Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[Meshugger]

Derek Smart has more to say:

 

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10644336_10152956785572679_8487895367754726987_o.jpg

 

Former Looking Glass dev shares his view (anonymously)

 

http://i.imgur.com/mI48TQ1.png

http://i.imgur.com/fiEv0Yk.png

[Longknife]

We can torture and kill eachother to our hearts content but if someone dyes a dog blue, that is simply inexcusable. 

 

 

 

I actually don't see the issue in the sense that I see the disgust with both issues quite clearly.

 

I think people get disgusted by cruel things being done to animals because in the case of an animal, there is absolutely nothing the animal could've possibly done wrong to have deserved such treatment. It's blatant cruelty for the sake of cruelty and a form of bullying in regards to something that is more or less helpless to resist you. Subjectively this is more disgusting because the act itself is seemingly inexcuseable and requires less empathy than even torture.

 

  With torture on the other hand there will always be people arguing it's justified. Like it or not, this is what happens, and the torturer could tell themselves that their torture victim, for example, is guilty of killing hundreds of their countrymen and therefore torture is "justified" in that the victim fully deserves such treatment and such pain. However, objectively the things a torture victim must endure are absolutely insane and far worse than most instances of animal cruelty.

 

This is also why, in my opinion, you'll see people go absolutely ape**** when the subjective cruelty of animal cruelty and the objective cruelty of torture get combined into some idiot microwaving a kitten or something for fun, resulting in the entirety of the internet basically going "yo **** that guy" and taking the gloves off, doxxing, harassing and sending the cops after them with nobody ever complaining about it possibly being "going too far." 

 

 

In short, I understand both the people complaining animal stories get more love than human stories and the people who care about the animal stories cause I think it's two sides of the same coin. Animal stories typically involve absolute subjective cruelty as the animal is undeniably innocent or helpless, torture stories often involve objective cruelty as what the victim must endure is drastically worse.

   Having said that, I thought torture was universally condemned at this point....? Last story I heard a torture bill was being shot down thanks to the typical stance of liberals on the matter combined with first-hand experience of torture from people like John McCain. But yeah, I don't exactly consider torture to be "popular" or supported. And slightly off topic, but the torture that REALLY ticks me off...? The types of torture where they blast music in the victim's ears round the clock, or a person is left alone in a room for days with minimal human social contact (if any) which quite literally can fry a person's brain. (we're social creatures, so having zero contact drives you nuts) Those stories are insanely cruel to me, though it's probably not hard to get the people involved to agree to the torture since they're not having to actively do anything cruel and it's more passive, with them never experiencing the headphones strapped to their heads or the sheer isolation and thus having difficulty empathizing as easily.

[kirottu]

Patreon wants to remove 8chan.

Hotwheels responds:

 

[kirottu]

Wikipedia admin claims Vivian James is an attack against Zoe Quinn.

 

Everything is political. Nothing is innocent. Listen and believe. For greater tolerance!

Edited December 22, 2014 by kirottu

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Wikipedia admin claims Vivian James is an attack against Zoe Quinn.Everything is political. Nothing is innocent. Listen and believe. For greater tolerance!

That makes no sense.

[Gromnir]

if we all could agree that gaming journalism is functionally an oxymoron, am expecting the gamergate silliness would be forgotten sooner rather than later.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[kirottu]

 

Wikipedia admin claims Vivian James is an attack against Zoe Quinn.Everything is political. Nothing is innocent. Listen and believe. For greater tolerance!

That makes no sense.

 

[Meshugger]

if we all could agree that gaming journalism is functionally an oxymoron, am expecting the gamergate silliness would be forgotten sooner rather than later.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

As you have probably noticed, they are taking themselves tremendously seriously.

[Blarghagh]

Wikipedia admin claims Vivian James is an attack against Zoe Quinn.

 

Everything is political. Nothing is innocent. Listen and believe. For greater tolerance!

 

Colors and patterns referencing rape?

 

This Wikipedia admin beats out every single entry of the Darwin Awards to instantly become by far the dumbest person alive.

[Amentep]

 

 

I don't think it's a difficult concept to grasp that whenever a journalist chooses to report on something, they're simultaneously not reporting on something else.

That's actually not true, since reporters can work on multiple stories.

 

They also don't work in a vacuum, so that reporter A isn't reporting on something doesn't mean Reporter B couldn't be.

 

 

 

Let's assume for a moment that people don't have infinite time and energy. If we're willing to accept this, it's not a huge leap of logic that despite being able to work on multiple stories, there is a finite number of stories they can work on at any given time. Therefore, assuming a maximum workload - which can be expected, given how astonishingly ****tily games journalists are paid, and the fact that bills usually don't just magically go away -, choosing to report on a given story does mean that a different story won't make it.

