Jimquisition: The Sh*tiest Games of 2012

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

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.

Therumancer:

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.

Which makes everything you say heresay and anecdotal.

Unless you are involved with a psychology or criminology department then the value of your "research" is exactly nil.

But it's nice to know that because you've been a Casino security guard that you think think that you've got the experience to declare that gay men are potential paedophiles.

Unless you are doing this sort of research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789475801432
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796795000704
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022063214826?LI=true
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00849718?LI=true

Then there is not way, shape, form or reason for you to make such vile claims.

We're done here.

Therumancer:

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.
[/quote]

Err, no.

The Mayan "End of the World" prophecy is based on erroneous work done by Meso-American anthropologist Michael D. Coe and didn't even predict 2012.

There is no suggestion in Mayan culture that the world would come to an end in 2012. The only thing relevant to the Maya that occurred in 2012 was a new B'ak'tun which according to their writings held some significance in their religious practice.

The idea that the arrival 13th b'ak'tun in 2012 would herald the end of the world is the invention of New Age hippie idiots.

Or how about this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030105119490037X

I'm glad to see you think that your experience as casino security is more valid than actual scientific research.

Okay, now we're done.

By your spurious definitions you might not be racist but you're definitely culturally xenophobic and generally homophobic.

TAdamson:

Therumancer:

TAdamson:
Back on topic.

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.

Actually young blacks and hispanics get targeted for searches and such due to minority counter-cultures. It's a situation where the counter cultures have created so much criminal and anti-societal behavior, oftentimes justified by the belief in non-existant racism, that profiles have begun to crop up that have nothing to do with anything close to racism or belief in the inferiority of the people being searched.

Hence why people like me and Bill Cosby, have spent a lot of time talking about the need to take action against those counter cultures as the actual problem facing black america rather than some nebulous threat by "whitey". It's the height of irony... a real catch-22, but really if minorities stopped trying to use racism to justify their behavior and just blended into the rest of society as ordinary people, these problems would stop.

As someone whose done searches, I'll also point out that a lot of these statistics are complete BS. Let's say your doing bag checks at a hotel, everyone who enters gets their bags searched before they can enter the hotel. Guests are of course pissed, but it's due to the latest terrorist threat, and as a good dog and pony show security is out to make a scene and piss people off so we can be seen doing something. In this case we search everyone, but it's the minorities that make the biggest stink about it, and do so screaming "Racism" because for them it gets attention. At the end of
the day though the embarassing crap in their bag (if they have any) gets outed just like everyone else's.

See, that's the thing that a lot of people don't "get". Those in positions of authority don't get off on harassing people for no good reason. Whether your a cop, or security (and I've worked with the police) when you do something it's because your told to do it, and it's usually pretty general. People screaming that blacks and hispanics are more likely to be searched (and I've met them) might make a scene to the media, but in general there is no way to tell what's going on from their complaints because you'd need to track everything going on. I know, I've been there, I've done the searches, I've fielded the complaints, I've filed reports sometimes while working with police (Tribal or State, depending on who we were working with). The actual truth is that "racism" gives a tool for people to get lippy with because people pay attention when that word is dropped, even if it shouldn't be. It doesn't matter if we've searched everyone in line, someone accuses us of racism, they might get to see a supervisor, and make us do paperwork due to their complaint, the people doing it who are pissed you searched them, do it just because they can and figure they can get a little bit of payback for the inconveinence. Truthfully, my general attitude is it should just be ignored, or if people push it to make a scene should be arrested for disturbing the peace or kicked off property by security out of hand just for suggesting it.

Also there is no "absolutist" version compared to another version, there is another one.

Also Xenophobia is again differant from racism, it's a fear of anything alien, that doesn't come with any pretension of superiority or inferiority. A Xenophobe might even be that way out of an inferiority complex in fact, depends on the situation. Mostly it tends to be one of those fancy terms that is misused as it's something so rare that it might as well not exist. Genocide, racism, xenophobia, all terms overused due to their intristic power, and almost never within an appropriate context. I blame sensationalist media.

TAdamson:

Therumancer:

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.

Which makes everything you say heresay and anecdotal.

