jillabender

Maybe it would turn out something like "The Room" by Tommy Wiseau? http://www.theroommovie.com/ I have heard it aptly described as "the kind of movie one might expect an alien to make, after having had movies thoroughly explained to him." XD

I'm almost certain you should be fine. (edit): Decided to make sure: wiki said you should be good if you reloaded. Thanks! After reading the wiki, it occurred to me that I may actually have killed a guard in the prologue chapter, thus locking out the achievement, haha. But there is always the next playthrough ;D Interesting coincidence but I am also playing Deus Ex:HR at the moment. I started yesterday, I am not going to follow the pacifist route though, I am one of those uses the gun and bullets to make my point It's become one of my all-time favourite games! Hope you have fun with it

I'm almost certain you should be fine. (edit): Decided to make sure: wiki said you should be good if you reloaded. Thanks! After reading the wiki, it occurred to me that I may actually have killed a guard in the prologue chapter, thus locking out the achievement, haha. But there is always the next playthrough ;D

Fringe elements are unfortunate because I find they tend to be overrepresented due to the nature of their extreme views. This goes for both sides (and for a lot more topics than just feminism). The extreme nature tends to have the effect of pushing me away from various perspectives, which probably isn't fair to the discussion as a whole. I have seen this too. The idea that unless you're a part of the group that is oppressed, you can never truly understand the challenges that that group faces. I'm not sure I agree with it, even if I concede that I'm likely ignorant to the challenges that a lot of groups may have by virtue of not being a part of said group. Saying that those are only "allies" I think is mostly a semantics thing. To me they're still pushing for similar goals. Most of my experience with people that identify as "feminists," however, are people that feel that there are, in general, unnecessary gender roles that compromise both men and women. Meaning that while they feel women, in general, are disadvantaged, they point out that there are circumstances where men get the shaft too. Some of it being places like jobs that are traditionally for women (i.e. nursing, clerical), as well as bigger issues such as the deference to the mother for child custody based on assumptions that the mother is innately better at child rearing. I agree that the idea that "someone who is not part of an oppressed group can never truly understand the challenges faced by that group" can be taken too far – I think it does a disservice to everyone involved to take the cynical position that all someone who is not part of a disadvantaged group can do is try to minimize the harm caused by their privilege. I believe that people are capable of putting themselves in the shoes of another person and feeling genuine compassion for people who have experienced kinds of unfair treatment that they haven't. We may never have first-hand knowledge of what it's like to experience certain things, and that's an important distinction, but that doesn't mean that understanding and compassion aren't possible. I think it's also important to keep in mind that being a member of a disadvantaged group doesn't automatically mean that a person has an in-depth understanding of systemic injustice, or will automatically empathize with the experiences of other disadvantaged people – even people who belong to the same group don't necessarily have the same experiences. I can only speak for myself, but as a woman, it's not as though I go around thinking "Boy, I'm sure glad that being a woman gives me a get-out-of-privilege-free card! I've been saved!" I don't think of privilege as some kind of guilty taint that someone is born with and then needs to spend their life atoning for – I think it's more productive to think of it as simply living within a system that gives you advantages while disadvantaging other people: a system that you can't necessarily avoid benefiting from no matter how much you may hate the system. Being a woman doesn't mean that I don't benefit from being middle-class and white, for example – and it doesn't mean that I don't need to work at understanding how patriarchy and other oppressive systems work on a societal level and how they affect people who are disadvantaged in ways that I'm not (I most definitely don't always succeed at that). Finally, I think it really needs to be emphasized that, as Allan has pointed out, feminism is not a monolithic set of beliefs – it encompasses a whole variety of often competing movements, philosophies, and viewpoints (The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy gives a well-done and interesting overview here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/). It's frankly unproductive to generalize about "what feminists believe" as if feminists were a hive-mind, or to point to extreme fringe groups as representing "what feminism is about" – it's far more productive to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of specific feminist viewpoints.

In Dragon Age: Origins, you can threaten a sentient tree who speaks in rhymes and puns

It definitely does a brilliant job of exploring the contradiction built into games: the idea that we play them partly to experience a sense of freedom and control that we don't always find in our everyday life – yet we also know that every action we take in a game has already been scripted and accounted for, and in a sense, we actually have a need to know what some of the limits are, or it's no longer a hyperreal escape.

