Zero Punctuation: inFamous

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

I have to say I am getting tired of the political commentary. There are plenty of more appropriate outlets to meet my political humor needs. I come here for video game humor and the occasional slim market advice.

$0.02

I find it amazing that one political joke right at the end of the review suddenly causes an influx of 'Wah, Yahtzee did political humour, I HATE HIM!', which frankly seems pretty pathetic. If it really bugs you so much whenever politics crops up, you should really relocate yourself to an uninhabited island in the middle of the South Pacific as thats really the only way you'll ever avoid politics. And even that doesn't count 100% as you're little island will probably get drowned when global warming melts the poles.

We don't "hate him" and we're not complaining so much as criticizing. It wasn't funny. It hasn't been funny for about 5 or 6 years now. There's a reason I don't watch the Colbert Report or the Daily Show anymore even though I used to. It's old. It's hackneyed. It's been done ten thousand times before, and it doesn't even apply anymore. It's our duty as viewers to tell Yahtzee when he's failing at his primary objective of being clever, and he's failed every time he's attempted a political joke about American party dynamics.

tkwelge:
Viacom played the liberal game for decades. Why are they not as evil as Fox? Personally, I don't watch fox news because it is boring and still not real libertarian news. But when I do watch it, I just have to ask, "What is all the fuss about?"

...Well, unlike The Daily Show, Fox is fielding what they're doing in complete seriousness. Several of the anchors write books about how they see their "efforts" as being a counter point to the liberal bias in the "world", etc. And excuse their over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia, even torture, by that logic.

I don't have a problem with it existing as such. It's more that I'm concerned with the fact that people watch it and accept the world- view they are consciously selling, and tie it to a particular political platform and specific support for particular issues. I would have the same problem if John Stewart went around and evangelized for common health- care proposals the democrats would have - and consciously avoided any type of information about the actual proposals in favour of appeals to avoid thinking completely. And then justified it through his holy mission to "push back" the evil conservatives. While of course stating how such and such number of like- minded individuals legitimize everything he would do. I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.

So yeah, not really a position on politics, but on the process used to reach political standpoints, getting people to vote, etc. And..you know - Fox found a very welcome audience in some parts of the US that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Again, that alone isn't an indictment of the content they are fielding. It's just an observation about how extremely shallow political appeals are part of serious campaigns for political office. And how it has an appeal in frighteningly large parts of the US.

And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving.

nipsen:
...Well, unlike The Daily Show, Fox is fielding what they're doing in complete seriousness. Several of the anchors write books about how they see their "efforts" as being a counter point to the liberal bias in the "world", etc. And excuse their over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia, even torture, by that logic.

As opposed to other networks that are proud of their "efforts" in indoctrinating millions of people into a single viewpoint using excessive propaganda and omission? Which is worse, the information peddler who offers all viewpoints in a biased manner, or the information peddler who only offers his own viewpoint to begin with? I watch Fox News. I haven't seen any "over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia." I have seen such appeals on MSNBC in their constant witch-hunts against so-called "racists." I bet you've never even watched two hours of Fox News in your life.

I don't have a problem with it existing as such. It's more that I'm concerned with the fact that people watch it and accept the world- view they are consciously selling, and tie it to a particular political platform and specific support for particular issues.

As opposed to all the news networks that don't do that? If you think you're getting unbiased news somewhere, you're being duped, plain and simple.

I would have the same problem if John Stewart went around and evangelized for common health- care proposals the democrats would have - and consciously avoided any type of information about the actual proposals in favour of appeals to avoid thinking completely.

Um...you mean like he does every day?

And then justified it through his holy mission to "push back" the evil conservatives.

So the behavior is justified as long as you don't openly consider it a personal mission? The Inquisition would have been just fine as long as they had just done it because they wanted to and not under the banner of God?

I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.

Man, I love how you ignore all of the good arguments there are to focus on one confusing anecdote you probably heard one time. No wonder you hate Fox so much; it must really bother you that they present both sides in a sensible and cohesive way instead of setting up strawman arguments like all the other networks do.

