Meshugger Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? See, if the argument was "good is subjective, and there are many equally valid systems of ethics, therefore it's undesirable to enforce a singular, rigid view of 'good' as the ultimate arbiter on human behavior", that I can agree with. "Expecting people to not behave like a bag of **** to each other is fascist" is a fair bit less nuanced viewpoint than that, though. "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhoulishVisage Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? What doth life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye_iob2MwGw When in doubt, blame the elves. I have always hated the word "censorship", I prefer seeing it as just removing content that isn't suitable or is considered offensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshugger Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? See, if the argument was "good is subjective, and there are many equally valid systems of ethics, therefore it's undesirable to enforce a singular, rigid view of 'good' as the ultimate arbiter on human behavior", that I can agree with. "Expecting people to not behave like a bag of **** to each other is fascist" is a fair bit less nuanced viewpoint than that, though. But the nuaces of what is a ****bag in relative of good is still undefined though. Where does the **** end and good begin? What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? What doth life? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye_iob2MwGw Life just is. It's an experience to live, not a problem to solve. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? See, if the argument was "good is subjective, and there are many equally valid systems of ethics, therefore it's undesirable to enforce a singular, rigid view of 'good' as the ultimate arbiter on human behavior", that I can agree with. "Expecting people to not behave like a bag of **** to each other is fascist" is a fair bit less nuanced viewpoint than that, though. But the nuaces of what is a ****bag in relative of good is still undefined though. And that's a problem... how? "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshugger Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 No problem. Just having a conversation and asking questions. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Feels like a weird question to ask right after we established that it's undesirable to enforce singular, rigid views of things so complex and context-dependent than morality, or, for that matter, human interaction. Edited June 29, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 What is this 'good'? What moral or rational principle does it come from? See, if the argument was "good is subjective, and there are many equally valid systems of ethics, therefore it's undesirable to enforce a singular, rigid view of 'good' as the ultimate arbiter on human behavior", that I can agree with. "Expecting people to not behave like a bag of **** to each other is fascist" is a fair bit less nuanced viewpoint than that, though. You can expect it all you want but my concern if you started expecting it to be enforced, whatevered happen to humans being fallible and therefore sometimes misguided. Can't one be wrong without having someone try to force you to the right path or completely dehumanizing you as they move society towards their values? How is that not fascist? It seems that since the state is removing any possibility of aggressive disagreements people have now expected for the state to solve it for them; sometime in between those drone strikes. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) You can expect it all you want but my concern if you started expecting it to be enforced, whatevered happen to humans being fallible and therefore sometimes misguided. Can't one be wrong without having someone try to force you to the right path or completely dehumanizing you as they move society towards their values? I remain unsure how "people talking on channels that are easy for you to avoid - without any negative impact on your life whatsoever - about how the behavior you exhibit is undesirable to them" constitutes as them somehow "trying to force you on the right path" or "dehumanizing you". Edited June 29, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 You can expect it all you want but my concern if you started expecting it to be enforced, whatevered happen to humans being fallible and therefore sometimes misguided. Can't one be wrong without having someone try to force you to the right path or completely dehumanizing you as they move society towards their values? I remain unsure how "people talking on channels that are easy for you to avoid - without any negative impact on your life whatsoever - about how the behavior you exhibit is undesirable to them" constitutes as them somehow "trying to force you on the right path" or "dehumanizing you". I remain unsure how the continuous sanitizing of web spaces to be better aligned with one particular set of morals isn't just that. Or how about one views keeps getting traction on the mainstream while the other has been obscured? Or how about they literally talk about forcing their views on other people as the way to make the world a better place? At least **** never tried to convert anyone. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nonek Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Indeed speech is free and dialogue is, when coherent and consistent, useful, telling and should be protected. The only problem is when censoring begins to happen, when those in power whom are proven to be corrupt and unethical use their privileges to demean and demonise, and set forth a false narrative that is furthering an already poor image. When that false narrative becomes accepted, and maybe even popularised by television, then I think that we are entering dangerous territory where actions are taken because of a moral panic, because of a problem that doesn't exist. For instance because of a conspiracy theory about the "patriarchy" trying to cause sexism and violence through games, and the evil redneck developers whom are aiding them in this. Quite an experience to live in misery isn't it? That's what it is to be married with children.I've seen things you people can't even imagine. Pearly Kings glittering on the Elephant and Castle, Morris Men dancing 'til the last light of midsummer. I watched Druid fires burning in the ruins of Stonehenge, and Yorkshiremen gurning for prizes. All these things will be lost in time, like alopecia on a skinhead. Time for tiffin. Tea for the teapot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 what I don't get is this fascist liberal notion that people should be good. ...It's not like society doesn't have a complex set of incentives and punishments aimed at enforcing exactly this "fascist liberal notion" (dafuq). Moreover, what I don't get is the notion that somehow the freedom to be not-good is more important than the harm caused by people being not-good. Well freedom always trumps sore feelings, not-good on terms of being jerks is preferable to having one muzzled from saying mean stuff. Mind you this is just people being rude rather than stuff like death threats or violence. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 There are really two related issues, outright censorship where dissenting voices are silenced systematically by those in power and self censorship via pressure. It's the second one which is the one with the differing interpretations, and that relies on two competing factors- essentially, the personality of the person with the opinion and the intentions of the person (allegedly/ supposedly) trying to silence that opinion. The personality of the person is important because some do take any dissension from their opinion as being harassment or such, and an attempt to silence, while others will go to the other extreme and take any dissension as an invitation to jump on a soap box and shout their opinion from the virtual rafters. Or troll shamelessly, for that matter. Most people tend to be somewhere between those two extremes, of course, and are somewhat responsive to social pressures. The intention of the dissenter is also important, as it may vary from honest disagreement to honest but dogmatic/ ideological disagreement to apologetic disagreement/ correction to a deliberate attempt to shut the other person up via ridicule, dogpiling/ calling in reinforcements, following the person around, appealing to authorities to shut the person up for you etc. So there are two 'blameworthy' types for self censorship, those who are too sensitive to any criticism and thus censor themselves to avoid it (and if we take the Moosa situation as self censorship it would, imo, fit this type) but then claim to have been harassed or whatever; and from the other side those who are genuinely trying to shut others up by the e equivalent of school yard tactics such as shouting at them or calling them names. Though obviously there is some fuzziness and bleed through about where self and real censorship begin, someone shouting about thoughtcrime from other posters on Neogaf is usually trawling for them to be banned for their temerity, not just trying to get them to shut themselves up. Hey, let's give the Golden Horde some credit, they controlled a pretty big chunk of land too. Bro', that's not the Golden Horde. That's the whole Mongol asterisking Empire. With a bit of massaging, since the GH and the Ilkhanate had already split from them at that point, to all practical purposes. GH/ Mongol Empire successors lasted until the Crimean Tartarate/ Khanate in 1780 (ish), which just goes to show how educational games are since this is all gained from Crusader Kings/ Europa Universalis. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oerwinde Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 Just watched that norwegian documentary... Holy crap the "gender scientists" sounded exactly like creationists denying evolution. 1 The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Hey, let's give the Golden Horde some credit, they controlled a pretty big chunk of land too. Bro', that's not the Golden Horde. That's the whole Mongol asterisking Empire. With a bit of massaging, since the GH and the Ilkhanate had already split from them at that point, to all practical purposes. GH/ Mongol Empire successors lasted until the Crimean Tartarate/ Khanate in 1780 (ish), which just goes to show how educational games are since this is all gained from Crusader Kings/ Europa Universalis. I knew someone was going to nitpick that. It sounded much cooler to say Golden Horde so I went with that. edit: And don't give me grief, about being a history teacher. It is summer break and this ain't my classroom. Edited June 30, 2015 by Hurlshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aluminiumtrioxid Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I remain unsure how "people talking on channels that are easy for you to avoid - without any negative impact on your life whatsoever - about how the behavior you exhibit is undesirable to them" constitutes as them somehow "trying to force you on the right path" or "dehumanizing you". I remain unsure how the continuous sanitizing of web spaces to be better aligned with one particular set of morals isn't just that. There is literally nothing that compels you to use the particular web spaces that want you to adhere to a particular set of morals. Ie. I don't feel I'm being "forced on the right path" and "dehumanized" by the nearest church preaching that I will go to Hell for finding men attractive, because I lose nothing by simply ignoring them. Or how about one views keeps getting traction on the mainstream while the other has been obscured? When "one view" doesn't have a coherent set of goals or views, and prides itself on being an amorphous blob, it's hard for them to get traction due to being impossible to represent fairly. Or how about they literally talk about forcing their views on other people as the way to make the world a better place? [citation needed] For instance because of a conspiracy theory about the "patriarchy" trying to cause sexism and violence through games, and the evil redneck developers whom are aiding them in this. You do realize you're fighting an imaginary enemy, right? "Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshugger Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Feels like a weird question to ask right after we established that it's undesirable to enforce singular, rigid views of things so complex and context-dependent than morality, or, for that matter, human interaction. Who is "we"? But aren't the laws of the land not a reflection of common morals of the people inhabiting it? Or if they aren't, should they not be? For example i think that in general GG is fighting the "good" fight. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I agree but lets not deny this situation with Moosa is not something we should condemn? If you work in customer service dealing with angry customers comes with the job, its not just helping people but putting up with their ****. If you're a journalist, reviewer on the internet then you have to deal with people making angry comments. It comes with the job, what I don't get is this fascist liberal notion that people should be good. Yet despite that they believe in freedom of choice, just not every choice apparently. There is a very ivory tower disconnect with every that demands that people; other people, change rather than learning oneself to deal with bad people. I have been thinking about this whole Moosa incident and I have changed my mind. He is someone that must be aware of the controversial nature and reaction to his comments and reviews . He really needs to understand that criticism is the price you pay when it comes to making certain SJ points...its part of the job He needs to man up or not take things so personally. I just feel he could use Twitter to his advantage Edited June 30, 2015 by BruceVC 2 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaeliorin Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. Fair enough...he annoyed loads of people,I get it "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 There is literally nothing that compels you to use the particular web spaces that want you to adhere to a particular set of morals. Ie. I don't feel I'm being "forced on the right path" and "dehumanized" by the nearest church preaching that I will go to Hell for finding men attractive, because I lose nothing by simply ignoring them. It is like saying to the Indians that there is nothing that compels them to stay on the land. The thing is that these webspaces didn't began with those set of morals; they are being pushed, for some that have literally spent years visiting them and have become invested in them such a drastic change is a shock. Also, It really doesn't matter that you don't feel it because there is this awful and wonderful thing called other people that can feel independently from you. For them that have been cast aside by these websites it is a blow to their personhood. When "one view" doesn't have a coherent set of goals or views, and prides itself on being an amorphous blob, it's hard for them to get traction due to being impossible to represent fairly. And yet that one view has been fairly represented by some journalists, has been given a fair chance by others to be represented free from the narrative and has published,funded projects and gathered information related to video games, journalism and ethics. Its almost like its about that. [citation needed] Don't be disingenuous, you've been reading these forums and probably have seen the evidence in other places as well. Or are you saying that you're arguing from a position of ignorance? I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orogun01 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 ...Titter...Freudian slip? Anyway, it wasn't saying something about SJ that got him made fun of. It was his gleeful statement that he didn't know anything about things that someone who claims to be a video game journalist should know about. I think that he could have gotten away with not knowing about these thing but it was the dismissive tone with which he said it. For a lot of people games are a passion and a labor of love, it kind of ****s on them when people undermine them. Look lets be honest here, Moosa in this case is simply a causality of the " GG vs SJW war " that rages seemingly interminably on several forums and websites I see intransigence on both sides and strange and irrational reactions from people. For example why do you guys get irate about articles on sites like Polygon? You don't even like them and generally treat what they say with contempt..yet what they say bothers you ? I don't get it? And people like Moosa seem tasked to just find any SJ inconsistency and lambaste the game, it can be frustrating ....of course this is going to annoy people and as I mentioned he must be prepared to face criticism It's a matter of direction, both sides seem to want the games industry to turn into different things while both are distrustful of each other's intentions. That said, I can't think of an industry that would tolerate a worker that blatantly proclaims to not care about the subject of their work...Maybe the fast food industry. What makes you think that they are tasked with finding SJ inconsistencies? The're games journalists, not social justice journalist and not culture critics. So why would it be their job to make sure that a game is politically correct? Well unfortunately for some people this whole thing has gone too far...now some people are defined by there ideological views and the core subject seems to sometime get lost So take Moosa and his article of W3, he lambasted the game on the lack of racial integration....the actual game gets lost in all the diatribe. If I was Moosa I would have considered where CDPR comes from and the previous Witcher games and then considered if this type of criticism was necessary. Its pushing USA values and expectations to Poland...probably not the right time to do it. Its like the call to remove Hookers from GTAV, its well meaning but utterly misplaced and inconsistent And more importantly it just adds more to the pointless " divide " between gaming journalists and the GG crowd 2 "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts