-
Posts
2532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Bartimaeus
-
Just another reason, then, that none of us should be making any sweeping generalizations about the "majority" or "most of you guys": a lot of us often argue from the same platform for very specific subjects within broader ones, but that doesn't mean it carries over to others. Well I think the majority of posters here doesn't really give a **** either way. They're fine with the status quo, but they're also fine with changes as long as they get what they're looking for in gaming. "Having your protagonist be male or female", I'd venture, isn't really a meaningful change from that perspective. Neither would be "having interesting characters in the game be male or female". Which is, incidentally, why I really don't get the violent pushback to the notion that maybe we should change things around a bit; such changes are unlikely to affect the core experience of whatever game we're looking at. Which, in my probably worthless opinion, would suggest there's probably something wrong with the way such potential change is being portrayed or argued for by its proponents. Different and less polarizing strategies than saying "gamers are dead", demonizing gamers for having a vested interest in the ethics surrounding the business side of their hobby (to be completely honest, I'm not sure why the whole anti-women in gaming thing is even associated with GamersGate, when I haven't seen hardly any evidence of the two being related to each other outside of anti-GGers like Bruce repeatedly and obstinately bringing it up all the time and stating that it is: someone feel free to enlighten me why this is)...and conducting worthless straw polls like the one we just saw earlier while ignoring possible ACTUAL evidence suggesting something contrary to what one already believes (this presumes that people actually saw the contrary evidence, of course, when it's quite possible they didn't given the social circles we all run in...and the fact that we usually don't run in those strongly opposed to our viewpoints). Though the bridges may already be too burned and the sides too polarized for anything to work at this point.
-
Could you get the majority of posters to do the opposite, or has that been clearly demonstrated in one of these topics already (for the record, I don't think it has been, so give me some evidence if you do think so )? If not, you can't really make a sweeping generalization either way, I'll agree with you that much...if you look at the latest edit to my previous (my apologies, I'm a bit of an edit-freak, ), Bruce asked if anyone "besides ShadySands" would have a problem having to play a female character...of which the few repliers to either said "no" or "I prefer playing males characters because I am a male, but not really, no" (besides Bruce himself, who said he probably wouldn't play a game like Dishonored 2 with only a female character as the choice...which seemed fair enough to me). Everyone else did not reply to it...I think you might find it difficult to pin the majority of users here down to any particular stance on some of these subjects...which means, don't have sweeping generalizations about the folks here on these forums. (e): Need to not be a horrible hypocrite and poorly paraphrase for other people. Fixed. (e): A little additional discussion on this subject in the previous topic that was before the previously linked post which I think at least vestigially supports my point of view: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80106-journalism-and-bias-in-the-gaming-industry/page-9?do=findComment&comment=1704205
-
I think the "most of you guys are basically fine with the status quo" is more of the issue, which, in reference to the post/image Bruce was actually replying to, means that we're "fine" with women being underrepresented and/or misrepresented in games. We already had a discussion about this earlier in the topic...or, uh, maybe the last one one, where Bruce misrepresented what ShadySands said about something in regard to this topic (edit: although I'll admit probably unintentionally, given his later posts). Here's the post: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/80106-journalism-and-bias-in-the-gaming-industry/?p=1704725
-
Oh gee, Bruce reframing the narrative of our discussions to better support his point of view...again? I can't believe it! C'mon, Bruce.
-
A pretty hilarious counter to at least some of the points of the Feminist Frequency videos.
-
Depends on how bad you were.
-
Pot, meet kettle.
-
-
Funny, after I posted that, I had an idle thought: "Wonder if he's a dad..." Regardless, that's fair enough. I don't think any pedophile, active or inactive, would ever say anything like that, though: would be totally weird and unsettling for all parties involved. Much more likely, they don't tell you and you never know.
-
-
LOL R00fles!
-
It doesn't have to be something you "actually want to do" for it to be something you want to be ABLE to do if you don't think royalty should be any more exempt from insults than the regular joe (or if you can envision a scenario...or if there's actually been one already...where it seemed appropriate for you to do so).
-
See my somewhat heavily edited post in regards to the U.S.'s success and such: I tried to cover that with the latest edit. I am fine with people with people have extremely negative opinions of the U.S. and the West: we're often worlds apart, in terms of culture. I was raised in mine and often have very negative opinions of things that happen elsewhere, and other people were born in theirs and often have very negative opinions of things that happen here. That's pretty normal: we're different. If they spout hatred and conspiracy theories and...whatever else against us, that's fine by me, as long as it doesn't turn into actions that infringe upon us (or others in their own country who have different opinions). It's within their rights, just as it's within our rights to ignore them and do differently. Western Europeans often like to make of the U.S. for being "backwards" in some ways, for its citizens' favorite sport being "handegg", for taking issue with our illegal immigrants trying to take residence (as, ironically - I think - they also often then have no trouble subsequently spouting hatred against all the Muslims and other peoples immigrating legally to their own home country for whatever reasons...), and whatever else: it doesn't really phase me too much, just as I'm sure any criticisms I have of their love for the dreadfully boring sport known as soccer (yeah, I went there, you non-anglo-saxon pansies, ) likely doesn't much phase them. I don't think hardly anyone on these forums legitimately straight up hates the U.S.: some have bones to pick with the U.S. that, yes, often make it seem like they have a very negative view of the U.S. when certain subjects are brought up. Again, I think this is pretty normal...in fact, let me correct that "some have bones to pick with the U.S." to "everyone in the entire world, including the U.S.'s own citizens, has bones to pick with the U.S.". That doesn't mean everyone hates the U.S.: they just hate certain things about it. People may even say they straight up hate the U.S...but most people, when pressed, will say something like, "well, I mean, I hate their GOVERNMENT...not everyone actually in the U.S." and similar stuff. Fair enough for me: I often feel the same way, theoretical U.S.-hater! Extremists may think they hate every single last aspect of the U.S....but extremists are usually the kind of people that are willing to do the whole "infringing on others" thing I mentioned, so I'm not really particularly concerned about them. If you're not willing to infringe on others in your hatred of the U.S., then you can't hate the U.S. that much...otherwise, you'd be willing to break that rule of ours. In conclusion, I don't think you need to defend the U.S. constantly: defend it when it's right and just to do so (and when it makes sense to you to do so...and hopefully when you can actually convince others that it makes sense to do so... ), and criticize it when it doesn't...just as everyone in the U.S. itself does. It's part of our process. (edit): Oh, also: I don't really care if their "hatred" of the U.S. comes from ignorance/exaggerations: that's something seems pretty native to almost everyone in regards to one or some things or another...still doesn't stop anyone from making judgement on those things, and there's no reason it wouldn't be applicable here. Que sera, sera, Bruce.
-
That depends on how you define a "patriot". You probably wouldn't think so, but others you're arguing against probably would... Being a patriot, to me, is, in general, supporting your country*...but also being willing to speak your mind freely about it, including criticizing it when you believe it does or goes wrong, so that we can realize our mistakes, potentially correct our course, and better ourselves for the future. It's also supporting/defending everyone in having their own opinions and beliefs, as well as exercising their freedoms, even if you personally find what they do with them repulsive and try to convince them to think/do otherwise - as long as they do not infringe on others. (e): In my opinion, a lot of people criticize the West (and particularly the U.S.) because they want the West to do better. Obviously, it's up to you to determine if what they're actually proposing as an alternative would be better, but regardless, if the intention is "make some changes compared to what you're doing now so things/you will be better", I personally think that's admirable and the very opposite of unpatriotic. Obviously, very extreme cases like "throw out all Western values and institute Sharia law!" are probably not gonna garner much support from me, but even so, I would support their freedom to at least suggest it...preferably quietly . (edit): *As an example, I would say being patriotic in this respect is...hoping your country continues to do well, that nothing terrible happens to it or the people within it...that it continues to be the country you love and want to reside within. You don't have to support everything it does, though: you can be a pacifist, for example, and personally wish that the U.S.'s soldiers were not involved in conflicts where people are getting hurt and/or killed...but to be patriotic in this regard would be to still wish them the best, hope that they all return home safe and sound (and, as a pacifist, without having had to have hurt anybody, particularly unnecessarily)...and that they generally succeed at their missions - outside of when they're doing things you personally find reprehensible, of course: you still support them, but not necessarily what they're doing, and you may wish for particular aspects of their objectives to not succeed (WITHOUT hoping that horrible things happen as a result): that is within your rights. This is patriotism to me. edit edit edit I like to edit