How about "the civil rights of one man don't trump the civil rights of thousands?" Don't you think that's a pretty good argument?

So yeah, not really a position on politics, but on the process used to reach political standpoints, getting people to vote, etc. And..you know - Fox found a very welcome audience in some parts of the US that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Again, that alone isn't an indictment of the content they are fielding. It's just an observation about how extremely shallow political appeals are part of serious campaigns for political office. And how it has an appeal in frighteningly large parts of the US.

But you refuse to acknowledge that every other network is doing the same damn thing because those other networks are saying things you agree with. I understand and recognize that Fox is biased and is peddling a specific viewpoint and so do you. The difference between you and me is that you don't seem to believe that any other network is doing the same thing, and that scares me because you seem like an otherwise intelligent person.

And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving.

Fascism isn't about "force solving things." Fascism is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion. The only political party doing any of these things is the Democrats.

Pellucid:
We don't "hate him" and we're not complaining so much as criticizing. It wasn't funny. It hasn't been funny for about 5 or 6 years now. There's a reason I don't watch the Colbert Report or the Daily Show anymore even though I used to. It's old. It's hackneyed. It's been done ten thousand times before, and it doesn't even apply anymore.

I have to disagree. It's a joke about how, even as the Republican party is disintegrating into internecine warfare, there are still people supporting those who are doing the most to tear the party apart. Even the Wall Street Journal thinks it's insane. Look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/14/mccain-matriarch-bashes-limbaugh/

Nope. Not funny. Not at all.

ZP really has lost it completely.

kawligia:
I have to say I am getting tired of the political commentary. There are plenty of more appropriate outlets to meet my political humor needs. I come here for video game humor and the occasional slim market advice.

$0.02

I think the reference to Hitler was a joke.

+++++

In any case, DUDE! Check out that Golden Lion Throne of the Padishah Emperor of the Known Universe he's got!

Pellucid:

nipsen:

I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.

Man, I love how you ignore all of the good arguments there are to focus on one confusing anecdote you probably heard one time. No wonder you hate Fox so much; it must really bother you that they present both sides in a sensible and cohesive way instead of setting up strawman arguments like all the other networks do.

How about "the civil rights of one man don't trump the civil rights of thousands?" Don't you think that's a pretty good argument?

That's the worst argument I've ever heard in my life, actually. What does that even mean?

Fascism isn't about "force solving things." Fascism is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion.

No, Fascism is a state that is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion using force or the threat of it to accomplish these tasks.

So wait, we take a funny game review and turn it into political discussion? It was a damn joke! Leave it be! By the way, excellent review, liked the jokes, keep going no matter what bastards might think.

Yahtzee its time for blood and death,

yeah um talking about PROTOTYPE!!!!!

vrmlguy:
I have to disagree. It's a joke about how, even as the Republican party is disintegrating into internecine warfare, there are still people supporting those who are doing the most to tear the party apart. Even the Wall Street Journal thinks it's insane. Look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/14/mccain-matriarch-bashes-limbaugh/

Except that Republican favorability is rising extremely rapidly and Democrat favorability has been dropping like a rock since last month. The Republican party isn't disintegrating, it's rising like a phoenix.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
That's the worst argument I've ever heard in my life, actually. What does that even mean?

Wow, every argument you've ever heard must have been 101% logically sound, then.

If you could kill one innocent man to save ten thousand innocents, wouldn't you? I sure as hell would. If you don't, it's as if you killed those ten thousand yourself. 10,000 innocent lives > 1 innocent life. It's simple, mathematical logic.

Now let's say it's not one innocent man. It's one terrible, evil man. And you don't need to kill him, you just need to make him extremely uncomfortable for a few minutes. Anyone who wouldn't do this to save ten thousand lives is a horrible, horrible person. You're willing to sacrifice ten thousand innocent people just to keep your hands clean and claim to be the bigger man. That disgusts me.

No, Fascism is a state that is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion using force or the threat of it to accomplish these tasks.

As opposed to all of those forms of government that don't use force or the threat of force to enforce their laws? I can't believe you just mocked my 100% logically sound argument for being "the worst argument you have ever heard" and then used this monumentally awful argument in your very next paragraph.

The very nature of governments is that they create a large enough power base to utilize threats of force in order to make people fall in line. "If you break our laws, we're going to forcibly take you and punish you somehow."

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
That's the worst argument I've ever heard in my life, actually. What does that even mean?

Wow, every argument you've ever heard must have been 101% logically sound, then.

That was a good one--if only you'd turn that intellect to understanding the issue ;-D

If you could kill one innocent man to save ten thousand innocents, wouldn't you? I sure as hell would. If you don't, it's as if you killed those ten thousand yourself.

No it isn't. No it isn't at all. Why do you think that?

Now let's say it's not one innocent man. It's one terrible, evil man. And you don't need to kill him, you just need to make him extremely uncomfortable for a few minutes. Anyone who wouldn't do this to save ten thousand lives is a horrible, horrible person.

No, it could just mean you believe more in civil rights than someone else. It means you think 10,000 innocent lives < one terrible, evil man + 10,000 or more innocent lives that will be lost once we stop treating civil rights as sacred.

We don't respect the civil rights of a terrible, evil man for HIS sake: we respect them for OUR sake

Does it mean you're a horrible person if you *do* do it? Maybe not However, don't try and pretend that what you're doing isn't a violation of someone's rights. Have the courage to say "I understand it was wrong legally, but I had to do it because it was right morally, and I'm prepared to accept the punishment appropriate for doing this as if it were an innocent person, to accept it for the sake of the principle of rule of law in the country that I did what I did to protect."

Like you said: "10,000 innocent lives > 1 innocent life. It's simple, mathematical logic." Time to put up or shut up.

As opposed to all of those forms of government that don't use force or the threat of force to enforce their laws?

No, as opposed to all those forms of government that use force or the threat of force to enforce their LAWS! Fascist use "force or the threat of force" to do things like get laws passed or make sure people don't exercise their legal rights.

What's so hard to understand about that?

The very nature of governments is that they create a large enough power base to utilize threats of force in order to make people fall in line.

You don't understand the difference between "fall in line with our laws" and "fall in line with our political campaign" or "fall in line with our leader's wishes" or "fall in line with any order given from a figure of authority because as long a leader is doing the bidding of his superiors, his authority is sufficient to give you any possible order"?

Sure, there are things like tyranny of the majority and oppressive laws and all that. However, that's something very different from Fascism. Fascism is using "force or the threat of force" from that "large enough power base" to *create the majority in the first place*.

Fascism is stacking the deck, saying "we're only carrying out the will of the majority with our force" when the majority's will was coerced with force. It's very dangerous to conflate "people are voting against me and taking away my civil rights" with "people have had their civil rights taken away by force and now they are voting against me to put a rubber stamp on the taking away of my civil rights."

Pellucid:

vrmlguy:
I have to disagree. It's a joke about how, even as the Republican party is disintegrating into internecine warfare, there are still people supporting those who are doing the most to tear the party apart. Even the Wall Street Journal thinks it's insane. Look at this: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/14/mccain-matriarch-bashes-limbaugh/

Except that Republican favorability is rising extremely rapidly and Democrat favorability has been dropping like a rock since last month. The Republican party isn't disintegrating, it's rising like a phoenix.

Wait, but your original post said:

Pellucid:
We don't "hate him" and we're not complaining so much as criticizing. It wasn't funny. It hasn't been funny for about 5 or 6 years now. There's a reason I don't watch the Colbert Report or the Daily Show anymore even though I used to. It's old. It's hackneyed. It's been done ten thousand times before, and it doesn't even apply anymore.

How can jokes about something that is "rising like a phoenix" be described as "It's old. It's hackneyed. It's been done ten thousand times before, and it doesn't even apply anymore."

If Republicans were 'rising like a phoenix' with someone like Colin Powell, sure--someone who represents a new direction. But when you're 'rising' with people like Sarah Palin to whom those jokes are an even BETTER match than they were 5 or 6 years ago, and people like Newt Gingrich who was from "5 or 6 years" ago...FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO well, um, yeah, see the issue here?

Besides, face it: Bush was SO BAD jokes about him will never get old. He's like the Bill Buckner of American politics. Until Republicans do the political equivalent of winning the world series, that's an albatross that's going to stay around their necks.

Very funny to skip ahead ten pages and see people bickering about politics.

Citrus Insanity:
Very funny to skip ahead ten pages and see people bickering about politics.

Yup. Do you have any idea who they're talking about? I think it's some American people...

Chipperz:

Citrus Insanity:
Very funny to skip ahead ten pages and see people bickering about politics.

Yup. Do you have any idea who they're talking about? I think it's some American people...

Civil rights and a phoenix or something.

It's actually really hilarious, though, that you can go to almost any Zero Punctuation thread and if you skip ahead to the end of the discussion, you'll find a debate going. Something about Yahtzee just makes people want to bite each other's head's off.

Citrus Insanity:

Chipperz:

Citrus Insanity:
Very funny to skip ahead ten pages and see people bickering about politics.

Yup. Do you have any idea who they're talking about? I think it's some American people...

Civil rights and a phoenix or something.

It's actually really hilarious, though, that you can go to almost any Zero Punctuation thread and if you skip ahead to the end of the discussion, you'll find a debate going. Something about Yahtzee just makes people want to bite each other's head's off.

Is this a phoenix that can just come back to life like Harry Potter or one that leaves an egg in it's ashes? Also, are we talking regular bird size, or something huge? The difference could be important...

I think Yahtzee would be happy with the ammount of chaos he;s spreading :P

Citrus Insanity:
Very funny to skip ahead ten pages and see people bickering about politics.

Damn straight! If this continues long enough and they'll eventually snap out of it they'll probably wonder what got em started.

This game was in Blockbuster, but I never rented it because lets face it, most of the games released these days are crap. Personally I don't like these good vs evil games and Yahtzee makes a good point about how having to be totally good or totally bad just forces you to play the game twice; something I don't have time to do anymore. 95% of the time, I beat a game once and that's it; I move on.

Pellucid:
Dear Yahtzee: Please find some new material or quit while you're ahead. When you're ending an episode on a hackneyed political joke that sounds like Jon Stewart on a bad day, it's time to re-examine whether or not you still have any jokes worth telling and, if not, to make up some new ones.

Mean ol' Yahtzee hurt the Republican's little feelings. It's okay. It's okay. Shh, shh, it's alright.

Ghostwise:
And then BAM! Off world Slavery. Made me laugh. :(

It's not funny when you've read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope. Watch out for the New World Order... coming for you, summer 2010.

Pellucid:
If you could kill one innocent man to save ten thousand innocents, wouldn't you? I sure as hell would. If you don't, it's as if you killed those ten thousand yourself. 10,000 innocent lives > 1 innocent life. It's simple, mathematical logic.

*sigh*

Anyway, I got the game yesterday. It really is very good. The game- world loads up behind the menu- screen, and when you play start you're in. Right there, game- engine starts, and it only leaves very temporarily for some of the comic- strip sequences - and then morph back into the game- engine again. It's good. It's really, really good. Not too sure about the karma- moments, though. lol. But the way it's done.. how you slow down and hear Cole's thoughts, it makes sense.

