Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Luis Dias on June 14, 2016, 05:35:15 am
-
Because "disagreement" is what comes to mind when the Verge (for instance) publishes a piece basically blaming games for the Orlando Shooting (http://"http://archive.is/SFE48")
That's totally in the realms of "disagreement" and not in farcical pseudo-hipsterist asinine douchebaggery.
-
Because "disagreement" is what comes to mind when the Verge (for instance) publishes a piece basically blaming games for the Orlando Shooting (http://archive.is/SFE48)
That's totally in the realms of "disagreement" and not in farcical pseudo-hipsterist asinine douchebaggery.
Where in the text did that happen? Seriously, point out the passage there that article says, even in a paraphrased way, that this tragedy or others like it are caused by videogames. Based on my reading, it doesn't: It merely questions the reaction of the games industry (specifically, EA's) to that tragedy, it asks whether or not it's appropriate to promote the next round of shooters at this particular time. Which, in my opinion, is a fair question to ask.
And yes, as far as I am concerned, nothing you said is more than mere disagreement, whether it is over the content of a news post, or the way it is written. To me, neither is reason enough to wish that the writers or articles I disagree with get removed from the Internet or the business. My question to you is, why do you feel that way? Why do you think that games journalism would be improved if Polygon et al didn't exist, or writers would stop writing articles like the ones you dislike? Why does exposure to those words trigger the rage centers in your brain so hard?
-
Where in the text did that happen? Seriously, point out the passage there that article says, even in a paraphrased way, that this tragedy or others like it are caused by videogames.
Jesus ****ing Christ, are you ****ing kidding me now? Do you think that space between the lines is just #ffffff background coloring? Were you ****ing born yesterday?
Why, oh WHY would EA have to even mention the shootings, if the connection wasn't implied? The guilt tripping language doesn't even make a pause in that vomit piece to ask itself whether it even has the moral authority to continue its condescension towards everything and everyone in the industry.
Based on my reading, it doesn't: It merely questions the reaction of the games industry (specifically, EA's) to that tragedy, it asks whether or not it's appropriate to promote the next round of shooters at this particular time. Which, in my opinion, is a fair question to ask.
How can it "ask" that question without implying the so-called "non" causality here, hmm? Please square that circle for me, I'll be amused by your attempts.
And yes, as far as I am concerned, nothing you said is more than mere disagreement, whether it is over the content of a news post, or the way it is written. To me, neither is reason enough to wish that the writers or articles I disagree with get removed from the Internet or the business. My question to you is, why do you feel that way? Why do you think that games journalism would be improved if Polygon et al didn't exist, or writers would stop writing articles like the ones you dislike? Why does exposure to those words trigger the rage centers in your brain so hard?
Because I hate these pretensious ignorant hacks vomiting their so-called "intellectual" (what a misnomer that is) activist agendas as if they are reporting on some "objective" truth, blaming innocents for all the ills of the world, self-hating douchebags who are an example of how the western civilization is beggining to destroy itself, by hating itself and by blaming itselft for anything and everything.
-
Jesus ****ing Christ, are you ****ing kidding me now? Do you think that space between the lines is just #ffffff background coloring? Were you ****ing born yesterday?
No, Luis. I know about subtext. And the subtext you're implying just doesn't register for me here. Is there an implicit question as to why we have so many games centered around guns and their use in there? Yes, absolutely. But that's nowhere near putting blame for gun violence on the games. I dunno, maybe I'm just too trusting or something. Maybe you're right and everything even mildly critical of the games industry and the culture it promotes and exists in is actually part of a hidden agenda to ban all games that are even a bit violent. And maybe you're wrong and jumping at shadows. I don't know, but for now, I will stick by my belief that you are just jumping at shadows.
Why, oh WHY would EA have to even mention the shootings, if the connection wasn't implied? The guilt tripping language doesn't even make a pause in that vomit piece to ask itself whether it even has the moral authority to continue its condescension towards everything and everyone in the industry.
... Because EA actually displayed some awareness of these things back when Ferguson happened and they tried to sell Battlefield: Hardline? Because it was a really big, tragic event and games culture doesn't exist in a vacuum? Because even a token showing of respect for the victims wouldn't have derailed the press conference?
Based on my reading, it doesn't: It merely questions the reaction of the games industry (specifically, EA's) to that tragedy, it asks whether or not it's appropriate to promote the next round of shooters at this particular time. Which, in my opinion, is a fair question to ask.
How can it "ask" that question without implying the so-called "non" causality here, hmm? Please square that circle for me, I'll be amused by your attempts.
Speaking of condescension, could you not? Why should I try to explain anything to you if you're not going to take it seriously?
Not that I actually could. I would have thought it obvious that at least some attempts to distance the fun of shooters from the tragedy of real-life shootings would be made.
Because I hate these pretensious ignorant hacks vomiting their so-called "intellectual" (what a misnomer that is) activist agendas as if they are reporting on some "objective" truth, blaming innocents for all the ills of the world, self-hating douchebags who are an example of how the western civilization is beggining to destroy itself, by hating itself and by blaming itselft for anything and everything.
I guess I'm done here. I cannot even begin to fathom how to argue with someone who believes this on such a visceral level.
But then, it's not like that's news, is it. We've been on opposing sides of this thing for two years now, it's not like that's going to change.
-
It's going to get worse and then you'll finally realise what I am saying is true, that the Regressive Left is not a right wing conspiracy mirage, but an actual disease within liberalism that should be diagnosed and cured. By liberals, not others. Unless of course you want what happened to the conservative movement (hijacked by tea partyists and Trumpsters) happen to the wider liberal movements.
You might want to excuse yourself from explaining the unexplainable by mentioning how "emotional" I'm being (quite the anti-feminist rethoric there), I'll just leave the conversation with the memory that you didn't even try to address that issue at all and take the obvious conclusions from that.
-
I'm roughly with Luis on this one, it's extremely ****ty to badger people or organisations for not responding to a tragedy with the gestures that you personally have deemed appropriate.
-
It's going to get worse and then you'll finally realise what I am saying is true, that the Regressive Left is not a right wing conspiracy mirage, but an actual disease within liberalism that should be diagnosed and cured. By liberals, not others. Unless of course you want what happened to the conservative movement (hijacked by tea partyists and Trumpsters) happen to the wider liberal movements.
You might want to excuse yourself from explaining the unexplainable by mentioning how "emotional" I'm being (quite the anti-feminist rethoric there), I'll just leave the conversation with the memory that you didn't even try to address that issue at all and take the obvious conclusions from that.
I dunno, americans look all regressive to me anyway in a way or another.
Surely dumbing down the debate and criticism (meant as writing reviews) makes the medium more vulnerable than a few intellectual game pundits that have outgrown shooters or never liked them in the first place (typical of the many who have a console background and HATE CoD-likes and all the tropes associated with them), for each one of them there are others that have the same cultural level and wildly different opinions.
-
Until you actually read the poop that comes out of the keyboards of these pretensious twats, who think they are all some kind of jedi masters of the english language (whose "command" amount to the total knowledge of their education, given how most of them come from english majors) and they'll shove that self-awareness to everyone's throats.
And this asinineness becomes too obvious to deny when they become so blazé to even admit how they don't even finish the games they are supposedly reviewing, for they were "too boring" or "too difficult" or whatever else excuse they bring forth, followed by a barrage of their own narrative building activism-of-the-day tirade of nihilistic hipster pretensiousness.
I can't even start to express the rage that goes through my head while trying to read some of those ridiculous conglomerations of "words" whose authors probably think are writing some kind of brilliant teatrises on gaming.
I'm confused; are you describing games journalism, or your own posting?
-
Pleas, cut it out with the anti intellectual bull****, videogames are a form of art and as such are heavily subjective by definition, you can't reduce them to the technical aspects, it denotes a basic lack of respect for the medium.
You can't reduce them to the technical aspects, but they damn well lose points if they can't maintain a stable framerate or suffer gamebreaking bugs.
I never read a reviewer who didn't do that, no matter how "intellectual" he or she happened to be.
-
I'm confused
QFT
Surely dumbing down the debate and criticism (meant as writing reviews) makes the medium more vulnerable than a few intellectual game pundits that have outgrown shooters or never liked them in the first place (typical of the many who have a console background and HATE CoD-likes and all the tropes associated with them), for each one of them there are others that have the same cultural level and wildly different opinions.
I think the medium will be much more vulnerable to market forces than journalists, although they do try to be as destructive as possible. I feel as if they are trying to compensate for the realization that their efforts are getting less and less impactful. Thus they force their bull**** through inane means (passive aggressiveness, social media bullying, personal attacks, ideological name-callings, etc.) so they can still hang on to some sort of power over the industry.
Trouble is, it's a fast waning power. And all that is left is the market, which is amoral in itself. If people enjoy battling each other within the context of World War I, then that's what they'll buy, irrespectively of some pretensious wannabe journalist decrying this as a moral failure of some sort.
-
It's going to get worse and then you'll finally realise what I am saying is true,
But it's not getting worse! Games have gotten progressively better in the past couple of years, across the board, and I do believe that this is at least partially due to games criticism growing to encompass criticism of gaming culture from within gaming culture (as opposed to Thompsonite criticism of gaming culture from without). What I'm seeing from you is not constructive in this regard, you seem to be saying that there's a whole class of opinions games journalism (and journalists) cannot have, and I strongly disagree with that. I just cannot get my head around the idea that it is categorically wrong to write about perceived ills in the gaming industry or gaming culture if those perceived ills fall into a specific category. That's what I'm hearing from you here: The absolute statement that certain topics or ways of thinking are not only wrong or misguided, but need to be taboo because if they aren't, something terrible is going to happen. Admittedly, this is a topic I am wavering on a lot, but currently I am of the opinion that the best answer to bad opinions is good opinions, not trying to suppress the bad.
that the Regressive Left is not a right wing conspiracy mirage, but an actual disease within liberalism that should be diagnosed and cured. By liberals, not others. Unless of course you want what happened to the conservative movement (hijacked by tea partyists and Trumpsters) happen to the wider liberal movements.
Funny how most of the uses of the phrase I come across on the internet are coming from decidedly non-liberal places. That being said, I cannot disagree with the desire to avoid a widespread radicalization/regression of the left in a mirror image of what has happened on the right, but we do differ a lot on what exactly is a symptom of said radicalization or regression. I do not see critical examination of games and gaming culture as such.
You might want to excuse yourself from explaining the unexplainable by mentioning how "emotional" I'm being (quite the anti-feminist rethoric there), I'll just leave the conversation with the memory that you didn't even try to address that issue at all and take the obvious conclusions from that.
My problem is that, in order to properly explain my viewpoint, I have to be able to empathize with yours, and I just can't. I disagree with you on such a fundamental level on this issue that it is beyond my rhetorical abilities to bridge that gap without resorting to name-calling (and we both know that that doesn't work). This is my failing, not yours.
I look at this statement:
Because I hate these pretensious ignorant hacks vomiting their so-called "intellectual" (what a misnomer that is) activist agendas as if they are reporting on some "objective" truth, blaming innocents for all the ills of the world, self-hating douchebags who are an example of how the western civilization is beggining to destroy itself, by hating itself and by blaming itselft for anything and everything.
and I just have no idea how to unpack it and address the points made properly. There's so much in there, so much background that we do not share or do not agree on here that I have no idea how to respond to it.
I'm roughly with Luis on this one, it's extremely ****ty to badger people or organisations for not responding to a tragedy with the gestures that you personally have deemed appropriate.
And I'm roughly with the authors of that piece Luis posted: I don't think that events like Orlando should be unackknowledged. Games do not exist in a vacuum, and if the games you're about to promote are all about the feeling of power that comes from holding and using a gun, then some statement regarding such a tragedy is appropriate. What form that should take, I don't know, but continuing on with business as usual is IMHO not the right choice. In any case, I see no harm in an article that is asking the question what the right choice should be, because that's a thing that I believe should be discussed.
-
Surely dumbing down the debate and criticism (meant as writing reviews) makes the medium more vulnerable than a few intellectual game pundits that have outgrown shooters or never liked them in the first place (typical of the many who have a console background and HATE CoD-likes and all the tropes associated with them), for each one of them there are others that have the same cultural level and wildly different opinions.
I think the medium will be much more vulnerable to market forces than journalists, although they do try to be as destructive as possible. I feel as if they are trying to compensate for the realization that their efforts are getting less and less impactful. Thus they force their bull**** through inane means (passive aggressiveness, social media bullying, personal attacks, ideological name-callings, etc.) so they can still hang on to some sort of power over the industry.
Trouble is, it's a fast waning power. And all that is left is the market, which is amoral in itself. If people enjoy battling each other within the context of World War I, then that's what they'll buy, irrespectively of some pretensious wannabe journalist decrying this as a moral failure of some sort.
Those journalists aren't "destructive", if I wrote an article on how Dante's Inferno is a crass insult to Dante Alighieri's legacy (which is something I actually feel very strong about) would I be "destructive"?
Also those journalists usually aren't pretentious because they tend to know what they are talking about, they aren't Damon Lindelof trying to say something profound on science vs religion and failing utterly for being completely ignorant about both of them, that's pretentious, not observing that there might be a problem with the tone of a game when confronted with its gameplay.
-
But it's not getting worse! Games have gotten progressively better in the past couple of years, across the board, and I do believe that this is at least partially due to games criticism growing to encompass criticism of gaming culture from within gaming culture (as opposed to Thompsonite criticism of gaming culture from without).
And yet the actual content of the article you're siding with is essentially identical to Thompson's campaigns: games incorporate guns, gun violence exists and so games are in some capacity responsible for it. It's exactly as wrong as it was when it came out of his mouth.
-
But it's not getting worse! Games have gotten progressively better in the past couple of years, across the board, and I do believe that this is at least partially due to games criticism growing to encompass criticism of gaming culture from within gaming culture (as opposed to Thompsonite criticism of gaming culture from without).
And yet the actual content of the article you're siding with is essentially identical to Thompson's campaigns: games incorporate guns, gun violence exists and so games are in some capacity responsible for it. It's exactly as wrong as it was when it came out of his mouth.