 

But this is actuall orthogonal to the point I was making, which is "assuming that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of being heard is dangerous, especially when one concludes that because of this, privately owned entities are somehow morally obliged to give platform to inane bull****, even at the cost of covering other, perhaps worthier subjects".

 

 

Sure, there's a finite number of stories. Because of time. I just want to make it clear that we're not dealing with a binary if/then statement. I think too often our discussions on this thread become alarmingly binary and/or reductionistic.

 

 

 

In the words of Chrys Ingraham:

 

"As Althusser has argued, 'A word or concept cannot be considered in isolation; it only exists in the theoretical or ideological framework in which it is used: its problematic' (1982:253). To determine a text's problematic is to reveal another logic circulating beneath the surface. It appears as the answer to questions left unasked. It is not that which is left unsaid or unaccounted for, but that which the text assumes and does not speak. What is required, then, is a process of analysis capable of inquiring into the power relations organizing the allowed as well as the disallowed meanings in an effort to expose the artificiality of the theories and ideologies organizing the use of particular concepts."

There's an assumption in what he says that a test assumes something that it doesn't speak.

 

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it.

 

It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so.

 

However my point is that it is possible for a critic/reader to read into the book their own cultural content that was never the intent of the author (or even, perhaps, in the author's cultural context) because what they're seeing isn't a reflection of the author or of the book but instead of themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

So what we have is a small cadre of cultural and artistic critics who write quite unlike the status quo, and a subset of gamers who give a **** what they say.  It’s hard to say how unique a problem this is to the games industry.  There are many film critics who have focused on progressing film as a medium artistically and culturally.  Most of them have total disdain for Michael Bay-type mass market pap, and to the people who buy tickets for them.  But there isn’t a whole lot of people going around arguing that the Pauline Kaels and Roger Eberts of the world are going to somehow destroy the medium.  And I’m assuming that Michael Bay is still cashing some pretty big checks.

 

In the real world, most people stick to media sources that they, you know, actually like. If you don’t like film critique, you’ll probably never care who Pauline Kael is.  However, games has a culture where the criticism is cross-pollinated by outrage.  People who are far outside of Polygon and Kotaku’s normal readerbase are directed to go there because OMFG BURN THE HERETIC!  And the sites have learned that having some disparate opinions and unique worldviews on games people are passionate about are effectively clickbait.  People like Erik make the mistake of thinking that, no, all gamers think alike, and therefore all gamer writers are talking down to them.   Despite the fact that numerous sites, including IGN & Gamespot (the market leaders) keep giving us triple helpings of exactly the ‘old’ style of journalism we’ve grown accustomed to.

 

 

 

I could be wrong, but I don't remember Roger Ebert advocating that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.  I remember (or misremember) reading something from Pauline Kael indicating she wished certain people would stop making movies, but I don't necessarily remember her specifically saying that a film shouldn't exist or be distributed.

 

Could be wrong, of course, but my readings of both (unlike some games journalists) were that they were advocates for better films by promoting what they wanted to see and being critical of the things they didn't.  They didn't go out and try to stop a film being distributed or made.  And I think that's the key difference - a lot of the game buying public (rightly or wrongly) are of the opinion that there are some game journalists who only want games made that they approve of (which is why we are where we are).

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

[Volourn]

Wasn't there that movie with the middle age man who dragged a little girl into mass murdering a bunch of civllians because they were mildly 'annoying' releasde just a eyar or two a ago?  the outrage was minimal, it was released with barely a blip, and the world didn't fall a part.

 

Cesnorship is about cowardice, power, and control. It's about mansplaining to young women on what games to play or not play, what movies to watch or not watch, etc., etc.

 

This is why SJWs are evil to the core. They believe in slavery and mass murder. That's DISGUSTING.

 

And, they hate young women. That's for darn sure.

[Gorgon]

Can we please retire 'mansplaining' 

[HoonDing]

Sorry it's already in Webster's

[Blarghagh]

Wasn't there that movie with the middle age man who dragged a little girl into mass murdering a bunch of civllians because they were mildly 'annoying' releasde just a eyar or two a ago?  the outrage was minimal, it was released with barely a blip, and the world didn't fall a part.

 

That would be God Bless America starring Bill's less known younger brother, Joel Murray. It was remarkably well-reviewed! I also recommend it, I thought it was pretty funny.