edit: *politics warning* if anyone thinks I'm exaggerating about how a frighteningly large part of the US works, take a look at this:
http://gawker.com/5286615/right+wingers-blame-left+wingers-and-muslims-for-holocaust-museum-shooting
(Glenn Beck, who isn't the worst of them all by any means, explains how the recent Holocaust museum shooting is just a small taste of what's coming... uh.. due to the dire situation the nation is in, and so on. Note that it's just a week since an abortion- doctor was shot - the second attempt at his life was successful, while he survived the first - and none of the pro- lifers are actually apologetic about it. Actually, some of them are the opposite, even in public. The reactions here mirrors that situation perfectly

Anyway - the most interesting part of this is the framing Beck does. It's one that doesn't actually examine any points of views, or finding what they argue for. It's not even asking any questions about the purpose of any of it - he's merely registering that something to the right of... Hitler spliced with Pinochet exists, and then explains how this must make perfect sense. And this is considered by many to be balanced. As opposed to unapologetic justification for extremism, for example.

I mean, I suppose it would be just as scary if they were arguing for free ice- cream and longer holidays in the same way, but.. ok, maybe it wouldn't. The approach would still be wrong, though).

"Moral choice systems in games need to drink some paint and retard themshelves out of existence." So funny, yet so true.

Cheeze_Pavilion:
No it isn't. No it isn't at all. Why do you think that?

Because that's the end result. I don't have the same faith you do that there's a "right thing" and a "wrong thing" to do that isn't about pure numbers. To me, when you make that decision, it's as good as if you were making a decision to kill either one man personally or kill ten thousand men personally. Your decision to let those people die is as good as a decision to kill them yourself. It's pure numbers. In my mind, the ethical thing to do in every situation is whatever would cause the best end result for the largest possible number of innocent people.

No, it could just mean you believe more in civil rights than someone else. It means you think 10,000 innocent lives < one terrible, evil man + 10,000 or more innocent lives that will be lost once we stop treating civil rights as sacred.

"Sacred?" You sound like an evangelical. Civil rights aren't sacred; they're a tool. A tool to be used when it promotes justice, and to be discarded when it does not. I don't hear you clamoring to protect the right to liberty of convicted serial killers. You've discarded the tool of "civil liberties" because it works toward the greater good of society in that instance to toss it aside and lock up a bad man who will do bad things. I'm not sure why you'd refuse to toss the tool aside in the case of a terrorist.

Does it mean you're a horrible person if you *do* do it? Maybe not However, don't try and pretend that what you're doing isn't a violation of someone's rights. Have the courage to say "I understand it was wrong legally, but I had to do it because it was right morally, and I'm prepared to accept the punishment appropriate for doing this as if it were an innocent person, to accept it for the sake of the principle of rule of law in the country that I did what I did to protect."

First of all, it's extremely arguable that waterboarding is torture. It does no known permanent damage to the people it is performed on. It doesn't leave people scarred, and it does no physical damage to the body at all. Second of all, no conservative I know claims that waterboarding isn't a moral negative, so you're making a strawman argument here. We understand that waterboarding someone is a cruel thing to do, but we also understand that sometimes good men need to learn how to be cruel to put a halt to the evil in the world.

No, as opposed to all those forms of government that use force or the threat of force to enforce their LAWS! Fascist use "force or the threat of force" to do things like get laws passed or make sure people don't exercise their legal rights.

That's not true. That's what tyrannical governments do. Fascism is a very specific set of governmental and legal practices. It is not inherent to the system that it be abused, that's just frequently the end result. Oh, and if the government is "using force to make sure people don't exercise their legal rights," then they're not legal rights, now, are they? The only argument you can make is that they're preventing the exercise of divine rights, but I'd imagine you won't make that argument. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You don't understand the difference between "fall in line with our laws" and "fall in line with our political campaign" or "fall in line with our leader's wishes" or "fall in line with any order given from a figure of authority because as long a leader is doing the bidding of his superiors, his authority is sufficient to give you any possible order"?

There's no difference between any of those things. They all boil down to "do what I say or I'll hurt you." It's just that in a Democracy we come to a consensus that we have to hurt you, whereas in a dictatorship there's just one guy who decides whether or not it's time to hurt you.