-
My problem with such an argument (and others like it you've made previously and in other topics), is that it is primarily emotionally/feeling-driven, not reasoning/evidence-based. Just your feelings are going to have a tough time convincing anyone of your side, my friend. So no, any supposed "anti-Western" bias those arguing against austerity might show doesn't really affect too much how I see this issue...once in a while, I even see a little wisdom in Volourn's posts...even underneath the constant hyperbole and personal attacks as it is. (edit): I should say...clear and extreme biases obviously can undermine one's credibility, of course, but unless it reaches obyknven (spelling?) levels, it's usually not enough to reject decent points/evidence out of hand. Even oby makes a reasonable point about Western hypocrisy/bias (IMO) once in a great while...though it's obviously never enough to convince me of all the other things he says.
-
How are his views mistaken? Going, "you're wrong: don't you think you should reconsider your views now (editor's note: lol) to be more like mine even though I'm not not gonna bother countering anything you just said? Also, these people that agree with my views are unbiased, and the people that agree with yours are biased, though I will fail to illustrate how...and by the way, here's some more condescension..." isn't exactly the most convincing argument for your side of the argument that I've heard. Nah that's just the SJ view we use to not hurt peoples feelings, someone always has to be right in this type of debate Barti you on my side right? I don't personally know enough about how economies work for me to feel comfortable in committing to a side. Interesting things have been said on both sides, and I'm leaning towards "austerity doesn't really seem like the correct course based on the evidence..." ...but the sample size is oh so small, and it's easy to look at the effects of certain actions in hindsight and go, "Yeah, look at what austerity/not doing austerity did!" ...if you're not considering how small that sample size is and the fact that there may be much more to do with it than just one particular factor. In my opinion, situations usually have a tendency to be much more complex than they merely appear, and if there were ever a complex situation, this would be one...so unless I become much, much more educated in the subject instead of just looking at what I essentially consider anecdotal evidence (such as that is present in this topic), I can't really convincingly take a side. Really, I just popped in to keep you on your toes.
-
How are his views mistaken? Going, "you're wrong: don't you think you should reconsider your views now (editor's note: lol) to be more like mine even though I'm not not gonna bother countering anything you just said? Also, these people that agree with my views are unbiased, and the people that agree with yours are biased, though I will fail to illustrate how...and by the way, here's some more condescension..." isn't exactly the most convincing argument for your side of the argument that I've heard.
-
All pedophiles, Gfted1? Did you mean all active pedophiles, or actually any and everyone who happens to feel attraction to children? I think it's kind of unfair to paint literally all pedophiles in that manner...who you're attracted to can't be much controlled, though how you act on such certainly can (...unless you don't believe in free will, but that just means you have to accept that society will punish those unlucky enough to not be born and raised "right", so it doesn't really affect the equation). It's considered a mental disorder for a reason.
-
An explanation for non-reddit people: when the accounts of the moderators of a subreddit are inactive for long enough, you can make a request to the admins to take over the subreddit in question. This basically never happens with larger subreddits, and seems to usually only happen when someone wants to repurpose a particular subreddit name (though not always; they may just wish to jump-start an inactive community). This also happened with the subreddit "gamergate", which anti-GGers got a hold of and permanently set it to redirect towards an anti-GG subreddit. I think both these cases are kind of BS and shouldn't be allowed, but that's just me.