Playing Deus X:HR, and re-playing Mass Effect 1 Maybe someone could answer a question for me about Deus X – I've been doing a Pacifist playthrough, but I accidentally killed a guard while performing a take-down, and then reloaded and continued from an earlier save. Does anyone happen to know whether that might compromise getting the achievement?

The position of women in the historical record wasn't the focus of my courses, or even of a specific module within the courses – the courses I was thinking of were English Literature courses where the issue happened to come up on a couple of occasions. In the case of one professor, some of his research was focused partly on challenging certain ideas about the status of women in the Middle Ages, and it was pretty much unavoidable to talk about that in the class because it was a course on the Canterbury Tales, and some of the Tales directly address ideas about gender roles. But it wasn't the main focus of the course.

I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible. Fair enough. Occasionally I see the "famous women you probably haven't heard of but probably should have" posts that go around social media from time to time. Clearly their contributions are documented, but it's true that despite their contributions in similar fields such as physics/astronomy and the like, but male names are easier to recall (at least personally speaking). That definitely seems to be the case from my perspective, too. Of course, you are right to point out that, as you said in an earlier post, the claim that we today are excluding women's contributions from history is difficult to prove, and I'm certainly not claiming that I'm in a . It's easy for me to think of examples of women whose important contributions are documented, but little known, but the fact that it's easy to think of examples of something is not in itself conclusive proof of a trend. So, it's not the kind of thing that I would expect anyone to simply take my word for (although I encourage people to take a look at the Foz Meadows article, which addresses the issue and is very well-done). Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... My ire is aimed at hang-wringing professors who would rather meta-game history and feminism than actually teach. I can't speak for your university experience, but the professors that I was thinking of weren't single-mindedly focused on using everything as a platform for a particular kind of feminism. The context of their bringing up the issue was that they were challenging the idea that women are barely present in the historical record, and challenging the idea that times and places like Victorian England and the European Middle Ages were monolithic and uniformly sexist through-and-through (by pointing out that there were conflicting ideas about what gender roles ought to be back then, just as there are now).

I remember some of my university professors bringing up the point that, in a lot of cases, the problem isn't only that women's contributions weren't included in the historical record, and more that we today often overlook those parts of the historical record that involve women's experiences. In other words, in many cases, we today, and not historians in the past, are the ones making women's contributions invisible.

I completely agree that abuse and bullying like "RIP trolling" and the threats that Anita Sarkeesian received should be treated as abuse and bullying, and should never be dismissed as insignificant simply because the person doing it might consider it to be "trolling." The difficulty is that it almost seems unavoidable to talk about that kind of behaviour in the context of discussing other things that sometimes get referred to as trolling – like being deliberately outrageous to get a rise out of someone in the context of an argument. Just as someone might justify saying something deliberately offensive in the context of an argument by saying "I didn't really mean it, I only said it to get a laugh at the expense people who might take it seriously," the people who threatened Anita Sarkeesian might justify their actions by saying "I never had any intention of actually harming her, I just wanted to get a rise out of her and people who agree with her." I absolutely agree that milder forms of needling and provocation are not equivalent to extreme threats and harassment, but what I think those behaviours often have in common is an underlying attitude that if it happens online or if a person doesn't "actually mean" what they say, it means that the person doesn't have to take responsibility or be accountable for their words. My question regarding whether some people "deserve" to be trolled for taking something too seriously is this: If I believe that someone is taking an issue "too seriously" and therefore "deserves" to be trolled, and I then say something deliberately outrageous to provoke them, is it fair for me to argue that I didn't "actually mean" the outrageous thing I said, as a way of dismissing people who might challenge my assumption that the problem is with the other person? Put more simply, if people respond with criticism or anger to something that I didn't "actually mean," does that automatically mean that the problem is with them? I agree that describing extreme bullying as "trolling" can diminish the seriousness of it by implying a shrugging attitude that "people are going to be outrageous and ridiculous, but what can you do?" I also don't believe that people who engage in extreme bullying are necessarily doing it solely to get a rise out of people – I think it's critical to recognize that there are people who use that kind of behaviour to hurt and intimidate people and even as a way of keeping a less powerful group of people "in their place." But I also think it's important to recognize that sometimes acts that are intended as "mild provocation" can be incredibly hurtful, especially when someone is being provoked about an issue that has caused a lot of pain for them personally – and that's why I take issue with the kinds of things some people are defending as "good trolling" even though they may not fall into the same category as the worst examples of online abuse. To me, even actions that some people might consider "mild provocation" seem to stem from an attitude of seeing oneself as exempt from responsibility for one's words and actions, and from a disregard for how those words and actions might be perceived by the people on the receiving end – and I see that as a dangerous mindset.

