BruceVC

Looting? "Looting" is what you got out of that? I wonder ****ing why? I don't have the patience for this. I'm sorry, I don't understand how you can say this story disproves that Western style governments aren't the best in the world as they have the happiest governments I did acknowledge that Western countries have done some bad things. But that doesn't make the first sentence incorrect?

It must be weird for you at times to realize you should be feeling some emotion about an event that has upset everyone else but you just don't feel anything? Not really. People I don't know die every day, murder is wrong obviously but I don't feel the need to act dramatically upset over one involving a total stranger. Wonder how long it is before we have our own Patriot Act. Already everyone is knee jerking to put more armed guards in city halls and Parliament. Fun times ahead. So you don't feel any empathy towards the dead and how they died. This is a form of emotion

I would rather not take the chance of you guys missing out on my post Just start a new SJW thread to talk about this kind of stuff. I'll visit it. No I only post what I consider are valid SJ issues in there own thread. I don't want to overdo it and also I don't really want a dedicated SJ thread, would you ?

It must be weird for you at times to realize you should be feeling some emotion about an event that has upset everyone else but you just don't feel anything?

That's nice Bruce, but I don't see how it's related to this. This thread is the closet thing to a current SJ discussion we have and I didn't want to start new thread just to raise this You could try the Capitalism v. Socialism thread we had a while back. I would rather not take the chance of you guys missing out on my post

That's nice Bruce, but I don't see how it's related to this. This thread is the closet thing to a current SJ discussion we have and I didn't want to start new thread just to raise this

You guys think I'm hardcore and unreasonable in my social justice beliefs. I've just listened to a late night radio discussion where certain people are convinced that 20 years after the end of Apartheid the government must still provide free houses to them, free services and provide a way for them to find a job. They don't want to take responsibility for anything..."the government has to do it for them "

TN I have noticed something that you guys may realize already. I only like to comment on this thread if I have something really unique to add So I don't comment much anymore, I have noticed I'm more chilled on certain levels. So what I'm saying is this thread can create certain frustration, give it a break for a while and see what I mean

I've never heard anyone refer to Russians as being non-white before. For some people whites is only WASP's, or only "Nordic" race. For example Spanish people (and all Mediterraneans) are non white for them. Yep, such persons just are stupid non-educated Nazi's, but as i tell before i see no problems here if someone consider us as non white. During XIX-XX centuries Western Europeans too tarnished this word. Anyway XXI century is time of superriority of Asians and we make rightful choice, when we begin this small confrontation against West. Oby it doesn't matter about the definition that some people may have for the Russian people, you guys have hot strippers...so there is no doubt about the descriptions of the important Russian exports

I normally wouldn't say anything to dispute this type of post but because I think my comment is constructive I'm sure you won't mind, you not suggesting that real journalism is dead? You mean gaming journalism ? Well, I am talking about a broadcast of an "investigative" news program (EenVandaag) on a public (paid for with tax money) channel. When they regurgitate news from other sources without any research of their own and they only show one side of the story, they aren't fit to call themselves journalists. And no, interviewing a couple of Dutch people from the gaming industry who then rehash the same things you could find in just any gaming news article about GamerGate doesn't count as research. Audi alteram partem seems to mean nothing to these people. The fact that for many people using the GamerGate hashtag the real issue is a perceived lack of ethics among gaming journalists isn't even mentioned, and they don't even try to find anyone who'd want to represent the GamerGate side of the story, it's all about the faceless group of angry men who dislike women having any influence on gaming. And this of course interspersed with scenes from games in which women are brutally killed. Some of which I would agree are rather tasteless, but others in which quite honestly the program misses the point. People are killed in some video games, and among those people are women. This is also true in literature, and on television. But I don't see that being reported on in such a way. It's just plain old sensationalism. It's not the outcome that irks me, by the way, it's the method of getting there. If they had concluded that a toxic portion of a loosely defined group of people calling themselves GamerGate is harassing women on the internet and that we should all condemn that after they had given a full rundown on the story including the various reasons people have for supporting GamerGate and had done interviews with people supporting both sides involved with this story, I'd be fine with it. But anyway, in general, I don't think journalism is completely dead, there are still some bastions of journalism like Der Spiegel, but a lot of news sources have seriously deteriorated in quality. Here's the piece by the way: http://www.eenvandaag.nl/binnenland/54762/vrouwen_bedreigd_in_de_gamewereld?autoplay=1 I'm not used to anything different. Dutch journalism has always just copied over whatever articles they could find when it comes to anything that doesn't take place on Dutch soil. The irony of these journalists is that they don't seem to realize that they're their own worst enemy. They are by far the biggest, most valuable supporters of the part of GamerGate that they hate: The trolls. They're ignoring the people concerned about a lack of journalistic ethics and acknowledging attention seeking trolls instead, giving them aaaaaalll the attention and publicity they could ever need. It's not their intended message but it's their practical message. "Want to be internet famous? All you have to do is harass a woman that is in or vaguely related to the game industry. Go ahead, she's already been doxxed as we reported ad nauseum, I'm sure you can find the information for yourself." In the meanwhile, the genuine journalistic ethics people are getting angrier and angrier and are steamrolling them. Who would have guessed that acknowledging those people (whether their cause of distrust is valid or not) could have been a more beneficial approach? I mean, even if, no wait, especially if you wholeheartedly believe that this is a front for misogyny, maybe it would be a good idea to figure out exactly why so many people distrust and/or hate you enough to buy into it so easily and prefer to throw in their lot with the supposed misogynists than side with you. You mean people can get angrier than they already are ? I doubt it

I normally wouldn't say anything to dispute this type of post but because I think my comment is constructive I'm sure you won't mind, you not suggesting that real journalism is dead? You mean gaming journalism ? Well, I am talking about a broadcast of an "investigative" news program (EenVandaag) on a public (paid for with tax money) channel. When they regurgitate news from other sources without any research of their own and they only show one side of the story, they aren't fit to call themselves journalists. And no, interviewing a couple of Dutch people from the gaming industry who then rehash the same things you could find in just any gaming news article about GamerGate doesn't count as research. Audi alteram partem seems to mean nothing to these people. The fact that for many people using the GamerGate hashtag the real issue is a perceived lack of ethics among gaming journalists isn't even mentioned, and they don't even try to find anyone who'd want to represent the GamerGate side of the story, it's all about the faceless group of angry men who dislike women having any influence on gaming. And this of course interspersed with scenes from games in which women are brutally killed. Some of which I would agree are rather tasteless, but others in which quite honestly the program misses the point. People are killed in some video games, and among those people are women. This is also true in literature, and on television. But I don't see that being reported on in such a way. It's just plain old sensationalism. It's not the outcome that irks me, by the way, it's the method of getting there. If they had concluded that a toxic portion of a loosely defined group of people calling themselves GamerGate is harassing women on the internet and that we should all condemn that after they had given a full rundown on the story including the various reasons people have for supporting GamerGate and had done interviews with people supporting both sides involved with this story, I'd be fine with it. But anyway, in general, I don't think journalism is completely dead, there are still some bastions of journalism like Der Spiegel, but a lot of news sources have seriously deteriorated in quality. Here's the piece by the way: http://www.eenvandaag.nl/binnenland/54762/vrouwen_bedreigd_in_de_gamewereld?autoplay=1 I can understand how annoying that must be, they should present the history and context of GG otherwise it creates a misperception of the movement . But can you also see what's happening and I did mention this in past criticisms of GG Many people in civil society only see the issues of sexism and misogyny from GG, the other stuff isn't relevant because of the extremist element and the "horror stories that exist "

I normally wouldn't say anything to dispute this type of post but because I think my comment is constructive I'm sure you won't mind, you not suggesting that real journalism is dead? You mean gaming journalism ? I don't know about Jaded Wolf, but I don't think journalism is dead. Although it could be better. Yeah, I follow several types of journalism outside of gaming and its all very good. Like The Economist magazine

Guys listen to this, its a remix of Goldfish Moonwalk Away. Its brilliant but it is a dance song just so you know

I normally wouldn't say anything to dispute this type of post but because I think my comment is constructive I'm sure you won't mind, you not suggesting that real journalism is dead? You mean gaming journalism ?

Wow, nice story. Fond memories for you as well Imagine going in time to the mid 1980's and trying to explain to people the concept of online gaming or how games would develop to this massive multi-billion dollar industry....they would think you were smoking some good stuff

That's a cool picture, I remember back in the mid 1980's we couldn't get anything like D&D in South Africa because of sanctions but my dad use to travel overseas for work and he bought me a similar D&D boxset to that one but it was newer. It was the picture of that single fighter taking on that massive dragon on that gold pile. That picture blew my mind and that was my introduction to D&D and I became a DM. We didn't really understand what RP was as we were use to Steve Jackson books so I was waiting for the rulebook to tell us what to do, not realizing everything happened in our imaginations. Only a few months later did we start realizing what RP was and how you organised a proper campaign. Great memories

But DA2 didn't let you use it, IIRC. Then again why do you need a whorehouse when you have Isabella, same number of VDs. That's nasty to say anything bad about the angelic, virtuous and noble Isabella...she was so beautiful

You can indeed still attempt to buy love with supposedly superficial trinkets, but I'm sure you also have to be nice to people in dialogue options. Can you be nice to NPC in dialogue options Gfted1? If so then true love awaits thee Are you saying that I cant bring the pimp hand and then drag her and her sister into my tent? ROLEPLAYING IN NAME ONLY! Funniest post of the week, definite winner of the much respected " BruceVC funniest post of the week" award

Good post, there have been several polls around age but nothing wrong with another one. Demographics change, so always interesting to see the results. But Indira is right your 36-40 option is broken, please fix so us "old-timers " can update the poll correctly

Interestingly enough with the arrival of DA:I just around the corner and that game having Romance it will soon be time to start discussing how we feel about the implementation of Romance in DA:I and will it be relevant for PoE 2? So good reminder Lilly

You can indeed still attempt to buy love with supposedly superficial trinkets, but I'm sure you also have to be nice to people in dialogue options. Can you be nice to NPC in dialogue options Gfted1? If so then true love awaits thee

He can use his blades as knives. To be fair its not a verdict where the race made any difference, if anything its based on wealth as Oscar basically got the best defence attorney money could buy. But even that couldn't get him off without real jail time or even better a " not guilty" verdict of all charges. Also his career is over, he will never run again. I can't see him getting a job on any kind of South African TV or radio show so I'm really not sure what he is going to do with this life after he has served his time? He could get into coaching but this trial has really tainted the image and perception of him for many people so the whole " motivational speaker " avenue is also not an option for him? So to

Indira are you happy that there is Romance in DA:I, do you follow Romance arcs or is it inconsequential for you ?

As I indicated in my past post my thinking, or rather that survey, is not naïve. Its based on fact that Western countries have the happiest citizens due to how there governments provide services and how stable the governments are Also you guys obviously didn't read the report that on the original link, its called World Happiness Report 2013 (PDF) The report is based not only on the GDP of countries but many socio-economic factors contribute towards this data So maybe read that report and tell me what parts you disagree with? In this case ideology just means the Western style system of governments and how they manage there countries. I should have been more clear on this, I apologize You did not respond to any of the points I raised. (Exception: You did define what you mean by ideology, which is helpful.) Explanation: I did not seize on GDP as a particularly problematic or representative metric, so I am not sure what you are responding to. The fact that it measured 'many socio-economic factors' does not actually answer anything here. My questions apply to all of their independent variables, because it is a question about the methodology itself. To clarify myself again, then: you have raised the argument that (1) Western nations are objectively happiest, and (2) this proves the objective superiority of Western ideology. In that case, the burden of proof is on you, not us, to show: (A) Objective evidence that they are happiest; (B) Rationale as to why A is a valid measure of happiness; © Rationale as to how logically A can prove 2. You have done A, but instead of moving on to B and C, you are repeating A again and again and again. Hence, I ask: where is B and C? I can go into detail and dig into the actual measures they used (including problems of self-reporting and variable aggregation in this kind of research), but it is better to deal with the basics first. Do you think the survey is a good index of happiness? If so, how so? And then, how do you go on to make your own inference that this proves the superiority of Western ideology? If someone says to me " are you happy living in South Africa " my answer would be "yes" But the answer "yes" is not based on my mood on the day I was asked or how I am feeling because I just got a promotion. Its based on a number of factors that could include corruption within my country, state of healthcare, economic opportunities, political stability , gdp per capita, do government services work and other points. So what I would do is weigh up the good and the bad and decide what is most prevalent, in my case the good outweighs the bad so I am still happy overall. Many of these considerations are based on the government being directly responsible for them Now you can say " none of these things might matter to someone's happiness" but that's not what the metrics of these surveys are based on. The assumption is that if you are living in a country and all these things are positive you would say you are happy. If you go to your average African person and say "what will make you happy ", the standard response will be something like " I want a job, a stable government and a future for my children ". And that's perfectly reasonable, because that would most make people happy So going back to the metrics of the survey that's what the socio-economic questions are based on. So to address your A and B questions A) Objective evidence that they are happiest : I have said I am happy based on the questions and considerations around the answers B)Rationale as to why A is a valid measure of happiness : That's been explained as these are things that directly would impact our happiness ( in other words thinking your government is profoundly corrupt is not going to make you happy living in such a country ) C) Rationale as to how logically A can prove 2: The two are directly related and I have explained the connection So then we get to conclusion " I am happy living in South Africa " and then I need to accept that this happiness is directly influenced by my government and its policies Now going back to the original point, the top 10 countries that have the best quality of life for its citizens are Western countries. Therefore why is so difficult to accept that Western governments are better than non-Western governments? Also do you have an issue accepting that Western countries have the happiest citizens or the point that this means Western government are the most effective governments in the world?

I doubt it, I don't think you are allowed to represent your country if you have this type of criminal conviction?