BruceVC

Nonek you are missing the more relevant point Lets say you right that in the last 200 year the West is directly responsible for million of deaths...as in committing genocide or purges This is not relevant to how the West conducts itself now, so when I say "Western countries are the best countries in the world as there citizens have the best quality of like and therefore this proves that Western ideology is the most effective, it works and can be sustained. Western ideology needs to be emulated to several places around the world that would benefit from its wisdom " I don't expect someone to dispute this by saying "well the American civil war was a brutal affair " You see my point ?

Yes they are similar but all these statements would concern me if someone really used them as form of a political manifesto for any group. Thats why that Gramscian article distances itself from them So you would be concerned about the "Gamers are dead"-articles if, and only if, they all officially abided by an ethos or from a political manifesto? No not at all, I read any article that is relevant and then react to it based on what the message is, how its getting explained and finally does it resonate with me I will never understand how some of guys reacted to that Leigh Alexander article. It fascinates me that people like me took something positive from it yet many people were really offended which then lead to them getting annoyed I do think the reaction to the Leigh Alexander article and the creation of GG was really just a result of years of frustration from gamers by being treated a certain way and being lectured by SJW on what is acceptable in gaming The irony being yes SJ movements are real and influential but not much has changed or will change...so its like you guys reacted more to the suggestion of change than actual change

Oh I have studied history, or rather I have focused on key areas. But your point is really a moot point, I could say for arguments sake just to be fastidious " in the last 200 years no Western countries have as much blood on there hands as Hitler or Stalin " The reality is we cannot say with absolute certainty how many people were killed in the last 2000 years due to Western influence because accurate records were not kept as opposed to lets say the last 200 years I can say " Stalin killed 20 million of his own people " and I can guarantee you that many people were not killed in the 600 years of the Crusades but that's because there weren't 20 million people alive in the region so it would be an unfair comparison So you wouldn't be able to irrefutably prove "every western nation (if not every nation on Earth) has just as much blood on its hands as every other, study history." ?

Yes they are similar but all these statements would concern me if someone really used them as form of a political manifesto for any group. Thats why that Gramscian article distances itself from them

Germany is now no longer part of the west? No it it is Ah then your statement was utterly wrong and you accept this. Yes I should have worded that sentence better, because what I really meant is that most Western countries don't have the same amount of blood on there hands as your classic dictators like Stalin or Hitler

Germany is now no longer part of the west? No it it is

Sound familiar? I'm not sure what that is but its very irritating with its generalizations and flawed logic No one gives a damn if you find it irritating. Either you put up a counter argument on why old Soviet disinformation campaigns have absolutely no resemblance on to how the anti-GGs argue and what kind rhetoric they employ. Even Baroth can come up with counterarguments with great substance if poked enough, so you do have zero excuses. Either you put up or shut up. You seem to have misunderstood me , I didn't think you guys would be interested in what I don't like about those points. Thats why I didn't comment further, its not that I didn't want to And since you have asked me to respond I gladly will , I thoroughly enjoy these types of debates There is no truth, only competing agendas. 1)Nonsense, there are many truths that have been proven and are irrefutable. For example, Russia is actively involved in Ukraine and Nigeria is having an a hotly contested presidential election tomorrow All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.2) Never..not in a million years. Of course the West has aspects of a checkered past but comparing the West to the purges of Stalin or Hitler is just silly and no serious historian will agree with that, its just hyperbole There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor. 3)Again wrong, we dont pass judgement on the wealth or education of the citizens in other countries. We generally pass judgement on how they treat there citizens and effectively govern there country. And there are still some appalling examples of leadership in the world and there is no way they aren't going to get criticized The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.4 )This is obviously a joke ..and it did make me laugh Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.5)No if you break the law there must be consequences. The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.) For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors. 6)Also funny When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions ....in fact is this whole thing suppose to be a joke ? That's more like it. You do realize what i was trying point out the similarities of the underlying philosophy of the people of anti-GG vs. Soviet KGB subversion methods and not you personally? I only realized that later I didn't read the previous posts. But this is just your interpretation of anti-GG right, this is not actually there philosophy...its meant as a joke?

Well, can you prove that Russia is actively involved in Russia and Nigeria is holding elections? Posting news articles doesn't prove it, all that proved is that there are people CLAIMING these things are happening, but there is no proof they are. Heck there's no objective proof that Russia, Ukraine or Nigeria even exist. I can't even prove you posted the response I'm responding to, nor can you prove I posted this. Solipsism FTW! This post made me laugh Well you are quite talented at the art of sophistry..but you don't always debate like that. Like when you asked me during the Mad Men debate if I had actually had confimation about how women were treated in the 1960s ...it made me chuckle

Assuming I' reading correctly, that's what I meant; it represented a massive break from academic Marxism. I'll expand what I mean in relation to modern leftism in a bit. Making dinner. Baro where do you live? I always thought the USA but then realized I was wrong

Sound familiar? I'm not sure what that is but its very irritating with its generalizations and flawed logic No one gives a damn if you find it irritating. Either you put up a counter argument on why old Soviet disinformation campaigns have absolutely no resemblance on to how the anti-GGs argue and what kind rhetoric they employ. Even Baroth can come up with counterarguments with great substance if poked enough, so you do have zero excuses. Either you put up or shut up. You seem to have misunderstood me , I didn't think you guys would be interested in what I don't like about those points. Thats why I didn't comment further, its not that I didn't want to And since you have asked me to respond I gladly will , I thoroughly enjoy these types of debates There is no truth, only competing agendas. 1)Nonsense, there are many truths that have been proven and are irrefutable. For example, Russia is actively involved in Ukraine and Nigeria is having an a hotly contested presidential election tomorrow All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.2) Never..not in a million years. Of course the West has aspects of a checkered past but comparing the West to the purges of Stalin or Hitler is just silly and no serious historian will agree with that, its just hyperbole There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor. 3)Again wrong, we dont pass judgement on the wealth or education of the citizens in other countries. We generally pass judgement on how they treat there citizens and effectively govern there country. And there are still some appalling examples of leadership in the world and there is no way they aren't going to get criticized The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.4 )This is obviously a joke ..and it did make me laugh Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.5)No if you break the law there must be consequences. The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.) For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors. 6)Also funny When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions ....in fact is this whole thing suppose to be a joke ?

Your post seems very reasonable to me, if a game was translated to English and it was a really bad conversion it would also destroy the narrative for me in a RPG, and the story is a big part of the reason you play a game. So I understand your criticism

And? How was it, don't leave us hanging

Hi Melk "waves " Good to see you posting again, where have you been?

Sound familiar? I'm not sure what that is but its very irritating with its generalizations and flawed logic

Yeah you Finns are a weird breed.....for sure

...Who asked what questions? . I see no point in this. Trust me Longknife there is a point to almost every single debate, its just sometimes hard to see

Ok, but your shot was about me presenting a facade of detached cynicism, which is wholly inaccurate and if you want to start bringing up posting history, well that is where the remark about you comes in. Easy to follow. As for the part I quoted, did you read all of it ? It wasn't harping on your group only, which you've got your back up on predictably, he or she is perceiving a bizarre stalemate and that one group talking about innovation is lying out of all them, the last sentence hints at that. As for cynical being a good trait, well when it comes to games, it is, there are plenty of liars in this industry. You seem to think that my quoting that part meant everything else in the article was bad, it wasn't, but that part stood out for me. The styling on that article sucks, occasionally it forgets to de-bold the questions. Well, you can **** right off too until you get a Moderator badge, eh ? Malc I'm going to be honest here and jump in with my opinion, my erudite Hungarian friend is right about several things but he is perhaps going about convincing you in the wrong way I'm going to give it try and please don't get offended...that is not my intention. I have no issue if anyone wants to ask me similar questions Would you say you are a cynical person on these forums ? ( note this is how you feel and NOT what other people have said to you ) Would you say your level of empathy for people you don't know is normal?

Oh so its the old diatribe and invective against people who believe in SJ values Okay, I have heard it all before and I'm still not convinced As for the other part of the question. No I don't think I use innuendo, I am clear on issues and what I mean. Perhaps I am guilty of sententiousness at times but I still appreciate debates and I have changed my views on some topics...so its not like I'm completely intransigent Ha, because I raise a clear and uncontestable point that happens to be detrimental to SJF's my views are to be dismissed and do not convince you, yes of course you have changed your mind and will accept logical arguments. You contradict yourself within the space of sentences. This is why I do not deem you worth interacting with, your arguments are shallow and repetitious and your viewpoint is hypocritical and two faced considering your proclivities. I shall not further derail the thread as you wish me to do, so consider this exchange terminated. Its not all your views I dismiss, its just the majority of them. You are too extreme in your opinion, its like there is no middle-ground with you. And I find it very hard to debate with people who are not prepared to compromise on anything.

