Zero Punctuation: Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

ImmortalDrifter:

LiquidGrape:

In 2011, 41.6% of those who were stopped and frisked by police in New York City were men of colour, in spite of the fact that they only make up about 4.7% of the NYC population. At the same time, a mere 11% of stops and frisks were based on an actual description of a suspect, and 9/10 people stopped were found completely innocent of any actual crime.

I would absolutely argue that race remains the single most pervasive issue in the US.

What version of the U.S. do you live in? Minorities make up about 65% of NYC's population according to 2010 census data. White people have been in the minority there since 1991! Honestly, since when has New York or the NYPD been a representative of the U.S. as a whole? Would it be fair of me to make judgements about the whole of Australia based on Michael Atkinson?

Read: men of colour. It is that demographic which is targeted specifically.
And no, NYC can't exactly be held as singular representation of the U.S cultural climate. But it concerns a vast amount of people, and I'd say it's a fairly clear indictment of institutionalised racism at work.

Anyway, just wanted to clarify that. I'm steering clear of this thread, it has become something...scary.

Fun review.

There is no such thing as ethnic responsibility, ethnic guilt, or ethnic justice.

The end.

Raesvelg:

TAdamson:

Much like in BlOps 1 the protagonists are the sort of people who were probably actively engineering the sale of cocaine and heroin to sponsor anticommunist activity. But no. In COD world Americans don't do that sort of thing.

Technically, they didn't do it in the whole Iran-Contra mess either. They sold weapons to Iran at a markup, and took that markup and funneled it to the Contras who used it to buy weapons.

The other complication was using arms sales to Iran as a means of getting hostages released in the Middle East.

Yes, the Contras were funded by drug running, and the US did give them money seized from drug dealers, but active facilitation by the United States was... difficult to prove.

And it's not like the Sandinistas were a pack of angels themselves. Thousands of people murdered, vanished, or tortured to support the Revolution doesn't exactly leave me sympathetic to their cause. We had no business supporting the Contras, of course, who were mostly a pack of disaffected thugs from the former regime (at least initially), but there was that all-pervasive fear of the Domino Effect still lingering in those days.

Then again, given the current situation in South America, maybe they were on to something...

Regardless this game treats the whole situation fairly flippantly. It's either revisionism or cowardice.

And what do you mean "the current situation in South America"? The only countries that haven't improved from that period are Venezuela and Cuba.

Paradoxrifts:

You're statistically more likely to roll up terrible stats, but the silver lining is that you get a totally sweet henchman called the 'white-guilt leftie'.

If the concept of "white guilt" wasn't invented by those-who-oppose-reform then they wouldn't have made a wrong move in inventing the term.

The term "white guilt" is such a hyperbole, such an over-reaction that it derails any discussion about righting wrongs to finger pointing of making an utterly spurious straw-man argument that every individual of a race has personal responsibility for the outcome, that is what guilt means. Being found guilty of murder means you are the murderer. But obviously every single white person today didn't deliberately sabotage all the unfortunate non-white's lives.

Why bring in crap like guilt? Why tie it to a race? In fact I struggle to think of progressives or campaigners against Poverty ever use the term "white guilt"... it's more often an exaggeration term used by those who oppose such aid measures.

Here's a better concept to run with: Human Empathy.

That's a reason to help people, feeling and relating to their suffering and wanting to help them regardless of how you might have caused it. Empathy is not the same as guilt. Seeing a child drowning, empathy may spur you to help the child, but you aren't necessarily guilty of them drowning in the first place.

"White guilt" I think is mostly a straw man argument... and I think it should only be used as Paradoxrifts uses it, as a joke.

Ultratwinkie:

Why would we keep racism around to guilt people? Because we like it? Because we like rotting in jail and living stifled lives? Because it gives us power from some magic source?

In a way it does. It's a terrific beat stick, a terrific way to demonize the other side, a way to shut down things they have to say, especially this beautifully pernicious and insulting "You can be racist and not even know it!" crap. You think saavy politicians give up a weapon that nifty easily or willingly?

TAdamson:

And what do you mean "the current situation in South America"? The only countries that haven't improved from that period are Venezuela and Cuba.

There's been an increasing trend towards socialism in South America of late, if you haven't noticed. It provides a lot of opportunities to... well... buy votes in what are hypothetically democratic governments. Which is more or less what happened in Greece, oddly enough.

So Bolivia, for example, which courted foreign investment into what were previously state-controlled industries in the '90s, is now beginning to re-nationalize those industries (now that they've been built up through foreign investment, of course).

Mostly you can look to Venezuela, specifically Hugo Chavez, as the primary agitator towards increased socialism in South America. It's an odd vindication of the "Domino Theory", in its own way.

And we're more than a little off-topic at this point lol.