-
Well, I thought they just tended to actually sound decent, as opposed to bad like most of the original artists they cover, but that's another way of putting it, I guess. @Woldan: I feel like I've heard this before...but I don't recognize the title/artist. Hm...guess that's ambiance-like electronic for you. I liked the sound clip at the end: I wish more electronic did that these days. Lots of electronic artists used to have those in the 90s and early 2000s (and probably farther back, but I wouldn't know about that), but it seems to have fallen out of style recently, from what I can tell. I love 'em: good way to help set the tone for and further define a song. Hope they come back in style someday. Here's a random song off a CD compilation I own that I liked for this reason. Quiet and almost a little ambiance-like, though perhaps a little more unsettling/menacing than normal. 162 - Outside the Mosque: http://puu.sh/iQjMi/ac2e317056.mp3
-
In point of fact, he is currently, legally speaking, perfectly innocent. (this post is only half-serious...or maybe quarter serious...or maybe three quarters serious: I'm not sure, )
-
But knives are so shiny. And frankly, it's you who misspell your words you dang colonials. Plus the Americans don't say Tomato sauce...they say Ketchup which confuses people when I travel to the USA. " Can you pass the Tomato sauce please " ....." huh... whats that " Hey, I'm an American, and I call most salsas you find in supermarkets "tomato sauce" or "tomato goop"...nevermind ketchup. Stupid American "salsas" primarily consisting of tomato sauce...euck. Homemade or bust.
-
I don't really have much of an opinion, because this isn't really a discussion of that much interest to me, especially given how played out it is by this point. You, on the other hand, are somebody I have to discuss things very frequently with on this board, and I really think it's detrimental to the discussions we have (as well as your points) when you do stuff like that: it's that type of stuff...as well your deflections or ignoring of it whenever it's pointed out, and then continuing to do that same sort of stuff in the future...that often makes it difficult to have a decent, rational discussion with you. See the final edit I had in my previous post, additionally. If you must know, though, I agree with Orogun: it seems likely that he's guilty...though I thought that long ago when the allegations were just beginning to surface based on the volume of the allegations...though I did not...and still have not...completely cemented that as actually "concurring that he's guilty", as you put it for Orogun (which is an additional part of why I took issue with what you said). The reason for this is the weirdness and fishiness of the entire situation: I still have a small, naggling doubt in the back of my head. But again, I think it's likely that he's at least guilty of some percentage of the allegations...and "some" is bad enough that even if the rest weren't true, it's still awful enough that it doesn't really matter.
-
A lame strawman? A strawman for what? I've pretty clearly spelled out that I'm not refuting the base points you're raising or the discussion you're trying to bring up themselves: I would actually be addressing those if I were...but I'm clearly not, which you've already pointed out yourself. I am calling you out on your dishonesty (edit: or incorectness in reframing the discussion and others' viewpoints: whichever). That is all. If you got it the first time, then why didn't you say so the first time...instead of deflecting back towards your original point that didn't have anything to do with what I said? (edit): If you're going to reframe the discussion and what people said to better support yourself to say, "ohoho, look guys, seems as though I was right, and all you guys shouldn't have attacked me so much earlier in the topic", and it's actually not very true...why shouldn't you be called out for that? That's silly.
-
Whats your point? I don't think Orog needs you to explain or justify his view Also no need to get defensive and try for some unfathomable reason to lessen the point I'm making. Cosby is a habitual predator who raped dozens of women throughout his career It would be nice if you acknowledged this instead of making some inane point about " what I said about what Orog said when he said...." Thats not the issue, this is about a celebrity who for years got away with committing sexual violence. Focus on the issue and stop trying to catch me out and question the semantics around my post My point is pretty self-evident: you misstated Orogun's stance for no real reason, made a generalization about posters earlier in the topic dismissing the accusations against Cosby as if a lot/the majority found them to baseless (which only a very few did), and now are making an assertion about Cosby being "a habitual predator who raped dozens of women throughout his career" as if that counters anything I said (at no point did I comment about Cosby's innocence or lack thereof). If you could stop all that nonsense, that would be great.