Meshugger
-
Posts
5042 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Meshugger
-
...or the perks working at a bank greatly outweighs working at EA. What insurance do they offer, pension plans, bonuses and maternity leave? Who knows, maybe EA simply really sucks on that department? //edit: or put it another way. Maybe banks have a really dumb customer base, i mean who wants to be in debt for institionalized money laundring organisations? All while gaming companies have to focus on a highly educated and smart demographic, and therefore being much more picky?
-
Let me remind you, there is no "truth" to these people. Only Power, which we have seen been in the working here.
-
?? Why?
-
https://twitter.com/The_Goldbat/status/534437039773863939/photo/1 EA has pulled out from Gawker. Those people people thought that bullying will lead to submission, instead they got:
-
I forgot to add the following quotes from kirottu's linked article: hohohohoho
-
Consensus is better than DA2, but you'll be forgiven for still being wary. There's not much known about the ending and I hear it's, at best, okay. Cool. I am currently enjoying Divinity: Original Sin so maybe it will be patched up and great by christmas.
-
I tried to read the thread, but i can only find Qistina raging and people raging back, so i have to ask directly instead: What's the score of this baby? better than DA2? better encounter design(no enemies jumping out of thin air), an ending more than having to kill every one in a different order? Does it need a special edition ending? So many questions...
-
Two articles here ladies and gentlemen. One Anti and one Pro Gamergate, you can read them both and make up your minds yourself. http://www.centredaily.com/2014/11/17/4461902_their-view-womens-voices-rightly.html?sp=/99/145/&rh=1 <--Anti http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/the-waronnerds-how-far-left-feminists-and-the-media-created-gamergate/2/ <--Pro The first article (AntiGG) has this little snippet: Gosh jolly, it's all about power? Not about creating the best games ever? That sounds eerily familiar. Now from the pro-GG one: People bullying nerds? Well, i never! So what is more plausible? Identity politics focused on the paradigms of power....or nerds getting bullied until they are backed into a corner and fights back? I report, you decide!
-
As with great satire, that's not actually far from the truth. Sadly.
-
Interstellar It was ok. But the ending reeked of studio interference, and in a bad way.
-
?? Read again, i clearly stated the malice came from the article and the people supporting in shaming him. That is malice.
-
I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question. Because you answer a question with a question. "Why is it morally good to judge the clothing on some people and not on others?" Well, if you mean, say, rape victims by "others", my answer would be very different from the one I'd give when "others" means "guys dressing up as SS officers as a 'joke'" (a politician in my country pulled that off a few years ago, if I remember correctly). Therefore I asked you to clarify. You're almost there....just elaborate a bit more. Since you haven't answered yet, this is my problem: It is morally reprehensible to judge a rape victim because of her clothing since it puts the blame on the victim itself instead of the perpetrator, thus it is equally morally reprehensible to judge mr. shirt guy for his clothing since it puts the blame on himself because of the harrasment of others. It is not "it's just an opinion, it's freedom of expression" because that's just the medium on how the malice intent was convayed. Malice is malice, not matter how it is portrayed.
-
That's simply appaling.
-
So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"? This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever? No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published or people should be banned from the social media. What people are angry about is that bullies and authoritarians applying false rage and shame tactics, effectively abusing the kind and gentler side of people. It is simply morally repugnant. Sorry, I don't think "(m)ake your little presumptious judgement of him in silence or amongst your friends, then keep it to yourself" (actual quote) allows for that interpretation. For some reason i missed that you were quoting Longknife, sorry. Carry on then.
-
So you're essentially saying "it's okay for him to offend someone's sensibilities (however idiotic those sensibilities are), but when said someone wants to express that their sensibilities were offended, THAT's a big no-no"? This is a very prevalent and utterly ridiculous stance. If you're willing to cry "freedom of expression" for protecting people's rights to wear tacky T-shirts/draw giant boobs in their art projects/whatever, why don't their critics also get to exercise their freedom of expression by writing scathing articles about what they think of tacky T-shirts/art with giant boobs/whatever? No one is saying that the article shouldn't be published or people should be banned from the social media. What people are angry about is that bullies and authoritarians applying false rage and shame tactics, effectively abusing the kind and gentler side of people. It is simply morally repugnant.
-
?? What do you mean by reactionary?
-
So would you be completely ok to wear a shirt that causes the media to write articles that you are putting humanity a step backwards and getting hounded on social media, bullied into submission that you're a bad person. And after offering a tearful apology you would still think that it was ok, since in your mind you caused it?
-
Nonek gets my point. Imaginary cup of tea to you, my good sir! Btw, Gamergate has started a fund to buy a gift for the shirt guy: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/matt-taylor-rosetta-project-scientist#home 4426 dollars so far, exceeding the estimated target by 146% within a day.