Treblaine:
{Snip}

Because whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to accept it or not altruism and guilt are like inseparable conjoined twins. So putting your hands up over your ears while humming loudly and pretending otherwise changes nothing, which if I remember correctly was pretty much your response last time we argued over abortion.

So please understand this.

Your selective interpretation of 'Human Empathy'? Fuck that. It is a bad joke.

You have made it abundantly clear both now and prior that your understanding of 'human empathy' drops off the face of the Earth whenever it is time to show white, heterosexual males some of your precious empathy. Your conceptualisation of 'human empathy' is exactly like social security. You expect me to pay into it and help make it work, but it's never around when I'm the one in trouble and need a hand because there will always be someone else who is more deserving of help than I.

This all comes down to where you are in the world and how that effects your perspective. You'll find a lot of the people here against racial quotas, affirmative action and other racist policies come from working-class backgrounds and were raised by parents treading water just north of the poverty line. I still remember my stories told to me by my Aunt of when as children they had to fish for their own supper using bait made up of flour and water or hungry. After the plutocracy pads it's own nest with employment opportunities there are precious few rungs left on the socioeconomic ladder to hold onto without having some of them be arbitrarily given away through government decree.

Raesvelg:

TAdamson:

And what do you mean "the current situation in South America"? The only countries that haven't improved from that period are Venezuela and Cuba.

There's been an increasing trend towards socialism in South America of late, if you haven't noticed. It provides a lot of opportunities to... well... buy votes in what are hypothetically democratic governments. Which is more or less what happened in Greece, oddly enough.

So Bolivia, for example, which courted foreign investment into what were previously state-controlled industries in the '90s, is now beginning to re-nationalize those industries (now that they've been built up through foreign investment, of course).

Mostly you can look to Venezuela, specifically Hugo Chavez, as the primary agitator towards increased socialism in South America. It's an odd vindication of the "Domino Theory", in its own way.

And we're more than a little off-topic at this point lol.

Bolivia has renationalized most of it's utilities but it hasn't yet indulged in the sort of populist kleptocratic vote buying that Chavez indulges in.

Cuba is about to collapse and were it not for Venezuelan support it would have already done so. On balance since the end of the Cold War and the overt American and covert American and Soviet interventionism in S. America the region is far more stable.

Why the West should worry if Bolivia renationalises it's oil, electricity, and water is a question. More worrying is Evo Morales' eagerness to stack the courts with friendly judges and charge past Presidents with treason. Why is his socialism is more important than his possible authoritarianism?

The problem with the cold war is that the west, especially the US, considered the socialist policies of communism more threatening than the authoritarian policies of communism leading to some blanket support of vile regimes simply because they weren't "peoples revolutions".

And Greeces problem isn't nationalisation or socialism, it's its bloated public service coupled with it's excessive borrowing and inability to control it's own interest rates.

GunsmithKitten:

Ultratwinkie:

Why would we keep racism around to guilt people? Because we like it? Because we like rotting in jail and living stifled lives? Because it gives us power from some magic source?

In a way it does. It's a terrific beat stick, a terrific way to demonize the other side, a way to shut down things they have to say, especially this beautifully pernicious and insulting "You can be racist and not even know it!" crap. You think saavy politicians give up a weapon that nifty easily or willingly?

Okay, so are gays just "asking for it?"

Because they know if they act so gay to be discriminated against and beaten up, they will get a mythical edge in an argument. Good to know gay discrimination is all bullshit propagated by people pretending to be. /sarcasm

As I said, its stupid and not cost effective especially when even the rich and famous still get shit from racism.

Especially when you played the lesbian card 4 times and never did it stick in any argument.

Politicians can't sit on an issue. The republicans tried that and look what happened.

and secondly, I posted studies where they suggest affirmative action is necessary. Now are you going to argue against actual studies? Really?

Ultratwinkie:

Okay, so are gays just "asking for it?"

Because they know if they act so gay to be discriminated against and beaten up, they will get a mythical edge in an argument. Good to know gay discrimination is all bullshit propagated by people pretending to be. /sarcasm

If you want me to go down a road where I'll really get loud, just keep comparing the current situation to the garbage gays and lesbians have to put up with.

news flash, BUSTER, it wasn't illegal up until 2000 to be black in certain states. it was, however, to engage in gay sex.

And despite all that, despite all that crap we went through, and the crap we STILL go through, do you see me calling for prefferential hiring of gays? Do you see me calling for employers to pass over qualified straights to give gays a job?

GunsmithKitten:

Ultratwinkie:

Okay, so are gays just "asking for it?"