Sillyiggy:
Mean ol' Yahtzee hurt the Republican's little feelings. It's okay. It's okay. Shh, shh, it's alright.

I see what you did there. You're so clever! I bet nobody has ever thought to use sarcasm to imply that someone's legitimate complaint is just the whining of someone with their feelings hurt before!

Man, with powerhouse intellects like yours on the side of the Democrats, we can't win!

Sarcasm: It's so easy a caveman could do it. Now I'm as clever as you are!

>sigh< my feelings are torn: im happy that someone created a game good enough for ZP to like it...
but its on PS3...
which sucks, and i feel betrayed by the universe for this unfortunate yet interesting event

Like when Sonic released that new dark knight game, its interesting that the francise sold it well enough to live on but i still feel that some awful thing has happened in the world

Pellucid:

Cheeze_Pavilion:
No it isn't. No it isn't at all. Why do you think that?

Because that's the end result. I don't have the same faith you do that there's a "right thing" and a "wrong thing" to do that isn't about pure numbers.

Well, there you go. I'm...very content to have that as an irreconcilable difference between us, that I see humans as individuals with rights that must be respected, and you see only numbers.

In my mind, the ethical thing to do in every situation is whatever would cause the best end result for the largest possible number of innocent people.

Wow, even the gun nuts in the Republican party would find that the worst proposal for making laws they've ever heard.

I don't hear you clamoring to protect the right to liberty of convicted serial killers.

You didn't ask me, but I do.

You've discarded the tool of "civil liberties" because it works toward the greater good of society in that instance to toss it aside and lock up a bad man who will do bad things. I'm not sure why you'd refuse to toss the tool aside in the case of a terrorist.

Same reason we toss away the tool of life imprisonment for shoplifters but not for serial killers?

First of all, it's extremely arguable that waterboarding is torture. It does no known permanent damage to the people it is performed on. It doesn't leave people scarred, and it does no physical damage to the body at all.

Does it involve the infliction of pain for any purpose beyond stopping physical resistance to custody with no more force than required? Then it's torture.

Heck, your definition of torture is so bad, gang bang ass rape wouldn't be considered torture as long as you used enough lube.

Second of all, no conservative I know claims that waterboarding isn't a moral negative, so you're making a strawman argument here. We understand that waterboarding someone is a cruel thing to do, but we also understand that sometimes good men need to learn how to be cruel to put a halt to the evil in the world.

No, you *are* cruel and are looking for an excuse to do evil while still being able to consider yourselves good.

That's not true. That's what tyrannical governments do. Fascism is a very specific set of governmental and legal practices. It is not inherent to the system that it be abused, that's just frequently the end result. Oh, and if the government is "using force to make sure people don't exercise their legal rights," then they're not legal rights, now, are they?

Now THAT is Fascism: the idea that if the government says it, it must be law. Collapsing the distinction between whether the government was ever given the authority through the free consent of the people to say it, and the government just saying it? This is a great conversation: I think we're really coming to sharply define the previously nebulous idea of Fascism.

You don't understand the difference between "fall in line with our laws" and "fall in line with our political campaign" or "fall in line with our leader's wishes" or "fall in line with any order given from a figure of authority because as long a leader is doing the bidding of his superiors, his authority is sufficient to give you any possible order"?

There's no difference between any of those things. They all boil down to "do what I say or I'll hurt you." It's just that in a Democracy we come to a consensus that we have to hurt you, whereas in a dictatorship there's just one guy who decides whether or not it's time to hurt you.

I rest my case for why people hate and fear Republicans and/or Conservatives.

You've laid out a lot of unsustainable and insane positions, such as that we shouldn't be allowed to punish serial killers. I really like this little gem:

Now THAT is Fascism: the idea that if the government says it, it must be law.

law
-noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution.

So yes, that's exactly what a law is. You're arguing with the dictionary. Have fun with your little fantasy land where you get to redefine every word you don't like the meaning of in order to suit your own political agenda. It's awfully Orwellian of you.

Does it involve the infliction of pain for any purpose beyond stopping physical resistance to custody with no more force than required? Then it's torture.

Heck, your definition of torture is so bad, gang bang ass rape wouldn't be considered torture as long as you used enough lube.

Rape leaves long-term psychological damage on the victim, so no, gang bang ass rape would be torture by my definition.

And by your definition, an older brother giving a noogie to his younger brother is "torture."

One day you're going to realize how ridiculously unsustainable your position is, but you're going to have to grow up a lot before you do, so this is the last I'm going to attempt to discuss the topic with you. You're simply not in a mature enough mental state to handle a discussion grounded in logic and reason, and I'm neither going to be able to enlighten you, nor you me until you are.

Pellucid:

nipsen:
...Well, unlike The Daily Show, Fox is fielding what they're doing in complete seriousness. Several of the anchors write books about how they see their "efforts" as being a counter point to the liberal bias in the "world", etc. And excuse their over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia, even torture, by that logic.

As opposed to other networks that are proud of their "efforts" in indoctrinating millions of people into a single viewpoint using excessive propaganda and omission? Which is worse, the information peddler who offers all viewpoints in a biased manner, or the information peddler who only offers his own viewpoint to begin with? I watch Fox News. I haven't seen any "over the top appeals to aggressive xenophobia." I have seen such appeals on MSNBC in their constant witch-hunts against so-called "racists." I bet you've never even watched two hours of Fox News in your life.

I don't have a problem with it existing as such. It's more that I'm concerned with the fact that people watch it and accept the world- view they are consciously selling, and tie it to a particular political platform and specific support for particular issues.

As opposed to all the news networks that don't do that? If you think you're getting unbiased news somewhere, you're being duped, plain and simple.

I would have the same problem if John Stewart went around and evangelized for common health- care proposals the democrats would have - and consciously avoided any type of information about the actual proposals in favour of appeals to avoid thinking completely.

Um...you mean like he does every day?

And then justified it through his holy mission to "push back" the evil conservatives.

So the behavior is justified as long as you don't openly consider it a personal mission? The Inquisition would have been just fine as long as they had just done it because they wanted to and not under the banner of God?

I mean, I meet conservatives who are nice people in general - and they don't see the big fuss about torturing people who are obviously evil, and things like that. And I ask - why is it a good thing? How do you justify it? And I get - well, you have to do it sometimes, because it's the right thing.. you know. Don't we have to do it? We do, don't we - or else they wouldn't do something serious like that, right? We can't argue with these people, can we? ..It's just a severe indictment of the public political culture in the US.

Man, I love how you ignore all of the good arguments there are to focus on one confusing anecdote you probably heard one time. No wonder you hate Fox so much; it must really bother you that they present both sides in a sensible and cohesive way instead of setting up strawman arguments like all the other networks do.

How about "the civil rights of one man don't trump the civil rights of thousands?" Don't you think that's a pretty good argument?

So yeah, not really a position on politics, but on the process used to reach political standpoints, getting people to vote, etc. And..you know - Fox found a very welcome audience in some parts of the US that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Again, that alone isn't an indictment of the content they are fielding. It's just an observation about how extremely shallow political appeals are part of serious campaigns for political office. And how it has an appeal in frighteningly large parts of the US.

But you refuse to acknowledge that every other network is doing the same damn thing because those other networks are saying things you agree with. I understand and recognize that Fox is biased and is peddling a specific viewpoint and so do you. The difference between you and me is that you don't seem to believe that any other network is doing the same thing, and that scares me because you seem like an otherwise intelligent person.

And no, it's not hyperbole to call what they're arguing for soft fascism. It's an appeal to how force solves anything, including differences of opinion - and they are doing a conscious effort to legitimize those views to people who don't know any better. People.. who would apparently vote for a guy who vows to make slavery a fun and patriotic activity, as long as it's only brown people and foreign looking evil dudes that does the slaving.

