work and publicizing work are different. You're saying that it should publicly known for its content rather than the reaction to its content, yet the content itself does not publicize it.  Therefore the content is not to blame. And saying that bad publicity is a failure of content when other factors are very obviously at work, such as thunderfoots very blatant anti-feminist stance, then you are misrepresenting the situation.

What you're saying is in effect, Anita is doing it wrong, therefore the distasteful and loud reaction is justified. Because of course logic and reason always out-rule sensationalist media. Right?
If her argument was better then people wouldn't be threatening to ram a steel pipe up her vagina and kill her family.

I knew that was coming.  Let's try the full quote, shall we?

Quote
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong.  It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience.  The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of:  it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable.  If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u]  The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.

Care to retract your bull**** accusation now?  Not only was it patently and personally offensive, it's factually wrong.

Near assailable? Define that.
Is that akin to releasing 50 minutes of content and have the same critics attack one example from many?
Or critics relying upon 4-year old videos to make their case instead of the most up to date and relevant? Or a major complaint being that the quality, not the content, of her videos has not improved by individuals who no doubt did not actually contribute to her kickstarter.


I don't retract anything. Content and publicity are two different things. Content and relevance are two very different things as well.
It can be argued that content drives relevance, and that relevance drives reaction. If her content were poor, her videos would not be relevant and the reaction would be minimal.
That's assuming that reaction is actually based on content which in many cases it most assuredly is not. Critics, particularly those which make video responses have agendas far outside of refuting what she's saying.

Because realistically, in an academic setting a paper which refutes another would not only disprove what the other is saying but present a case of their own. Ie "this is wrong, because of reasons, and my version of events is right, because of reasons, supported by these various points". But invariably, in my experience, the critics have nothing to say other than she's wrong. So who really cares what they have to say when the truth of what they, themselves, are actually presenting is nothing at all.

Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211

Three glaring examples in one video.

Once again, the point is not that she doesn't have one; the point is that she actively undermines hers by presenting examples that can be argued against when there are plenty that cannot.

Three glaring examples of what? Examples of examples that you don't think are important enough to be examples.
Really compelling counter.

Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock and Assassins Creed are all top selling games. Isn't any aspect of those game relevant?  Particularly when the core of her argument is that women aren't relevant enough, you're saying these examples are not relevant enough? Does the logic fit there? This woman wasn't abused enough, objectified enough, important enough . .(she's only a sidequest) therefore the example has no relevance when the whole contention by Anita is that women aren't relevant enough and they're just set dressing.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 04:15:40 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
The thing for me is that the 2 factors in this are further separated than it appears on the surface. It's safe to say that the people contacting Ms. Sarkeesian are (a) A minority and (b) not representative of either the Games industry or the general game-playing community.

The dangerous stuff, socially speaking, is the stuff that she addresses in her videos, the casual, unthinking attitudes when depicting women, it's often not even done 'intentionally', it's a lack of empathy, rather than active misogyny. It's that kind of 'casual sexism' that most needs addressing in much of the Western world.

The thing is, the Gaming Industries perceptions are something you can actually do something about, with the right kind of pressure and awareness building, the Industry wants to be seen as open-minded and forward-thinking. The trolls, however, will continue to be trolls, it's not computer-game exclusive : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29034943.

A Question, when the noise becomes the argument, where does the argument itself go?  If the man who threatened to rape that MP had been someone who had any kind of vested interest in the future design of British Banknotes, then maybe a link could be suggested, but he isn't, he's a trolling idiot who found himself a victim. He is not a strong contender for being a member of the 'Banknote illustration evaluation community', as it were.

That's why I am concerned with the 'highlight the trolls' approach, I don't want to see one set of stereotypes replaced with another, it achieves nothing.

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Alkabeth:  I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated.  Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
The hilarious part is when Akalabeth argues that the critics of Anita have an agenda. You know, as if agendas are this sinister thing behind illuminati stuff and not part and parcel of what Anita herself and other feminists or indeed any other activists have themselves.

Akalabeth is an intelligent guy. He's just got this belligerent condescending facade that is really a barrier of communication. When he lets it down, he can be a good debater. Fat chance that's gonna happen here though, for all I've seen.

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
The thing is, the Gaming Industries perceptions are something you can actually do something about, with the right kind of pressure and awareness building, the Industry wants to be seen as open-minded and forward-thinking.