Unless you are involved with a psychology or criminology department then the value of your "research" is exactly nil.

But it's nice to know that because you've been a Casino security guard that you think think that you've got the experience to declare that gay men are potential paedophiles.

Unless you are doing this sort of research:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789475801432
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0005796795000704
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022063214826?LI=true
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00849718?LI=true

Then there is not way, shape, form or reason for you to make such vile claims.

We're done here.

Not vile claims, the truth which you can't handle apparently. You could just say "I surrender, I might not agree with you, but I can't dispute this".

Again, I won't get into another "link war" because when I do it just leads to more QQing about my sources. The bottom line is anything that supports what you say (and it exists, your opinion is directly from the left wing media) is by definition wrong.

Also for the record, hearsay is when you report something that someone else told you. That's differant from speaking from first hand experience, as I am relaying things I've actually done. Working entirely off of the word of my instructors had I never actually done the job, would be hearsay, but that's not the case.

Right now you have exactly ONE source on this subject that is anywhere near credible, and that's me. Now being the internet you can of course fall back on claiming I'm a liar. Someone who has spend years telling the same lies for years just for the sake of screwing with you, and thus probably worthy of the title "universes greatest troll". That isn't the case of course, but really it's your only real recorse here, and if you think I'm lying to that extent, why the heck even bother to start discussions with me?

We can pretty much consider this over I guess. Feel free to post another final word if you feel the need to, but keep in mind I've been extremely civil with you. I get tired of you, and others, being insulting in your responses. I have yet to report anyone on these forums, but understand that there is no such thing as an exception for someone's views being "so offensive". Simply put if you can't remain civil on the subject and to the person, you should stay out of discussions like this at all. This last bit not just directed at you, but to others I have these discussions with as well. Understand what you've been saying is just as ignorant to me as what you claim I've been saying is to you.

A spade is a spade. And a bigot is a bigot. You have no experience to make the sort of claims that you make on this site. Being a casino security guard is subjective, anecdotal experience. Code Adam is a safety response that rightly errs on the side of caution not scientifically based scientific research.

Paedophiles do not respond to androphilic (or gynophilic) stimuli. Your "experience" is not evidence.

TAdamson:

Therumancer:

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.

Err, no.

The Mayan "End of the World" prophecy is based on erroneous work done by Meso-American anthropologist Michael D. Coe and didn't even predict 2012.

There is no suggestion in Mayan culture that the world would come to an end in 2012. The only thing relevant to the Maya that occurred in 2012 was a new B'ak'tun which according to their writings held some significance in their religious practice.

The idea that the arrival 13th b'ak'tun in 2012 would herald the end of the world is the invention of New Age hippie idiots.[/quote]

Wrong again actually. The New Age Hippie Idiots actually co-opted this for the same thing that they always do, claiming it would be a new dawn of peace and understanding. Another "Age Of Aquarious" so to speak.

The problem with your entire arguement is that this prophecy has been understood for far longer than it's been a current subject of scruity. It's been a staple of late night TV and "edutainment" programs for a really long time, oftentimes linked in with other doomsday prophecies. A "mistake" by any one expert is a matter of opinion at this point, and kind of irrelevent given all of the various differant theories at this point.

To be honest the whole "the calander just ends" thing is pretty recent and hokey. According to everything I've run into it seems to be tied to people claiming to be descendants of the ancient mayans, aztecs, incas, and other groups who have taken claim to a lot of the sites where valuable ruins are located. A highly contreversial move because all of these paticular people were dead/vanished which is part of the entire mythology and why this got so much attention to begin with. The claims to the lineage being extremely teneous but ultimatly upheld for political reasons. Among them have come claims of revivals of the old religious practices in the old sites, which are about as authentic as Schemitzun. It provides an excuse for a lot of things, in paticular keeping people out of those areas without paying the tribe (and the goverments more specifically) a lot of money, under a more politically correct guise, as well as being used to conceal goverment assets, which is a tactic other goverments are beginning to crib from the US. Not to mention they can ue our own policies of "oh be careful of the indigious peoples" which we were beating them over the head with, right back on us.

They all vanished, or were wiped out by the spanish! Nope, they are alive and well and telling us we got it all wrong. :/

At any rate the bottom line is pretty much that the whole apocolypse thing wouldn't have worked for the long term so they had a vested interest in down playing that, especially when it was right here.

Also, as you seem to have overlooked, 12/21/12 was a conflux of multiple prophecies where people believed they were able to tie the date into everything from Nostradamus, to Numeralogy, to astrology (given a solar eclipse), and numerous other things, minor and major. This is why if you bothered to follow the "wierd news" you'd notice you had people running off to specific mountains in the Himalayas and such where they believed they would be safe. It's because all these seperate sources came to the same basic date, with minor variations on what happened.

To be honest with you, I find it kind of hilarious to find so many people argueing that this was interpeted wrong, because really, it's pretty much the Mayan's one enduring claim to fame. :)

Therumancer:

A highly contreversial move because all of these paticular people were dead/vanished which is part of the entire mythology and why this got so much attention to begin with. The claims to the lineage being extremely teneous but ultimatly upheld for political reasons. Among them have come claims of revivals of the old religious practices in the old sites, which are about as authentic as Schemitzun. It provides an excuse for a lot of things, in paticular keeping people out of those areas without paying the tribe (and the goverments more specifically) a lot of money, under a more politically correct guise, as well as being used to conceal goverment assets, which is a tactic other goverments are beginning to crib from the US. Not to mention they can ue our own policies of "oh be careful of the indigious peoples" which we were beating them over the head with, right back on us.

They all vanished, or were wiped out by the spanish! Nope, they are alive and well and telling us we got it all wrong. :/

Nice to know you can inject your right-wing invective against the horrors "political correctness" into the question of whether the Mayan People still exist.

I guess the continued existence of Mayan language and most of Mayan culture in large sections (40% of the population) of Guatamala , mostly due to Spanish segregation, means anything to you?

In anycase the Maya do still exist. Still have a language and have specifically stated that there is nothing in their culture that states that the beginning of the 13 B'ak'tun signifies the end of the world.

Such ideas are the invention of wags and hoax sites on the internet and have been turned into quasi-documentary entertainment by cable edutainment channels for consumption by credulous morons.

Also, as you seem to have overlooked, 12/21/12 was a conflux of multiple prophecies where people believed they were able to tie the date into everything from Nostradamus, to Numeralogy, to astrology (given a solar eclipse), and numerous other things, minor and major.

So 12/21/12 was a confluence of prophecies that were all wrong? I think once again you been watching a bit too much of that TV "edutainment" nonsense that seems to have corrupted the History and Discovery channels.

The only mentions of the 13th B'ak'tun in existing Maya texts are as follows:

Tortuguero:

It will be completed the 13th b'ak'tun.
It is 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in
and it will happen a 'seeing'[?].
It is the display of B'olon-Yokte'
in a great "investiture".

La Corona:

An inscription, on what is known as Hieroglyphic Stairway 12, describes the establishment of a royal court in Calakmul in 635 AD, and compares the then-recent completion of 13 k'atuns with the future completion of the 13th b'ak'tun. It contains no speculation or prophecy as to what the scribes believed would happen at that time.

Nothing particular here about the end of the world.

TAdamson:

Or how about this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030105119490037X

I'm glad to see you think that your experience as casino security is more valid than actual scientific research.

Okay, now we're done.

By your spurious definitions you might not be racist but you're definitely culturally xenophobic and generally homophobic.

Actually, yes it is more valid. You can come up with all the theories and tests you want but at the end of the day it comes down to what people are actually doing out there in the real world. Proper scientific research on the subject would involve conferring with people who actually have experience like me, and those who handled a lot of my training and such to begin with.

In the end it's like this, you want to know about Gorillas. You capture one, put it in a cage, and then examine it in a controlled enviroment. In the end any hypothosis you might come to or prove about them and how they behave in the wild is totally irrelevent compared to the word from someone who goes out into the woods and watches them from hiding for a few years. The guy doing the covert observation might not have the fancy lab, but he's going to wind up knowing a heck of a lot about Gorillas.