-
I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question. Because you answer a question with a question. "Why is it morally good to judge the clothing on some people and not on others?" Well, if you mean, say, rape victims by "others", my answer would be very different from the one I'd give when "others" means "guys dressing up as SS officers as a 'joke'" (a politician in my country pulled that off a few years ago, if I remember correctly). Therefore I asked you to clarify. You're almost there....just elaborate a bit more.
-
William Usher is fighting the good fight. The guy who wrote that the shirt is misogynic (Chris Plante) has gotten into some trouble it seems with disclosing too much about his former employer, Polygon. Circumstancial evidence: Archived: LoL is approaching a 1 billion in revenue this year, so they definately have the cash for this.
-
I like how you expertly avoid giving anything resembling an answer to my question. Because you answer a question with a question. "Why is it morally good to judge the clothing on some people and not on others?"
-
And I'm sorry, but it probably has pretty little to do with "SJW pressure". I'm pretty sure if he was wearing a tacky T-shirt with pink unicorns instead of one with half-naked women, his superiors also would have had a serious discussion with him about what is appropriate to wear on occasions like this. Have you ever worked with people from "creative" or "R&D" in large institutions that give them a lot of freedoms as long as they bring results? These institutions get kind of "geeky" or "weird" behaviors, including clothing (or in case of artists lack of thereof). I am sure that the pink unicorn really matters when making big steps in science... You know what, if a person will come up with cures for cancer in all stages, make sure to disregard his/her achievements and not let it go through because he/she loves unicorns... Don;t use social media or computers in geneal, because the people who were pioneers did not have the sense of fashion for the situations and importance of the breakthroughs they were making... They only get the talks if the overall "image and good name" of the istitution is put at risk. Usually it comes up, with addictons or some illegal actions, OR accusations related to political correctness (racism, gender equality, religous tolerance) If I can manage to refrain from wearing shirts with hot babes when I go to the cancer ward, you'd think he can also manage to do the same when presenting his findings to the media. "Looking professional when you interact with people in a function related to your profession" is a big part of being a professional. Others like who? This is not an issue of professionalism. The article and social media clearly stated that his shirt was misogynic and rendered the whole expidition meanlingless. That's the issue. I like that you have to ask who you should be judging based on their clothing.
-
Dude wears fap material at work in office. People tell him it's not appropriate for that office. Scumbags whine "censorship" and declare him a hero. Same people are now calling the women (scientists and non) that objected to the shirt "****" "bitches", inviting them to kill themselves and shut up. Sounds familiar enough? Oh right, why GG is involved? Because they made themselves involved. Oh, are you saying that i am calling the journalist who wrote that vicious article, who happened to be male, a bitch, to kill himself and to shut up? This is because we cannot have nice things. Imbecilles find anything they deem as "problematic" and do everything to do destroy and undermine the human spirit. THAT's the issue. "Fap material". Jesus ****ing Christ Ironically you are undermining Dr Taylor " human spirit" when you are suggesting that the apology from him wasn't his own idea and he was forced to make it by others You still haven't answered my original question. Why is it morally good to question his clothing but not others? Of course he was forced by other people to do it. How emotionally stunted can someone be not to realize that? I thought I did answer that question? Who said we can never question other peoples clothing, you need to be more specific and give me an example ? That's it. I have to follow Trueneutral's advice when you're being so disingenuous. We have nothing more to discuss.
-
Dude wears fap material at work in office. People tell him it's not appropriate for that office. Scumbags whine "censorship" and declare him a hero. Same people are now calling the women (scientists and non) that objected to the shirt "****" "bitches", inviting them to kill themselves and shut up. Sounds familiar enough? Oh right, why GG is involved? Because they made themselves involved. Oh, are you saying that i am calling the journalist who wrote that vicious article, who happened to be male, a bitch, to kill himself and to shut up? This is because we cannot have nice things. Imbecilles find anything they deem as "problematic" and do everything to do destroy and undermine the human spirit. THAT's the issue. "Fap material". Jesus ****ing Christ Ironically you are undermining Dr Taylor " human spirit" when you are suggesting that the apology from him wasn't his own idea and he was forced to make it by others You still haven't answered my original question. Why is it morally good to question his clothing but not others? Of course he was forced by other people to do it. How emotionally stunted can someone be not to realize that?
-
Dude wears fap material at work in office. People tell him it's not appropriate for that office. Scumbags whine "censorship" and declare him a hero. Same people are now calling the women (scientists and non) that objected to the shirt "****" "bitches", inviting them to kill themselves and shut up. Sounds familiar enough? Oh right, why GG is involved? Because they made themselves involved. Oh, are you saying that i am calling the journalist who wrote that vicious article, who happened to be male, a bitch, to kill himself and to shut up? This is because we cannot have nice things. Imbecilles find anything they deem as "problematic" and do everything to do destroy and undermine the human spirit. THAT's the issue. "Fap material". Jesus ****ing Christ