Because they know if they act so gay to be discriminated against and beaten up, they will get a mythical edge in an argument. Good to know gay discrimination is all bullshit propagated by people pretending to be. /sarcasm

If you want me to go down a road where I'll really get loud, just keep comparing the current situation to the garbage gays and lesbians have to put up with.

news flash, BUSTER, it wasn't illegal up until 2000 to be black in certain states. it was, however, to engage in gay sex.

And despite all that, despite all that crap we went through, and the crap we STILL go through, do you see me calling for prefferential hiring of gays? Do you see me calling for employers to pass over qualified straights to give gays a job?

No, because as far as I know there is no hiring gap for gays. A gap that many studies would suggest affirmative action is necessary? Not for gays, but its is for race.

Again, are you really going to argue against all these professionals? It would be different if it was one study, but its not.

And third, yes laws do effect minorities.

The Arizona immigration law.

HB 56, which means every Hispanic needs to PROVE he or she is a citizen or be cut off from all city services.

These are laws that exist now, and certainly not the only laws trying to be passed. So what were you saying how laws don't effect us too?

Wow.

I came in here thinking this was a thread about a Zero Punctuation review.

Apparently that was a silly, silly thing to do.

On topic: I haven't played much of Black Ops, but I think Yahtzee's review wasn't particularly unfair, considering that he has a general dislike of the 'generic super realism FPS' type of games.

GunsmithKitten:
And despite all that, despite all that crap we went through, and the crap we STILL go through, do you see me calling for preferential hiring of gays? Do you see me calling for employers to pass over qualified straights to give gays a job?

Another reason why I think that much of the preferential treatment dressed up as affirmative action, racial quotas and other similarly styled programs is bogus is that some of it functions as middle-class welfare. One of the most important, if not the most important goals is lifting more people up and out of the poverty cycle. At some point a person has to sink or swim entirely on their own merits. People have to be made to stop hogging the limited resources that are being made available, and give someone else a turn at getting the same leg-up that was granted them.

The laws should be about dealing primarily with poverty. I don't care what skin colour they happen to have. If a person was raised in a comfortable middle-class environment then they shouldn't be going to the government with their hand out, let alone opportunistically taking advantage of rules and regulations that were put in place that were put in place to help those poorer than themselves.

Ultratwinkie:

No, because as far as I know there is no hiring gap for gays. A gap that many studies would suggest affirmative action is necessary? Not for gays, but its is for race.

Again, are you really going to argue against all these professionals? It would be different if it was one study, but its not.

I'll then ask you to provide this; what do you say to the people who are passed over for those jobs in favor of minorities? You going to ask them if they appreciate taking a hit so that some expert can feel better about themselves? That they can take the hit to their livelihood in the name of racial justice? I'd pay to be the fly on the wall in a conversation like that.

And third, yes laws do effect minorities.

The Arizona immigration law.

HB 56, which means every Hispanic needs to PROVE he or she is a citizen or be cut off from all city services.

These are laws that exist now, and certainly not the only laws trying to be passed. So what were you saying how laws don't effect us too?

I know about that law, but would it surprise you to learn I DON"T support it?

fapper plain:
Wow.

I came in here thinking this was a thread about a Zero Punctuation review.

Apparently that was a silly, silly thing to do.
.

Well, this is what happens when popular game reviewers decide to double as political and race relations pundits.

GunsmithKitten:

Ultratwinkie:

No, because as far as I know there is no hiring gap for gays. A gap that many studies would suggest affirmative action is necessary? Not for gays, but its is for race.

Again, are you really going to argue against all these professionals? It would be different if it was one study, but its not.

I'll then ask you to provide this; what do you say to the people who are passed over for those jobs in favor of minorities? You going to ask them if they appreciate taking a hit so that some expert can feel better about themselves? That they can take the hit to their livelihood in the name of racial justice? I'd pay to be the fly on the wall in a conversation like that.

And third, yes laws do effect minorities.

The Arizona immigration law.

HB 56, which means every Hispanic needs to PROVE he or she is a citizen or be cut off from all city services.

These are laws that exist now, and certainly not the only laws trying to be passed. So what were you saying how laws don't effect us too?

I know about that law, but would it surprise you to learn I DON"T support it?

For one, the "employers need this % of brown people" is false. That only happens AFTER a case has been tried in a court of law, and the employer is found to be discriminatory. It also only happens in voluntary measures fail.

Not only that, but racial affirmative action is the only "issue" people bring up, when there are many kinds of other affirmative action policies. Hell, there is even affirmative action for veterans.

GunsmithKitten:

fapper plain:
Wow.

I came in here thinking this was a thread about a Zero Punctuation review.

Apparently that was a silly, silly thing to do.
.

Well, this is what happens when popular game reviewers decide to double as political and race relations pundits.

And they are right on the subject of US racism.