Edited December 22, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Let's assume for a moment that people don't have infinite time and energy. If we're willing to accept this, it's not a huge leap of logic that despite being able to work on multiple stories, there is a finite number of stories they can work on at any given time. Therefore, assuming a maximum workload - which can be expected, given how astonishingly ****tily games journalists are paid, and the fact that bills usually don't just magically go away -, choosing to report on a given story does mean that a different story won't make it.

 

But this is actuall orthogonal to the point I was making, which is "assuming that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of being heard is dangerous, especially when one concludes that because of this, privately owned entities are somehow morally obliged to give platform to inane bull****, even at the cost of covering other, perhaps worthier subjects".

 

 

Sure, there's a finite number of stories. Because of time. I just want to make it clear that we're not dealing with a binary if/then statement. I think too often our discussions on this thread become alarmingly binary and/or reductionistic.

 

 

 

If we look back at the origins of the conversation:

 

Fighter: I didn't read what the blacklisted guy was ragging on about, but they were wrong to not report on him! This is censorship! Bias! What a dangerous attitude!

Me: ...Actually, I think the "I didn't read what they were unwilling to publish, but I'm absolutely, 100% sure that it was worthy of being published" attitude is the more dangerous one. Not all opinions are created equal, and flat-out bad ideas deserve not being reported on.

 

I don't think I was making an especially binary or reductionist statement.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it.

 

It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so.

 

However my point is that it is possible for a critic/reader to read into the book their own cultural content that was never the intent of the author (or even, perhaps, in the author's cultural context) because what they're seeing isn't a reflection of the author or of the book but instead of themselves.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what point are you trying to make. Yes, it's possible to analyze products of culture incompetently, just as much as it's possible to analyze chemical compounds incompetently. Does it mean analysis in itself is bad? I don't think so.

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

 

 

 

Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published".

 

Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum!

[Amentep]

If we look back at the origins of the conversation:

 

Fighter: I didn't read what the blacklisted guy was ragging on about, but they were wrong to not report on him! This is censorship! Bias! What a dangerous attitude!

Me: ...Actually, I think the "I didn't read what they were unwilling to publish, but I'm absolutely, 100% sure that it was worthy of being published" attitude is the more dangerous one. Not all opinions are created equal, and flat-out bad ideas deserve not being reported on.

 

I don't think I was making an especially binary or reductionist statement.

I'd argue fighter was, however, and I thought that I'd add to your explanation with a further clarification I thought important but perhaps was unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to create anything - well, anything with words in it, at the very least - without some amount of cultural context seeping into it.

 

It might not be intentional on the part of the creator, but the author is dead, and has been dead for the better part of a century or so.

However my point is that it is possible for a critic/reader to read into the book their own cultural content that was never the intent of the author (or even, perhaps, in the author's cultural context) because what they're seeing isn't a reflection of the author or of the book but instead of themselves.

 

I'm not sure what point are you trying to make. Yes, it's possible to analyze products of culture incompetently, just as much as it's possible to analyze chemical compounds incompetently. Does it mean analysis in itself is bad? I don't think so.

 

My point is that we have to realize that criticism in and of itself has a bias. It is not a neutral entry into discourse; it carries the same potential baggage and influence as the work in question did/does.

 

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

 

Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published".

 

Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum!

 

And that's fine, I was addressing your "the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game" comment, which clearly isn't the reviews you mention above but other reviews (potentially hypothetical, as was my response).

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

 

Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published".

 

Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum!

 

And that's fine, I was addressing your "the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game" comment, which clearly isn't the reviews you mention above but other reviews (potentially hypothetical, as was my response).

 

 

Ah, that's fair, I guess.

 

 

So, I've scoured the "SJW headquarters" and didn't find such articles. Could anyone here point me to any?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Patreon wants to remove 8chan.

 

Hotwheels responds:

 

First documented adventure of Hachi!

 

http://youtu.be/kWURfAr1ByI

 

[media]

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

 

Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published".

 

Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum!

 

And that's fine, I was addressing your "the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game" comment, which clearly isn't the reviews you mention above but other reviews (potentially hypothetical, as was my response).

 

 

Ah, that's fair, I guess.

 

 

So, I've scoured the "SJW headquarters" and didn't find such articles. Could anyone here point me to any?

 

 

In case you haven't noticed, it's derogatery term used for anyone fighting for social justice by removing freedom & liberty. It's about the authoritarians vs. libertarians. But if you wish to find the philosophical foundation, you can look into the Post-Modernistic school (only power is real, everything else is personal experience) and if you like to read som literature about it, then anything by Foucault or Derrida is recommended.

 

Basically, a post-modernist thinks that the video below has the same value as Beethoven's 9th symphony because of the personal experience of it. The only way to enforce this view is through coercion: directly or indirectly.