Again: That's not the message I am getting. But I am known to be an ideologically blinded regressive leftist.
-
Well then go ahead and actually justify what it's saying! Why should EA be obliged to perform some penance for selling games about shooting people? We have those games in the UK and we don't have people shooting up gay clubs!
-
It's going to get worse and then you'll finally realise what I am saying is true,
But it's not getting worse! Games have gotten progressively better in the past couple of years, across the board, and I do believe that this is at least partially due to games criticism growing to encompass criticism of gaming culture from within gaming culture (as opposed to Thompsonite criticism of gaming culture from without). What I'm seeing from you is not constructive in this regard, you seem to be saying that there's a whole class of opinions games journalism (and journalists) cannot have, and I strongly disagree with that. I just cannot get my head around the idea that it is categorically wrong to write about perceived ills in the gaming industry or gaming culture if those perceived ills fall into a specific category. That's what I'm hearing from you here: The absolute statement that certain topics or ways of thinking are not only wrong or misguided, but need to be taboo because if they aren't, something terrible is going to happen. Admittedly, this is a topic I am wavering on a lot, but currently I am of the opinion that the best answer to bad opinions is good opinions, not trying to suppress the bad.
The criticism is lazy, unfair and merely "progressive" by fad alone. It's done by hacks, not by "intellectuals" trying to get the world become a better place. That is the true mirage. Let's all band together in outcry against that horrible, horrible shirt that made mankind take two steps back, while the meteor landing only gets to be awarded one step further, because that's the way, that's the spirit, right?
No, it isn't and yes, it's destructive. That you don't feel the sting of its inherent injustice, untruth and overall degeneracy is a testament to your own obliviousness or merely lack of first person experience with all the guilt tripping passive aggressive nature of these vermins. In a way, I envy you.
Funny how most of the uses of the phrase I come across on the internet are coming from decidedly non-liberal places. That being said, I cannot disagree with the desire to avoid a widespread radicalization/regression of the left in a mirror image of what has happened on the right, but we do differ a lot on what exactly is a symptom of said radicalization or regression. I do not see critical examination of games and gaming culture as such.
"Tea Partyists" is a phrase mostly used back then by progressives and liberals. Didn't describe an irreality, now did it? And think about that one. Since when have we decided to marginalize 50% of the population as demented twats just because they are more conservative than not? And then we get to complaint about the trends of ever increasing polarization? The change we want is within us. If we want polarization to diminish and reason / debate / conversation to go through everyone then we must open ourselves to what "The Other Side" is saying.
Because many times, they may well be right.
My problem is that, in order to properly explain my viewpoint, I have to be able to empathize with yours, and I just can't. I disagree with you on such a fundamental level on this issue that it is beyond my rhetorical abilities to bridge that gap without resorting to name-calling (and we both know that that doesn't work). This is my failing, not yours.
I applaud your honesty and self-awareness. It's probably your biggest quality (apart from your professionalism, ofc).
I look at this statement:
Because I hate these pretensious ignorant hacks vomiting their so-called "intellectual" (what a misnomer that is) activist agendas as if they are reporting on some "objective" truth, blaming innocents for all the ills of the world, self-hating douchebags who are an example of how the western civilization is beggining to destroy itself, by hating itself and by blaming itselft for anything and everything.
and I just have no idea how to unpack it and address the points made properly. There's so much in there, so much background that we do not share or do not agree on here that I have no idea how to respond to it.
Hey, it's just me being a pretensious twat ranting about what I believe. The difference though, something that just woooshes past someone like Ralwood's head, is that I'm not paid to write this stuff. I vent for free and it's all voluntary, in a forum where people are supposed to do just that. That some people can't recognize that a games journalist is supposed to behave differently, then it's beyond my power to help them at all.
And I'm roughly with the authors of that piece Luis posted: I don't think that events like Orlando should be unackknowledged. Games do not exist in a vacuum, and if the games you're about to promote are all about the feeling of power that comes from holding and using a gun, then some statement regarding such a tragedy is appropriate. What form that should take, I don't know, but continuing on with business as usual is IMHO not the right choice. In any case, I see no harm in an article that is asking the question what the right choice should be, because that's a thing that I believe should be discussed.
Yeah except the tone isn't nearly as generous as you are writing in here, and all the guilt tripping traps are scattered throughout the entirety of it. Because the main idea of a minute of silence (as was actually done in one of the shows, I think the Sony one?) or a few words regarding the issue are absolutely of good taste. To write something righteously pointing fingers at anyone who fails to do so is just pretensious twattery of the worst kind, and something that we are all just accustumed to suffer from the same old writers. To even read some of these journos' twitter TLs regarding the shooting and games' intersections is to invite the revolution in your stomachs.
Again: That's not the message I am getting. But I am known to be an ideologically blinded regressive leftist.
A core trait of regressivism is machiavellianism: lying is good if it's For The Cause (tm). I have yet to see you lie, so no I don't think you're a "regressive". But that's just IMHO.
Well then go ahead and actually justify what it's saying! Why should EA be obliged to perform some penance for selling games about shooting people? We have those games in the UK and we don't have people shooting up gay clubs!
That's the thing, innit? They are totally to blame for the mass shootings, except no of course not no single anyone is saying that, that's a total misrepresentation, but they better say sorry for what they've done... etc. It's totally dishonest passive aggressiveness.
-
But it's not getting worse! Games have gotten progressively better in the past couple of years, across the board, and I do believe that this is at least partially due to games criticism growing to encompass criticism of gaming culture from within gaming culture (as opposed to Thompsonite criticism of gaming culture from without).
And yet the actual content of the article you're siding with is essentially identical to Thompson's campaigns: games incorporate guns, gun violence exists and so games are in some capacity responsible for it. It's exactly as wrong as it was when it came out of his mouth.
No, it isn't, from what I remember Mr Thompson what pretty much a "think of the children" guy, those ones only say that their gung-ho advertising about GUNS and MORE GUNS and BADASSES WITH GUNS is in pretty bad taste around a mass shooting that ultimately happened ALSO because of american gun fetishism hampering any attempt at serious regulations in firearms.
Here in Europe it wouldn't happen because we don't have that particular problem, but in the US that might be just a notch below the NRA doing a congress in a place where a week before a mass shoting happened, it's not really about the games themselves but about the complete lack of restraint of game marketing.
-
Meanwhile, the guy's preacher who constantly spoke about how gays should be killed because that was Allah's law, the dude's own closeted gayness that drove him into despair due to the inherent contradiction between his beliefs and his own self, all of that is now discarded because hey, we don't wanna be racists, right? To discuss any of this is to thread too "close" to discuss things like "Islamism" and that's racist, you bigot.
Better to discuss how EA should own all of this due to its culture of "fake machismo" violence or whatever. Yeah, that's way better. Wow, that was a close one, I was almost forced to discuss real things and causes that might hurt my own values and beliefs! What a relief.
-
Hey, it's just me being a pretensious twat ranting about what I believe. The difference though, something that just woooshes past someone like Ralwood's head, is that I'm not paid to write this stuff. I vent for free and it's all voluntary, in a forum where people are supposed to do just that. That some people can't recognize that a games journalist is supposed to behave differently, then it's beyond my power to help them at all.
Boy, you're really mad that other people have figured out how to be paid for their opinions and you haven't, huh?
-
American gun culture is, obviously a massive, massive problem which carries a lot of direct blame for the massacre in Orlando, and I completely endorse anyone blaming the NRA. (The same can be said of Islamic homophobia, but based on The E's postings over the last few months I doubt I'll see him demanding that any mosques fly rainbow flags.) I don't think having games in which you shoot people, especially in a military setting, is really very relevant, given that for the entirety of human history a lot of entertainment has been about violence, and I think it's in very poor taste to start blaming people for the worst mass shooting in US history based on an inevitable coincidence.
-
Boy, you're really mad that other people have figured out how to be paid for their opinions and you haven't, huh?
Is being envious of con artists something you usually do?
To each their own.
-
American gun culture is, obviously a massive, massive problem which carries a lot of direct blame for the massacre in Orlando, and I completely endorse anyone blaming the NRA. (The same can be said of Islamic homophobia, but based on The E's postings over the last few months I doubt I'll see him demanding that any mosques fly rainbow flags.) I don't think having games in which you shoot people, especially in a military setting, is really very relevant, given that for the entirety of human history a lot of entertainment has been about violence, and I think it's in very poor taste to start blaming people for the worst mass shooting in US history based on an inevitable coincidence.
In fact they don't speak about Disonhored 2 which is plenty violent but isn't gun-centric, the problem is that many military shooters are designed and/or marketed to pull at the gun fetishism and while the thing isn't wrong per se it makes having an E3 with a healthy dose of the genre at least a bit awkward.
Boy, you're really mad that other people have figured out how to be paid for their opinions and you haven't, huh?
Is being envious of con artists something you usually do?
To each their own.
By your criteria every literature academic is a con artist, as well as any film, music, literature and figurative art critic.
-
Had the article actually had insightful or even vaguely sensible things to say about gaming and gun culture I probably would have come round to agree with it. I really do detest gun fetishism. But it doesn't. It's just a bunch of vague, moralistic weasel words to the effect that "in Orlando, Omar Mateen killed people with a gun. In EA's new game, players kill people with a gun. This is horrible and insensitive. People die in real life and this is bad so entertainment that depicts people dying is bad." Like I said earlier: it is fundamentally no different to what Jack Thompson crusaded for.
-
By your criteria every literature academic is a con artist, as well as any film, music, literature and figurative art critic.
There are literature academics and then there are games journalists.
And then there's the confusion of conflating the two.
-
By your criteria every literature academic is a con artist, as well as any film, music, literature and figurative art critic.
There are literature academics and then there are games journalists.
And then there's the confusion of conflating the two.
That's just being a snob that thinks games aren't high and mighty enough to withstand criticism, the only difference is that videogames are a young art form so there isn't a fully formed specialized academia yet and journalists being "pretentious" is just an attempt to form one, with films it happened more or less the same way.
-
I never said that a games journalist can't be so good that he might as well qualify as a "literary academic".
I'm saying that generally, they totally aren't that. But they do behave pretensiously as if they have that title.
-
FPS games producers have exactly zero moral obligation to respond or acknowledge this shooting. I mean, they could do a minute of silence for the victims, or they could just ignore it entirely as not relevant for a gaming conference, because it is not. Doesnt matter.
But, trying to guilt trip them into a "correct" response by such stupid article is unethical, IMHO. That "journalist" has a right to write anything he wants, and consumers have a right to call him a hack who insults hard working developers by his pseudo-moralistic BS, and tries to capitalize on a tragedy by chasing clicks.
Maybe games deserve a well made cultural criticism, but it will most certainly not come from these so called journalists who are the gaming press equivalent of a ****ty tabloid.
-
FPS games producers have exactly zero moral obligation to respond or acknowledge this shooting. I mean, they could do a minute of silence for the victims, or they could just ignore it entirely as not relevant for a gaming conference, because it is not. Doesnt matter.
But, trying to guilt trip them into a "correct" response by such stupid article is unethical, IMHO. That "journalist" has a right to write anything he wants, and consumers have a right to call him a hack who insults hard working developers by his pseudo-moralistic BS, and tries to capitalize on a tragedy by chasing clicks.
Maybe games deserve a well made cultural criticism, but it will most certainly not come from these so called journalists who are the gaming press equivalent of a ****ty tabloid.
Except that if there is no moment of silence during a footbal match after some cop got stabbed by a hooligan people will ***** about it.
They do so because videogame marketing is notoriously blind and you if don't explain to them that marketing a horror game like "the game that will disgust your mum" without enough lampshading will come off as stupid and demeaning to gamers in general they just won't notice.
Also, remember the "Anime fan on prom night" debacle, those are people that are completely disconnected from reality and need to be reminded that good taste in advertising and real irony exist.
-
unethical
(http://i.imgur.com/9uzhwgr.jpg)
-
I love this place, We have gone from a quick heads up about TBs new subreddit, to the possible links between violent computer games and the Orlando Shooting with memes in less than 3 days and 44 posts
-
Except that if there is no moment of silence during a footbal match after some cop got stabbed by a hooligan people will ***** about it.
Don't compare the incomparable. Hooligans are, alledgedly, football fans. A gay hating muslim has ... zero to do with the Call Of Duty fanbase.
-
I love this place, We have gone from a quick heads up about TBs new subreddit, to the possible links between violent computer games and the Orlando Shooting with memes in less than 3 days and 44 posts
I see AdmiralRalwood is applying the highest form of debate
(https://ibin.co/2kefstiEYDk6.png)
(replace anime face with meme's etc, you know what I mean)
It's definitely been an amusing read though. So about that totalbiscuit subreddit...
-
Except that if there is no moment of silence during a footbal match after some cop got stabbed by a hooligan people will ***** about it.
Don't compare the incomparable. Hooligans are, alledgedly, football fans. A gay hating muslim has ... zero to do with the Call Of Duty fanbase.
I don't know, the american gun fetish seems like a pretty big element in common.
-
Except that if there is no moment of silence during a footbal match after some cop got stabbed by a hooligan people will ***** about it.
Obviously, football match and football hooligans are connected. FPS games and gay club shooting is not.
They do so because videogame marketing is notoriously blind and you if don't explain to them that marketing a horror game like "the game that will disgust your mum" without enough lampshading will come off as stupid and demeaning to gamers in general they just won't notice.
I dont really see anything wrong with that marketing. A bit childish, but not unethical at all.
Also, remember the "Anime fan on prom night" debacle, those are people that are completely disconnected from reality and need to be reminded that good taste in advertising and real irony exist.
I dont remember that debacle, but anyway, if some people need to be reminded about good taste, then do so. But nobody needs to be reminded about a gay bar shooting on a video game conference. It is just not relevant in that setting. Ignoring it in such context is not distasteful at all.
-
Except that if there is no moment of silence during a footbal match after some cop got stabbed by a hooligan people will ***** about it.