The problem with most research on subjects like homosexuality is simply the human factor. Those who get involved in doing it, set out to prove a specific point. The guys making cases that gay men are harmless are generally though with a liberal agenda who are out to prove that point to begin with. The same way that someone from an anti-gay type group might do the same thing from the opposite perspective. The results reinforce what they set out to prove to begin with. Both sides claim they debunked each other, and who you take more seriously depends on what you want to believe to begin with. The two sides laugh at each other's research, and who is considered "right" more often in discussions depends on what forum your in when you make the referance. That's why I don't bother to play the "link game".

The thing is that my conclusions came after long experience, I didn't set out to be anti-gay men despite what you might think from my early life experiences. Actually, it's easiest in life to just let and let live, and assume the best of everyone as long as they leave you alone. Ignorance is bliss and all of that. Rather, I wound up in a position where I was out there with the right training, watching human behavior over a prolonged period of time. Patterns of behavior developed, reinforced by training, logs, etc... which all pointed in this direction. It's sort of like the guy observing the gorillas. The guys doing this research by definitition just don't have the training, or time invested, to do what I did, since nobody was going to pay them, nor are they neutral since they set out to do research to begin with.

I get that you don't want to accept this, and that's fine, but the point remains that I, and people like me, are the only real sources you could possibly have for something like this. To argue the point we'd need to find someone with a similar backround, with an entirely differant set of experiences. That would provide a counter-source to it. I'm pretty confident though that you won't find anyone in the same kind of position covertly watching/protecting children as part of a job who will disagree with me.

See, you keep using the term "homophobic" but that really isn't accurate, since I'm not against homosexuals, just gay men. The reason for this is simple. You know my standards come down to a tendency towards pedophillia. My reason is that I've seen a lot of gay men try and go after kids/lurk around/etc, caught them with kiddie porn in bags (which the casino doesn't prosecute being more interested in the money spent at games than anything else), and similar things, enough to have noticed a massive trend. I have not seen ONE case of a lesbian trying to do the same thing to a little girl in ten years on the job. I won't say it hasn't happened, it probably has, but not on my watch, and certainly not frequently enough to form a pattern. As a result, I could give a crap what lesbians do. This is a trend you'll also find in the media in general, you do a check for sexual assaults on little girls by adult women and while they do exists, how many will you find compared to little boys being attacked by men? Let's just say the gay men pull waaay ahead here. Contrary to what some people imply, that I am not anti-lesbian because I like lesbian porn (which is funny since porn has so little bearing on reality), or whatever else, for me it's a very simple situation.

I'll also go so far as to say that even the ridiculous "but what about straight guys attacking girls" peanut gallery crack really doesn't matter. You don't generally see the same kind of hunting/stalking behavior. It's to the point where I'm far less likely to be concerned about a little girl with some strange guy, than some strange guy following little boys around. To be honest there have been far more incidents (mostly "close calls"... again the casino just wants to prevent incidents for it's own liability, it doesn't care what people do in most cases that don't involve it's money, since it wants everyone, including the real scum, to gamble) with men going after little boys than with guys going
after little girls, which happened in a blue moon comparitively. It's something you learn from watching patterns, and responding to incidents over a period of time.

In short, I am exactly what I portray myself as... anti-gay men. I'm actually quite blunt and up front about it. "Homophobe" is a nice, left wing attack, that tries to imply there is something wrong with the person who dislike gays, but it really doesn't work in my case since the problem isn't homosexuality, just one paticular side of it. It's also pointless to attack me on the case, I'm hardly ashamed of it, I think what I do from a long period of time. Running around screaming "Therumancer doesn't gays" is kind of funny on a lot of levels, like it's something I hide if the subject comes up. :P