 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

 

Then again, the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game. Which is a bit different situation from anything the aforementioned film critics have ever encountered.

 

I dunno, there have been a number of gunning down people movies. Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Falling Down...

 

Now you can argue that games making the player part of the process makes it different from viewing violence as a spectator, but American culture is facsinated by violence.

 

But I'd also argue that games journalists (as opposed to the weird "I write about games but am not a journalist" crowd) shouldn't be advocating for anything other than better games. Which a good discussion could be had whether Hatred is the right move for the game industry towards that goal, but as far as I can tell that discussion was never had.

 

Interestingly enough, I did some digging, and all the articles I've found at the usual suspects - Kotaku, Gamasutra, y'know, the "SJW sites" - have said "this game is pretty much a desperate attention grab, a cynical attempt at riding controversy in order to avoid the only question that should matter: 'is this game fun?' - but it has every right to be published".

 

Censorship! Bias! They're all book-burning anti-intellectual fascist nazi scum!

 

And that's fine, I was addressing your "the only context where I've even heard (from second-hand accounts, with no direct quotes) of games journalists advocating for stopping a game from being distributed/made is the case of How To Gun Down Unarmed Civilians Begging for Their Lives: The Game" comment, which clearly isn't the reviews you mention above but other reviews (potentially hypothetical, as was my response).

 

 

Ah, that's fair, I guess.

 

 

So, I've scoured the "SJW headquarters" and didn't find such articles. Could anyone here point me to any?

 

 

[snip]

 

By "such articles" I meant ones where games journalists are clamoring for the banning and censorship of Hatred 

 

(Also, your understanding of the social justice movement is... spotty, to say the least.)

[Meshugger]

Oh? Do you have an argument? All that i am seeing is passive aggressive facepalming.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Oh? Do you have an argument? All that i am seeing is passive aggressive facepalming.

 

Me: "So there were accusations about games journalists wanting to censor and ban Hatred. I've scoured Kotaku and Gamasutra, the two sites I remembered from the 'Gamers Are Dead' scandal to the best of my ability and didn't find such - actually, quite the opposite. Could you guys who obviously pay more attention to this sort of stuff point me to any articles that were asking for censorship?"

You: "SJWs are all evil postmodernists whose raison d'être is to force everybody through direct or indirect coercion to accept that art has no intrinsic value beyond one's personal experiences."

Me: "That's all fine and dandy, but it had nothing to do with what I asked :facepalm:"

 

I don't see any particularly passive-aggressive about my response.

[Meshugger]

 

Oh? Do you have an argument? All that i am seeing is passive aggressive facepalming.

 

Me: "So there were accusations about games journalists wanting to censor and ban Hatred. I've scoured Kotaku and Gamasutra, the two sites I remembered from the 'Gamers Are Dead' scandal to the best of my ability and didn't find such - actually, quite the opposite. Could you guys who obviously pay more attention to this sort of stuff point me to any articles that were asking for censorship?"

You: "SJWs are all evil postmodernists whose raison d'être is to force everybody through direct or indirect coercion to accept that art has no intrinsic value beyond one's personal experiences."

Me: "That's all fine and dandy, but it had nothing to do with what I asked :facepalm:"

 

I don't see any particularly passive-aggressive about my response.

 

 

So, no argument then.

 

Mine was a simple interjection to the current discussion. You don't happen to be a moderator at a forum of your own, do you?

[HoonDing]

back on topic

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Me: "So there were accusations about games journalists wanting to censor and ban Hatred. I've scoured Kotaku and Gamasutra, the two sites I remembered from the 'Gamers Are Dead' scandal to the best of my ability and didn't find such - actually, quite the opposite. Could you guys who obviously pay more attention to this sort of stuff point me to any articles that were asking for censorship?"

You: "SJWs are all evil postmodernists whose raison d'être is to force everybody through direct or indirect coercion to accept that art has no intrinsic value beyond one's personal experiences."

Me: "That's all fine and dandy, but it had nothing to do with what I asked :facepalm:"

 

I don't see any particularly passive-aggressive about my response.

 

 

So, no argument then.

 

Mine was a simple interjection to the current discussion. You don't happen to be a moderator at a forum of your own, do you?

 

 

I think I'm hardly at fault for thinking you intended to respond to a question I asked when you're directly replying with a quote to the post where I was asking said question.

 

Also, hard to argue with the assertion that "SJWs are all rabid postmodernists" when I've never met any SJW who even mentioned postmodernism, let alone identified as a follower of it. There's literally zero connection between the two groups of people, as far as I'm aware.

Edited December 22, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid