Jimquisition: The Sh*tiest Games of 2012

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

I'm sorry that me defending myself rather than laughing at it bothers you so but if I may make a point. He didn't make a Jesus walks into a bar joke. He didn't make a all Christian's are this or that joke. He said he WAS God. This crosses the line from humor to insulting. You don't claim deity it allienates any person with religion and if your an atheist you don't claim it because YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN IT. I can take jokes as the crass insensitive ramblings of someone who doesn't agree with but this crossed the line.

Darkja1:
I'm sorry that me defending myself rather than laughing at it bothers you so but if I may make a point. He didn't make a Jesus walks into a bar joke. He didn't make a all Christian's are this or that joke. He said he WAS God. This crosses the line from humor to insulting. You don't claim deity it allienates any person with religion and if your an atheist you don't claim it because YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN IT. I can take jokes as the crass insensitive ramblings of someone who doesn't agree with but this crossed the line.

I find it offensive that you believe there's only one God. Where's the respect for the Mighty Zeus and the rest of the Olympians?

I have no problem with the fact that your point of view disagrees with mine. I don't agree with you but it's your right to have it. You'll notice that in this post I have neither belittled your belief nor claimed it was wrong nor claimed deity. My point is the video singled out a religion and claimed their belief was AND crossed the line by claiming to be God. If you want to be an atheist fine I won't judge. I have my opinion that it will happen later but that is my belief and if you don't agree with it that's your choice. I also do feel the need that there is a difference between having a belief and Jim abusing his position as a professional journalist to mock one.

Darkja1:
I also do feel the need that there is a difference between having a belief and Jim abusing his position as a professional journalist to mock one.

The last thing you'll ever hear Jim refer to himself as is a "professional journalist".

Darkja1:
He didn't make a Jesus walks into a bar joke. He didn't make a all Christian's are this or that joke. He said he WAS God. This crosses the line from humor to insulting.

This is terribly ironic, considering the fact that Jesus' claims to be the son of God were met with equal rage from his contemporary religious leaders (who felt extremely insulted) that you now exhibit towards Jim.

Beliyal:

Darkja1:
He didn't make a Jesus walks into a bar joke. He didn't make a all Christian's are this or that joke. He said he WAS God. This crosses the line from humor to insulting.

This is terribly ironic, considering the fact that Jesus' claims to be the son of God were met with equal rage from his contemporary religious leaders (who felt extremely insulted) that you now exhibit towards Jim.

This.

This is a thread on a games-related forum. Religion has about zero bearing with the current topic, barring the humorous claim that Jim might as well be our god now. It was just that; humour. Please, Dark, for both your sake and ours - get over it.

Big difference a) Jesus was the son of God b) Even if you don't believe he was the core of his message was one of tolerance and love something clearly not shown by a ranting man with a rubber phalus. However we are missing the forest for the trees. My point is he mocked the foundation of someones religous belief by not only saying God didn't exist but by claiming he was God's replacement. I wouldn't care if it was directed toward a Buddhist's, Muslim's, Mormon's or any other religions concept of God it would still be wrong. It's not the questioning of the existence it's the way it was done. Claiming yourself as a replacement for God isn't funny it's wrong. Hey I may not agree with other religions concept of God or atheist's non-concept but I don't ridicule them. Surely society has not fallen so low that everyone thinks this kind of behavior is OK.

Darkja1:
Big difference a) Jesus was the son of God

According to a ~2000 year old book of desert stories, yes. Hardly an airtight source.

Darkja1:
My point is he mocked the foundation of someones religous belief by not only saying God didn't exist but by claiming he was God's replacement. I wouldn't care if it was directed toward a Buddhist's, Muslim's, Mormon's or any other religions concept of God it would still be wrong. It's not the questioning of the existence it's the way it was done. Claiming yourself as a replacement for God isn't funny it's wrong. Hey I may not agree with other religions concept of God or atheist's non-concept but I don't ridicule them. Surely society has not fallen so low that everyone thinks this kind of behavior is OK.

Huh? As opposed to Christianity itself that has done the exact same thing to other religions for millenia? Only they didn't do it in the name of satire, they were actually serious about it. Claiming your God as a replacement for Odin, Zeus and Krishna isn't funny, it's wrong. Same argument.

And no, you don't get to be exempt from humor if you're a religion. Freedom of speech, Jack. Look it up.

I'm tired of religious people coming in everywhere being holier than thou as if they're suddenly so butthurt about something when they're often part of a religion that has oppressed and censored people by the millions throughout history. Where's your perspective? It's hypocrisy on a massive scale and you are NOT a victim in any way, shape or form. You just need to go buy a sense of humor.

Jim's persona in the Jimquisition is satire to the utmost degree. I really don't understand how you can take that seriously. I mean, for crying out loud, did you ever stop to think about what the title satirizes? The inquisition. There you can talk about oppression. But hey, why learn from history when it's more convenient to ignore it, right?

No I agree with you the inquisition was wrong. I agree with you that many choices that the church have made have been wrong and for the wrong reasons. I would also like to point out that there has been corruption in the goverment, media, schools, corporations and anything else that involves a group of people. My point being this religion in itself is not responsible for the things you have mentioned people are. People who are not me. If we tear down an institution with corruption in its past there will be none left. As for the freedom of speech. You are allowed to say what you wish with the knowledge that there can be consequences. That's why there are laws against slander, liable, hate speech, bullying and cyber bullying (none of which apply in this particular instance) in this country. As for not being a victim while I'm not claiming to be seriously injured how does someone directly assaulting my beliefs not qualify as a victim. And before you use satire. I find it ironic that he complained about the same type of humor in a game (the game was also wrong too by the way) and then used it himself five minutes later. I just don't think anything gives him the right to mock ANYONE'S belief system. Everyone has addressed the fact that I am Christian and defending my faith but know has justified what gives him the right to belittle anyone especially when he just criticized a game for belittling a specific group.

GUYS. It's not called a "dildo bat". It's the PENETRATOR. That's what it's called, that's what it's designed to do.

...and it gets pretty boring in SR3 after a few good rampages. Buy SR3 for its deep story, heart-wrenching drama, and true-to-life realism. Not the Penetrator.

Darkja1:
No I agree with you the inquisition was wrong. I agree with you that many choices that the church have made have been wrong and for the wrong reasons. I would also like to point out that there has been corruption in the goverment, media, schools, corporations and anything else that involves a group of people. My point being this religion in itself is not responsible for the things you have mentioned people are. People who are not me. If we tear down an institution with corruption in its past there will be none left. As for the freedom of speech. You are allowed to say what you wish with the knowledge that there can be consequences. That's why there are laws against slander, liable, hate speech, bullying and cyber bullying (none of which apply in this particular instance) in this country. As for not being a victim while I'm not claiming to be seriously injured how does someone directly assaulting my beliefs not qualify as a victim. And before you use satire. I find it ironic that he complained about the same type of humor in a game (the game was also wrong too by the way) and then used it himself five minutes later. I just don't think anything gives him the right to mock ANYONE'S belief system. Everyone has addressed the fact that I am Christian and defending my faith but know has justified what gives him the right to belittle anyone especially when he just criticized a game for belittling a specific group.

The Christian church is still, to this day, directly responsible for thousands dying in Africa because they condemn condom use and that adds thousands of HIV/AIDS victims every day. So no, it's hardly just a thing of the past.

If you are seriously making the argument that Jim's comment of pure satire is in any way slander, libel (not liable), hate speech or bullying, then I don't know what to say.

No one cares if you think he has the right to be funny at the expense of religious people. It's spelled out in the constitution. You cannot possibly be this oversensitive when it comes to humor against your faith.