Don't compare the incomparable. Hooligans are, alledgedly, football fans. A gay hating muslim has ... zero to do with the Call Of Duty fanbase.
I don't know, the american gun fetish seems like a pretty big element in common.
Between a vague, ethereal notion of "fetishness" about guns and this Orlando preacher who had just given a call to kill gays days before this shooting, and who the killer had just listened to (http://"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3638438/Orlando-shooting-Controversial-anti-homosexual-sheikh-spoke-Florida-shooting.html"), I see all the liberals picking the former as a culprit worth discussing.
Don't be stupefied with surprise gasps when the gay demo starts drifting to the right and towards Trump. It's because of such inanity that this will eventually happen.
-
Between a vague, ethereal notion of "fetishness" about guns and this Orlando preacher who had just given a call to kill gays days before this shooting, and who the killer had just listened to (http://"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3638438/Orlando-shooting-Controversial-anti-homosexual-sheikh-spoke-Florida-shooting.html"), I see all the liberals picking the former as a culprit worth discussing.
Don't be stupefied with surprise gasps when the gay demo starts drifting to the right and towards Trump. It's because of such inanity that this will eventually happen.
Isn't it a bit disingenuous to complain about commenters making comments before all the facts of a case are known? Does this invalidate the criticism of the availability of guns?
-
I don't know, the american gun fetish seems like a pretty big element in common.
American gun fetish is only tangentially related to this particular shooting. And FPS games are hardly even related to American gun fetish. What do you expect FPS games developers and producers to self-flagellate after every mass shooting? Thats truly absurd. They should not be pressured to do any such thing.
-
Unless you're about to propose getting rid of the 2nd amendment (or shackle the first), I see no possible good faith line of reasoning regarding the availability of guns. (I do agree with some proposals though). Keep in mind that the killer used a semi-automatic, but also a handgun. Banning AK47s or some other things liberals are railing on every single day after this event wouldn't have prevented this horror. A sick conviction and fervor was all the murderer needed.
To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.
Instead, we are pressuring EA to do .... whatever it was. Yeah. That'll solve the problem.
-
To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.
Instead, we are pressuring EA to do .... whatever it was. Yeah. That'll solve the problem.
And if a video game site were to do this, how long do you think it would take for people to complain that they're not talking about games? There are places where that sort of call to action is better placed.
-
The fact that there have been plenty of mass shootings in the US by non-Muslims does rather undermine your argument that Islam is the only real factor behind this one, as does the fact that Islamic terror attacks in Europe have required much greater organisation and support than one guy heading to the gun shop.
-
Well, I think the thread topic should stay on topic... and that being TB decided somehow in his usually "I hate social media" self that launching another Reddit is a good idea.
Like last time it should go down in flames if previous patterns have proved correct.
As for the matter of games media?
Well, tl;dr the exact details are as follows - The Verge publishes a bait piece about how E3 should somehow feel bad about games with guns, then a bunch of idiots - from McIntosh, to Bob Chipman, jumped on Twitter to echo how E3 somehow was promoting 'something' because the Orlando shootings just happened. Everyone was in due haste to blame SOMETHING, rather than let the facts come to light and a picture form.
I jumped the gun and accused the media of fomenting the ghost of Jack Thompson - the matter is more muddled - pundits are fishing for something to blame, and quite frankly, many are being called out or have outright deleted tweets or blog posts as we speak.
Is it right to merely call it "games media" no, rather people are jumping to assumptions, and after my own callous claims looked at the build up of events. But once again, thank the Verge for throwing **** together to cash in on tragedy.
-
And if a video game site were to do this, how long do you think it would take for people to complain that they're not talking about games? There are places where that sort of call to action is better placed.
Totally agree. There are better places to discuss the Orlando shooting. But, you see, that won't get these sites the clicks. The clicks, man.
The fact that there have been plenty of mass shootings in the US by non-Muslims does rather undermine your argument that Islam is the only real factor behind this one, as does the fact that Islamic terror attacks in Europe have required much greater organisation and support than one guy heading to the gun shop.
You're saying that because other people did things for other reasons, that should mean this guy totally didn't have his religious dogma telling him he should hate himself and every other gay people and, say, kill them?
How much more of obviousnessness do you require as a criteria before saying that X is a culprit of a certain event?
If your position is rather that in the US, americans have to deal with a lot more of this that does not imply religion, or at least islam, and that therefore a search for an underlying platform they could try to solve is warranted, then that makes a whole more sense.
But I have addressed this. The availability of the gun issue is a shady angle to tackle. Unless you're going to say that everyone who the government deems "dangerous" can't buy guns (and that may well mean whomever they want, for whatever they are saying, thus undermining both the first and the second amendments), then this position, no matter how philosophically sound, it's pragmatically worthless.
-
The fact that there have been plenty of mass shootings in the US by non-Muslims does rather undermine your argument that Islam is the only real factor behind this one
It is not the only real factor, but it is an important one. Certainly much, much more so than violent video games ever could be.
Muslims make up 1% of US population. They ought to commit 1% of all mass shootings. Well, they commit far more than that. So it is a very important factor indeed. Numbers dont lie.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
-
Muslims make up 1% of US population. They ought to commit 1% of all mass shootings. Well, they commit far more than that. So it is a very important factor indeed. Numbers dont lie.
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/extremists/deadly-attacks.html
Numbers do indeed not lie.
There have been 133 mass shootings in the US in 2016 so far. According to your list, one of them was clearly connected to islamic terrorism. That, according to my math, makes up 0.75% of the total.
-
According to his list, ten were. And they signify the majority of casualties of mass shootings.
-
Well, I'm going to recommend that a mod excise the current discussion from the thread's original purpose - frankly it's futile to discuss the shootings in this thread.
-
Numbers do indeed not lie.
There have been 133 mass shootings in the US in 2016 so far. According to your list, one of them was clearly connected to islamic terrorism. That, according to my math, makes up 0.75% of the total.
I call BS. Please post source.
Maybe if you include all shootings, even those related to ordinary criminal activity (robberies, drug violence..), then you can get 133 shootings in 2016 alone. But that is not very relevant either to terrorism or the phenomenon of mass shootings which is characterized by an especially senseless violence. Nobody bats an eye when the shooting motive is as "mundane" as lets say, a gang war or a robbery gone wrong..
EDIT: brain fart..
-
He is correct. Here's a link (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org) with some statistics.
Also the definition of mass shooting used.
FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.
-
He is correct. Here's a link (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org) with some statistics.
Also the definition of mass shooting used.
FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location not including the shooter.
Its just as I thought. This includes all shootings, most of them those committed because of "ordinary" criminal activity. And it also includes incidents where no people were even killed, 4 people being injured is enough to qualify! Its just not very relevant for our discussion.
EDIT: brain fart..
-
According to his list, ten were. And they signify the majority of casualties of mass shootings.
No, his list only shows one shooting in 2016.
This is actually trickier to evaluate than I thought. Depending on what you count as a mass shooting, you arrive at a count of over 500 (according to this dataset (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/mass-shooting), which counts incidents where noone was killed and which only goes back to November 2014), or a count of just about 50 (according to this one (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data), which only counts "significant" shootings with multiple people killed and wounded). Now, we should be fair and use the "only significant" dataset, which excludes the 2002, 2006, 2009 Little Rock, 2013 and 2014 incidents from maslo's list due to the low number of people killed or wounded. That leaves a common set of 4 incidents, which means that according to that statistic, muslims were responsible for 8% of mass shootings.
But wait! That is actually not correct, is it? After all, that list maslo posted definitely does count "minor" incidents. Unfortunately, I was not able to find a breakdown that went back to 2002, but bear in mind that the list I did find listed over 500 incidents in the past 2.5 years. Measured against that, the 5 incidents on maslo's list that fall in that timeframe really do not show a significant percentage of islamist terrorism, I think.
-
What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.
-
What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.
This is, of course, true.
-
Measured against that, the 5 incidents on maslo's list that fall in that timeframe really do not show a significant percentage of islamist terrorism, I think.
It is indeed tricky. If you count shootings quite liberally, then you will begin to count ordinary criminal activity, too. And at that point the number of shootings explodes and drowns out all terrorist activity, islamic or other, or any other shootings with "unconventional" motivations. But if you count shootings that are in some way different from ordinary criminal activity (such as terrorism, radicals, crazy people, many dead victims, etc.), then I am sure statistics will show islamic shootings are very overrepresented.
-
Effectively the thing got a bit out of hand, probably I should put my fingers in a blender before criticizing TB's approach to reviews over the internet again.
Metaphorically speaking of course, playing XvT or Freespace without fingers might be a bit difficult.
-
To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.
I have no idea what they're doing. Why don't we hear more from them? If I were religious, and members of my religion committed mass murder in its name, I'd take every opportunity to condemn and disown them. If my religious leaders failed to do so, I'd fly into a tooth-chattering rage.
There are places where that sort of call to action is better placed.
I rarely see that call to action. Politicians either lack the spine, or lump all Muslims together.
-
Islam is not centralized, it literally has no clergy, for every Imam that would go on the internet and talk against violence, ten idiots that probably didn't even read the Quramn very carefully could very well do the same and praise ISIS until kingdom come.
Being an Imam is a matter of just go out and start preaching, they have schools but aren't required, only that people listen to you while spouting whatever nonsense you are saying.
-
I'd be slightly more sympathetic if Imams did go on the internet and talk against violence. ISIS knows how useful the internet is.
A call to action shouldn't even be necessary here.
-
To get muslim preachers on the line and make them be crystal clear that they condemn any and every kind of violence done to fellow human beings, and to pressure them into saying this much more often, is thousands of times more effective.
I have no idea what they're doing. Why don't we hear more from them? If I were religious, and members of my religion committed mass murder in its name, I'd take every opportunity to condemn and disown them. If my religious leaders failed to do so, I'd fly into a tooth-chattering rage.
They are making themselves heard. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-muslims-condemn-attack/) I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.
What the **** is even the point of this rathole, Islamist violence is something that must be opposed regardless of the percentage of some arbitrary mass shooting tracker it constitutes, and gun violence is a blight on American society independent of which factions are holding the guns, and of course this has nothing to do with TotalBiscuit's subreddit but I suppose this thread was destined to be a drama release valve from the start.
Yes. Also, homophobia is a blight upon humanity and should be vigeriously eradicated.
-
They are making themselves heard. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-muslims-condemn-attack/) I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.
Right, but it's not like 61% of Norwegian Christians, when polled, said that membership of the youth wing of the Labour party should be illegal. I detest the alt-right trying to use this as a stick to beat Islam with but it definitely must bear some of the blame here.
-
They are making themselves heard. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-muslims-condemn-attack/) I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening. When Utoya happened, it wasn't like the various christian instances of Norway were met with the same suspiciouns.
My faith in humanity is marginally restored. Maybe more people would listen if more Imams came forward?
The Utoya comparison is... bad. That's not even close to a mass murder in the name of Christianity.
-
It is indeed tricky. If you count shootings quite liberally, then you will begin to count ordinary criminal activity, too.
Is there some reason terrorism is so separated from "ordinary" criminal activity? Particularly in the case of a lone wolf incident where no training or material support is offered and the shooter is typically prone to having committed some sort of violent act with or without ideology.
Indeed, the risk factors for mass shooters are more or less the same regardless of whether they kill their family or shoot up a nightclub in Orlando. Building a wall like this limits the ability to understand and combat the problem.
-
But if you count shootings that are in some way different from ordinary criminal activity (such as terrorism, radicals, crazy people, many dead victims, etc.), then I am sure statistics will show islamic shootings are very overrepresented.
And yet you are very wrong, even in Europe and when looking only at defined "terrorist attacks" according to Europol: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/
It is indeed tricky. If you count shootings quite liberally, then you will begin to count ordinary criminal activity, too.
Is there some reason terrorism is so separated from "ordinary" criminal activity? Particularly in the case of a lone wolf incident where no training or material support is offered and the shooter is typically prone to having committed some sort of violent act with or without ideology.
Indeed, the risk factors for mass shooters are more or less the same regardless of whether they kill their family or shoot up a nightclub in Orlando. Building a wall like this limits the ability to understand and combat the problem.
It's worth noting that many/most democratic countries explicitly define terrorism as criminal acts, with a very expansive definition because there is little difference between it and "ordinary" criminal activity.
On the subject of TB, I see nothing wrong with his abandonment of the trash fire that is social media in favour of a more moderated medium, even if it happens to be on reddit.
-
And yet you are very wrong, even in Europe and when looking only at defined "terrorist attacks" according to Europol: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/
Maybe I am wrong in Europe. I will have to research this further when I have time. After all the site you posted seems to be quite biased.
But I am not wrong in the US, statistics I posted earlier shows that.
And think that if you include terrorist incidents of a more serious nature, such as where people actually died, muslims will be overrepresented, both in Europe and the US.
-
And yet you are very wrong, even in Europe and when looking only at defined "terrorist attacks" according to Europol: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/11/updated-europol-data-less-than-1-of-terrorist-attacks-by-muslims/
Not all terrorist attacks are the same, you have to take into account number of casualties to make a meaningful comparison. We are taking about successful mass shootings here (your list includes even foiled attacks, or attacks with no casualties). A left wing extremist has set a small bomb (essentially a big firecracker) into a rubbish bin to protest animal cruelty here in Slovakia. It exploded and injured no one, no property damage beyond the bin itself. He was convicted of terrorism, so this counts as a one terrorist incident. But this is not even in the same ballpark as someone shooting multiple people. A better metric would be number of casualties, not just number of incidents.
Here is a searchable database that includes such information:
http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/
Search with these criteria:
Years: (between 2000 and 2014), Criteria I: (yes), Criteria II: (yes), Criteria III: (yes), All incidents regardless of doubt., Region: (Western Europe)
Then order by fatalities. Islamist attacks are definitely highly overrepresented in the top of the list, compared to share of muslims in population. So no, I am not wrong when it comes to Europe.
-
The Utoya comparison is... bad. That's not even close to a mass murder in the name of Christianity.
How so? The guy has several times mentioned beign part of a knights templar organization, his manifesto is full of claims that christian culture ought to be defended and Utoya defenitely was a mass murder. I mean, it's really quite telling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Political_and_religious_views). He's as much a christian as ISIS members are muslim.
-
Right, but it's not like 61% of Norwegian Christians, when polled, said that membership of the youth wing of the Labour party should be illegal.
-
They are making themselves heard. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-muslims-condemn-attack/) I find it slightly discomforting that people do not appear to be listening.
FWIW, I have been hearing not only ordinary muslims, but even conservative muslim preachers (http://"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmxaSHA7xNs") trying to get a very sharp and clear message across. I just don't think it's enough. It's too little and almost too late. We need ten, hundreds of times more of this.
-
The Utoya comparison is... bad. That's not even close to a mass murder in the name of Christianity.
How so? The guy has several times mentioned beign part of a knights templar organization, his manifesto is full of claims that christian culture ought to be defended and Utoya defenitely was a mass murder. I mean, it's really quite telling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Political_and_religious_views). He's as much a christian as ISIS members are muslim.
From your link:
According to the International Business Times, in his manifesto, he "did not see himself as religious", but he did identify as a cultural Christian and wrote about the differences between cultural and religious Christians, but stressed that both were Christians, and shared the same identity and goals. After his imprisonment, Breivik stated he had never personally identified as a Christian, and called his religion Odinism, stating that he "pray and sacrifice" to Odin.
In any case, being Christian/Muslim and committing mass murder in the name of Christianity/Islam are two very different things.
-
Not all terrorist attacks are the same, you have to take into account number of casualties to make a meaningful comparison. We are taking about successful mass shootings here (your list includes even foiled attacks, or attacks with no casualties).
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51FKg7ecS%2BL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
I, too, can manipulate statistics to show whatever I want by narrowing down criteria sufficiently.
If all you want to count is sufficiently narrow criteria to capture only the attacks that have been committed in the name of Islamic extremism, then of course you are going to find heavy over-representation of Islamic extremism. The fact remains that by far the majority of actual mass shootings in the US are not committed by Muslims nor are they necessarily considered large-scale terror attacks, yet they are mass shootings. In Europe, on a per-attack basis, Muslims are not even remotely over-represented. If we narrow down the criteria sufficiently, then of course they become over-represented.
I don't dispute that Islamic extremists have been responsible for some of the largest body counts in recent terrorist actions of the last decade, but that is entirely a different argument than Islamic extremists being heavily overrrepresented in attack statistics. You are confusing quantitative data with qualitative.
-
maslo's only contribution to this discussion so far has been to try and narrow the criteria for what constitutes either a mass shooting or a terrorist attack enough to find a single statistical cross-section where Muslims are over-represented so he can blame them (or immigrants) for everything.
Then again, that's maslo in just about every thread.
-
It is the fact that I do not need to narrow the criteria much at all that shows how important my contribution to the thread is. "Terrorist act with actual deaths" is enough. Thats not narrow at all.
-
Note that every terrorist act is meant to cause actual deaths. If you want to see how "terrorism-prone" a group is, thwarted and failed attacks need to be included.
What the narrowed tell us is that Muslim terrorists are, on average, more competent and, consequently, more of a threat than other groups. This is actually the case, they're more organized than any other terrorist group since PIRA. They're also notably unconcerned with their own survival, which probably has an effect on their success rate.
BTW, in that data MP_Ryan posted, I was, quite surprised to see just how many attacks (most of them, in fact) are committed by separatists. Nearly all of them in Spain or France, which suggests that Basque nationalists are to blame. Why aren't those getting more publicity? It seems that two big, European countries have a major domestic terrorism problem. I didn't even know what ETA stood for (on indeed, remember that there is such a thing) until I checked the wiki.
-
European nativism goes to very short scales. Many spanish provinces desire indepedence from Madrid. They want this for centuries. Portugal had the fortune of getting its indepedence at the same time Castella (Madrid) was struggling to maintain Barcelona within its borders, thus allowing Lisbon to secede. Barcelona still wants the independence today (they have lost the referendum though). The basques, however, are truly violent in their expression.
Great Britain will most assuredly start to fragment after #Brexit. With the borders of GB lift again against europe, that will mean borders will lift between Northern Ireland and Ireland. And that may well mean the restart of bloody violence at those territories.
-
maslo's only contribution to this discussion so far has been to try and narrow the criteria for what constitutes either a mass shooting or a terrorist attack enough to find a single statistical cross-section where Muslims are over-represented so he can blame them (or immigrants) for everything.
Then again, that's maslo in just about every thread.
Eh, it's not surprising - a one trick pony to be accurate.
-
BTW, in that data MP_Ryan posted, I was, quite surprised to see just how many attacks (most of them, in fact) are committed by separatists. Nearly all of them in Spain or France, which suggests that Basque nationalists are to blame. Why aren't those getting more publicity? It seems that two big, European countries have a major domestic terrorism problem. I didn't even know what ETA stood for (on indeed, remember that there is such a thing) until I checked the wiki.
The Basques are doing their thing in a relatively undeveloped and underpopulated area, have been for a long time, very few people are getting hurt, and it's a very regional issue. In terms of raw numbers they're about the size of, but considerably less effective than, an LA street gang in the early '90s, so it's hard to get really worked up about comparatively.
With the borders of GB lift again against europe, that will mean borders will lift between Northern Ireland and Ireland. And that may well mean the restart of bloody violence at those territories.
It's never entirely stopped there either. The days of the highly organized, best-in-the-world IRA are over, and the Protestant terror groups are legitimately all-the-way gone, but there are still a couple groups that claim to be the IRA, attempt things on a regular basis, and occasionally manage kill someone.
The Bad Old Days are probably never coming back, though. The Ulster police aren't the farce that made the provocations for the Troubles possible, and the Irish national police are distinctly unsympathetic to the current incarnations of the IRA since they've been caught doing things like human trafficking and drug dealing to try and stay funded. (The old PIRA was notoriously anti-drugs, to the point they were known to kill drug dealers simply as a perceived public service.)
-
European nativism goes to very short scales. Many spanish provinces desire indepedence from Madrid. They want this for centuries. Portugal had the fortune of getting its indepedence at the same time Castella (Madrid) was struggling to maintain Barcelona within its borders, thus allowing Lisbon to secede. Barcelona still wants the independence today (they have lost the referendum though). The basques, however, are truly violent in their expression.
You forget the various terrorist political groups in the 70s and 80s in Italy and other places.
Here in Italy both communists and fascists loved to place bombs, kidnapping politicians, gunning down people on their blacklists and disrupting concerts.
-
The Basques are doing their thing in a relatively undeveloped and underpopulated area, have been for a long time, very few people are getting hurt, and it's a very regional issue. In terms of raw numbers they're about the size of, but considerably less effective than, an LA street gang in the early '90s, so it's hard to get really worked up about comparatively.
They sure do seem to skew the terrorism statistics, though. According to that article posted a while ago, "separatist" attacks make up the overwhelming majority of European terrorism. In that case, maslo might be justified in narrowing down the criteria, though I would've done it differently. Islamic terrorism is pretty much unique in that unlike other cases, it's an international matter. Every other case terrorism I've seen was a strictly domestic case, as separatists tend to attack the country they want to separate from (saner ones also tend to avoid killing random people, mostly focusing on government officials and police), while political (left and right wing) terrorists tend to restrict their attacks to their detractors (or people they see as such) in their home country.
In general, reading about the Basque conflict made me realize that "terrorism" might be too broad of a term. It seems that a lot of "acts of terror" committed by groups like ETA and PIRA were things like planting bombs and then (anonymously, of course) letting people know about it, leading to evacuations and general disruption while not actually killing anyone (can even be done without a bomb when the mood is tense enough), which was a cheap way of keeping the government on their toes without pissing ordinary people off too much. Islamists never bothered with that, to my knowledge. They always go for the kill.
-
In general, reading about the Basque conflict made me realize that "terrorism" might be too broad of a term. It seems that a lot of "acts of terror" committed by groups like ETA and PIRA were things like planting bombs and then (anonymously, of course) letting people know about it, leading to evacuations and general disruption while not actually killing anyone (can even be done without a bomb when the mood is tense enough), which was a cheap way of keeping the government on their toes without pissing ordinary people off too much. Islamists never bothered with that, to my knowledge. They always go for the kill.
The Basques and the PIRA had to live where they worked. People knew who they were. They had to strike a balance; if they scored too many own-goals than they risked losing public support, or at least tolerance, and that would make their lives significantly shorter and more violent. They avoided it for a reason.
Islamic terrorists have traditionally targeted areas far from where they're from, either over the border in Israel or around the world in Europe and America. It was never something they had to worry about before the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda learned the lesson in Iraq during the 2008-2009 period the hard way, and it hurt them a fair bit. One of the major causes of the split between them and the Islamic State was a result of trying to incorporate the lesson that they couldn't kill local Muslims indiscriminately and expect to continue operating among them.
-
Islamic terrorists have traditionally targeted areas far from where they're from, either over the border in Israel or around the world in Europe and America.
Really? I thought we got off very, very lightly compared to what is constantly going on in Baghdad (for instance).
-
Really? I thought we got off very, very lightly compared to what is constantly going on in Baghdad (for instance).
Before or after Saddam? Read the post carefully.
-
http://archive.is/mYNOD
Take it away Salon.
Is that toxic masculinity on the horizon? Take it away The Atlantic...
http://archive.is/ERJSy
To sum up my point with these 'clickbait' articles is that the trend 'journalistically' is to start blaming, assigning other things, than simply say '****, we should mourn."
http://archive.is/QCZvb
What's that Digital Trends? Normalizing violence, oh my?!
The clickbait media is something that never realizes that people need a period of grief and rationalization, and the knee jerk reaction is to blame the usual suspects - but to be more specific - 'Clickbait' sites like the Verge and Daily Beast for example, specifically tip-toe around the fact about saying 'violence bad!" and try to push somehow self-censoring or blame the 'culture of violent video games.'
We shouldn't hesitate to call out absurdity like this - and frankly, if Gawker is a sign to anything, bad behavior on the media should be called out. Specifically, the President of E3 labelled the entire event as a tragedy, and had to emphasize that the link to violence was all but null. But it won't stop people from trying to fish for 'alternatives.'
In fact, E3 did make amends and talked a bit about the shooting - the industry did frankly respond.
But rather than deal with actual longitudinal studies, expect Regressive Pundits to engage in the "potential harm' of normalizing violence, displays of violence and usual gag of ****. It's similar to the tactic they used to whip up a frenzy about Sexism - and that's a genuine moral panic that has caused harm, branching from 'sexist' depictions to any manner of material Regressive pundits love to jump on from skin color, positioning, and well, minor things that really don't need to nitpicked, just recently Bandai Namco made it clear it would not release Summer Lesson over it the ruckus: http://archive.is/WDHXx
Hell, we've even reached the point ads are being taken down in the London Tube for being 'body-shaming,' if that wasn't a moment to scratch your head and go, really kids?
-
And in spite of the above, people on the left keep pretending that the "regressive left" is an alt-right meme and/or just plain doesn't exist. Now that they're seeing their politics poisoned by these vile cretins, they are powerless to stop it because they've bought into the fear of being smeared with the same labels that the above outlets smear gamers (and now gaming in general) with.
-
"regressive left" is an alt-right meme though, despite it also being real (unlike its predecessor, "cultural marxism").
-
"regressive left" is an alt-right meme though, despite it also being real (unlike its predecessor, "cultural marxism").
Alt-Right? More like Centrists from liberal and conservatives circles.
A meme it ain't/
Regressive was being tossed around well by liberal and conservative circles in 2014 and 2015. Many liberal pundits I listened to commented on the regressive policies that came to define it - and the name stuck as both liberals and conservatives could agree the extreme left was anything but progressive.
-
Alt-Right? More like Centrists from liberal and conservatives circles.
A meme it ain't/
Have you been on the internet recently, because it sure is. Hell, the first time I heard the phrase was when some of the usual alt-right idiots started to use it whenever someone liberal dared to speak out against them.
Regressive was being tossed around well by liberal and conservative circles in 2014 and 2015. Many liberal pundits I listened to commented on the regressive policies that came to define it - and the name stuck as both liberals and conservatives could agree the extreme left was anything but progressive.
It's older than that, actually. Was first coined in 2012 with regards to the left's tendencies to excuse muslim fundamentalism over constructive criticism of the same; Funnily enough, the people who were seen as defining it's "legitimate" uses were holding some pretty regressive views themselves (Ayaan Hirsi Ali's call to close all mosques, for example).
The thing is, just like "SJW", the term has lost its meaning. It's now yet another sledgehammer to silence people with, and as such, no longer actually useful as a tool of criticism. Here, look at this (https://twitter.com/hashtag/RegressiveLeft?src=hash). That's an overview of the #regressiveleft hashtag on Twitter. Take a look through it, and see how many instances of legitimate uses of the term (which, I will remind you, is about people compromising parts of the progressive vision because they conflict with other parts of it) you can find.
Then count how many instances of pathetic internet rage in the form of "Look, <person|website> said something stupid! The Left is ruined/destroying itself/a cancer" or similar messages you can find. Or, for an easier method, how often alt-right luminaries such as Sargon of Akkad or Milo Yiannopoulos are mentioned.
-
Sargon is a left-leaning liberal, though he's more Liberterian by 'Murican standards, now Milo? He's definitely a conservative. Sure he swings gay, but he's a conservative none-the-less.
Because by your standard of 'alt-right' old school liberals are now suddenly conservatives - and that would technically include very liberal minded people like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. Last time I checked they were leftists and very critical opponents of Islam and certainly don't count as "alt-right' all the sudden.
Because one thing is apparent is liberalism is fragmented, and more crazy elements hit critical mass in 2014. And while I'll concede your right on the origins of 'regressive' being way older than my claims, there's certainly nothing progressive about this new crop of extreme leftists who seek to segregate people based on color, demand double standards, and safe spaces all the while claiming to 'represent' victims. Hell, the key difference between a progressive and regressive is victimhood - and that has more to do with the wonderful world of Andrea Dworkins than it does with actual progressivism.
-
Sargon is a left-leaning liberal, though he's more Liberterian by 'Murican standards, now Milo? He's definitely a conservative. Sure he swings gay, but he's a conservative none-the-less.
Yeah, no, everything I've seen from Sargon paints him as someone who is very much a "regressive leftist", if he is indeed on the left (again, original definition: Someone who is willing to adopt non-progressive ideas in support of progressive goals).
And fact of the matter is that most of his fan community are indeed alt-right morons.
Because by your standard of 'alt-right' old school liberals are now suddenly conservatives - and that would technically include very liberal minded people like Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. Last time I checked they were leftists and very critical opponents of Islam and certainly don't count as "alt-right' all the sudden.
And dawkins also has some very strange non-progressive views that put him firmly in the "regressive left" camp in my book.
Because one thing is apparent is liberalism is fragmented, and more crazy elements hit critical mass in 2014. And while I'll concede your right on the origins of 'regressive' being way older than my claims, there's certainly nothing progressive about this new crop of extreme leftists who seek to segregate people based on color, demand double standards, and safe spaces all the while claiming to 'represent' victims. Hell, the key difference between a progressive and regressive is victimhood - and that has more to do with the wonderful world of Andrea Dworkins than it does with actual progressivism.
And the question I continually ask myself is how much of this perceived shift is actually real, and how much of it only exists because of the dysfunctional way in which the Internet shapes our opinions.
Like, the whole beginning of this thread is an example of that. For you or Luis, modern games media is something irreparably damaged by toxic influences from people claiming to be progressive. For me, as someone who is only interested in this whole culture war spectacle because it occasionally produces hilariousness when people like Dawkins, Sargon or Milo overreact to something they saw on Twitter, and who is thus not really interested in delving into all the various dramas that happened in the atheist or social justice or alt-right communities, modern games media is doing mostly fine.
-
Then count how many instances of pathetic internet rage in the form of "Look, <person|website> said something stupid! The Left is ruined/destroying itself/a cancer" or similar messages you can find. Or, for an easier method, how often alt-right luminaries such as Sargon of Akkad or Milo Yiannopoulos are mentioned.
I don't really care if alt-right idiots are twisting valid criticisms of the mainstream left for their own crazy agendas; those criticisms are still valid and I am sick of seeing them being cheaply marginalised.
-
I don't really care if alt-right idiots are twisting valid criticisms of the mainstream left for their own crazy agendas; those criticisms are still valid and I am sick of seeing them being cheaply marginalised.
True, this is something I am arguably guilty of here.
-
Well, I'm not a Sargon fan, but many of his criticisms are spot on with the self-serving loathing the regressives have flooded into the mainstream.
But my primary criticism with your arguments is your subjectively labeling them as "alt-right" when quite well they've established themselves in their own words as "liberal" or conservative.
Milo is easy to identify - he hates liberals, shotguns feminism, and rolls over them with a fabulous steamroller causing prissy kids to **** themselves on college campuses. Sargon has repeatedly established his viewpoints in more classical liberalism, and if that doesn't have "LIBERAL BASTARD" written into it, then nothing does.
-
Milo is easy to identify - he hates liberals, shotguns feminism, and rolls over them with a fabulous steamroller causing prissy kids to **** themselves on college campuses.
So he's alt-right? These are all classic indicators that someone has passed beyond traditional conservatism based in respect for existing precedent and approaching the new with healthy skepticism.
Open hostility towards progressive ideas is not a value Edmund Burke particularly endorsed. He was for the American Revolution, after all.
-
I geuss this is in part due to me only sampling a select few sources of games journalism, them being Rock Paper Shotgun and Cool Ghosts. And both of them follow a doctrine known as New Games Journalism (http://gillen.cream.org/wordpress_html/assorted-essays/the-new-games-journalism/), and I have been a fan of that doctrine ever since I read this. (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/19/wot-i-think-about-that-level/)
If you're short on time I defintely recommend you read the latter link as opposed to the former.
On the whole, however, I don't really see anything noteworthy with the articles that Cluckler archived above (why do they have to be archives? They're very recent articles), as they and some of the other articles about E3's celebration of violence aren't really anything different from the If only you could talk to the monsters (https://web.archive.org/web/20120104155012/http:/www.next-gen.biz/reviews/doom-review) which was a thing way back in 1994. When I see others posting in this thread with a certain level of... vitriol I get the sense that they feel that these articles betray games somehow - which to me requires to see 'games culture' as a thing that is a lot more fragile then it actually is seeing as games journalists have written stuff like this for the past 22 years.
-
On the whole, however, I don't really see anything noteworthy with the articles that Cluckler archived above (why do they have to be archives? They're very recent articles), as they and some of the other articles about E3's celebration of violence aren't really anything different from the If only you could talk to the monsters (https://web.archive.org/web/20120104155012/http:/www.next-gen.biz/reviews/doom-review) which was a thing way back in 1994. When I see others posting in this thread with a certain level of... vitriol I get the sense that they feel that these articles betray games somehow - which to me requires to see 'games culture' as a thing that is a lot more fragile then it actually is seeing as games journalists have written stuff like this for the past 22 years.
The whole archiving thing is just a passive-aggressive thing to make sure that the evil bad sites do not see ad revenue or google relevance score from getting linked (Also a way to preserve articles in their original, most offensive forms before the evil bad wrong authors post any updates or corrections that might make the original outrage look stupid).
-
And dawkins also has some very strange non-progressive views that put him firmly in the "regressive left" camp in my book.
Such as?
So he's alt-right?
Yes (http://"http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/").
The whole archiving thing is just a passive-aggressive thing to make sure that the evil bad sites do not see ad revenue or google relevance score from getting linked (Also a way to preserve articles in their original, most offensive forms before the evil bad wrong authors post any updates or corrections that might make the original outrage look stupid).
Both reasons you point out are actually good reasons and not stupid ones. If you believe certain articles are being written for outrage clickbait, then being outraged by it and linking to it will be self-defeating. At least with a link to its archive will not reinforce that kind of incentive. Also, it's good to link to something that is synchronous with what you are saying and not something that isn't there anymore, leaving the reader confused. Especially since not everyone will be generous enough to inform you of the edited changes.
-
Also, it's good to link to something that is synchronous with what you are saying and not something that isn't there anymore, leaving the reader confused. Especially since not everyone will be generous enough to inform you of the edited changes.
The problem is that by doing thus you are being extremely ungenerous by not informing me of any edited changes. For all we know the offending bits may have been amended with important information that further clarifies any statement made or an article may have changed a bit according to feedback. This gets especially problematic when people keep passing around an archive or copy or whatnot of something that may have since been clarified as being inaccurate.
As usual, I see a lot of references to 'clickbait', and allow me to quote RPS here (okay, you don't have to allow me 'cuz I am going to do it whether you want it or not!), but they had an article up when this fad first started (https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/08/videogames-are-for-everybody/):
But you ARE operating a business which relies on internet traffic. You must be posting clickbait, because that’s just how it works.
This seems like a misunderstanding, or perhaps a miscommunication. We’ve seen articles (not of this site) along the lines of “ten hottest girls in games” called clickbait, and we’ve seen serious discussions of sexism being called clickbait. There’s a contradiction there that seems to reveal a deeper confusion.
One theory behind “clickbait” goes: a site writes an article purely to cynically generate hype, being deliberately controversial or contentious such that it will infuriate people into clicking, and thus boost their hits and income. But there are some flaws with this logic.
First of all, no one has ever described an article they agreed with as “clickbait”. It’s a pejorative term used to dismiss something people are against having been written. We’ve never been accused of “clickbait” for posting news about GTA or Minecraft, for instance, which is far more likely to bait us clicks than an exploration of misogyny in 1980s arcade machines. The term is instead used to undermine an argument someone doesn’t want to see being made.
Secondly, most high revenue advertising on most gaming sites simply doesn’t work in a way that would make sense of the argument. It’s priced in advance, based on fixed fees for the site, which in turn are priced based on the overall popularity of a website. If one article has a huge spike in readers, it doesn’t earn the site any more money. For it to make a difference, a site needs to have a consistent rise in reader numbers over a long time. i.e. A site would need to “clickbait” all the time for this to be effective. And that’s where you get your Buzzfeeds and the like. RPS might post a couple of times a month on controversial issues. It doesn’t add up.
Thirdly, even if the first two points weren’t true, and they are, the idea of writing a gaming site is to get people to read it. We’re not a public service broadcaster, duty-bound by the Queen to provide “objective” gaming news to the masses. We’re a business, and our business is eyes on pages. We, at RPS, are *terrible* at this, because we dedicate a vast proportion of our site to providing detailed coverage of niche indie games that will only be of interest to at most a few thousand people. RPS is a colossally stupid failure at clickbait, sacrificing such lucrative “You Won’t Believe What Call Of Duty Did To This Child’s Face!” headlines for “Here Is A Game About A Happy Lion, Gosh It’s Obscure”. To accuse us of a systematic cynical click harvesting because we very, very occasionally write from our hearts about a subject that matters to us a great deal is plainly wrong. It is, as we said, instead an effort to undermine an argument the accuser wishes could be silenced.
-
Boy am I being "ungenerous". Nevermind that "edited changes" are mostly seen only by one or two percent of actual readers of the article who have since moved on to the next IT'S SEXIST! outrage article charge du jour, I don't even regard being "ungenerous" as a crime or an offense. As far as I am concerned, people who think shirts are literally two times more important than comet landing probes should be treated as ungenerously as possible.
Regarding clickbait, please, don't tell me that journos wouldn't agree with the charges leveled at themselves. Please, oh no, what a surprise. Oh my god, I'm amazed. (BTW, that shirt article? It got shared 150 thousand times on facebook. That's not ****ing clickbait? What's ****ing clickbait then?)
-
Both reasons you point out are actually good reasons and not stupid ones. If you believe certain articles are being written for outrage clickbait, then being outraged by it and linking to it will be self-defeating.
It doesn't seem to be working as intended though. The evil sites most commonly being given the archive treatment are still showing constant or increasing traffic.
At least with a link to its archive will not reinforce that kind of incentive. Also, it's good to link to something that is synchronous with what you are saying and not something that isn't there anymore, leaving the reader confused. Especially since not everyone will be generous enough to inform you of the edited changes.
True, but at the same time, the people using archived links will never actually see any corrections or updates anyway because they're (presumably) not checking the original source. All they see is the static, unchanging archive. This, IMHO, fundamentally undermines any discussion about journalistic integrity, because the only things that will make it out of the archive bubble are instances where the people doing the archiving feel vindicated by a later update in some way. Everything else gets lost, and that's just no way to have a healthy debate on these topics.
(BTW, that shirt article? It got shared 150 thousand times on facebook. That's not ****ing clickbait? What's ****ing clickbait then?)
That's the question, isn't it. Is posting something controversial clickbait? Is posting something mainstream clickbait? Is appealing to the lowest common denominator clickbait? If something gets popular, was it clickbait?
What exactly does the term mean to you?
-
Is Justin Bieber clickbait?
... Or is clickbait just the new 'too mainstream' but for angry people? :p And what have... why are we talking about shirts now?
-
Both reasons you point out are actually good reasons and not stupid ones. If you believe certain articles are being written for outrage clickbait, then being outraged by it and linking to it will be self-defeating.
It doesn't seem to be working as intended though. The evil sites most commonly being given the archive treatment are still showing constant or increasing traffic.
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.
True, but at the same time, the people using archived links will never actually see any corrections or updates anyway because they're (presumably) not checking the original source. All they see is the static, unchanging archive. This, IMHO, fundamentally undermines any discussion about journalistic integrity, because the only things that will make it out of the archive bubble are instances where the people doing the archiving feel vindicated by a later update in some way. Everything else gets lost, and that's just no way to have a healthy debate on these topics.
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.
That's the question, isn't it. Is posting something controversial clickbait? Is posting something mainstream clickbait? Is appealing to the lowest common denominator clickbait? If something gets popular, was it clickbait?
What exactly does the term mean to you?
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.
Is Justin Bieber clickbait?
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.
... Or is clickbait just the new 'too mainstream' but for angry people? :p And what have... why are we talking about shirts now?
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.
-
I'm still waiting to know where is Dawkins a "Regressive".
-
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... (http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/violent-games-orlando/)
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 (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29322578).
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.
-
"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".
-
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?
-
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!
-
"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?
-
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'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? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_movement_in_Iran#Twenty-first_century_activism)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=53623.msg1821334#msg1821334) 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.
-
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. :ick:
-
I thought Iran was already undergoing a bit of a feminist revolution? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_movement_in_Iran#Twenty-first_century_activism)
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 (http://quran.com/2/228) verses (http://quran.com/4/15) like (http://quran.com/4/176) these, (http://quran.com/24/31) and you simultaneously believe that the Quran is the indisputable word of God. I'll say it again: Dawkins is right on the money.
-
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.
-
In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has (http://quran.com/2/228) verses (http://quran.com/4/15) like (http://quran.com/4/176) these, (http://quran.com/24/31) 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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
I thought Iran was already undergoing a bit of a feminist revolution? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_movement_in_Iran#Twenty-first_century_activism)
Despite Islam, not thanks to it. Also, too little, too late.
It is a positive development, but does not invalidate anything Dawkins says.
-
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.
-
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.
You can't even read my posts correctly! Why should I then trust your judgement on my ability to 'read reality correctly'?
-
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.
Any backslash against wonder woman movie has absolutely nothing to do with people being afraid of female superheros, thats just illogical BS.
One issue is that Wonder Woman was traditionally quite sexualised, half-nude character. Yet this may change in the new movie.
This may have to do with possible SJW pandering, such as covering the hero up to avoid so called "sexualization", as it is deemed a politically incorrect thing. Essentially, it is pandering to regressive left (and ironically, also conservative right), with one of the those regressions being fear of sexual themes, instead of progressive approach characterised by sex positivity.
I wont judge the movie until it is out, but I understand the concerns of the fans. The concerns are about politicising the movie, not any fear of heroines, lol.
-
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.
???
I remember quite a lot of geeks throwing bull**** at it in forums, expecially those of the "I don't read anything that isn't drawn Jim Lee style" crowd, hell I remember reading a rant that analyzed why Jessica Jones was supposed to be SJW anti-man propaganda and another lamenting that there were too many women.
And let's not dive into the fact that I had to explain more than once why an award winning comic book series that coincidentally happened to be mostly street level was a good candidate for a TV show in the first place, perhaps it was a vocal minority but a degree of hostility was there and fortunately it has been drowned in the success the series had with the wider Netflix audience and critics but once in a while you get people yelling SJW at it.
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.
Any backslash against wonder woman movie has absolutely nothing to do with people being afraid of female superheros, thats just illogical BS.
One issue is that Wonder Woman was traditionally quite sexualised, half-nude character. Yet this may change in the new movie.
This may have to do with possible SJW pandering, such as covering the hero up to avoid so called "sexualization", as it is deemed a politically incorrect thing. Essentially, it is pandering to regressive left, with one of the those regressions being fear of sexual themes, instead of progressive approach characterised by sex positivity.
I wont judge the movie until it is out, but I understand the concerns of the fans.
A lot of these detractors I met mentioned the "feminist agenda" or other similar catchphrases, I don't know where the rest of your post comes from really as the costume is more or less spot on relative to the comics just more armor-like instead of painted on with metal bits.
Also, sexualization is mostly depending on the artist, many tended to make her costume much skimpier than it really is.
-
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.
???
I remember quite a lot of geeks throwing bull**** at it in forums, expecially those of the "I don't read anything that isn't drawn Jim Lee style" crowd, hell I remember reading a rant that analyzed why Jessica Jones was supposed to be SJW anti-man propaganda and another lamenting that there were too many women.
Is this representative in any way and fashion? *One* rant and *another* rant?
****'s sake.
And let's not dive into the fact that I had to explain more than once why an award winning comic book series that coincidentally happened to be mostly street level was a good candidate for a TV show in the first place, perhaps it was a vocal minority but a degree of hostility was there and fortunately it has been drowned in the success the series had with the wider Netflix audience and critics but once in a while you get people yelling SJW at it.
Exceptions are exceptions. Nuff said.
A lot of these detractors I met mentioned the "feminist agenda"
Regarding feminism. Feminism =/= Women. Mysoginy =/= Anti-feminism. Although you obviously won't ever meet feminist mysoginists, and you'll obviously find mysoginist anti-feminists, the two are *not the same*.
-
Well, that snowballed.
I'm going to say I purposely avoided mentioning any substantial statements on Islam... because I've nothing to say about it.
I already figured out it was a dead issue, mentioning it causes people to go nuts. Frankly, any religion can and must criticized in and out, but I'm not going to voice any opinions what so ever because it's a hot button issue. But I think is has less to due with Islam and more with the fact that the shooter is in the same boat with people who target abortion clinics.
But let me get one point across, it's easy to say ITS NOT HAPPENING! about Journalists pushing agendas and commentaries, but any civil sense of restraint? Well no, my point was to show that only a small, idiotic segment of the media focuses on stirring up ****... but as they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. And the problem is that people still listen and proliferate that stuff, on the other hand, numerous click-baity articles are jumping the shark, including racism, feminism, and god knows what. And frankly I link archives in the event that an article is written, but edited for being too inflammatory. Currently the "violent video games culture" maybe very well blurred by other outlets trying to politicize the issue with aforementioned topics.
It's human to be opportunistic. And frankly, the narrative may swing one way or another as the journos try and decided how to spin Orlando.
However, I will make one firm comment about 'games journalism' it's changed - traditional websites and magazines are indeed over, as a lot of the thunder has passed on to streaming, smaller, more crafted sites catering to audience demands. Gaming is more and will be more than diverse as ever, but as usual, expect moral nannies to try and dictate it. By no means is EA and Battlefield the face of gaming, but hey, I think discussing how much games have changed is another thread. We shouldn't look just at AAA, but the wide berth of mid and low tier markets. Because frankly, Indie is over. It evolved into something else.
-
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.
???
I remember quite a lot of geeks throwing bull**** at it in forums, expecially those of the "I don't read anything that isn't drawn Jim Lee style" crowd, hell I remember reading a rant that analyzed why Jessica Jones was supposed to be SJW anti-man propaganda and another lamenting that there were too many women.
Is this representative in any way and fashion? *One* rant and *another* rant?
****'s sake.
And let's not dive into the fact that I had to explain more than once why an award winning comic book series that coincidentally happened to be mostly street level was a good candidate for a TV show in the first place, perhaps it was a vocal minority but a degree of hostility was there and fortunately it has been drowned in the success the series had with the wider Netflix audience and critics but once in a while you get people yelling SJW at it.
Exceptions are exceptions. Nuff said.
A lot of these detractors I met mentioned the "feminist agenda"
Regarding feminism. Feminism =/= Women. Mysoginy =/= Anti-feminism. Although you obviously won't ever meet feminist mysoginists, and you'll obviously find mysoginist anti-feminists, the two are *not the same*.
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
-
I keep reading on this thread on how amazingly feministic Islam truly is. The things I learn every single second. Incredible.
For real. This thread's a textbook example of what Dawkins is talking about:
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? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_movement_in_Iran#Twenty-first_century_activism)
In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has (http://quran.com/2/228) verses (http://quran.com/4/15) like (http://quran.com/4/176) these, (http://quran.com/24/31) 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.
Islam gets a free pass. For what reason, I don't know.
-
That is not "Giving islam a free pass". I simply noted that a force within what is traditionally considered an islamic country is not giving Islam a free pass.
-
I thought you were trying to refute Dawkins' claim that Islam needs a feminist revolution. My apologies!
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Yeah, being annoyed by the constant feminist propaganda is totes like the Mafia. And I'm the one blustering here.
****s sake, you're absolutely way off base here. So some people are tired of the constant guilt tripping shenanigans from feminists trying to sell utter garbage down our throats because it's "progressive" (see: Ghostbusters), and how dare you criticize any of it, you must be a bigot, perhaps, according to dr Bullock, just like the Mafia itself. So what? Let them vent. Try tell them that actually, Jessica Jones is a good show for its merits, regardless of the gender of the protag, that actually wonder woman may well be a good movie, regardless of any agendas being pushed by third parties, etc.
Haven't you noticed how, apart from a really tiny small portion of the manosphere (and why would you even care about these people is beyond me), everyone loved Mad Max?
But how can this be, if the geekdom is so ****ing misoginistic? How is it possible? Inquiring minds want to know how the **** do certain people square circles.
Of course, if your method is to cast them as bigots, then you'll easily find yourself confronting people who will not be welcoming your views at all. Isn't that surprising? I mean, hell!
I thought you were trying to refute Dawkins' claim that Islam needs a feminist revolution. My apologies!
Ouch. I felt that burn way over here in Portugal.
-
In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has (http://quran.com/2/228) verses (http://quran.com/4/15) like (http://quran.com/4/176) these, (http://quran.com/24/31) 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 probably why he put in all those anti-feminist verses, don't you think? :)
In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.
-
In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.
The difference is that the Quran is supposed to be the indisputable word of God.
You can still find Christians who believe the world was literally created in seven days, but they're in the minority.
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Yeah, being annoyed by the constant feminist propaganda is totes like the Mafia. And I'm the one blustering here.
****s sake, you're absolutely way off base here. So some people are tired of the constant guilt tripping shenanigans from feminists trying to sell utter garbage down our throats because it's "progressive" (see: Ghostbusters), and how dare you criticize any of it, you must be a bigot, perhaps, according to dr Bullock, just like the Mafia itself. So what? Let them vent. Try tell them that actually, Jessica Jones is a good show for its merits, regardless of the gender of the protag, that actually wonder woman may well be a good movie, regardless of any agendas being pushed by third parties, etc.
Haven't you noticed how, apart from a really tiny small portion of the manosphere (and why would you even care about these people is beyond me), everyone loved Mad Max?
But how can this be, if the geekdom is so ****ing misoginistic? How is it possible? Inquiring minds want to know how the **** do certain people square circles.
Of course, if your method is to cast them as bigots, then you'll easily find yourself confronting people who will not be welcoming your views at all. Isn't that surprising? I mean, hell!
Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.
Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?
WHY?
And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?
Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?
Because to me, not being an american, IT IS.
In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.
The difference is that the Quran is supposed to be the indisputable word of God.
You can still find Christians who believe the world was literally created in seven days, but they're in the minority.
It's the same for the christians really, the difference is that for a very long time people were actively discouraged from reading it so the average christian is much less of a sacred text fetishist than a muslim outside of some protestant communities.
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Yeah, being annoyed by the constant feminist propaganda is totes like the Mafia. And I'm the one blustering here.
****s sake, you're absolutely way off base here. So some people are tired of the constant guilt tripping shenanigans from feminists trying to sell utter garbage down our throats because it's "progressive" (see: Ghostbusters), and how dare you criticize any of it, you must be a bigot, perhaps, according to dr Bullock, just like the Mafia itself. So what? Let them vent. Try tell them that actually, Jessica Jones is a good show for its merits, regardless of the gender of the protag, that actually wonder woman may well be a good movie, regardless of any agendas being pushed by third parties, etc.
Haven't you noticed how, apart from a really tiny small portion of the manosphere (and why would you even care about these people is beyond me), everyone loved Mad Max?
But how can this be, if the geekdom is so ****ing misoginistic? How is it possible? Inquiring minds want to know how the **** do certain people square circles.
Of course, if your method is to cast them as bigots, then you'll easily find yourself confronting people who will not be welcoming your views at all. Isn't that surprising? I mean, hell!
Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.
Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?
WHY?
And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?
Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?
Because to me, not being an american, IT IS.
You are clearly a xenophobe for hating the US. How can you hate any Transformers movie without hating the US? I mean, it has Americans in it, so if you hate the movie it must be because there are Americans in it.
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Social movements have goals, and followers of those social movements will do what they can to achieve those goals. It has nothing to do with persecution complexes.
Unless you want to talk about turning on the TV and hearing pundits rant about how Orlando was not at all the fault of ISIS or Islamic teachings on homosexuality, but rather the fault of evil Trump followers provoking Muslims, and the evil NRA for not giving up their guns, and the evil white men for being members of both, in which case I think the persecution complex is kind of warranted.
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Social movements have goals, and followers of those social movements will do what they can to achieve those goals. It has nothing to do with persecution complexes.
Unless you want to talk about turning on the TV and hearing pundits rant about how Orlando was not at all the fault of ISIS or Islamic teachings on homosexuality, but rather the fault of evil Trump followers provoking Muslims, and the evil NRA for not giving up their guns, and the evil white men for being members of both, in which case I think the persecution complex is kind of warranted.
"I don't have a persecution complex, everyone's just trying to persecute me!"
-
Mentioning the "feminist/gay/whatever agenda" is a typical persecution complex, even if they aren't the number of people like that and the fact they are often tolerated or even catered to it's still alarming, it's like the Mafia where I live, it's a minority but it thrives on common citizens tolerating it.
Social movements have goals, and followers of those social movements will do what they can to achieve those goals. It has nothing to do with persecution complexes.
Unless you want to talk about turning on the TV and hearing pundits rant about how Orlando was not at all the fault of ISIS or Islamic teachings on homosexuality, but rather the fault of evil Trump followers provoking Muslims, and the evil NRA for not giving up their guns, and the evil white men for being members of both, in which case I think the persecution complex is kind of warranted.
"I don't have a persecution complex, everyone's just trying to persecute me!"
So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?
-
In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.
The difference is that the Quran is supposed to be the indisputable word of God.
You can still find Christians who believe the world was literally created in seven days, but they're in the minority.
Same with the Bible, really. The difference is mostly in how long they've been around (so there are more alternate interpretations of Bible than of Qu'ran) and how well they're known to the general population. And despite creationists being in minority, they routinely manage to get their ideas through to the US school system, so it's not like it's some fringe belief. Especially among orthodox Protestants, you can see, at times, acts of bigotry and backwardness just like those of Wahhabi Muslims (though I've seen things like that happen even with particularly bigoted Catholics. The Pope would've probably told the to knock it off if he heard of this...).
Both Islam and Christianity have a bit of flexibility due to the fact that "indisputable word of God" doesn't have to be literally true, only its "real meaning" has to be (of course, you then have Wahhabists and WBC respectively, who will tell you that yes, the holy books in question are literally true. Such beliefs are always rather harmful). You may notice that the most progressive Muslim countries are those with a Shia majority (Iran and Turkey), which isn't as big on literal interpretations as Sunnism.
-
Islam gets a free pass. For what reason, I don't know.
You literally don't know what a free pass is.
You are discussing how the entire religion is utterly and will forever be inimical to women like that's even a statement that makes sense. It doesn't. It never will. It never can. Religions are big tents embracing a huge amount of nuance between various positions based on eschatology, sect, and region. You are actively rejecting a very basic understanding of reality by preaching absolutes.
The fact you would even say this indicates you are not equipped to discuss a matter in anything more than black and white. Luis is busy flaming out all over the place as nobody takes him seriously, which is sad since he's capable of much better. Your behavior is merely contemptible.
The difference is that the Quran is supposed to be the indisputable word of God.
Biblical Inerrancy is a much more popular view than you think it is. Get educated.
-
So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
-
Both Islam and Christianity have a bit of flexibility due to the fact that "indisputable word of God" doesn't have to be literally true, only its "real meaning" has to be (of course, you then have Wahhabists and WBC respectively, who will tell you that yes, the holy books in question are literally true. Such beliefs are always rather harmful). You may notice that the most progressive Muslim countries are those with a Shia majority (Iran and Turkey), which isn't as big on literal interpretations as Sunnism.
From Oxford Islamic Studies: (http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t243/e275)
Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.
Seems pretty definite.
You are discussing how the entire religion is utterly and will forever be inimical to women like that's even a statement that makes sense. It doesn't. It never will. It never can. Religions are big tents embracing a huge amount of nuance between various positions based on eschatology, sect, and region. You are actively rejecting a very basic understanding of reality by preaching absolutes.
The fact you would even say this indicates you are not equipped to discuss a matter in anything more than black and white. Luis is busy flaming out all over the place as nobody takes him seriously, which is sad since he's capable of much better. Your behavior is merely contemptible.
Linked below is the indisputable, infallible, literal word of God. Make of it what you will.
In all fairness, it's hard to start a feminist revolution if the Quran has (http://quran.com/2/228) verses (http://quran.com/4/15) like (http://quran.com/4/176) these, (http://quran.com/24/31) and you simultaneously believe that the Quran is the indisputable word of God. I'll say it again: Dawkins is right on the money.
-
You're seriously overvaluing the control religion has over morality; in general the influence runs the other way.
-
You're seriously overvaluing the control religion has over morality; in general the influence runs the other way.
No, I agree with you. (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/gallery/most-humans-are-more-moral-scriptures-they-hold-sacred) This is why the vast majority of Muslims are good people.
-
Hmm, Luis's antics in this thread remind me quite a bit of the Fans are the worst (https://mercurialblonde.wordpress.com/2016/06/05/fans-are-the-worst-an-article/) article I read recently.
-
Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.
Seems pretty definite.
Pretty much the same could be said about the Bible. Also, it says "Muslims", which is an awfully broad generalization (Islam is divided much like Christianity and "Muslims" aren't as single minded as Oxford makes them out to be). While it might be true in the broadest sense, I think that the "literal word of God" here might mean that he literally said those things (which I'm pretty sure most Muslims would agree on), not that he literally meant every single word. The latter is the way Athari school (a central element of Wahhabism) approaches Qur'an. From Wikipedia:
Atharis engage in an amodal reading of the Qur'an, as opposed to one engaged in Ta'wil (metaphorical interpretation). They do not attempt to conceptualize the meanings of the Qur'an rationally, and believe that the "real" meanings should be consigned to God alone (tafwid).
It's not the only way of reading Qur'an, though. Much like with the Bible, metaphorical interpretation (Ta'wil) is an important part of Qur'an studies in other schools. Of course, you will find people who would like to interpret the Bible literally, too. Worst of all, they usually want to interpret a translation of the Bible, usually English and usually at least somewhat outdated. It's not a new problem, either, and probably why Islam did away with translations.
-
Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.
Total lack of proportion. Sexism is bad and so is the mafia? Come on. They aren't alike.
Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?
WHY?
And when are you gonna stop beating your wife? WHEN? WHEEEN?
I mean, I'm just asking a question here. Don't you think that your wife's well being is important? Because you don't seem to, as you seem to eyeroll at this oh so much important question on when are you finally going to stop beating your wife.
And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?
Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.
Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.
Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?
That kind of ****ty propaganda is just annoying. It isn't trying to censor me. It isn't trying to guilt trip me into doing anything. It's just silly and stupid and spectacular. And to that, eyerolling is enough.
-
Seems pretty definite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Divine_inspiration
Seems equally definite. So I really don't know what you were trying to prove here.
-
Muslims do not consider Muhammad to be the author or editor of the Qur'an. Instead, they regard him as a prophet, chosen by God to receive and transmit a divine message. The Qur'an itself denies any earthly origins. As the word of God, the Qur'an is regarded as sacred and infallible.
Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the eternal, literal word of God. The original version of the book is described as preserved in heaven or in the mind of God. God's direct speech, indicated by the use of the first person plural (we), appears in much of the Qur'an.
Seems pretty definite.
Pretty much the same could be said about the Bible. Also, it says "Muslims", which is an awfully broad generalization (Islam is divided much like Christianity and "Muslims" aren't as single minded as Oxford makes them out to be).
Oxford does indeed use the word "Muslims" without qualification. If you have a better source that says otherwise, then by all means, produce it.
While it might be true in the broadest sense, I think that the "literal word of God" here might mean that he literally said those things (which I'm pretty sure most Muslims would agree on), not that he literally meant every single word.
Firstly, you are trying to dispute the indisputable. Secondly, what interpretation of the linked verses do you have in mind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Divine_inspiration
Seems equally definite. So I really don't know what you were trying to prove here.
From your own link:
Some Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that God, through the Holy Spirit, intervened and influenced the words, message, and collation of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, and is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters.
Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader.
Note the words "some", "many", and "fundamentalist".
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
-
Being sexist asshats is a bad thing and so is the mafia and like the mafia people tend to be either fine with that and underestimate its toxicity or even outright deny it exists.
Total lack of proportion. Sexism is bad and so is the mafia? Come on. They aren't alike.
Why do you feel guilty when they point out sexism, either true or false, then?
WHY?
And when are you gonna stop beating your wife? WHEN? WHEEEN?
I mean, I'm just asking a question here. Don't you think that your wife's well being is important? Because you don't seem to, as you seem to eyeroll at this oh so much important question on when are you finally going to stop beating your wife.
And even when false, I don't get pissed off when I read people that read Werther as a sexist eulogy to the old patriarchy, why DO YOU?
Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.
Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.
Also, feminist propaganda is annoying but the goddamn "USA! USA!" propaganda we get from people like Michael Bay isn't?
That kind of ****ty propaganda is just annoying. It isn't trying to censor me. It isn't trying to guilt trip me into doing anything. It's just silly and stupid and spectacular. And to that, eyerolling is enough.
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.
The flaws are exactly the same, even in the bible is written that homosexuals must be killed, that women with the period are impure and other bull**** like that, it's still something that was born among nomadic middle eastern tribes.
The catholic doctrine somewhat mitigates it by saying that the New Testament comes first and the Old Testament comes second in the hyerarchy, but the new testament has still stuff like St. Paul saying that homosexuals can't enter the kingdom of heaven or that women cannot speak at the assembly (what we would call the mass today) and other fundamentalist stuff like that.
-
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
No it doesn't. But you opened the door to that argument by comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God. That is of course nonsense as pretty much most Christians tend to believe that about their own book just as strongly as Muslims do.
-
Because they are not merely making stupid proclamations to the airwaves. They are influential. They are changing the media. They get positive coverage in the media, as if the noises that they are keyboarding aren't the stupidest thing that has come out of the universities this past decade.
You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.
Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.
[citation needed]
-
So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
There's no false equivalence here. You're wantonly discarding the concerns of individuals/groups because you've already decided that said individual/group is just paranoid, reality be damned.
Such disregard is the reason a large part of the American electorate has decided that a loudmouthed reality television star is more likely to represent them in good faith than anybody "reasonable."
-
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.
You do not know what you are speaking of.
You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.
Yes, as I said, they are influential. And that's why they have to be fought.
Your reasoning that people are rightfully influential because "people want to listen to them" is moronic, stupid, etc. Hey, do you know who people seem to want to listen to lately? Donald Trump. Ratings say so. SO I GUESS HE'S AMAZING AMIRITE.
[citation needed]
The Internet. Has been discussed thousands of times, I'm tired of educating you. Google France, Sweeden, Australia, even the UK.
-
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.
You do not know what you are speaking of.
Have you played Saint's Row at all?
You know why they are influential? Because people want to listen to them. It's not coercion or "Guilt tripping shenanigans", it's designers hearing criticism from a certain angle and going "Hey, mabye you're right". And you generally see that influence in subtle ways - Notice how everybody wears pants in Dishonoured? Noticed a quite good improvement in character design in Overwatch in comparison to Starcraft 2? Notice the evolution of the Saint's Row series from a cheap GTA knockoff to the classification-defying SR4? You can notice influences of feminism in all those titles.
Yes, as I said, they are influential. And that's why they have to be fought.
Your reasoning that people are rightfully influential because "people want to listen to them" is moronic, stupid, etc. Hey, do you know who people seem to want to listen to lately? Donald Trump. Ratings say so. SO I GUESS HE'S AMAZING AMIRITE.
[/quote]
Hold on, if developers want to incorporate criticism from a feminst angle, why is this inherently more wrong then criticism from any other angle? Are you not advocating for your own kind of censorship there?
[citation needed]
The Internet. Has been discussed thousands of times, I'm tired of educating you. Google France, Sweeden, Australia, even the UK.
"I have no evidence to backup my statements but this is your fault!"
-
Oxford does indeed use the word "Muslims" without qualification. If you have a better source that says otherwise, then by all means, produce it.
If we're accepting Wikipedia as a source, then here's something (note: Salafism is, again, closely associated with Wahhabism):
Unlike the Salafis and Zahiri, Shias and Sufis as well as some other Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Quran is not restricted to the literal aspect.
Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansūkh). Other scholars, however, maintain that no abrogation has taken place in the Quran.
From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran#Interpretation
Arabic language lends itself well to really deep writing. The concept of "nasikh" is controversial, but it shows that Quran interpretation isn't exactly a single-minded matter.
From your own link:
Some Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that God, through the Holy Spirit, intervened and influenced the words, message, and collation of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, and is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters.
Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader.
Note the words "some", "many", and "fundamentalist".
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
It's a valid argument when somebody tries to claim superiority of Christianity over Islam. Quran isn't any worse than New Testament (in fact, IIRC, it's slightly better) and is downright progressive compared to the old one.
The article on biblical literalism does put greater emphasis on divisions among Christians on that matter, but that's probably because Christianity is much larger and at the same time, much less strictly adhered to these days. My original comment referred to pre-WWII era (which is when suffragettes pulled off Britain's "feminist revolution"), when Christianity was as strong as Islam is today. Notice that strict literalism is (once again, in the respective Wiki articles) noted to be a province of both Christian and Islamic fundamentalists (though I admit, for the latter you do have to know that Salafism is essentially equivalent to the bible-thumping brand of Christianity).
Generally, in any religion you'll find morons who not only can't see any deeper meanings in the stuff they read, but also think that everything starts and ends on only one, ancient book. Since Western religious doctrine generally encourages narrow-mindedness and exalts blind faith, it's a common problem. The real difference between Islam and Christianity is that the former is "better designed" and avoids some pitfalls of the latter. The rest is purely a matter of politics, not religion.
-
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.
I was raised Catholic, and I can confirm that the Catholic view of the Bible is completely different from Muslims' view of the Quran. I can tell anecdotes, too.
I also like how you responded to my post with precisely the diversionary tactic I was talking about.
But you opened the door to that argument by comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God. That is of course nonsense as pretty much most Christians tend to believe that about their own book just as strongly as Muslims do.
Pay attention. Here's the first post in the thread that compares Muslims and Christians:
In all honesty, you could find probably similar sentiments in the Bible. If anything, from what I know, Islamic law is better for women than Biblical law (not that it's saying much). Didn't stop Britain from having a feminist revolution back in the day (and that was at a time when people still took religion seriously). Of course it's hard, but that never dissuaded feminists in the past.
I played ball for a while. I probably should have called it out as a diversion immediately.
As for "comparing Muslims and Christians and saying that only the former believe their holy book to be the indisputable word of God": this is, of course, a strawman. There are certainly Christians who believe that the Bible is the indisputable word of God.
If we're accepting Wikipedia as a source, then here's something (note: Salafism is, again, closely associated with Wahhabism):
No, Wikipedia does not trump Oxford.
Unlike the Salafis and Zahiri, Shias and Sufis as well as some other Muslim philosophers believe the meaning of the Quran is not restricted to the literal aspect.
Commentators erudite in Arabic explained the allusions, and perhaps most importantly, explained which Quranic verses had been revealed early in Muhammad's prophetic career, as being appropriate to the very earliest Muslim community, and which had been revealed later, canceling out or "abrogating" (nāsikh) the earlier text (mansūkh). Other scholars, however, maintain that no abrogation has taken place in the Quran.
The first quote says that the meaning is not restricted to the literal aspect. I'll give you the second one.
Secondly, what interpretation of the linked verses do you have in mind?
I'm still curious about this.
-
As an aside, comparing the Quran with the Bible is a classic diversionary tactic. It in no way excuses the Quran's flaws.
I tended to pay attention to both the hour of religion at school and Sunday school and I can confirm that the catholic view of the bible is the same as the muslims in general view the Quran: the word of god written by prophets and saints inspired directly by Him.
I was raised Catholic, and I can confirm that the Catholic view of the Bible is completely different from Muslims' view of the Quran. I can tell anecdotes, too.
I also like how you responded to my post with precisely the diversionary tactic I was talking about.
BULL****, I was raised catholic too you know, in Italy is kinda difficult not to be and I actually followed the lessons instead of making paper planes.
You can say it's different only if you attribute the literal interpretation of the Quran to all muslims instead of certain sects of the religion, but it would be like attributing the same evangelical american fundamentalist idiocy to the rest of christianity.
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.
There's that too, you haven't really played it, did you? :rolleyes:
-
So when a woman says she's being abused by her husband, do you plug your ears and say she just has trust issues, too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
There's no false equivalence here. You're wantonly discarding the concerns of individuals/groups because you've already decided that said individual/group is just paranoid, reality be damned.
Such disregard is the reason a large part of the American electorate has decided that a loudmouthed reality television star is more likely to represent them in good faith than anybody "reasonable."
Oh sorry, I thought you were making an ignorant argument; now I just see you're making a bad-faith one. I won't waste my time in the future.
-
I'm dying to see how GhylTarvoke is going to claim that Catholics believe everything Jesus said wasn't the literal word of God.
-
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Yeah, remember those critics (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/500766281625116672) just loving the Saints Row series?
You can tell the excitement from their words.
-
BULL****, I was raised catholic too you know, in Italy is kinda difficult not to be and I actually followed the lessons instead of making paper planes.
Then explain to me why the Vatican endorses evolution, rather than adhering to YEC.
You can say it's different only if you attribute the literal interpretation of the Quran to all muslims instead of certain sects of the religion
That's exactly what I'm saying. (And what Oxford is saying.)
I'm dying to see how GhylTarvoke is going to claim that Catholics believe everything Jesus said wasn't the literal word of God.
Again with the strawmen and ignoring my posts? You're better than this.
First, you're referring to a specific part of the Bible. Second, Catholics obviously believe that Jesus spoke the literal word of God.
-
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Yeah, remember those critics (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/500766281625116672) just loving the Saints Row series?