Paradoxrifts:

Treblaine:
{Snip}

Because whether you like it or not, and whether you choose to accept it or not altruism and guilt are like inseparable conjoined twins. So putting your hands up over your ears while humming loudly and pretending otherwise changes nothing, which if I remember correctly was pretty much your response last time we argued over abortion.

So please understand this.

Your selective interpretation of 'Human Empathy'? Fuck that. It is a bad joke.

You have made it abundantly clear both now and prior that your understanding of 'human empathy' drops off the face of the Earth whenever it is time to show white, heterosexual males some of your precious empathy. Your conceptualisation of 'human empathy' is exactly like social security. You expect me to pay into it and help make it work, but it's never around when I'm the one in trouble and need a hand because there will always be someone else who is more deserving of help than I.

This all comes down to where you are in the world and how that effects your perspective. You'll find a lot of the people here against racial quotas, affirmative action and other racist policies come from working-class backgrounds and were raised by parents treading water just north of the poverty line. I still remember my stories told to me by my Aunt of when as children they had to fish for their own supper using bait made up of flour and water or hungry. After the plutocracy pads it's own nest with employment opportunities there are precious few rungs left on the socioeconomic ladder to hold onto without having some of them be arbitrarily given away through government decree.

I'm sorry, do we know each other? You must mistake me for someone else because you talk as if you KNOW that I show no empathy for white heterosexual males. What makes you think I don't care about the white straight homeless man, who has had his leg repeatedly broken by thugs, not to extort him of any money but just for their sadistic satisfaction. I am working with the council to make sure he has a home this winter, what have you done to help the white heterosexual homeless men within the reach of your help?

Do you really think I'm an uncaring psychopath to every white straight guy I meet? No matter how poor, how exploited, how abused he might be, you really think I wouldn't care.

Why would you think that.

And I'm using the dictionary definition of empathy, which is literally "feeling others suffering".

Altruism is helping others for the sake of helping them. You can feel for others and not do anything. That's where you might feel guilty, but that's the inconvenience of the english language, Feeling guilty isn't the same as guilt itself. Truly the term is repentance.

I said nothing of racial quotas with hiring. Helping prevent millions die from AIDS in Africa is not any form of affirmative action, there is no "AIDS death quota" just helping those in the greatest need.

Though it is startling when you find organisations employing white men disproportionately to the proportion of non-whites and women who graduate with the same qualifications. I don't think affirmative action is the solution, I prefer naming and shaming, with popular boycotts, for organisations that are blatantly disproportionately hiring by race and gender.

My local Indian restaurant, it hires white guys as well as Indians, and my chinese chippie hires whites as well.

xdiesp:

GunsmithKitten:

fapper plain:
Wow.

I came in here thinking this was a thread about a Zero Punctuation review.

Apparently that was a silly, silly thing to do.
.

Well, this is what happens when popular game reviewers decide to double as political and race relations pundits.

And they are right on the subject of US racism.

How are they correct?

Note that I'm not even saying you're wrong, I just want to know HOW you think they're correct...

Treblaine:
{Click here to read post}

Having done a few weekends worth of work cash in hand for a chippie way back in high school, it's one of the hardest, most unpleasant construction jobs that I've ever had the displeasure of working. I'm not surprised your chippie hires whoever he could possibly find to do the job and do the job well. Maybe I'm spoiled living in Australia but it has been my experience that there is little shortage of somewhat unpleasant, menial work (Some of it pays quite well, some not so much.) out there for anyone willing to roll up their sleeves and get stuck in.

But take the factory I work in.

It employs a somewhere between 70-100 people but it is still a family business which means apart from the trades nearly all of the management positions are taken up by family members. The genetics of the actual workforce come from all over the world. We've got both Hmong (Homegrown & imported varieties), Papua New Guinean Chinese, a Dutch-Greek Indonesian, white Australians (Me!), Aboriginal Australians, Africans from both sides of the Saharan border between Arabian Africa and Black Africa, and a good handful of Polynesians.

But like I said before after the owner feathers his own nest and provides for his own, there are only a couple of management positions left. At my time there, my section has seen two managers, both of which were white and under a quota system the boss would likely had to hire the best non-white candidate. To avoid sacking any of the family members that he is employing at his family business.

And that's why I think quota systems and the like are complete bullshit.

I don't think the Africans AID epidemic is our problem, but if Western nations are going to continue sending thinly-disguised bribes to developing countries in shape of 'international aid' so that they can exploit the native workforce and natural resources, then I've got no problem with it doing some real good rather than simply being frittered away.

DJjaffacake:

Blachman201:

catalyst8:
Because Whites are never the victims of racism. Oh, wait:
'That's makes 4 attacks that we know of so far related to blacks engaging in lynch mob mentality to attack whites because they feel "justified".'
http://thegraph.com/2012/04/another-white-man-critically-beaten-20-black-racist-thugs-assault-him-citing-justice-for-trayvon/

You can throw up all the cherrypicked right wing rag articles about "reverse racism" and "scary black people" you like. It isn't in any way comparable to institutionalized racism, still inherent in the Western system as it was build by the white man and by far and large still works in favor for him both on the small and large scale.