Darkja1:
No I agree with you the inquisition was wrong. I agree with you that many choices that the church have made have been wrong and for the wrong reasons. I would also like to point out that there has been corruption in the goverment, media, schools, corporations and anything else that involves a group of people. My point being this religion in itself is not responsible for the things you have mentioned people are. People who are not me. If we tear down an institution with corruption in its past there will be none left. As for the freedom of speech. You are allowed to say what you wish with the knowledge that there can be consequences. That's why there are laws against slander, liable, hate speech, bullying and cyber bullying (none of which apply in this particular instance) in this country. As for not being a victim while I'm not claiming to be seriously injured how does someone directly assaulting my beliefs not qualify as a victim. And before you use satire. I find it ironic that he complained about the same type of humor in a game (the game was also wrong too by the way) and then used it himself five minutes later. I just don't think anything gives him the right to mock ANYONE'S belief system. Everyone has addressed the fact that I am Christian and defending my faith but know has justified what gives him the right to belittle anyone especially when he just criticized a game for belittling a specific group.

From a United Kingdom point of view I find it hilarious that people cry about their right to free speech - whilst trying to quell the speech of others. If you want the right to free speech (READ AS: you can say absolutely anything you want to, without limit), then please allow anyone else the right to free speech, (READ AS: you can say absolutely anything you want to, without limit).
No one's taken away your right to religion, and you have the right to be free of "Jim's Religion". If you can't take the joke, why are you reading this? It's like purposely hammering a nail through your own hand even though you don't enjoy it. Unless you do.
No crime has been committed here, just seems to be a complete lack of common sense or humour and people criticising a satirical critic. Heh it's actually fairly comical this, in the sense that of your own religion you obviously have doubt in your own lord to talk about another idol. If you believe it that hard the thought shouldn't even cross your mind.

Jim get over here so I can wash your feet.

Andrew The Apostle

If you look in the post I even said none of which apply in this instance. The point I was making was that freedom of speech does NOT give you the right to say anything without consequence although in this case I suppose the speech is protected. Yet still no on has answered why someone should be able to say one minute this game is horrible because it singles out a specific group and the next minute mock a specific group. it's hypocrisy by definition. Oh and by the way I don't have doubt in my own Lord to defend other people's right to worship as they choose without ridicule I just don't think a public forum where everyone is defending someone who claims they're God while swinging around a plastic phalus is a great place to express why I believe what I do. And for the hundreth time I get it's satire. I also get that it crossed the line into inappropriate.

dakkster:

The Christian church is still, to this day, directly responsible for thousands dying in Africa because they condemn condom use and that adds thousands of HIV/AIDS victims every day. So no, it's hardly just a thing of the past.

I don't think the church is responsible for people sleeping around casually. In fact, that's what they try to teach people not to do. If you don't want HIV/AIDS, why don't you avoid intercourse with people unless you know they're clean? Granted, figuring out who does and doesn't have a disease in the 3rd world is harder than it would be elsewhere, however, all the more reason not to go out seeking a quickie, isn't it?

And just to make sure I don't get dragged into the rest of it; I, Socdemparty, do not actually care about the jokes Jim makes. I understand they are satirical and I am not offended, so I have no input on that matter and do not wish for it to be brought up with me.

Meh, would rather a zeropunctuation list of crappy games.

At this point I have exhausted my point and myself. I am sure I will get a litany of posts about how I'm leaving because I have no valid argument but I feel I'm not being listened to anyhow. How far have we fallen when we defend people mocking others? Goodnight and have fun continue to flame me.

Darkja1:
At this point I have exhausted my point and myself. I am sure I will get a litany of posts about how I'm leaving because I have no valid argument but I feel I'm not being listened to anyhow. How far have we fallen when we defend people mocking others? Goodnight and have fun continue to flame me.

There's a difference between defending someone and pointing out someone's intolerance in attacking them.
Nighty night! Don't let the heathens bite!

PS, the best way to avoid people shouting that you were leaving because you had no valid argument was to just leave and not say anything. People can't accuse you of doing something they don't know you're going to do. (It's called freedom of not-speech!)

I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.

hentropy:
...and it gets pretty boring in SR3 after a few good rampages. Buy SR3 for its deep story, heart-wrenching drama, and true-to-life realism. Not the Penetrator.

Or buy it for all.

hentropy:
and true-to-life realism.

Uh... ALMOST all of it. :D

Darkja1:
I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.

I believe that saying I'm Christ is funny.

Respect my belief.

Darkja1:
Big difference a) Jesus was the son of God...

Actually the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, are all supposed to be different facets of the same entity. So when Jesus claimed he was the son of God, that would make him God.

Jim could just be the missing part to the Holy Quadity.

Folks, Darkja1 has the right to be offended, just like Jim has the right to create art that offends. Both points of view are equally valid. No one is right, no one is wrong, there are just differing beliefs, and we should respect them both.

Let's collectively move on, shall we?

Well this thread escalated quickly, errrmmm, eeerrr, LOOK BABY PONY!!!

Anyways, im in quite a good mood this year concerning games. Whats funny about being a poor student is that you only tend to buy games you DEFINATLY know you want. I played Skyrim, Lollipop Chainsaw, Shadow of the Collosus HD, Boarderlands 2, Dishonoured (a little, havn't had alot of time to progress) abit of Skylanders (couldn't afford to many of the models) and finally got around to buying and completing Rayman Origins (best game of 2011)... so yeah... feeling pretty gooooood...

Socdemparty:

dakkster:

The Christian church is still, to this day, directly responsible for thousands dying in Africa because they condemn condom use and that adds thousands of HIV/AIDS victims every day. So no, it's hardly just a thing of the past.

I don't think the church is responsible for people sleeping around casually. In fact, that's what they try to teach people not to do. If you don't want HIV/AIDS, why don't you avoid intercourse with people unless you know they're clean? Granted, figuring out who does and doesn't have a disease in the 3rd world is harder than it would be elsewhere, however, all the more reason not to go out seeking a quickie, isn't it?

And just to make sure I don't get dragged into the rest of it; I, Socdemparty, do not actually care about the jokes Jim makes. I understand they are satirical and I am not offended, so I have no input on that matter and do not wish for it to be brought up with me.

Are you serious?

The Pope himself has spoken out against condom use in Africa.

Condom use is the most no-brainer thing in the world to bring down the number of HIV/AIDS cases. It's proven to work and why in the world WOULDN'T you promote condom use? People WILL have sex. It's in our nature. Even trying to make the argument that you should know someone's clean before you sleep with them WHEN TALKING ABOUT A 3RD WORLD SOCIETY is stupid beyond measure.

It's like you are completely oblivious about the HIV/AIDS and condom problem in Africa. I would suggest that you educate yourself before making completely ignorant posts like the one you did.

Edit: Also, abstinence programs have an efficiency rate of nothing. They're a joke.

Darkja1:
I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.

And you fail to realize that monotheistic religions, like the Abrahamic ones (Judaism, Christian Sects and Islam), by virtue of claiming their God is the One True God, are, by definition, overtly intolerant of all other religions or beliefs (or lack thereof).

Thus you are demanding that your beliefs are respected, so they can keep disrespecting everyone else's in peace. Beautiful doublethink there.

dakkster:

Are you serious?

The Pope himself has spoken out against condom use in Africa.

Condom use is the most no-brainer thing in the world to bring down the number of HIV/AIDS cases. It's proven to work and why in the world WOULDN'T you promote condom use? People WILL have sex. It's in our nature. Even trying to make the argument that you should know someone's clean before you sleep with them WHEN TALKING ABOUT A 3RD WORLD SOCIETY is stupid beyond measure.

It's like you are completely oblivious about the HIV/AIDS and condom problem in Africa. I would suggest that you educate yourself before making completely ignorant posts like the one you did.

Edit: Also, abstinence programs have an efficiency rate of nothing. They're a joke.

Well, I'm going to be honest with you, I have no problem with condoms or the use of them. I don't think much of many of the policies of the Catholic church, being more of a Protestant myself, not that I tend to support any official church at all.

However, blaming the church for the problem? I do not agree with that. In fact, I do believe the present pope has even taken steps to allow the use of condoms in fighting AIDS (yes, they haven't said they're completely okay, but it's a start). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8148944/The-Pope-drops-Catholic-ban-on-condoms-in-historic-shift.html But even then, there's nothing stopping them from using them if they want to. There isn't a single Catholic theocracy in all of Africa that's preventing their citizens from making use of condoms at gunpoint. However, if it's so simple and "no-brained", then why haven't they? I'm sure you'd agree that following the church's policy is silly and should be ignored, no? And anyone that would not use a condom on the grounds of what the church tells them ought to be some kind of christian. And if they're a christian, then sleeping with anyone bar their own wife is meant to be a sin. If they don't choose to believe that, then why pay any heed to a ban on condoms?

If the problem is education, as I have read, then what makes you think they even know a condom would help? If they're being told to practise abstinence, yet aren't listening, then why would they listen to anyone telling them about a condom? And if they aren't being told to practise abstinence, then either their local priest is a joke or they aren't Catholic to begin with and therefore a ban on condoms should mean absolutely nothing to them. And again on education, that's what they do in Africa, the church teaches them. And not solely religious teachings, either. Of course, a religious education would inevitably lead to them being slanted against condom use, but once again, it should also mean they are instructed not to engage in casual sexual intercourse. But if they will not adhere to that, why adhere to a ban on condoms?

I'm talking in circles, but my fundamental point here is the church cannot be blamed for this. If they are privy to the knowledge they shouldn't use condoms as part of their faith, then they should also know monogamy is a virtue and lust is a sin. If they will not, or cannot as you claim, take this to heart, why forbid themselves from using condoms? If they know what they do is wrong in the eyes of the church, why would they even care about something else the church believes is wrong? If they do not understand how a condom could help them, then it is because the states of Africa have failed to educate them, not because the church didn't. And if they choose to indulge in sin, which would never be encouraged by any christian institution, let alone the Catholic church, then that is their failure, and not that of the church.

Looking over at the screen and seeing Jim holding a giant... Yeah..

Darkja1:
If you look in the post I even said none of which apply in this instance. The point I was making was that freedom of speech does NOT give you the right to say anything without consequence although in this case I suppose the speech is protected. Yet still no on has answered why someone should be able to say one minute this game is horrible because it singles out a specific group and the next minute mock a specific group. it's hypocrisy by definition. Oh and by the way I don't have doubt in my own Lord to defend other people's right to worship as they choose without ridicule I just don't think a public forum where everyone is defending someone who claims they're God while swinging around a plastic phalus is a great place to express why I believe what I do. And for the hundreth time I get it's satire. I also get that it crossed the line into inappropriate.

There's a huge difference between calling out Revelations 2012 for its questionable potrayal of the Mayan indians Jim's claim to have replaced an unnamed God in what is clearly an extension of the charicature of himself that he has created for the purposes of humour.

Clearly he does not think that he is God nor does he think that he has replaced your God.

If the simple declaration that one is and had done so upsets you so then you need to swap you skin for something thicker. While you're not as bad as muslims who call for the death of writers and cartoonists you are on that spectrum and like them if you see something that offends your delicate sensibilities so you should vote with your feet.

If some one claiming in jest to be God is the most offensive thing you've seen today then you should be thankful.

Darkja1:
I wasn't going to post again but explain to me how commenting that someones mocking comment equals intolerance. By the very definition that does not equal intolerance. I respect peoples right to believe what they will WITHOUT mocking all I expect is the decency for them to do the same.

I don't. If you choose to believe in something as inherently mockable as any religion then if mockery comes your way then that is on your own head.

Well, this thread got a little out of hand.

I don't consider Resistance: Burning Skies to be anywhere near worst game of the year. Big letdown, yes, but nothing less than mediocre. I can list at least 2 Vita games that were worse i.e. Army Corps from Hell, Modnation.

TAdamson:

Therumancer:

Your kidding right?

Let's be honest here, this is a game about a real prophecy, or an interpetation thereof, in which the world is being ended. These "ancient brown skinned people" are coming back to kill everyone and everything like they promised to do thousands of years ago. That is why they are being met with force... and actually it's magical weapons being used on them, not machine guns. Their magic makes them immune to conventional force as part of the "plot". :)

If you think that the Mayan "End of World" idiocy is based on a real Mayan prophecy then you are doubly ignorant.

It's racist. Mildly so but still. It demonstrates no knowledge of actual Mayan culture and instead riffs on a moronic believe that Mayans predicted the end of the world so to provide an bullshit excuse for 4 white-bread Americans to come kill them.

Err, no. It just shows your ignorant, buying into a lot of the current attempts to "debunk" the legend which were complete BS. This is something that has been aroung for a loooong time, and it's only due to the attention it was getting due to it's arrival that people started trying to say "It doesn't meant what you all think it does!". There have been TV shows and such going back decades about it.

Also, the Mayan End Of The World prophecy is famous in part because of both the astrological predictions involved, and because it intersected with prophecies made by other soothsayers and prophets who were isolated from knowlege of them. Again, you might want to educated yourself on why it was a big deal, long befor the date approached.

Besides the term is "based on" it wasn't trying to be educational, but fun.

There is nothing racist here, just people looking for excuses to call something racist to get attention. I think half the problem is that people like Jim and others have never encountered real racism, and only heard arguements about it by policial interests that have a reason to want it to exist as a uniting force. Thus when someone fits that concocted description (which almost anything could fit into) it's a reason to go on the warpath.

There ARE racist games out there, created by the tiny, non-mainsteam fringes that are racist. This is not one of them.

TAdamson:
Back on topic.

Therumancer:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior

No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.

They ARE liberal academic garbage though. There is only one form of racism... period. If you do not believe in the inherant superiority or inferiority of people based on race, your not a racist.

The thing to understand is that cultural bigotry is an entirely differant animal, it DOES exist, but has nothing to do with racism since race isn't a concern. It all comes down to societies and how people behave which is something that can be changed, unlike racism, which is by definition something that a person cannot change.

Entirely differant discussions, and not understanding that (or trying to blend the two to avoid getting ones tail kicked in debate, as is a liberal forte) is probably hurting your abillity to discuss this.

In the end cultural bigotry comes down to the belief that one culture, or way of living, is inherantly superior to another. An undeniably fact, as cultures based on science and technology that provide medicine, high standards of living, and similar things are far superior to a group of barbarians. Say comparing the modern first world to say cave dwelling savages from hundreds of thousands of years ago. It becomes more contreversial when you start comparing societies and lifestyles that exist today, along with arguements about social darwinism, and whether or not there is
a moral duty to uplift people to a higher level, and similar things. It can also get into cultures vs. counter cultures and discussions about the differance between a healthy counter-culture, and an unhealthy one, etc...

See if you ever studied socilology propely you'd know this, but that's one of the other problems that feeds into this: education becoming a political battleground. Something that goes well beyond this discussion.

In the end though this discussion doesn't involve any kind of cultural bigotry, this revolves around accusations of racism and the idea that this game is racist because it presents brown skinned peoples (who represent an ethnic minority in the first world) as being villainous antagonists. Something that is inherantly foolish as by definition if this was racist, the bad guys would be inferior and thus not present a credible threat for there to be a video game. If anything you could argue that if the game is racist it's anti-white (and well anti- everyone not brown skinned) because only a handfull of people out of untold billions can even approach their uberness, being rare exceptions, and even then only by using the brown-skinned people's own achievements since they have effectively rendered everything else on the planet irrelevent. :)

Basically you, Jim, and others, are making a pretty ridiculous statement. There is a point where you might just want to admit that I'm right, there is nothing even remotely racist about this, at least not in the direction your argueing in, and let it drop. Nobody is disagreeing that the game sucks.