Fascism isn't about "force solving things." Fascism is defined by a strong, centralized government, moderate intercession into the marketplace, and a squelching of free speech and religion. The only political party doing any of these things is the Democrats.

+1 You approached this logically, this Cheese clown obviously has no clue about what hes talking about. As for my own philosophy, I am neither right nor left, liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I have stated this to much higher intellectuals than the escapist boards could ever offer. Nobody is in absolute left or right, association itself is a testament to the individuals stupidity. (Not denouncing voting here or anything, I am just saying, living under one philosophy or voting in one direction always is not only incorrect but idiotic). Just my thoughts.

You're simply not in a mature enough mental state to handle a discussion grounded in logic and reason,

+1 You approached this logically, this Cheese clown obviously has no clue about what hes talking about. As for my own philosophy, I am neither right nor left, liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I have stated this to much higher intellectuals than the escapist boards could ever offer.

...Since you're here - how is the counter- revolution going in Bolivia these days, anyway?

I would disagree with some parts of the review.

For instance, I disagree on the point that inFAMOUS is a good game. Mostly, what gets to me is how shallow the game is. There's only one way to do anything - you have no stealth or close combat options, so it's almost as if you're playing a third person shooter. With guns. And without decent AI.

I mean, come on, if I'm coming up behind someone, they shouldn't immediately turn around and tear into me with their guns. Bad form! I wanna slit your throat without me knowing! Or, at the very least, I wanna be able to attack you with my melee powers while you're still unaware of my presence. But NOOO! Psychic enemies FTL! That's part of what ruined Oblivion so completely, for me.

With the currently implemented AI, it seems like the enemy's instructions are basically to shoot in the player's direction whenever the player is in range, and to run around a little when they take damage.

Really my biggest complaint about inFAMOUS is the lack of options. It's a sandbox game without the sandbox - you can either be completely evil or completely good, but you don't even have a choice about how to go about being good or evil. You don't get to choose whether you sneak closer to your enemies so that you can better destroy them or run in guns blazing. You don't get to choose to throw on some kind of protective electric armor and then do a dash move to get to melee range, then wipe your enemies out with close range combat. You have a choice of whether to kill them or shackle them to the ground. That's it.

To me, inFAMOUS felt dumbed down. And I hate that. Much as I hate the repetitious side missions in Prototype, I think it's a much better game. You can often make choices about how to go about a mission, making gameplay much more interesting. The storyline is actually starting to pick up to the point where I only want to do the main missions, because I want to see what happens next (it actually shows some similarities to the storytelling elements that made Vagrant Story so good). And the side missions are entirely optional - they give you Evolution Points to customize your abilities, but so does whipping out some weapons and slaughtering everything that moves.

Granted, I've only played the demo of inFAMOUS (I played it about seven times through, because I actually enjoyed it the first two times - the next three were because I was trying to figure out what bothered me about it the second time through, and the final two were because I simply couldn't believe that the game was so shallow - I thought I must be playing it wrong), but I've read many reviews, and the rest of the game seems to mirror my experiences with the demo (in spite of the fact that they're all positive).

Yeah, I just wanted to say that. Because I'm putting off cleaning my house. (>")>

Pellucid:
Actually I'm pretty moderate, it's just that "Republicans = Nazis" jokes got old about a year into Bush's first term ...

... and seven years later he still hadn't taken the hint! :-p

Pellucid:
I have stated this to much higher intellectuals than the escapist boards could ever offer. Nobody is in absolute left or right, association itself is a testament to the individuals stupidity. (Not denouncing voting here or anything, I am just saying, living under one philosophy or voting in one direction always is not only incorrect but idiotic). Just my thoughts.

"Voting in one direction always" is incorrect and idiotic.

Not adhering to one philosophy is *schizophrenic*.

Not knowing the difference between a having a consistent philosophy--like say, one that could lead you to being "liberal on some issues and conservative on others"--and being "absolute left or right" is ridiculous.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here