Also I myself have said before that I'm a cultural bigot, something which actually comes from not being racist. Simply put I believe that as all people are pretty much the same, they can be held to the same standards, and can be expected to learn and change. When I'm critical of nations like The Middle East, China, etc... it's because of their behavior and what they do. I do not consider "well we've been doing it this way for thousands of years" to be an excuse not to grow up and progress. There is no intristic, genetic, barrier, compelling these people to be a specific way. That's why when I go on my militant rants about breakin cultures and killing hundreds of millions of people or whatever, it ultimatly comes down to putting an end to an ingrained set of behaviors with a lot of inertia behind it. I genuinely believe people can be made to change, and a lot of the backwards craziness we see going on is the result of a self perpetuating cultural cycle that cannot be broken internally, which is why exterior force (extreme given that it's a society) is nessicary. There is no racism or genocide involved, since I believe in the final equasion everyone can be held to the same standards. There is no genetic imperative making islamic tribes stone women to death, or keep these endless cycles of human trafficking throughout that region as well as asia and south and central america going.

In the final equasion what I believe in amounts to social darwinism. Yes I am a bigot, because I happen to believe that what I think, and what my society standards for IS better than civilizations that promote human trafficking, intergrated sexism, racism, and other assorted behaviors. I believe that the greater good can be measured in terms of future generations, killing hundreds of millions now is a small price for untold trillions that will not effectively be born into one form of ownership and slavery or another accross future generations. If you break a culture, people can be taught to live a better way. Of course this is the height of bigotry as people from those same cultures fully believe in their theocracies, stonings, human ownership schemes, sweatshops, and whatever.

The point of this rant. I don't like gay men, and I'm a pro-western bigot, primarily American, but I tend to see proper civilization being represented by a triumverate of the USA, UK, and Australia... or simply put The British Empire and it's two greatest children. As I've ranted before, while I disagree with a lot of their current politics, I think the three of us are far more alike than differant at the end of the day due to our shared origins, and that I believe this basic style of values and morality (seperation of church and state, no slavery or human ownership of other humans) is the best possible future for humanity.

TAdamson:

A spade is a spade. And a bigot is a bigot. You have no experience to make the sort of claims that you make on this site. Being a casino security guard is subjective, anecdotal experience. Code Adam is a safety response that rightly errs on the side of caution not scientifically based scientific research.

Paedophiles do not respond to androphilic (or gynophilic) stimuli. Your "experience" is not evidence.

Actually Code Adam is developed based on the experience of international law enforcement and errs on the side of caution based on those accumulated facts.

I *DO* have the kind of experience to make these claims as well.

You might not like the points that I'm making, but that doesn't mean it's not true, and yes it is evidence. Actually it's more powerful than most kinds of evidence as it's witness testimony. Very few of the people studying this kind of thing have any real world experience in dealing with it, and enter it from the position of politics to begin with, setting out to prove or disprove a hypothosis they are interested in for personal or political reasons.

The most you could argue is that noone could know this, on some fundemental, metaphysical level, but we both know that isn't true, and that the key to learning anything is direct, covert, observation of things happening on their own.

Therumancer:

I *DO* have the kind of experience to make these claims as well.

No you don't

and yes it is evidence.

Not for the sorts of claims you make.

Actually it's more powerful than most kinds of evidence as it's witness testimony.

That's only valid for individual criminal cases and is also often found to be mistaken.

To make the claim you make you need statistically significant scientific evidence.

Very few of the people studying this kind of thing have any real world experience in dealing with it,

Yes they do. They are psychologists. You are a casino security guard. Learn the difference.

Psychologists that study sexual offenders interact with them stratospherically beyond the superficial level that you have (If at all).

and enter it from the position of politics to begin with, setting out to prove or disprove a hypothosis they are interested in for personal or political reasons.

Your statement shows you do not understand science. If somebody conducts a study that cannot be replicated then it is ignored. Personal beliefs do not enter the equation or are weeded out by repeated separated observation.

You are a casino security guard and your individual experience is not evidence. Much like those who take homeopathic cures and claim to feel better are not evidence. The results are anecdotal and not valid except as part of a controlled, randomised, double blind experiment.

Your experience is either a statistical aberration or is tainted by your own prejudice.

TAdamson:
[

Your experience is either a statistical aberration or is tainted by your own prejudice.

This is basically what your trying to get to, all of your flailing around about science and so on aside. Simply put, you can't accept that I'm right because it plays havoc with a belief you dearly want to hold onto. That's fine, I don't expect to convince anyone over the internet.

I tell you the truth, you won't accept it. Nothing I say is going to change your mind, so what's the point? We're pretty much done. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

This might sound worse than I intend it, but to be honest I do hope nothing ever does convince you I'm right. At one point I used to be a lot like you, I was young, extremely liberal despite some VERY bad experiences, and while I liked violence and action, I wasn't quite the militant I am now, at least not in the same way, on the same scale. It's easy to maintain that when you can mostly hang out at home, go to college, and play D&D with your buddies. Sometimes you see things and make desicians that change who you are forever and you simply cannot ever go back. This is the "colored glasses" I mentioned before, knowlege, and learning specific things and how to look changes... everything. A lot of the more "hateful" things that I believe in that come up on this thread all feed into each other from the same basic sources. To be honest if you ever did REALLY look and learn the truth, you'd turn into a far differant person accross the board. The saying "ignorance is bliss" exists for a reason, to be honest I was happier before I knew a lot of the things I do now.

Therumancer:

This is basically what your trying to get to, all of your flailing around about science and so on aside. Simply put, you can't accept that I'm right because it plays havoc with a belief you dearly want to hold onto. That's fine, I don't expect to convince anyone over the internet.

No. You don't understand the idea that statistical scientific evidence trumps your anecdotal experience.

I'm no surprised. There are many like you claiming that "common sense" and "from what I've seen" trumps a scientifically managed study or experiment.

Your experience as a security guard (Not even a cop) means nothing. It's irrelevant. The fact that you think that it proves anything is laughable.

Woodsey:
Hitman: Absolution for me. Worst game I've played in two years I reckon. Atrocious Hitman game, shit game in general.

IMO that's a bit too harsh, way too harsh really, may not have been up to your Blood Money standards but when you see what they do to other franchises this was not that bad. Syndicate was turned into a FPS for crying out loud, Hitman Absolution keeps the stealth, you cannot run and gun in that game unless you're playing on Easy, Unlike another former stealth game... There's been a decline in stealth games overall, on an unrelated note I must say it's rather surprising that the next MGS game (Ground Zeroes, MG Rising isn't MGS) is looking to be way more stealth focused than the last few games, it didn't quite have the same "action"-feel to it that the other games have, which IMO is great.

So once again, I see where you're coming from, an old-school purist, sure, but Hitman Absolution is by no means bad compared to other games. Maybe, compared to previous Hitman games, but I've only played through Blood Money, and while it was a great game, I can't help to feel that nostalgia is a big factor here. After all, it's a bloody long time since Blood Money came out. Anyway, I want to finish off by saying that if it's truly the worst game you've played in 2 years, then your taste is either weird or you haven't played many games during that time.

Crazycat690:

Woodsey:
Hitman: Absolution for me. Worst game I've played in two years I reckon. Atrocious Hitman game, shit game in general.

IMO that's a bit too harsh, way too harsh really, may not have been up to your Blood Money standards but when you see what they do to other franchises this was not that bad. Syndicate was turned into a FPS for crying out loud, Hitman Absolution keeps the stealth, you cannot run and gun in that game unless you're playing on Easy, Unlike another former stealth game... There's been a decline in stealth games overall, on an unrelated note I must say it's rather surprising that the next MGS game (Ground Zeroes, MG Rising isn't MGS) is looking to be way more stealth focused than the last few games, it didn't quite have the same "action"-feel to it that the other games have, which IMO is great.

So once again, I see where you're coming from, an old-school purist, sure, but Hitman Absolution is by no means bad compared to other games. Maybe, compared to previous Hitman games, but I've only played through Blood Money, and while it was a great game, I can't help to feel that nostalgia is a big factor here. After all, it's a bloody long time since Blood Money came out. Anyway, I want to finish off by saying that if it's truly the worst game you've played in 2 years, then your taste is either weird or you haven't played many games during that time.

I play Blood Money every few months, nostalgia isn't a problem. Besides which, Absolution doesn't get a pass because other games have been flipped on their head entirely. It's a poor stealth game and it's a terrible Hitman game.

The save system is shit; you spend most of the time simply running away from people down linear corridors; enemy placement is seemingly at random; the writing that it so desperately adores is unimaginably atrocious; the pacing is off; the disguise system is pretty much completely broken, and the instinct system isn't much better.

Even without comparing it to Hitman: Blood Money, it is a bad game in its own right.

SC: Conviction irritates me for ditching what Splinter Cell was, but I can still enjoy it for the not-Bourne-but-may-as-well-be game that it is. Absolution was relentlessly aggravating and stupid.

Why is this thread about racism and pedophilia? WHAT HAS HAPPENED!?

Jimothy Sterling:
Why is this thread about racism and pedophilia? WHAT HAS HAPPENED!?

In case you didn't notice, Theuromancer is also a slavery apologist. To see him drag another thread into his world of rot is hardly a surprise.

my responce to this forum in william dafoe picture form http://twitpic.com/bquii3

My computer's too crap to watch the video on The Escapist, and they didn't upload this episode to youtube. Nooooooooooo!!!!!!!!

I'll just wait a month until I get a more capable computer, no biggy.

I agree with Jim's choices completely. Honestly, Steel Battalion should have been a much bigger deal than everyone ignoring it. It's a damn shame too because beneath the completely broken controls, there is a great game there, an absolutely magnificent game that could have brought tears to the eyes of the dead through it's great comrade system. Instead, we get Kinect, which ruined the game. There is no denying it that Kinect is the reason this game sucks so hard. Remember the old MASSIVE peripheral for the Xbox Steel Battalion that had half a gorillian buttons? That was more intuitive than the Kinect. Microsoft is beta testing a product that does not work as intended and has NEVER worked as intended, and are instead lying to people about how well their advanced eyetoy actually works.

After all, has anyone wondered what the bottom oif an avatar's shoe looks like?

Furthermore, what the fuck has happened in this comment thread? What the actual fuck? I could be more on topic if I went to 4chan's /b/ and asked someone to post about global economics and how ice cream sales affect it as a whole. This is just bizarre.

Calumon: I don't know who's trolling who anymore! D:

I'm to to much of a dullard to say best show ever after you weidling a giant dildo jim.

oh fuck it great show jim.

Jimothy Sterling:
Why is this thread about racism and pedophilia? WHAT HAS HAPPENED!?

i normally don't read past page 1...

what the hell have i been missing (LOL).

Jimothy Sterling:
Why is this thread about racism and pedophilia? WHAT HAS HAPPENED!?

It's almost like it turned into a less funny episode of Podtoid.

Therumancer:

Undeadpool:

Shameless:
No Resident Evil 6 ? color me surprised.

That game was disappointingly mediocre, these games all seemed to be actively on fire.

Especially that 2012 game, that shit makes you forget all about RE5 in terms of amping up the racism. It seriously looks like the kind of thing the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood would fund as a flash game.

To be honest I agreed with his general sentiments, about all the games, but really I think people need to stop prattling on about racism when there is no present, especially seeing as when people cry racism they don't even seem to know what it is, probably because racism as a mainstream phenomena is dead in the first world. It does exist on the fringes of society however.

Before you fire back, I'd point out that there really ARE games made by racist groups. "Ethnic Cleaning" being one from a white supremacy point of view.

Showing a bunch of primitive and backwards people AS primitive and backwards people is not in any way, shape, or form racist. Calling a guy who literally walks around and throws spears because that is the cutting edge of his availible technology a "spear chucker" isn't racist either. To be racist you have to be making a statement saying that these people are inherantly inferior and could never be any more than that, or by taking a person of a specific ethnicity who is more than that (say a black guy with a first world education and a good job) and saying that they are that when they clearly are not. Calling a banker a spear chucker is racist, calling a tribesman one is not.

I've cut your quote arbitrarily so that it doesn't threadcrap all over this forum, but that's the only reason. If you think I've selectively edited, feel free to indicate as such in your reply but herein lies one of the fundamental flaws of internet culture: everything is either all-or-nothing. A game is either the greatest thing ever made or the worst piece of shit ever (and if you don't believe one thing, you believe the other). Just look at the comment uproar when someone's favorite game is awarded "merely" 4/5 in reviews. And this extends to the notion that something is either made by a hate group or it's completely innocuous and innocent. There is a LOT of gray area on the subject of racism.

Resident Evil 5, for instance, was fine, right up until the "spear-chucking, mask wearing, loin-cloth clad jungle dwellers" part. Then it got a little racist, frankly. The same could be said of this 2012 game, though that's a BIT worse but for similar reasons. I doubt either of those games were made with malicious intent, but the fact is: they are still racist to an extent. The notion that "racism is dead" in the mainstream of the first world is also laughable. It's not dead, it's just more passive-aggressive. People aren't (generally) lynched in the street anymore, they're wrongly convicted of crimes or harassed by those in power. Just because you don't SEE it anymore, doesn't mean it's gone.

Undeadpool:

I've cut your quote arbitrarily so that it doesn't threadcrap all over this forum, but that's the only reason. If you think I've selectively edited, feel free to indicate as such in your reply but herein lies one of the fundamental flaws of internet culture: everything is either all-or-nothing. A game is either the greatest thing ever made or the worst piece of shit ever (and if you don't believe one thing, you believe the other). Just look at the comment uproar when someone's favorite game is awarded "merely" 4/5 in reviews. And this extends to the notion that something is either made by a hate group or it's completely innocuous and innocent. There is a LOT of gray area on the subject of racism.

Resident Evil 5, for instance, was fine, right up until the "spear-chucking, mask wearing, loin-cloth clad jungle dwellers" part. Then it got a little racist, frankly. The same could be said of this 2012 game, though that's a BIT worse but for similar reasons. I doubt either of those games were made with malicious intent, but the fact is: they are still racist to an extent. The notion that "racism is dead" in the mainstream of the first world is also laughable. It's not dead, it's just more passive-aggressive. People aren't (generally) lynched in the street anymore, they're wrongly convicted of crimes or harassed by those in power. Just because you don't SEE it anymore, doesn't mean it's gone.

Yes it does mean it's gone. Racism is by definition something that has to be out there for it to exist and be a factor. Everything you mention is ambigious by it's very nature and tends to be used mostly as a political tool. It's easy to rally people or motivate a counter culture if you claim people are being "harassed due to secret, invisible racism". It's nothing but a boogie man that doesn't exist, and on the rare occasions where there is truth to it, it's handled quickly and efficiently.

Not to mention that when you have counter cultures active it by definition loads the entire equasion. If people are grouping up on ethnic lines, and acting in an anti-societal fashion, needless to say they are going to draw negative attention, especially if they are being aggressive for it, and blaming everything that goes wrong for them on some non-existant boogie man.

Right now the big problem with minorities in general is to target the counter-cultures and associated behaviors to force societal assimilation. Racism is dead, most of the problems are coming from the others side of the equasion, people who do not want to join the rest of society and be normal, and take actual responsibility for themselves and their actions.

The problem with "Invisible Knapsack Theory" and why it's been massively debunked is that anything you can blame on racism could also be blamed on transdimensional parasites afflicting people's brains. You can't see it, you can't prove it, but we're supposed to take it on faith that it exists. The big question in situations like this is who benefits from it. Someone claiming "transdimensional parasites" has no beneficiary and is probably just insane (though you could never prove it unless you found something wrong with their brain chemistry), but with racism various PACs (Political Action Commitees) have a direct motivation for wanting to manipulate racial groups for their own power (being able to sell their services to get their group to support a cantidate), not to mention crying "racism" still gets people more attention than they would otherwise warrent in a bad situation. People being so quick to distance themselves from it, that the mere mention means people will use kid gloves where they wouldn't before... in ensures special treatment.

The bottom line is that there doubtlessly are racists who have acted "behind the scenes" but they hardly represent any kind of majority, and indeed have to hide from the majority.

"AMY IS ICO WITH ZOMBIES AND IT'S TOTALLY BRILLIANT" - IGN

"AHAHAHAHA" - JIM STERLING

Oh man, how did I not see that the first time I watched this? Fucking hilarious.

No Mass Effect 3 ?? I think it could've at least made the top five.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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