Therumancer:

TAdamson:
Back on topic.

Therumancer:
. Racism is the belief that a group of people are intristically inferior

No. That's the definition of supremacism.

If you want a completely shallow definition that leaves out the types of racism that you prefer to not include, probably because you exhibit at least some of them, then I guess that works for you.

But you are leaving out social-xenophobia, cultural-xenophobia, aversive-racism, social-racism, and institutionalised discrimination. These are lesser forms of discrimination or racism than outright supremacist notions or the "white man's burden" type of racism but they do exist.

But Therumancer will probably claim that these terms are invented by liberal academics suffering from "white-guilt" and that his "training" to "spy on people" (I call bullshit.) gives him access to information far in advance of what us mere mortals who post less than 1000 words at a time can comprehend.

They ARE liberal academic garbage though.

Way to prove my point. Spoken like a true chauvinist trying to justify his own thoughts and feelings.

Aversive racism does exist. It's what makes people change what side of the road they walk on when they encounter a person from a background they fear.

It's what makes cops predominantly target young blacks and hispanics for stop and searches in NY.

There is only one form of racism... period. If you do not believe in the inherant superiority or inferiority of people based on race, your not a racist.

Fair enough. If you insist on an erroneous absolutist dictionary definition of racism (that is actually the definition of supremacism) and don't want to include xenophobia under the term then fine.

But it's still xenophobia. And xenophobia is still strongly linked to racism and I think being semantic about definitions is just a way to cloud your barely disguised prejudice.

TAdamson:
[

I've challenged you before to provide evidence beyond your anecdotal rubbish and you've failed to come through. As such you're just another person perpetuating dangerous myths about perfectly normal people.

If you're claiming experience because you are "a trained observer" (What ever the fuck that means, are you a cop? A social worker? Private investigator? Vigilante?) I think you're probably suffering from exposure bias.

Regardless previous statements you've made have been fundamentally disgusting and in no way "middle of the road".
You want to claim that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles, provide statistical evidence from peer reviewed research or fuck off. Your creepy claims that your "experience and training" (Care to name the organisation?) and being "enabled to spy on people"(?????????) provided you with knowledge about the "truth" about homosexuals do not fucking wash and are pretty horrific in and of themselves.

You make it sound like you spy on homosexuals appropo of nothing. What I'm assuming is that you've been asked (or you do it off your own back for fucked up reasons of your own.) to watch those accused or convicted of child sex offences against boys. This is selection bias which you've turned to bigotry.

Or you're making the scientificcally fallaceous argument that because 3% of men are gay and 33% of child sexual offenders target boys, that homosexuals are more likely to offend. This disregards the evidence that the mechanics in the psychology between homosexual and hetrosexual paedophilia and that of androphilia and gynophilia are completely different and that.

It also ignores the massive body of evidence that paedophiles do not display erectile response when shown pictures of adults of the same sex as their preferred child gender.

In cases like this it's not my job to provide "evidence" for you, especially seeing as the truth is out there and easily obtainable. As someone I've done this dance with before apparently, it's pretty obvious that anything I provide will just be called bigoted or debunked, so there is no point. You'll either find the truth and accept it, or you won't.

That said, I don't need evidence, as again, I'm speaking from personal experience and observation. I'm exactly the kind of source someone doing any real research on this topic would use.

Oddly, I find it funny that you claim to have gone down this road with me before, and be oh-so familiar with me and my arguements, and yet you don't even know where this experience comes from? Despite me having just laid it out for you in the previous post? Really, are you serious?

Okay, again. I'm a criminal justice/forensics major who for financial reasons had to drop out of school. I wound up working as security for two of the three largest casinos in the world (Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods). In addition to just working floor security I wound up working their monitoring systems, and being effectively used as one of their investigators. While working these jobs I was regularly assigned to do training with both state and federal groups for the sake of their paperwork (in reality it was a dog and pony show). I've done everything from anti-terrorism training with homeland security, to emergency fire and rescue (including how to work tribal fire's decontamination equipment), to small unit tactics, and was required to attend "Code Adam" training on numerous occasions. "Code Adam" training deals specificially with child predators and child protection and such.

Despite being fairly disgruntled there are some things I won't say about what I did, and how, for obvious reasons, but the bottom line is I followed people, I watched people with cameras, I even had special cameras rigged up sometimes to watch specific people. I've dealth with rapes, assaults, car accidents, and pretty much anything you can think of, I've done security for dressing rooms, I've been in vaults with millions upon millions of dollars, and done VIP and celebrity escorts, and perhaps most relevent to cases like this I've run security for children's arcades and actually had to identfy and chase the real freaks, as well as deal with the problems of a few "misses" when we didn't stop something in time. Understand also, that unlike the movies, gamblers are not a refined crowd, most are obsessive sleazebuckets who care about nothing but stuffing coins into slots. They tend to drag their children to the casinos and then abandon them on the concourse, and then in many cases go out and totally lose track of the time gambling. They aren't supposed to do this, but really casino management doesn't give a crap if you have kids running around out there, all they care about is how much money they are making, and it was our job to make sure nothing happened to those kids (lol) despite being little more than a dog and pony show for the most part.

To say that casinos are pedo hunting grounds is a bloody understatement, and as someone who acts largely as a deterrant and who can only watch so many people at once, guess who trips our flags.... and you know, gay men trying to lure young boys, outnumbers just about everything else when it comes to this area of crime. Both from personal experience, from training (and warnings about NAMBLA given their legal support), and as well as from what the State Police and FBI will tell you when your sitting down for Code Adam updates.

Now yes, I understand, you find this all politically offensive, you don't want to believe it. The differance is I've actually seen it. What's more anyone telling you otherwise is pretty much full of it, because anyone who is in a position to know any better, and has done a job like this, pretty much agrees with me having wound up in the same place due to experience. In training they tell you the same basic thing "when you do it, you'll understand". Even so they are all concerned about the political correctness brigade, with liberal politics basically being a barrier to getting the job done properly.

In short, what you might have heard or read, or feel has been debunked is irrelevent before real experience, and someone who has actually met and worked with real experts (having become one myself). Let's just say that the nicest and safest seeming people in the world will show you an entirely differant side if you dig through thir bags (was an anti-terrorism protocol at casino entrances), shadow them and eavesdrop on them, or follow them around with cameras. Oppertunity, or someone believing they have it, is key. The guy whose going to try and get a little boy to go into a stairwell with him, or leave the casino with him, or whatever else, isn'g going to do it like an out of control dog, but because they believe they can get away with it. The thing is that unless your looking for that kind of thing constantly your not going to know. Your typical guy with a "gay friend" for example could never tell you with authority that they aren't a pedophille or would never do something like this, as by definition you aren't going to be around when an oppertunity presented itself, or was manufactured. That's the problem, and why only people in very specific situations like mine have any right to an opinion as only someone who has done this kind of thing can possibly have the nessicary breadth of experience.

On a side note it's also why I've argued a minimum of 4 years of non-administrative police experience should be required to hold public office or be in any kind of position to have say on domestic or social policy. This would omit me of course given that I was NOT a cop (though in a purely hypothetical sense, if the Security was ever used as anything other than a dog and pony show, and scapegoat, in theory I might have had more power than most cops. Acting as the represntitive of a property owner on an Indian Reservation where the tribe had great latitude to set laws and policies...), but basically I feel someone needs to be able to see the world the way a cop or someone trained to observe and experience things that way does before they can make any desicians about people. You need to know not what people say and show you, but what they do when they think nobody is watching, know what they keep in their bags, and how the subject of private conversations is not always entirely innocent, and set policies accordingly, based on what people actually are going to be like.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 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