BruceVC

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with? This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate " I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate" Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette The problem with debating you in this instance is that you've such a minority opinion in this case that it'll be unfair. There'll be 5+ different people ready to leap at any mistakes you make, and attack your position in different ways. That's true, there is only one of me and I have limited time. So I can't respond to everyone all the time. But sometimes one response addresses several disagreements, so for example if several people say " how can you say people in Western countries are happy with the state of government service delivery" I can say " there is a report that the UN used to create this benchmark of happiness and it incorporates a wide range of factors" I shouldn't have to respond to each person with the same comment?

Is it? Or is it easier just not to care? It doesn't mean you need to get depressed and lament the state of the world but I would say its abnormal to hear about a real crisis or event around the world where people are suffering and not show any empathy?

You want someone who disagrees with you that you can have an actual debate with? This is just a weak and irrelevant point that I was accused of during the interminable " Drama in the gaming industry " thread You don't like what I have to say so you think a proper response is something like " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate " I try to answer all realistic responses, I have responded to you several times. But once again you don't like my answer so all you can say " Bruce doesn't like to engage in debate" Your comment doesn't reflect the reality of my posting etiquette

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments Seriously? Really? Are you for real? I hope for your sake you're just trolling. What part of what I said do you disagree with, please in future explain what part of what I said you don't seem to like ? Is it the fact that the West help to liberate Libya from Gaddafi? Or is it the fact that West didn't stay on in Libya and tell the Libyans how to run there new government? At times that's an accurate observation, but also there are many people who are misinformed about certain events and topics. And when I present a different but accurate perspective they automatically disagree because its not what they want to hear For example take this thread. People don't want to know that the West offers its citizens the best quality of life compared to other systems of government. The reasons for this will vary but many people who disagree with me actually live in Western countries and currently are disillusioned with how there current governments operate, so the thought of acknowledging that Western governments are the best in the world is anathema to them. But that doesn't change the facts, and the facts are simple. The West has the happiest citizens and the governments of those countries and there ability to deliver services are directly related to this happiness. Therefore how can you not say " the Governments of the West are the best run governments in the world " Maybe someone could give examples of governments that have happier citizens than the West? I asked for this several times and people despite disagreeing with me couldn't produce a single link disputing what I have said J

No Volo, you are still one of the few people who believes that and that type of perspective is just ignored by people who try to have this debate in a meaningful way

Unfortunately Libya is always used as an example of " look what happens when the West intervenes in regime change" when in fact they should be saying " look how the West can effectively implement regime change " The West gave the new Libyan government the opportunity to run there own version of Democracy and system of leadership. They can't be held responsible for the sectarian violence that now threatens the overall stability of the country. The West can help liberate countries but it shouldn't be also expected to now run the new governments

Because it shows how unimportant having a western government is when you're one of these dumb brown countries who don't tow the line and completely submit to the will and exploitation of the superior "western governments". You've made the mistake of looking at the supposed greatness of the "western governments" without addressing the reality of how they're maintained. I agree, I doubt the people of Haiti will care about this survey. But that doesn't change its significance

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