You are just using stuff like that an convenient excuse to ignore this fact (and doesn't it sort of imply you believe one wrong justifies another?)

Citation needed.

Catalyst made a claim, backed it up with evidence. You said, "Nuh uh, you're wrong and racist," while providing absolutely no evidence to back your claims up. So unless you have proof that, "institutionalised racism is still inherent in the Western system," then Catalyst has a superior argument.

Um. Did you just ask someone for a citation to support the legitimacy of institutionalized racism in america?

You mean besides the demographics of the prison system?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Or the fact that the idea of a white person marrying a black person was so socially damaging it required government prevention?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Or the fact that there are more blacks in poverty than whites, even though black children are less likely to use drugs, but twice as likely to be convicted for a drug related crime?

http://thegrio.com/2011/11/07/black-teens-less-likely-to-use-drugs-than-whites/

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

I'm sorry that it seems you consider a news article about a white person being killed as insurmountable evidence supporting that the oppression of minorities in America is an overblown liberal idea rooted in white guilt, but if you do, you're very wrong.

GunsmithKitten:

Ultratwinkie:

No, because as far as I know there is no hiring gap for gays. A gap that many studies would suggest affirmative action is necessary? Not for gays, but its is for race.

Again, are you really going to argue against all these professionals? It would be different if it was one study, but its not.

I'll then ask you to provide this; what do you say to the people who are passed over for those jobs in favor of minorities? You going to ask them if they appreciate taking a hit so that some expert can feel better about themselves? That they can take the hit to their livelihood in the name of racial justice? I'd pay to be the fly on the wall in a conversation like that.

I doubt you would show as much sympathy for someone complaining of losing a job opportunity because the other candidate was a veteran, who are also protected under affirmative action.

It's not 'racial justice', although I would argue that a minuscule effort to make up for centuries of displacement and oppression is so "some expert can feel better about themselves".

Do they not teach history in high school anymore?

Iscariot6794:

DJjaffacake:

Blachman201:

You can throw up all the cherrypicked right wing rag articles about "reverse racism" and "scary black people" you like. It isn't in any way comparable to institutionalized racism, still inherent in the Western system as it was build by the white man and by far and large still works in favor for him both on the small and large scale.

You are just using stuff like that an convenient excuse to ignore this fact (and doesn't it sort of imply you believe one wrong justifies another?)

Citation needed.

Catalyst made a claim, backed it up with evidence. You said, "Nuh uh, you're wrong and racist," while providing absolutely no evidence to back your claims up. So unless you have proof that, "institutionalised racism is still inherent in the Western system," then Catalyst has a superior argument.

Um. Did you just ask someone for a citation to support the legitimacy of institutionalized racism in america?

You mean besides the demographics of the prison system?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Or the fact that the idea of a white person marrying a black person was so socially damaging it required government prevention?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Or the fact that there are more blacks in poverty than whites, even though black children are less likely to use drugs, but twice as likely to be convicted for a drug related crime?

http://thegrio.com/2011/11/07/black-teens-less-likely-to-use-drugs-than-whites/

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

I'm sorry that it seems you consider a news article about a white person being killed as insurmountable evidence supporting that the oppression of minorities in America is an overblown liberal idea rooted in white guilt, but if you do, you're very wrong.

No, I asked for a citation backing up the claim that racism is institutionalised in thewestern system. Because the USA is, shockingly enough, not the only country in the west. Even by the most conservative definition of western, there are at least 11 other countries in the west.

Not to mention, the original post was simply pointing out the existence of racism against white people. Neither I, nor Catalyst, at any point, claimed that this somehow renders racism against black people or middle eastern people or whatever nonexistent.

ARCTIC_EAGLE:
Wow, worst review EVER! Any professional review would give this game, the most amazing in history, a 90-100 or 4/5. Every single part of this game is new and interesting and amazing, you're inability to recognize that demonstrates how bad you are at reviewing. When COD:B03 comes out in 2 years you can correct you mistake by giving it a 90-100 like every other reviewer will. Be sure to do the same for COD:MW4, COD:MW5, COD:BO4, COD:MW6, etc. They will ALL be amazing and look amazing and just be more amazing then the amazingly amazing game that came before. In fact they'll be so amazing they'll amaze you into an amazement coma of amazement.

Nice. You realize, he's gone on record saying that he doesn't understand how you can quantify a game rating with numbers, right? He wont do it, and odds are, he wont like it neither. And for the record. This game wasn't even boiler plate. It's all recycled, with different graphical skins.

DJjaffacake:

Iscariot6794:

DJjaffacake:

Citation needed.

Catalyst made a claim, backed it up with evidence. You said, "Nuh uh, you're wrong and racist," while providing absolutely no evidence to back your claims up. So unless you have proof that, "institutionalised racism is still inherent in the Western system," then Catalyst has a superior argument.

Amen.
Um. Did you just ask someone for a citation to support the legitimacy of institutionalized racism in america?

You mean besides the demographics of the prison system?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Or the fact that the idea of a white person marrying a black person was so socially damaging it required government prevention?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Or the fact that there are more blacks in poverty than whites, even though black children are less likely to use drugs, but twice as likely to be convicted for a drug related crime?

http://thegrio.com/2011/11/07/black-teens-less-likely-to-use-drugs-than-whites/

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

I'm sorry that it seems you consider a news article about a white person being killed as insurmountable evidence supporting that the oppression of minorities in America is an overblown liberal idea rooted in white guilt, but if you do, you're very wrong.

No, I asked for a citation backing up the claim that racism is institutionalised in thewestern system. Because the USA is, shockingly enough, not the only country in the west. Even by the most conservative definition of western, there are at least 11 other countries in the west.

Not to mention, the original post was simply pointing out the existence of racism against white people. Neither I, nor Catalyst, at any point, claimed that this somehow renders racism against black people or middle eastern people or whatever nonexistent.

ARCTIC_EAGLE:
Wow, worst review EVER! Any professional review would give this game, the most amazing in history, a 90-100 or 4/5. Every single part of this game is new and interesting and amazing, you're inability to recognize that demonstrates how bad you are at reviewing. When COD:B03 comes out in 2 years you can correct you mistake by giving it a 90-100 like every other reviewer will. Be sure to do the same for COD:MW4, COD:MW5, COD:BO4, COD:MW6, etc. They will ALL be amazing and look amazing and just be more amazing then the amazingly amazing game that came before. In fact they'll be so amazing they'll amaze you into an amazement coma of amazement.

Whats scares me here is that I honestly can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. Every cell in my body wants to believe that you're joking and being ironic, but I can't shake the horrible feeling you actually mean this.

Just in case you are a paranoid, right-wing, gun-nut, shithead (or only 12 years old) a few points:

The criteria for being a "good" or "bad" reviewer is not determined by the extent to which the expressed opinions coincide with your own - by your logic a gibbon with a railway spike embedded in its skull would be a good reviewer so long as it managed to tick the 5/5 box.

Language:
"any professional reviewER would..." and not "any professional review would..."
"your inability" and not "you're inability" (your = belonging/possession, you're = abbr. of you are, yore = pertaining to long ago)
"amazement coma of amazement" .... what???

The word amaze shows up 11 times in one paragraph, here is a link that will help you:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/amazement

Please, please, please, please tell me that you are joking (or only 12 years old)

K@rt.MaN:

ARCTIC_EAGLE:
Wow, worst review EVER! Any professional review would give this game, the most amazing in history, a 90-100 or 4/5. Every single part of this game is new and interesting and amazing, you're inability to recognize that demonstrates how bad you are at reviewing. When COD:B03 comes out in 2 years you can correct you mistake by giving it a 90-100 like every other reviewer will. Be sure to do the same for COD:MW4, COD:MW5, COD:BO4, COD:MW6, etc. They will ALL be amazing and look amazing and just be more amazing then the amazingly amazing game that came before. In fact they'll be so amazing they'll amaze you into an amazement coma of amazement.

Whats scares me here is that I honestly can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. Every cell in my body wants to believe that you're joking and being ironic, but I can't shake the horrible feeling you actually mean this.

Just in case you are a paranoid, right-wing, gun-nut, shithead (or only 12 years old) a few points:

The criteria for being a "good" or "bad" reviewer is not determined by the extent to which the expressed opinions coincide with your own - by your logic a gibbon with a railway spike embedded in its skull would be a good reviewer so long as it managed to tick the 5/5 box.

Language:
"any professional reviewER would..." and not "any professional review would..."
"your inability" and not "you're inability" (your = belonging/possession, you're = abbr. of you are, yore = pertaining to long ago)
"amazement coma of amazement" .... what???

The word amaze shows up 11 times in one paragraph, here is a link that will help you:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/amazement

Please, please, please, please tell me that you are joking (or only 12 years old)

Justin Harris:

DJjaffacake:

Iscariot6794:

Amen.
Um. Did you just ask someone for a citation to support the legitimacy of institutionalized racism in america?

You mean besides the demographics of the prison system?