I'm glad you are enjoying LoG 2, I enjoyed the first one immensely and I am looking forward to playing the sequel

Oh so its the old diatribe and invective against people who believe in SJ values Okay, I have heard it all before and I'm still not convinced As for the other part of the question. No I don't think I use innuendo, I am clear on issues and what I mean. Perhaps I am guilty of sententiousness at times but I still appreciate debates and I have changed my views on some topics...so its not like I'm completely intransigent

You're having a different discussion than me. You're talking about whether you like those changes or not and whether they seem fun to you. I obviously can't prove you wrong on that. What I'm saying is that those aspects show a very clear divergence from how D&D CRPGs of the past played, so much so that the combat gameplay we see in that video doesn't really evoke games like Baldur's Gate or NWN. That much is quite obvious from that video - unless you think we need to read the manual and play the full game to be able to tell. From what I know of you personally, I think you don't really enjoy hardcore RPG mechanics and would prefer a relatively casual and actiony romp. I don't mean that as an insult - and I don't think you'll take it as one, given your self-professed preferences. I think you may well enjoy SCL. Which is my point. I don't have a bone to grind with SCL not being my cup of tea - that's not a problem. I do think it was disingenious of them to announce themselves as the return of good old D&D CRPGs. Tigranes is right on the money. If I invited all of you for dinner promising steak, prime rib, and an open bar and then when you all get there you find out I'm serving hamburgers and potato chips with one can of cheap beer you'd be a little disappointed. That is not to say burgers and chips are not good, it just wasn't what I promised you. They pitched this project by throwing around the D&D brand and the promise to live up to the IE games and NWN. That attracted a vocal and passionate audience. But the meal they are serving up, even though it's not out of the kitchen yet, is something else entirely. Their own forums have gone from being full of mooning fanboys to shark infested waters. Oh now I understand, Tigranes in future use analogies that involve food..they much easier to understand By the way GD are you really inviting me for dinner....or was this just part of your post and not to be taken seriously..because I love steak and prime rib !!!

Ouch that sounds painful, How did you sprain your shoulder ?

Nonek enough with the innuendo and soapbox sermons, it gets tiresome. Rather be direct and say what you mean. Who are you referring to when you say people that want inclusivity but don't practice it ?

Since when is ignoring the cause of a problem going to help? Israel, the US, Serbia, Greece, Iran and Iraq Kuwait, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, China, Tibet and two score more countries would like to have words with you. The UN and international community understands perfectly well and enforces absolutely nothing unless its the enforcing arm of some economic and military powers extended arm, trying to give it a thin veneer of "legitimacy" (because selling it at home is easier then) Oh my... Bruce, I sometimes hope you *don't* wake up to the real world (hint Libya was a chance to pitch in and try to be on the "winning" side in a tribal conflict and Serbia was real politik in action, trying to limit Russias sphere of influence in eastern Europe) Sometimes you dont need to formally annex anything, especially not if installing local puppet governments is a lot more cost efficient and achieves the same result. This is an interesting debate that I am glad you want to have, so let me go into more detail I didn't make the point around the borders being redesigned properly. In most cases the solution to conflicts is not " well can can just recreate the borders of country x ". This is rare and creates more problems than it may seem. For starters most citizens and governments like the borders that constitute there countries, despite some of these borders being imposed in the past. The Israelis have had endless problems around territory that they occupied from the attacking Arab forces during conflicts like the Six-Day War Now most of the world understands this simple fact, you cannot implement peace if you think you can annex a foreign countries territory in order to achieve this peace. This is something that Putin has failed to grasp. As I have mentioned several times the Russian absorbing of Crimea will continue to be an controversial decision with economic consequences for Russia. But then it gets more serious, you have Putin wanting to create a buffer zone from Russia and NATO\EU influence by getting Eastern Ukraine to breakaway from Ukraine. Once again the expectation is that Ukraine will be carved up even more..so the Ukrainians have already lost Crimea and now they must lose even more land. Its not going to be accepted by most of the International community and the West for obvious reasons. The response from the West is not some kind of nitpicking or unreasonableness , this is a direct result of Putin's desire for Russian hegemony in the region. And then I base my views not on my personal opinion but by what has been stated and what has been actually occurred in various political and military hot-spots in the world. You say the West only intervened in Libya because of them wanting to pander to some tribe. That is not the official reason or the accepted justification for the bombing campaign against Gaddafi. The West received the UNSC mandate because Gaddafi had surrounded the town on Misrata and was quite prepared to kill tens of thousands of people who wanted nothing more than political change, Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who had only ever enriched his own tribe and had never had a Democratic election once in the 40 years he ruled Libya I encourage you to read the history of the Siege of Misrata and how this was the direct cause of NATO intervention in Libya http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Misrata People tend to overlook this and accuse NATO of wanting to control Libya's oil and other reasons. There are always extenuating factors that countries intervene in other countries affairs but these don't negate the primary reason and in the case of Libya it was to prevent the mass killings of thousands I can give similar valid reasons for other conflicts that the West has intervened in, like Serbia, that justifies there involvement but I think you should get my point

you funny Volo The reality is obviously someone from a minority group should be more aware of the suffering or systemic discrimination that this group has grappled with That doesn't mean for example that straight white people cannot condemn Homophobia or say they are opposed to Racism if they haven't been victims of this type of discrimination themselves. SJ movements are often based on the principle and the morality around certain developments But I do believe the credibility of any SJ movement is enhanced if you have people from a minority group, whose rights you are supporting, being active in that movement. This should be obvious ?