You can tell the excitement from their words.
Since when is Anita Sarkeesian the entirety of games journalism? Volition took it with a lot of class (http://www.pcgamer.com/saints-row-4-developer-says-anita-sarkeesian-is-right-in-latest-tropes-vs-women-in-videogames-video/).
-
Then explain to me why the Vatican endorses evolution, rather than adhering to YEC.
Christianity is not Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is not even a majority.
You are aware of this, yes?
Even if you are not, you should probably be aware that though the Vatican officially doesn't endorse Young Earth Creationism, there are any number of individual Catholics who will engage in endorsing YEC, King James-Only, Biblical Inerrancy, and all kinds of other stuff the Church itself would frown on. Start with the Society of Pius X for suspects. Last time I saw this polled about 20% of Catholics were on-board with the Bible as the literal word of God.
Once again you fail to grasp that religions are large tents.
-
I placed the link because, for one she's currently the most visible game critic, and second, it's (almost) impossible for her not to find a game that has any form of nudity as "sexist" or "problematic" so I knew she would not find Saints Row "ok".
Thirdly, how about reading what I was responding to instead of going on a tangent. Regardless of either the game devs agreed with or not with the critic, Det. Bullock claimed that Saints Row was generally loved by "censors" and I responded with the most visible of those censors' opinion.
-
Then explain to me why the Vatican endorses evolution, rather than adhering to YEC.
Christianity is not Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is not even a majority.
You are aware of this, yes?
Even if you are not, you should probably be aware that though the Vatican officially doesn't endorse Young Earth Creationism, there are any number of individual Catholics who will engage in endorsing YEC, King James-Only, Biblical Inerrancy, and all kinds of other stuff the Church itself would frown on. Start with the Society of Pius X for suspects. Last time I saw this polled about 20% of Catholics were on-board with the Bible as the literal word of God.
Once again you fail to grasp that religions are large tents.
What are the relative proportions of Christians and Muslims who believe their holy texts to be literally true?
-
There's that too, you haven't really played it, did you? :rolleyes:
Because that's totally relevant :rolleyes:
Since when is Anita Sarkeesian the entirety of games journalism? Volition took it with a lot of class (http://www.pcgamer.com/saints-row-4-developer-says-anita-sarkeesian-is-right-in-latest-tropes-vs-women-in-videogames-video/).
Who has ever said Anita was "the entirety of games journalism", mr king of strawmans?
And that "amount of class" you refer to is the exact kind of "influence" we are talking about. It shouldn't exist. This girl is the "world's utmost expert in sexism in videogames", despite the fact she's probably the most ignorant piece of work regarding games themselves. She's an expert in being a troll and being taken seriously despite it. Devs are forced to play nice to this buffoon who got millions of dollars out of this guilt tripping industry without almost anything to show for it. And I do hope that the extent of her influence goes to just PR marketing words from dev teams "yeah yeah totes right she is, now if you don't mind we'll be over here making more *sexist* games", but I'm more inclined than not to doubt that.
Her influence on trashing one of the most harmless groups of people (gamers) as if they were the most heinous, sexist violent people in existence has been a terrible horrible endeavour, and for that I will never forgive either her or her cronies.
Thirdly, how about reading what I was responding to instead of going on a tangent.
Good luck with that request.
-
BULL****, I was raised catholic too you know, in Italy is kinda difficult not to be and I actually followed the lessons instead of making paper planes.
Then explain to me why the Vatican endorses evolution, rather than adhering to YEC.
There's a fundamental difference between believing that the Bible is the divinely-inspired word of God, and believing that every single word of it was meant literally and should be treated as such. I suggest you look into it.
-
I placed the link because, for one she's currently the most visible game critic, and second, it's (almost) impossible for her not to find a game that has any form of nudity as "sexist" or "problematic" so I knew she would not find Saints Row "ok".
Thirdly, how about reading what I was responding to instead of going on a tangent. Regardless of either the game devs agreed with or not with the critic, Det. Bullock claimed that Saints Row was generally loved by "censors" and I responded with the most visible of those censors' opinion.
Since nobody involved is actually calling for censorship, you'll need to provide a criterion for what kind of person is actually being talked about for anyone to provide examples of that kind of person actually liking Saints Row.
There's that too, you haven't really played it, did you? :rolleyes:
Because that's totally relevant :rolleyes:
Hmm, it's not relevant that you can beat women to death with a giant dildo bat when you just said this?
Beating men to death is no biggie. Thousands of those, Social Justice morons will love it (with the occasional self-flaggelating nonsense about how violence in games is normalizing our perceptions, etc. Beating women to death, however, is a scandal.
Why, it's almost as if...
You do not know what you are speaking of.
-
What are the relative proportions of Christians and Muslims who believe their holy texts to be literally true?
Offhand, I don't know. I'm not sure anyone has done the study to try and establish a blanket number for Christians.
I'd also point out that's probably not necessarily a measure of how many will apply the words in a truly literal fashion, given that predispensationalists will insist theirs is a literalist reading while they skip back and forth between books to achieve it, and Sharia Law has made interpretive rulings on subjects like biological and chemical warfare that are not in any sense addressed directly in the texts cited.
-
I placed the link because, for one she's currently the most visible game critic, and second, it's (almost) impossible for her not to find a game that has any form of nudity as "sexist" or "problematic" so I knew she would not find Saints Row "ok".
Thirdly, how about reading what I was responding to instead of going on a tangent. Regardless of either the game devs agreed with or not with the critic, Det. Bullock claimed that Saints Row was generally loved by "censors" and I responded with the most visible of those censors' opinion.
Since nobody involved is actually calling for censorship, you'll need to provide a criterion for what kind of person is actually being talked about for anyone to provide examples of that kind of person actually liking Saints Row.
It's like nobody is reading what I am responding to!
The so-called ---> "censors" <--- generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Take it up with Det. Bullock and Luis Dias and the previous replies.
-
The so-called ---> "censors" <--- generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Take it up with Det. Bullock and Luis Dias and the previous replies.
You're the one who picked Anita Sarkeesian as being "one of them", so it's your criteria that are relevant here.
-
(words)
I was making a general point, not a specific point. Again, it flew past above your cranium. As always. As usual. As typical.
-
I'd advise you to stop that sort of comment right now.
In fact everyone better calm down.
-
The so-called ---> "censors" <--- generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Take it up with Det. Bullock and Luis Dias and the previous replies.
You're the one who picked Anita Sarkeesian as being "one of them", so it's your criteria that are relevant here.
If you are not going to bother to read the rest of the thread.
Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.
Which critic is always throwing accusations of sexism in video games again? Det. Bullock picked censor from that and I merely used it not to interrupt the flow of the conversation.
How about you actually read the replies?
-
There's that too, you haven't really played it, did you? :rolleyes:
Because that's totally relevant :rolleyes:
Since when is Anita Sarkeesian the entirety of games journalism? Volition took it with a lot of class (http://www.pcgamer.com/saints-row-4-developer-says-anita-sarkeesian-is-right-in-latest-tropes-vs-women-in-videogames-video/).
Who has ever said Anita was "the entirety of games journalism", mr king of strawmans?
And that "amount of class" you refer to is the exact kind of "influence" we are talking about. It shouldn't exist. This girl is the "world's utmost expert in sexism in videogames", despite the fact she's probably the most ignorant piece of work regarding games themselves. She's an expert in being a troll and being taken seriously despite it. Devs are forced to play nice to this buffoon who got millions of dollars out of this guilt tripping industry without almost anything to show for it. And I do hope that the extent of her influence goes to just PR marketing words from dev teams "yeah yeah totes right she is, now if you don't mind we'll be over here making more *sexist* games", but I'm more inclined than not to doubt that.
Thing is, it has gone far beyond simply PR marketing words - consider the evolution of the Saint's Row series itself (honestly, play the series! You're on a board dedicated to Volition, you have no excuse :P) on that front, and quite frankly, if that is the influence that is truly so bad, then you're missing out on a whole load of good stuff.
I think you're assigning a lot more power to Sarkeesian then she actually has - she's ultimately just a person talking into a camera, not at all known outside these spheres. Do you really think that one non-profit can coerce multi-million companies into changing a direction? Or mabye people feel she's making valid points and are incorperating that into their work. You make it sound like she's running an extortion ring.
Which critic is always throwing accusations of sexism in video games again?
Noting that something is sexist is not censorship, nor is it an accusation. It's perfectly possible for the most well balanced person to say something *incredibly racist* due to virtue of misspronouncation, language barriers, or simply not paying a whole lot of attention, or by simply not being aware that something is racist. It's a bit like what happened to that Hawken developer (http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/post/50432219744/special-guest-edition-the-hawkeye-initiative-irl) - He did not realize the problem, it was pointed out to him, and he changed his attitude.
-
I was making a general point, not a specific point.
You were making a general point while replying to a comment about a specific game series, and furthermore, replying as though you were describing the content of that game series? Very poor phrasing on your part, at best.
If you are not going to bother to read the rest of the thread.
[...]
How about you actually read the replies?
You mean like this reply right here?
Det. Bullock claimed that Saints Row was generally loved by "censors" and I responded with the most visible of those censors' opinion.
You remain the only person to have pointed out a specific individual as falling within this category; I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to share the selection criteria you used to do so (because "the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets" is not one).
-
Two words:
SAINTS ROW
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Yeah, remember those critics (https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/500766281625116672) just loving the Saints Row series?
You can tell the excitement from their words.
She-who-must-not-be-named doesn't count, RPS loved that game and was one of the sites that were hit HARD by those idiots who went on anti-SJW crusade (I remember comments being locked on weekends on every article that even dared talk about sex in games), so did Jim Sterling and other "blacklisted" critics.
-
If you are not going to bother to read the rest of the thread.
[...]
How about you actually read the replies?
You mean like this reply right here?
Det. Bullock claimed that Saints Row was generally loved by "censors" and I responded with the most visible of those censors' opinion.
You remain the only person to have pointed out a specific individual as falling within this category; I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to share the selection criteria you used to do so (because "the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets" is not one).
Oh really?
How about for the 46534782th freaking time the actual quote I responded to.
The so-called "censors" generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
How about you hound Det. Bullock to define censors too? He surely had someone in mind. Unless of course you are pursuing this line of reasoning in bad faith...
-
How about you hound Det. Bullock to define censors too? He surely had someone in mind.
I don't doubt that he did, but he didn't name specific names. You did.
-
He just did above, hound him now. Yet I'm sure you won't.
I'm done with this.
-
He just did above, hound him now. Yet I'm sure you won't.
"RPS" is not a person, and even if it were you were still the first one to name names. I'm not "hounding" you; I'm just asking you what criteria you used. If you're unable to supply any, nobody can possibly provide examples of people matching that criteria that also liked Saints Row, which coincidentally means nobody can actually disagree with you. Now that's a bad-faith argument if ever I saw one.
EDIT: I didn't notice he mentioned Jim Sterling. You're still the first one to name names; rest of the point stants.
-
He just did above, hound him now. Yet I'm sure you won't.
"RPS" is not a person, and even if it were you were still the first one to name names. I'm not "hounding" you; I'm just asking you what criteria you used. If you're unable to supply any, nobody can possibly provide examples of people matching that criteria that also liked Saints Row, which coincidentally means nobody can actually disagree with you. Now that's a bad-faith argument if ever I saw one.
EDIT: I didn't notice he mentioned Jim Sterling. You're still the first one to name names; rest of the point stants.
So let me get this straight, he mentions "censors" first, and I'm the one who has to give a criteria to describe that?
You could construe anyone who likes Saints Row as a "censor" using what he said, but you have a problem with me using one of the most known and controversial game critics to disagree with him?
You are trying to use my usage of the same term as him to discredit my argument that the people who surround themselves in the controversy of "that's sexist" will not find anything not to be sexist. If you have a problem with the term censor, complain with the one who used it first. Which again, was not me. I don't have to agree/disagree with the term in my responses to it. Hell I even put quotes on it on my first usage.
As for the reasons.
I placed the link because, for one she's currently the most visible game critic, and second, it's (almost) impossible for her not to find a game that has any form of nudity as "sexist" or "problematic" so I knew she would not find Saints Row "ok".
But again, you are not questioning him, because... dunno... reasons surely.
-
he mentions "censors" first
Yeah, but he was using it in response to Luis using the words "censorship" and "censor" in this post (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=92111.msg1821756#msg1821756) so before playing the "they started it" game, why don't you take your own advice?
How about you actually read the replies?
As for the reasons.
I placed the link because, for one she's currently the most visible game critic, and second, it's (almost) impossible for her not to find a game that has any form of nudity as "sexist" or "problematic" so I knew she would not find Saints Row "ok".
Unless you're telling me that you saw the word "censors" and took that to mean "video game critics", in which case there's clearly no point in trying to converse with you in any known language, or "video game critics who have specifically criticized sexism", in which case there are so many examples of such liking Saints Row that I would only direct you towards Google rather than trying to enumerate them all here, then that's still not actually an answer.
But again, you are not questioning him, because... dunno... reasons surely.
Yes... reasons like "you were the one who named specific individuals first and didn't elaborate on how they were 'censors'", as already mentioned. Multiple times.
-
The so-called ---> "censors" <--- generally love that series, and last I checked it involved beating people to death with a purple dildo at some point.
Take it up with Det. Bullock and Luis Dias and the previous replies.
You're the one who picked Anita Sarkeesian as being "one of them", so it's your criteria that are relevant here.
If you are not going to bother to read the rest of the thread.
Perhaps you aren't paying attention, but several countries are indeed considering banning or censoring games and other media that may fall into these nagging silly characterizations of "sexism", as labeled by the most paranoic autistic minds I've ever encountered in the nets. Do you think those things are just "opinions"? You're being naive.
Which critic is always throwing accusations of sexism in video games again? Det. Bullock picked censor from that and I merely used it not to interrupt the flow of the conversation.
How about you actually read the replies?
-
At 10 pages long and a nice back and forth argument afoot, I'd say this has run its course.
Thread locked.
Please play nice in future guys.