You should really see the Manveer's video I've linked up here. Whatever Anita fails to deliver, he is actually extremely competent at, despite the fact that he lacks her degree of "communication studies", go figure.

Manveer is one of Bioware's top shots, so he is both inside the industry and doing this which I think is quite more influential. One of Bioware's funny acts this year was when they showcased Dragon Age Inquisition with a female protag in action, and the trolls got themselves enraged and furious. Bioware has lots of flaws, but in this particular sensitivity, I love these guys. Especially when they troll the morons like this.

 
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Alkabeth:  I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated.  Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.
Quote
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, you are doing it wrong.  It speaks to the fact that Sarkeesian, at least, is basically writing for a niche audience.  The fact that the discussion around her work is predominantly noise is a fact that she has at least an extent of ownership of:  it is much harder to make immense amounts of noise about an argument that is near-unassailable.  If I write a critical analysis on a contentious that someone can take apart with relative ease, that failure is on me as a writer (not to say I'd deserve personal attacks and all the other bull****, but I deserve to be reasonably critiqued, even forcefully, on my own work).[/u]  The fact that she can't compose an argument that is near-unassailable with the absolute mountain of source work she has to draw from is telling when it comes to her abilities in critique.


Um, no?

First of you'd need to prove this is true:
If the only reason your work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction

Her Tropes series kickstarter received full funding in 24 hours. Which proves she had some significant public recognition prior the major backlash against her.
Secondly she the only person I'm aware of advocating better depiction of women in video games so the content alone would bring recognition.
Thirdly public knowledge can be pinned on video game news websites deciding to cover her kickstarter and her videos.

The fact that her videos are associated with abuse against her, does not demonstrate that her public knowledge is the result of it. And that abuse likewise does not demonstrate poor content.


Fact of the matter is, you associated the backlash against her videos as HER FAULT. She's "DOING IT WRONG".
I don't give two ****s if you say 'such and such reactions are unjustified'. You are still blaming her.

Here's a fresh idea, blame the argument? Separate the argument from the person presenting it? Ie
"If the only reason a work in critical analysis is publicly known is because it generates a distasteful and loud reaction, rather than being particularly compelling or well-composed in its own right, then it was poorly written"



And you demand she create some perfect, unassailable argument on an entirely subjective topic? That's impossible. This isn't a physics discussion. There's no mathematical proofs.

It's a discussion based on content which is invariably interpreted based not on truths but on personal experience.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
@Luis, sadly, the link doesn't work for me, says an error occurred. I was having problems adding a yt tag a few days ago, but assumed it was my own mistake, but I think a few people are getting it now.

With regards to the current situation, I think we need to be careful not to assume any publicly provided information is 'beyond criticism', and we should also be careful not to confuse said criticism with an opinion on the intentions, actions or gender of the author.

Yes, some criticisms of her work have very obviously been attacks on the author, but as I said in my previous post, letting that become the stereotype just stifles the discussion.

 
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
The hilarious part is when Akalabeth argues that the critics of Anita have an agenda. You know, as if agendas are this sinister thing behind illuminati stuff and not part and parcel of what Anita herself and other feminists or indeed any other activists have themselves.

Akalabeth is an intelligent guy. He's just got this belligerent condescending facade that is really a barrier of communication. When he lets it down, he can be a good debater. Fat chance that's gonna happen here though, for all I've seen.

No the hilarious part is when you and MP Ryan and every other person makes the focus of a discussion the person involved in the discussion.

You said Anita is lazy
MP Ryan said he likes Anita, thinks she's nice, then blamed her inability for the storm of controversy.
Then you critique me.

Personally I don't care WHO is making an argument. What I care about is content.
Thunderfoots arguments begin with a personal attack. He has videos talking about feminism as a poison on society.

Anita's videos are impersonal and informative.

It doesn't matter to me if Anita has never played a video game in the last 10 years. What matters if her examples or videos are relevant to me and to games in general.

 

Offline deathfun

  • 210
  • Hey man. Peace. *Car hits them* Frakking hippies
    • Minecraft
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
I personally have no idea what it is you're arguing Akala
I just see a lot of yelling, assuming, skewing and defense like you're intimately knowledgeable of Anita

Oh and
Quote
"Absolutely no reward or point" = Judging an experience before having experienced it.
If you know the outcome of an act before you've acted it, then your mind is made up.