I have to agree that the article isn't really about things like devil's advocacy, parody, or satire. I can understand why some people might want to defend the idea of needling someone just enough to deflate the person's ego, but I don't think that's what the study is talking about when it talks about people who consider trolling their favourite internet activity. Not everyone whose actions could occasionally be considered "trollish" engages in extreme antisocial behaviour, but I don't think it makes sense to point to people who engage in occasional pranking in an attempt to refute the article's point about people who enjoy behaving in extreme and malevolent ways. Leaving aside the question of whether a bit of mild provocation or needling can sometimes be okay (I think it's an interesting question, but I'm still not convinced that deliberately trying to get a rise out of people is ever something to be proud of), I think it's important to recognize that while some people may engage in things like satire or in relatively mild pranking or provocation without acting in extreme and malevolent ways, that may simply mean that the article is not talking about them – it doesn't necessarily mean that the observations in the article about the kinds of people who engage in extreme acts of trolling are invalid.

IMO they are coming from a place like RPGCodex where "trolling" has its own definition and meme where it is both acceptable and encouraged, and they got butt hurt that outside "trolls" are seen as horrible people or according to this study psychopathic sadist. It like arguing about what is "cool", you will always upset several niche communities. I don't think most of the people who have been defending the idea of "good trolling" in this particular thread have been overly defensive about it – while I may not see things quite the same way that some other people do, I think there have been some thought-provoking points made, and I do think that questions like "is it ever okay to deliberately provoke people?" or "why is it that we can tolerate snark in some contexts, but not others?" are genuinely worthy of reflection.

I think I get where you're coming from now. If I'm understanding you correctly, when you defend "good trolling," you're not so much defending silliness for the sake of silliness (because most people tend to accept silliness for the sake of silliness as harmless), but more defending the idea of being a little bit provoking (without going overboard) for the sake of being entertaining or making a point. You seem to be using "trolling" to mean being irreverent and provoking with a degree of deception involved, where "good trolling" involves being a little bit provoking and sneaky in a clever way that doesn't cross a line. I guess where I see things a little bit differently is that I tend not to like the idea of deliberately baiting someone in the context of a debate, even in a subtle way, and I think it really does come down at that point to personal preferences and what kind of behaviour we can tolerate. If I'm going to debate with someone, I want the other person to own and take responsibility for what they genuinely think, and I try to do the same. If someone is going to take on the role of devil's advocate, I prefer for them to be upfront that they are putting forward a position that they don't necessarily agree with for the sake of bringing another idea into the discussion. That said, it's fine with me if a person uses humour to convey that they are being a devil's advocate – so long as they make it clear that is what they are doing. In short, If I sense that someone's goal is to keep me guessing about what their position is, it's more likely to make me think the person is being immature rather than clever. I can shrug at that kind of thing when I encounter it in a discussion about something relatively inconsequential, but if it's a discussion about an issue that has a serious impact on people, my tolerance for that kind of thing is very, very low. At that point, if I laugh at someone who is being deliberately insincere in order to needle people, it's because I'm laughing at the ridiculous side of the situation to keep myself from getting angry – not because I think the person is actually being funny or clever. A well-thought-out satire that's subtle enough to be mistaken for the real thing with is another matter – that's something that I can appreciate if it's done well. I see good satire differently from what I've described above because it generally tends to be upfront about what its target is (although it may mock more than one position at the same time) – even if the joke is subtle and the mockery is targeted partly at those who might not recognize the punch line, the intention is still, for the most part, that the audience will (eventually) be in on the joke. (Thank you, by the way – I've really enjoyed your posts in this discussion, and it's given me a lot to think about )