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2200

Or the fact that the idea of a white person marrying a black person was so socially damaging it required government prevention?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1

Or the fact that there are more blacks in poverty than whites, even though black children are less likely to use drugs, but twice as likely to be convicted for a drug related crime?

http://thegrio.com/2011/11/07/black-teens-less-likely-to-use-drugs-than-whites/

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=14&cat=1

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

I'm sorry that it seems you consider a news article about a white person being killed as insurmountable evidence supporting that the oppression of minorities in America is an overblown liberal idea rooted in white guilt, but if you do, you're very wrong.

No, I asked for a citation backing up the claim that racism is institutionalised in thewestern system. Because the USA is, shockingly enough, not the only country in the west. Even by the most conservative definition of western, there are at least 11 other countries in the west.

Not to mention, the original post was simply pointing out the existence of racism against white people. Neither I, nor Catalyst, at any point, claimed that this somehow renders racism against black people or middle eastern people or whatever nonexistent.

Both of you present pretty reasonable, well formatted opinions... the problem is that without looking very far you can find quotes, citations or statistics to support virtually any point of view. Its human nature to heed and adopt philosophies that coincide with our own whilst glossing over and dismissing any information that doesn't. Yes, there are many more blacks in prison in the US than whites, but there is also more crime in poverty stricken areas, which are more predominantly black or ethnic... I live in France and have myself been the "victim of crime" on numerous occasions and it has always been at the hands of the ethnic minorities (here it is Arabs/Muslims more than blacks, but the problem is the same). These are also the same groups most affected by poverty, and they are the group most highly represented in the prison population - Some people will use this as proof of institutional racism, some of economic racism and some as proof that Arabs are just lazy criminals. So who is right?? Well, nobody really, things are more complicated than that and maybe there just isn't one "right" answer...

GunsmithKitten:

fapper plain:
Wow.

I came in here thinking this was a thread about a Zero Punctuation review.

Apparently that was a silly, silly thing to do.
.

Well, this is what happens when popular game reviewers decide to double as political and race relations pundits.

Especially when they just plain make shit up.

I've played all of the modern CoD games, and I cannot for the life of me get where Yahtzee and Moviebob and other haters Modern Warfare Shooters (I refuse to use the term spunkgargleweewee on the grounds that it wasn't funny the first time and the repeated times just make me want to violently murder) get this whole "CoD is teh racist!" bullshit.

Because you shoot brown people? Maybe, if the majority of the series wasn't spent fighting white Russians with state-of-the-art military hardware.

Because you fight people from third world nations? Save for that bit in Angola in MW3, most of the action is against technologically equal-to-superior foes. Hell, the Cubans in Blops 2 have a techno-fortress, robot gunships, AI controlled robo-tanks, and invisibility suits.

All it reveals is *surprise!* reviewers on the escapist are full of shit.

Machine Man 1992:

I've played all of the modern CoD games, and I cannot for the life of me get where Yahtzee and Moviebob and other haters Modern Warfare Shooters (I refuse to use the term spunkgargleweewee on the grounds that it wasn't funny the first time and the repeated times just make me want to violently murder) get this whole "CoD is teh racist!" bullshit.

Ditto, and I don't even like military FPS's. Anyone using a term that most 1st graders I know would be embaressed to use in conversation gets shut out immediately.

Because you shoot brown people? Maybe, if the majority of the series wasn't spent fighting white Russians with state-of-the-art military hardware.

Glad I wasn't alone in asking 'Since when were Russians "brown people"?'

All it reveals is *surprise!* reviewers on the escapist are full of shit.

With god complexes to match. Literally so in the case of Jim Sterling.

GunsmithKitten:

Machine Man 1992:

I've played all of the modern CoD games, and I cannot for the life of me get where Yahtzee and Moviebob and other haters Modern Warfare Shooters (I refuse to use the term spunkgargleweewee on the grounds that it wasn't funny the first time and the repeated times just make me want to violently murder) get this whole "CoD is teh racist!" bullshit.

Ditto, and I don't even like military FPS's. Anyone using a term that most 1st graders I know would be embaressed to use in conversation gets shut out immediately.

Because you shoot brown people? Maybe, if the majority of the series wasn't spent fighting white Russians with state-of-the-art military hardware.

Glad I wasn't alone in asking 'Since when were Russians "brown people"?'

All it reveals is *surprise!* reviewers on the escapist are full of shit.

With god complexes to match. Literally so in the case of Jim Sterling.

I give Jim a pass because A)he acknowledges his bias when applicable, B) he plays it for laughs, and C) he isn't an insufferable fuck-melon like other reviewers who shall remain nameless.

Machine Man 1992:
I've played all of the modern CoD games, and I cannot for the life of me get where Yahtzee and Moviebob and other haters Modern Warfare Shooters (I refuse to use the term spunkgargleweewee on the grounds that it wasn't funny the first time and the repeated times just make me want to violently murder) get this whole "CoD is teh racist!" bullshit.