A more objective response would be for example "I've seen some of her videos but didn't find them interesting so I'm unwilling to check out her latest. Thus I don't have an opinion on them either way."

First part: Absolutely no reward or point is in reference to my not gaining anything from them (other than time I could have used playing the piano) because I don't care (my arguing over the internet isn't really indicative of whether or not I care either), something I've stated quite often. That, and I had already experienced it so again, I would know what I would be getting into

Second part: I said that very objective message fifteen pages ago

Quote
And by "all the videos" I meant all the tropes vs women videos, if you took that to mean all the videos she's ever made you misunderstood.

We're not mind readers and since there is no context in terms of which videos you mean "all the videos", I'm going to take that at face value. This is compounded by the fact you keep mentioning her other videos in a non-specific manner
"No"

 
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Alkabeth:  I am not arguing with you further until you explicitly and publicly retract your statement accusing me of victim-blaming in which you cherry-picked one sentence out of context out of a paragraph that was talking about something very different from what you insinuated.  Not only did you go for the strawman, but you resorted to what is a very personal insult in the process, and you have lost all credibility insofar as I am concerned.

By the way the sentence I quoted wasn't out of context. It's contextually self-contained. You associate the noise with the inability of the person instead of simply the inadequacies of the argument. The fact that you remark upon personal attacks later as being inexcusable doesn't change or shift the initial blame. It's still a statement which focuses on the author not the argument. "She's not doing it right", therefore she receives forceful retorts and a lot of noise, the by-product of which is in some cases vicious attacks. Would you label this discussion as being extremist or just noise? Yet in this thread she's been called a con artist. She's a con artist because she's not "doing it right". That's the noise that you're pinning on her alleged inadequacies.


And the fact of the matter is your statement is factually wrong.
Anita gained notoriety during the abuse she suffered during her kickstarter campaign. She was attacked during her pitch to garner funding to create content rather than as a result of the content itself. Thus you cannot tie the noise surrounding her work to the work itself, when much of that noise is still an echo of the initial shouting during her kickstarter. She created videos both before and after her kickstarter but the surge in her publicity was the result of her kickstarter and its pitch.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 06:51:20 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
@Luis, sadly, the link doesn't work for me, says an error occurred. I was having problems adding a yt tag a few days ago, but assumed it was my own mistake, but I think a few people are getting it now.

Hm? Try this link again? It works for me (weird): http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where

Quote
Yes, some criticisms of her work have very obviously been attacks on the author, but as I said in my previous post, letting that become the stereotype just stifles the discussion.

It's also evidently untrue. People like The Amazing Atheist also made their own videos criticizing her and were quite polite in tone and demeanour. It's a shame that the one competent vlogger who is trying to critique into everything Anita says is clearly going insane, but there are others too.

She created videos both before and after her kickstarter but the surge in her publicity was the result of her kickstarter and its pitch.

Regardless of the moral righteousness of the involved, the mere fact that it was the flame war that interested people monetarily rather than the actual content of her videos was a very wrong way to start a career... not her fault obviously. But she then kept capitalizing on it, claiming she got it worse than any other controversial vlogger because she is a woman, plus gamers are overwhelmingly these basement virgin dwellers with nasty mysoginistic tendencies, don't you know? Therefore, omg! we must save this princess from the dungeon dragons of the internet underworld.

Yeah, she became herself one of her own favorite tropes. The irony, it burns. And lo and behold, this dungeon community didn't appreciate the lovely characterization this woman made of them. Why didn't they I wonder. And lo and behold, more angry lashing out unfolded, how unpredictable! Which in turn she uses as further advertising of her own cause, belittling, offending and caricaturizing a quite heterogeneous group, only because a bunch of trolls thought she was this amazing target of their joyful nihilism. Well, she used them perfectly!

But nevermind all this media manipulation shenanigans. I am way more interested in what the "silent majority" of people who play games actually think and believe, for I think it is this bigger group which will influence the market in the future.


 

Offline swashmebuckle

  • 210
  • Das Lied von der Turd
    • The Perfect Band
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Just to clarify my earlier post, I don't think there's anything duplicitous or unethical about Sarkeesian trolling with intentionally debatable material (if she is indeed doing it on purpose, which I also don't think matters). I think she's very good at the internet and is doing a real service for everyone who enjoys or might enjoy these types of games (whether she enjoys them or not) by exposing the really bad stuff in as high profile a way as she can manage.