Can you point me to one? Simply for reference. It's come up in this thread in other places regarding a "good troll" but in all honesty, I'm not sure I agree there is such a thing as a good troll. Mostly because my application of the term trolling is behaviour that is set to be malevolent, with the purpose of disrupting discussions and antagonizing other posters. Because I don't consider the application of things such as satire, devil's advocacy, sarcasm, and so forth to really be "trolling" though. A quick google search for the term "trolling" mostly comes up with actions that are done specifically to provoke a anger and frustrate others while seeking for a response. Is it a case where the word "trolling" is applied very liberally? If I make a playful sassy comment to a coworker, and he jokes that I am "trolling" does that make me a troll? Because to me the crux of trolling is to post in a way to continue to intentionally antagonize in order to frustrate a poster and solicit responses (most likely of the heated kind). So with that in mind, it'd seem like the only way a "good troll" would exist is if someone were trolling an organization/group of people that would be deemed "appropriate for trolling" by some sort of supposed mass appeal. Like when Something Awful would go and intentionally derail a pedophile website or something. But if fine trolling is like an art form, I suspect you more mean "high quality trolling" as opposed to what SA did, since the posts that SA made were more akin to fairly standard inflammatory posting. "Trolling" is one of those terms that's very loaded in that it has so many possible connotations and shades of meaning – people generally rely on context to gauge whether "she was trolling" means "she was being sassy and irreverent," "she was being deliberately outrageous and provoking," or "she was outright bullying people." I do agree that saying "he is a troll" generally carries a far more negative connotation than saying "he was trolling." I agree that it's hard to imagine a situation where antagonizing people just for the sake of antagonizing people could be seen as a positive. I think that when people say there is such a thing as a "good troll," what they're referring to are harmless pranks and silliness, or satire along the lines of "A Modest Proposal." I do find it a bit odd to characterize either of those things as "good trolling" – I can't help but think "If the prank is genuinely harmless, or the satire is genuinely clever and insightful, why does it need to be justified as 'good trolling'? Wouldn't it be less confusing to simply say 'I thought it was harmless/funny/insightful and not malevolent'?" I think where I'm confused by people using the phrase "good trolling" is that it's already pretty common to use the term "trolling" in a playful way, in a context where it's clear that nothing actually malevolent is being implied, so I'm not quite sure why someone would feel the need to further qualify something as "good trolling." People can definitely disagree honestly about whether a joke or an attempt at teasing or satire crossed an ethical line that shouldn't have been crossed, but at that point, I think it's probably more productive to simply say "I think that joke was more hurtful than funny," or conversely "I didn't think that prank crossed a line" – I think framing the discussion in terms of whether something is an act of "good trolling" or "bad trolling" is more likely to confuse things.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that deliberately provoking people can sometimes be an effective way to make a point, because it can make the other person aware of their own self-importance – the goal can be that the recipients will work themselves into a frothing rage, and then be forced to recognize how ultimately unproductive their rage really is. I do think that's a really interesting idea for discussion, but I'm not sure I agree. I definitely agree that it's important to be able to step back from online disagreements when we find ourselves getting overly wound up and self-righteous. But in my experience, deliberately provoking people isn't necessarily likely, in itself, to make a person realize that they are being silly. If I were to deliberately say something outrageous to provoke someone, and that person were then to respond with a lot of blustering, incoherent anger, it would be easy for me to congratulate myself for having made them look silly, but I'm not sure it's likely that either of us would actually learn anything. In fact, I think that deliberately provoking people can create an environment where there's so much hyperbole that it's hard to have a really honest discussion. That's not to say that snark can never be an effective way to make a point, but I do think that snark is different from deliberately provoking people. I think it's possible to make a point in a snarky way while also conveying a sense of awareness that the joke is on you as well as on the people you are snarking, and I think that snark is far more likely to get people's attention in a productive way if the person doing the snarking is able to show that sense of self-awareness and to make themselves a little bit vulnerable. I think it's also important to be aware that when we're talking with people online, we don't always know what experiences people have had, and deliberately provoking someone about an issue that's caused them a lot pain personally can be incredibly callous and hurtful – no matter how much it might appear to you or I that they are overreacting.