I thought they sucked because they kept extending the whole Cold War thing. Because its always russians and or cubans.
Regardless, Yahtzee himself said that he was judging on gameplay alone, since the story had some levels of irony that he couldn't really decipher. I played the game a bit and it really has that though, most notably in the Rich People Island (forgot what it was called).

Grach:

Machine Man 1992:
I've played all of the modern CoD games, and I cannot for the life of me get where Yahtzee and Moviebob and other haters Modern Warfare Shooters (I refuse to use the term spunkgargleweewee on the grounds that it wasn't funny the first time and the repeated times just make me want to violently murder) get this whole "CoD is teh racist!" bullshit.

I thought they sucked because they kept extending the whole Cold War thing. Because its always russians and or cubans.
Regardless, Yahtzee himself said that he was judging on gameplay alone, since the story had some levels of irony that he couldn't really decipher. I played the game a bit and it really has that though, most notably in the Rich People Island (forgot what it was called).

Colossus. The whole "ocean going techno-paradise" thing isn't new. In fact, it's an almost beat-for-beat retread of that bit from Syndicate where you infiltrate the Cayman Global headquarters to rescue Rosario Dawson.

And if Yahtzee was judging it solely on gameplay, then why was the whole review packed stem-to-stern with racially charged language and factually dubious statments? (and most damning of all, wasn't funny!)

Machine Man 1992:
And if Yahtzee was judging it solely on gameplay, then why was the whole review packed stem-to-stern with racially charged language and factually dubious statments? (and most damning of all, wasn't funny!)

To dispense bile against the US? Wouldn't be the first time.

Grach:

Machine Man 1992:
And if Yahtzee was judging it solely on gameplay, then why was the whole review packed stem-to-stern with racially charged language and factually dubious statments? (and most damning of all, wasn't funny!)

To dispense bile against the US? Wouldn't be the first time.

But why? Why does he hate the US so much? Could it be he's living on a glorified penal colony filled with hyper-aggressive and very venomous spiders and made almost entirely of desert? Is it because he handle the fact that Australia is of dubious relevance on the world stage? Because every time he take a swipe at America, it carries a certain air of jealousy. Or penis envy.

Machine Man 1992:

Grach:

Machine Man 1992:
And if Yahtzee was judging it solely on gameplay, then why was the whole review packed stem-to-stern with racially charged language and factually dubious statments? (and most damning of all, wasn't funny!)

To dispense bile against the US? Wouldn't be the first time.

But why? Why does he hate the US so much? Could it be he's living on a glorified penal colony filled with hyper-aggressive and very venomous spiders and made almost entirely of desert? Is it because he handle the fact that Australia is of dubious relevance on the world stage? Because every time he take a swipe at America, it carries a certain air of jealousy. Or penis envy.

Considering that he actually likes living in Australia (wouldn't have lived there for so long if he didn't like it) and is actually english I doubt its something like envy. Besides, wildlife in the US isn't any much better.
Maybe because the US has commited some pretty horrible things in its history and now it the "world cop" the world doesn't sit well for him. Probably also because most of these games have you fighting against foreigners, in a "look at our problems being the most rich and powerful country in the world, boo hoo" way (hence the killdroid comment in the review).

I really don't know man, ask him if you really want to know.

And besides, being dubious in the world stage is kind of awesome, since you can just do your stuff in complete peace without having to worry about the US funding some coup to overthrow your government.

Grach:

Machine Man 1992:

Grach:

To dispense bile against the US? Wouldn't be the first time.

But why? Why does he hate the US so much? Could it be he's living on a glorified penal colony filled with hyper-aggressive and very venomous spiders and made almost entirely of desert? Is it because he handle the fact that Australia is of dubious relevance on the world stage? Because every time he take a swipe at America, it carries a certain air of jealousy. Or penis envy.

Considering that he actually likes living in Australia (wouldn't have lived there for so long if he didn't like it) and is actually english I doubt its something like envy. Besides, wildlife in the US isn't any much better.
Maybe because the US has commited some pretty horrible things in its history and now it the "world cop" the world doesn't sit well for him. Probably also because most of these games have you fighting against foreigners, in a "look at our problems being the most rich and powerful country in the world, boo hoo" way (hence the killdroid comment in the review).

I really don't know man, ask him if you really want to know.

And besides, being dubious in the world stage is kind of awesome, since you can just do your stuff in complete peace without having to worry about the US funding some coup to overthrow your government.

If i were to guess... i would say he's taking the piss out of america simply because he can and it's relevant to the game he's reviewing. I very seriously doubt he has any real hatred toward the US... criticism, certainly, but not hatred. Besides, america is a great punching bag =).

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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
Registered for a free account here