If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
I see Alkabeth is unfamiliar with the First Law of Holes. Quibble, contort, and prevaricate (yes I meant that word, bloody autocorrect) all you like, itdoes not change what I've written or the meaning of it.  We're done until you find yourself some integrity.

If her intention is to make people uncomfortable both with the rampant sexism in evidence in the games and within the community at large (which I think is the case), then weaker examples that help trigger revealingly vitriolic and self righteous tirades from her detractors really don't undermine her position at all. It might not win her debate club credit, but it gives other feminists some minor points to disagree with so that they can feel like independent thinkers and gives the real miscreants enough rope to hang themselves with.

This is where you and I disagree.  I don't think giving people who would otherwise support your work "minor points to disagree with" is a good way of writing in support of social change.  Sticking to primary egregious examples to support one's argument is a tried and true method because it works.  Prof don't give bonus marks for weak supporting points mixed with strong ones for a reason.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
I see Alkabeth is unfamiliar with the First Law of Holes. Quibble, contort, and prevaricate (yes I meant that word, bloody autocorrect) all you like, itdoes not change what I've written or the meaning of it.  We're done until you find yourself some integrity.

Victim blaming is about holding a person responsible.
It's not about saying what they do or do not deserve.
You saying a person does or does not deserve abuse is not the same as saying they are not responsible for it. You are very clearly assigning responsibility for the noise surrounding her videos as her "not doing it right", and the abuse as a part of that noise is likewise assigned to her because of failures in her argument. Even going so far to suggest those failures might be deliberate.

Ergo, my comment was justified.

Now YOU can apologize for questioning my integrity.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 07:53:45 pm by Akalabeth Angel »

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
You should really see the Manveer's video I've linked up here. Whatever Anita fails to deliver, he is actually extremely competent at, despite the fact that he lacks her degree of "communication studies", go figure.

I'm about 1/5th of the way through as I write this and he's thus far very good.
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Akalabeth take a look at these two statements.

"Israel keeps electing governments which make their problems worse."

"The Jews keep electing governments which make their problems worse."

While both might be defensible statements, it's pretty obvious that making the second one is going to cause a bigger ****storm than the first since anyone making it is going to have to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism. People who agree with both are then going to have to explain that in elections the Jews are a significant majority and if they voted differently the outcome would be different. Which is then going to cause it's own further debate. The debate would very quickly become about those issues rather than the one the original poster was trying to talk about.

And all this because of choosing a couple of words incorrectly. The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems. If they ignored that, then it isn't unfair to blame the ****storm that follows on them. They did do it wrong. They did post something which would cause problems when they had a better choice.

Anita makes the same mistake. She has some very good points to make but her choice of examples is often lacking and likely to cause it's own debate, undermining the point she wants to make. And it's not victim blaming to call her out on her choices. If she is deliberately choosing highly contentious examples when she has much better material at hand, she should be self-aware enough to know that she is going to be called on it. She should know that it's going to mean that less people hear the point she wants to make.

If she doesn't know that, then she's (as MP-Ryan put it) doing it wrong.
If she does, then she's deliberately setting off a debate about her work (In a place where she should know that a debate can rapidly degenerate into ****storm).
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline MP-Ryan

  • Makes General Discussion Make Sense.
  • Global Moderator
  • 210
  • Keyboard > Pen > Sword
    • Twitter
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Reposting Luis' link because this is 56 minutes well spent:  http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1020420/Misogyny-Racism-and-Homophobia-Where

Heir nails it.  100%.  He's concise, clear, picks relevant examples, uses relevant supporting data, and is passionate as a force for change.  Sarkeesian could learn a few things from him.

And thank you, kara.  While I refuse to elaborate or debate with Alkabeth further until he acknowledges his improper conduct, that is a good summation.  Sarkeesian clearly does not deserve the personal attacks and threats she's received for expressing her work, a point I've made several times here and on Twitter.  She s absolutely at fault for the contentious legitimate debate, quibbling over examples, and the other 'noise' that has occurred as a result of her videos that detracts from their very legitimate core points and purpose.  If that ****storm was unintentional, she is absolutely at fault and she has made serious errors in her manner of critical analysis which have led to it.

Writing critical analysis is not all that different from publishing scientific papers or presenting political white-papers:  the author owns the results.  If you do your job well, the results may be positive debate or simple agreement.  If you do your job poorly, you invite negative and strong critique and vehement disagreement.  All of those results are expected and perfectly acceptable, and those negative results are the ****storm and noise to which I referred earlier and believe Sarkeesian has some responsibility for, for these reasons, which I also made clear earlier.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2014, 10:04:50 pm by MP-Ryan »
"In the beginning, the Universe was created.  This made a lot of people very angry and has widely been regarded as a bad move."  [Douglas Adams]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Agree about the link, very informative and interesting presentation. Worth the time.

  
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Akalabeth take a look at these two statements.

"Israel keeps electing governments which make their problems worse."

"The Jews keep electing governments which make their problems worse."

While both might be defensible statements, it's pretty obvious that making the second one is going to cause a bigger ****storm than the first since anyone making it is going to have to deal with accusations of anti-Semitism. People who agree with both are then going to have to explain that in elections the Jews are a significant majority and if they voted differently the outcome would be different. Which is then going to cause it's own further debate. The debate would very quickly become about those issues rather than the one the original poster was trying to talk about.

And all this because of choosing a couple of words incorrectly. The original poster should be self-aware enough that they know that using a highly charged word like Jew in a debate would cause problems. If they ignored that, then it isn't unfair to blame the ****storm that follows on them. They did do it wrong. They did post something which would cause problems when they had a better choice.

Anita makes the same mistake. She has some very good points to make but her choice of examples is often lacking and likely to cause it's own debate, undermining the point she wants to make. And it's not victim blaming to call her out on her choices. If she is deliberately choosing highly contentious examples when she has much better material at hand, she should be self-aware enough to know that she is going to be called on it. She should know that it's going to mean that less people hear the point she wants to make.

Aren't you avoiding the real issue here? You equate "Jew" to "contentious examples"?
No, what you really mean to compare is "Jew" to "Feminist".

So, it isn't unfair to blame Anita for the ****storm that follows because she self-identifies as a feminist?
And it's not victim blaming right? That a self-identified feminist gets abused over the internet?


And thank you, kara.  While I refuse to elaborate or debate with Alkabeth further until he acknowledges his improper conduct, that is a good summation.

You think my conduct is improper, then report it.
Don't moan about it for another 3 pages.


 

Offline AdmiralRalwood

  • 211
  • The Cthulhu programmer himself!
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
Re: Well that escalated quickly...
Many of Sarkeesian's own examples are sufficiently weak that they can be used to the detriment of her overall argument.
You keep saying things like this, and yet the only example anyone has pointed to is Hitman: Absolution, which is obviously under contention.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=88246.msg1761211#msg1761211

Three glaring examples in one video.
You still haven't explained how they're weak and undermine her point.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Codethulhu GitHub wgah'nagl fhtagn.

schrödinbug (noun) - a bug that manifests itself in running software after a programmer notices that the code should never have worked in the first place.

When you gaze long into BMPMAN, BMPMAN also gazes into you.

"I am one of the best FREDders on Earth" -General Battuta

<Aesaar> literary criticism is vladimir putin

<MageKing17> "There's probably a reason the code is the way it is" is a very dangerous line of thought. :P
<MageKing17> Because the "reason" often turns out to be "nobody noticed it was wrong".
(the very next day)
<MageKing17> this ****ing code did it to me again
<MageKing17> "That doesn't really make sense to me, but I'll assume it was being done for a reason."
<MageKing17> **** ME
<MageKing17> THE REASON IS PEOPLE ARE STUPID
<MageKing17> ESPECIALLY ME

<MageKing17> God damn, I do not understand how this is breaking.
<MageKing17> Everything points to "this should work fine", and yet it's clearly not working.
<MjnMixael> 2 hours later... "God damn, how did this ever work at all?!"
(...)
<MageKing17> so
<MageKing17> more than two hours
<MageKing17> but once again we have reached the inevitable conclusion
<MageKing17> How did this code ever work in the first place!?

<@The_E> Welcome to OpenGL, where standards compliance is optional, and error reporting inconsistent

<MageKing17> It was all working perfectly until I actually tried it on an actual mission.

<IronWorks> I am useful for FSO stuff again. This is a red-letter day!
* z64555 erases "Thursday" and rewrites it in red ink

<MageKing17> TIL the entire homing code is held up by shoestrings and duct tape, basically.